She’s in it to win it — for at least another five months

There had been some talk in isolated circles that Hillary Clinton should seriously consider gracefully bowing out of the presidential race before this week, but the past several days saw the discussion reach an entirely new level. Leading Dems, most notably Pat Leahy and Chris Dodd, have grown increasingly blunt, while many others have grown increasingly impatient.

Hoping to tamp down this talk before it becomes too distracting, Hillary Clinton vowed to take her efforts to Denver, whether the party likes it or not.

In her most definitive comments to date on the subject, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Saturday to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all the remaining primaries but also continue until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid.

“I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong,” Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. “I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don’t resolve it, we’ll resolve it at the convention — that’s what credentials committees are for.”

Asked specifically, if there was any scenario in which she would withdraw before the primaries end on June 3, Clinton said no. “I am committed to competing everywhere that there is an election,” she said.

Clinton was also asked whether she believes Obama can win in November, but she dodged, instead arguing that she has “a better chance,” because “women will turn out for me.”

So, does this mean we should settle in for another five full months of Democratic infighting, while John McCain and the GOP begin implementing a general-election strategy? Maybe.

Josh Marshall highlights the key part of Clinton’s pitch: it’s all about Florida and Michigan.

[S]he’s promising to remain in the race at least until June 3rd when the final contests are held in Montana and South Dakota and until Florida and Michigan are ‘resolved’. Now, that can have no other meaning than resolved on terms the Clinton campaign finds acceptable. It can’t mean anything else since, of course, at least officially, for the Democratic National Committee, it is resolved. The penalty was the resolution.

The Obama campaign has always been willing to ‘resolve’ the matter by splitting those states’ delegates down the middle. But of course that’s something the Clinton campaign can never accept since splitting them down the middle is the same as not counting them at all. It leaves both campaigns right where they started, i.e., with him ahead and her behind.

That leaves two real possibilities: seat the non-sanctioned January primary delegates or hold the primaries again, a revote.

The only way the first option happens is if Obama cruises in the 10 remaining contests, and Florida’s and Michigan’s results from January would no longer tilt the scales. As for the second option, the logistical window seems to have just about closed, making re-votes highly unlikely — and making Clinton’s drive for a convention fight five months from now all the more certain, even if she trails among pledged delegates, popular votes, and states.

For his part, Obama isn’t urging Clinton to drop out, instead telling reporters yesterday that Clinton should stay in the race “as long as she wants.”

For the record, I’m quite certain Clinton isn’t bluffing. This doesn’t appear to be one of those instances in which a candidate vows to compete until hell freezes over, and then suddenly withdraws a few days later (I’m looking at you, John Edwards). Clinton appears to mean it.

Which means if Democrats want to end this nomination fight and get ready for the general election, party leaders are going to have to intervene. About 800 superdelegates are waking up this morning and learning that Hillary Clinton wants this fight to go on for another five months, no matter what happens in any contest between now and June. If they’re with that prospect, they can sit on the sidelines, watch the fighting play out, and hope for the party will figure out a way to win an eight-week general election campaign in the fall.

Or they can decide they’re not satisfied with five more months of intra-party warfare, endorse Obama publicly, and take control of the process. It’s really up to them.

Hillary Clinton can be very helpful to the country, Democrats and her own campaign if she focuses her message on defeating John McCain.

  • Dear lord, does Hillary thinks that these sentiments are helpful? Since the only way that she can win at this point involves convincing a *large* majority of the remaining superdelegates to break for her, this type of language seems like it would push wafflers off the fence and onto the Obama side. Seriously: if you’re a superdelegate who views both candidates with equal regard and you’ve been undecided until now because they’re just too difficult to choose between, at this poin wouldn’t you just go for the one that will have an easier path to the nomination?

  • The Obama People have managed to hijack all the media, and the liberal websites. That Hillary has done as well as she has, even with all the dirt thrown by the press, says something about her entrenched support. She is right. At least let the next 10 contests take place. Obama’s people can end it by winning Pennsylvania by at least 5 points. If hillary wins by 10 or more points, the race will go to the convention. Remember she won FL, NY, CA, OH, TX, and MA too, in spite of The Kennedys. These are the big states.

  • Obama should ignore Hillary from now on, to the extent possible. Obama is the certain nominee, and Hillary is just a distraction.

    Obviously Hillary doesn’t agree that the primary objective should be to elect a Democrat in November. If her ego won’t allow her to withdraw gracefully, she should at least direct all of her fire at McCain from now on. She could perform a real service for Democrats by going highly negative on McCain, bursting McCain’s “Mr. Straight Talk” balloon and allowing Obama to stay above it all.

    But if she keeps directing her fire at Obama while she praises McCain, then she deserves to be a pariah in the Democratic Party for the rest of her life.

  • A long campaign, and a non-boring convention — i.e., one not thoroughly scripted by the winner beforehand — will be fun. It will engage Democrats while the Republicans are going off to their lifeless, listless fat-cat dinners in exclusive hotel ballrooms.

    What will turn off the electorate is more in-house sniping of the kind the Clintons seem to relish. Whether they realize it or not, that stuff doesn’t play very well on YouTube. It’s like watching a car wreck: you wonder what kind of people were doing what in order to wind up like that. Contrast Obama: more young people tuned in to watch a long oration on race relations. That played on YouTube.

    Keep up the contest until Denver. But make it one over who can do the most damage to McCain, to the Bush-Cheney legacy, and to the Bush Crime Family. To our bankrupt, war-weary cynical nation, that contest can’t go long enough.

  • OR it is up to Pennsylvania. We in the Keystone State have surprised the political world by going against the party establishment, as in April 1976 when Jimmy Carter beat Sen. Scoop Jackson to become the all-but-certain nominee. An Obama win in PA would clinch this nomination, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton would concede, trying to save their legacy at that point.

    The six-week period since the last primary gives PA voters a chance to experience some retail politics and both Obama and Clinton are blanketing the state with rallies and town-hall meetings. Obama’s PA campaign is directed by Paul Tewes, who ran the field operation that triumphed in Iowa — seeing how the Obama campaign has been much better organized than Clinton’s, the extra time should work to Obama’s advantage here.

    I wouldn’t be shocked to see Obama pull this off, carrying a huge majority out of Philadelphia while doing well in the surrounding suburbs to overcome Clinton’s probable advantage in the Pittsburgh-Western PA area.

  • Here’s a thought I haven’t seen anywhere else. If the remaining primaries don’t settle the matter (and I think the math says that they can’t), and if Sen. Clinton intends to fight on until the convention so that she can appeal to the credentials committee (and this latest statement seems to make that certain), and if five months from now until August is too long to have an unresolved race crippling us (and oh merciful God, it is!) …

    … then let’s make it shorter: Move up the convention. Personally, I like the idea of moving it until Jun 10. Give everyone one week to digest the last primaries, then force the issue. Let Sen. Clinton have her day before the credentials committee, (re)settle the issue of MI and FL, and then move on

  • While I’m fine with either Dem for November, I strongly believe that Hillary is right to insist that the voters of Florida and Michigan have their votes counted. We can scream until we’re blue in the face that it would be crazy and self-defeating for FL and MI Dems to stay home or vote for McCain in the GE, but that’s what’s going to happen if FL and MI Dems feel like the national Democratic Party has screwed them.

    I think Obama probably has the numbers to come out ahead in the final delegate count even if the previous FL and MI primary results are counted as-is. Michigan should be an especially easy call for him since it’s plausible to think he’d get all of the Uncommitted delegates, and the Dodd delegates as well. That, effectively, would equal a 55% Hillary and 45% Obama popular vote split, which would make the difference in delegate numbers trivial.

    I really don’t think Obama can afford to leave the impression that the only way he can win the nomination is by insisting that FL and MI Democratic voters NOT have their voices heard at all. That is a sure-fire recipe for President John Sidney McCain.

    In my view Obama would have been MUCH better off had he agreed to re-votes in FL and MI. He surely could have narrowed Hillary’s margin of victory in Florida, and I’m not convinced he couldn’t have won outright in Michigan. Barring that, he could have argued that FL and MI should suffer a loss of half, not all, their delegates (to avoid rewarding them for breaking the DNC’s rules while still making their voices heard). With the option Obama has chosen, however, I fear he has set himself up to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

    Please, someone convince me I’m wrong about this.

  • Hillary Clinton can be very helpful to the country, Democrats and her own campaign if she focuses her message on defeating John McCain.

    Yes, and christmas is coming soon and “in theory” communism works too…

    She will not focuc on defeating mclame – shillary and he serve many of the same masters.

  • Obama People have managed to hijack all the media, and the liberal websites.

    LOL

    shillary entered this contest with the msm totally behind her and much of the blogosphere – she doesn’t do well once you really get to know her.

    Or course, the lies don’t help, but it is really more about the fact that she is a career political hack and does not have any more meaningful credentials than anyone else in the race.

  • (rest of post)

    sure – stoooooooopid women will, but stupid men will vote repug (along with many women) so this won’t really matter much.

    Really stoooooooopid women will have the votes evenly split across all candidates, cuz they are too stoooooooooopid to pull the correct lever.

    I don’t know why anyone things that the stooooooooooopid block is what’s actually going to determine the outcomes. If the votes are accurately counted and there is no fraud, then the stoooooooooooopid voters become a wash.

  • Stooooooooooopid voters have been winning elections for politicians for a long time now. Why do you think their stooopid campaign ads work so well?

  • Go get ’em, Hill…finish the job that your husband started and destroy the Democratic Party forever. That way there won’t be any opposition to flag burning amendments and perpetual war (even if it is weak and ineffectual).

    There is plenty to motivate the people of this country without intra-party fratricide. But so long as the in-fighting continues, the cannons cannot be leveled fully at the opposition. Both candidates are fighting two front wars…and nobody ever wins two front wars.

    With only one candidate, it would be time to start putting up Congressional fights and turning the tide into a tidal wave. With only one candidate it would be time to draw clear lines between what we have and what we could have. With only one candidate all of us could spend our time rallying against the real opposition.

    With two candidates we don’t even notice how the Saudis are preparing for nuclear spillover or how the Republicans are quietly consolidating the difficult, defensive position that they hold. The Dems had the Reps in full retreat, but instead of chasing them down and routing them, the Dems stopped and are having a knock down, drag out fight to decide who will lead the charge. All the while, the Reps are digging in and reloading.

    History is not kind to these types of strategic blunders…

  • There’s only ever one reason why a candidate withdraws–money. And Clinton seems to keep getting support, as well as getting by without paying the bills.

  • I just have one question for Hillary. Wasn’t the question of MI and FL resolved when you signed the pledge before the voting started? The myth that Obama is “preventing” these primaries from counting is not only harmful to him but to the party and the country as a whole. Tout your strengths (real and imagined), bash mclame and bush, and run til the bitter end, but please dont hurt the country…

  • Here’s the problem as I see it.

    Let’s say Hillary’s current mindset is “it’s either me or nobody.” She keeps prolonging this long enough but eventually Obama gets the nod. And let’s say hypothetically Obama loses. Hillary feels justified and plans to run again in four years. But here’s the thing — people remember.

    Or let’s say Hillary does get the nod — destroying obama in the proces — and loses to McCain in November. She attempts it another time in four years.
    Again, people remember.

    Her BEST chance right now to gain any credibility for any future elections is to step down now. In doing so, she’d be remembered for making the decision to put the party first over her own desires and aspirations. And then, if Obama does lose to McCain, she can try again in four years — but without the baggage of voter memories that she tore the party apart with her stubborness.

  • Hillary’s blog trolls are up early this morning.

    Leahy said “Hillary has every right, BUT NO GOOD REASON” to continue her campaign, however I don’t think he actually expected Hillary to suspend her campaign just because he said so.

    This is part of the democratic leadership’s effort to change the narrative about her chances of winning the nomination. They are turning her into Huckabee well before the next round of contests and they know it will take a while to do so. Even Huckabee and Thompson kept winning contests long after it became clear that they would not be their party’s nominee. No nominee is going to win every state, even when he/she is ahead, so the fact that another candidate keeps winning when the math is against her doesn’t mean that much.

    Also, the difference here is that Huckabee ran a clean campaign – he wasn’t trying to knee-cap McCain. Hillary is clearly trying to damage Obama for her 5% chance of getting the nomination. If it weren’t for this, it wouldn’t really matter if she stayed in the race or not, but she is willing to damage the party’s chances in November in her blind power grab.

    When Hillary thought she’d easily win the pledged-delegate race, it was all about delegates. Now that she can’t catch up in pledged-delegates, they want to change to some new metric.

  • Hillary’s strategy for winning the nomination bears an uncanny resemblance to Bush’s strategy for ‘victory’ in Iraq.

    In particular: every knows it won’t happen; it’s a colossal waste of money and generator of ill-will among allies; it’s directed at defeating the wrong ‘enemy’; and the only reason it continues to move forward is the blind stubbornness and vanity of the chief.

  • FL and MI votes cannot count. The horse is out of the barn. Too many lawsuits will emerge if they count now. We have to stop confusing not voting in the primary with voting in the general. It is really sad that Hillary initially agreed on their penalty and now that she is behind wants to change the goal posts. And it almost seems like she anticipated the situation and primed it for her own advantage. She would be arguing the opposite if she were ahead.

  • I am from North Carolina. We are always so late in the primary season, our votes for nominee are irreelvant. This year, they have some relevance, and the “pros” are saying, stop the election. I am a Clinton supporter, and I will be damned if I will support a Democratic party which doesn’t ever want to listen to me!

  • For the good of the country, Hillary needs to pack it in and go home. Then, she needs to make a phone call to Barack to ask him how she can help him during the general election. Who knows, if she leaves now, she may be considered for a cabinet position, or she may become a powerhouse in the Senate.

    If she continues her screed, she will help the Democratic party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November. -Kevo

  • She’s now completely demonstrated what a self-involved, delusional moron she is.

    If anyone needs further proof that the Clintons are always in it for them and god help you if you get in their way, here it is.

    Self-entitled Boomer bimbo. I truly hope that after her fall, there are no more boomer idiots out there to run for office and prove that outside of numbers, this is the Least Generation (as opposed to their parents, the Greatest Generation). She and Bill are living examples of the fact that for 85% of the generation, “the sixties” never happend other than turning on the radio and smoking a joint (but not inhaling). As I recall, there is a figure that less than 5% actually were anywhere near Vietnam and that less than 15% were involved in the political actions of the period.

  • When this started, I could have happily and easily supported either candidate. Given her recent behavior, if Hillary is the nominee, it’s going to be a hold my nose vote. If she wants anything other than my vote, I suggest she hit up her BFF McCain.

  • About 800 superdelegates are waking up this morning and learning that Hillary Clinton wants this fight to go on for another five months, no matter what happens in any contest between now and June. If they’re with that prospect, they can sit on the sidelines, watch the fighting play out, and hope for the party will figure out a way to win an eight-week general election campaign in the fall.

    That’s the key point. The supers have consistently been telling themselves that a resolution is just around the corner with a definitive contest — first it was going to be Super Tuesday, then the Ohio-Texas combo, and now Pennsylvania — and each time they allow themselves to put off the hard decision of intervening.

    Hillary’s statement robs them of that convenient delusion, and forces them to realize they have to act now or it’ll roll on until August. Her statement of her own resolve could wind up stiffening their own backbone and, ironically, make them intervene to end it.

  • ClintonSpeak:“I am committed to competing everywhere that there is an election.”
    Translation:
    I will pull a LIEBERMAN.

    ClintonSpeak:
    “credentials committees”
    Translation:
    Delegates and Superdelegates are meaningless because I AM THE DECIDERerESS.

    ClintonSpeak:
    “women will turn out for me.”
    Translation:
    The millions of women who voted for Obama are PHONY WOMEN.

    Hmmm…Joe Lie, der Chimpfuhrer, and Rush Limbaugh—all part of the same interview? And people actually want to argue that everyone needs to rally being this monster if she wins the nomination? Please—she’s invoked McCain, she’s praised McCain, and now she’s just like McCain.

    She is—McSameSame….

  • 22. candideinnc said: I am from North Carolina. We are always so late in the primary season, our votes for nominee are irreelvant. This year, they have some relevance, and the “pros” are saying, stop the election. I am a Clinton supporter, and I will be damned if I will support a Democratic party which doesn’t ever want to listen to me!

    Screw what’s good for party and country, it’s all about you. You’re the perfect Clinton supporter, that’s her defining belief too.

  • Told you!
    She will take this to the convention and to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    But here is the thing. Lots of dems are waking to her malicious intents. Her negatives are rising. My prediction: North Carolina will be viciously bad to her. Her campaign will take a standing eight count and look punch drunk wobbly. The days immediately after that route we will see superdelegates beginning to assert control. The math will go from horrible to impossibly horrid for her. The media won’t be able to ignore the math. The Clintons will become spectacles: Losers who put their own losing ahead of the party’s winning.

    She will then have a choice: To pursue her foolish campaign to her complete political destruction in Denver, or to get out and salvage her Senate career and her esteem in the party.

    I am hoping she goes for complete destruction, AND takes Bill down the weasel hole with her. The sooner the Dem party grinds these two out like a stinky cigar butt… the better! Neither one of these people represents the future of the party. They are the ugly past. Maybe Gore will finally get his comeuppance and drive the final heel home as a party leader in Denver? How sweet would that be for him and us?

  • Here is where Obama can “take one for the team” and accept the VP slot that Clinton offered him weeks ago. He has been persisting, despite being the less qualified candidate. He would be able to gain the foreign affairs experience he currently lacks, can learn more about the national political scene and would be well-positioned to run when Clinton’s terms end. He is young enough to play that role, which Clinton is not. It would clearly be best for the country and best for the party if he did so. Why is no one suggesting it? It makes as much sense for him to step aside as it does for Clinton to do so. What bias prevents the media and the party from seeing this solution?

    It is unlikely the convention date will be shifted, due to the logistics of organizing a large conference. To begin with, you’d have to find a venue large enough that has an unbooked span of dates — that doesn’t happen this late in the game. Failing that, you’d have to convince convention centers and hotels to make changes. That would either cost a bunch more money or anger a lot of the people whose events would have to be canceled, or both. I don’t see that happening.

    Clinton’s campaign slogan has been “In it to win it” since the day she declared her candidacy. A slogan like that was needed to show that she is a serious, dedicated candidate. Women are frequently muscled out of things, shoved aside because they are insufficiently aggressive to stand up to male maneuvering. She knew that was a possibility because it is always the way things happen. She was signaling then and is showing now that she is not going to give in to the guys simply because some people can more easily picture a woman stepping aside than a man.

    The left blogosphere has no shame when it comes to sexism. I guess I expected things to be different these days, but I should have known better. Today, women are accused of supporting Clinton no matter what she does (as if we could not independently evaluate her platform and actions) and we are called “stooooooooopid” by, count them, two, posters, with no one objecting. If this were a statement of racism, someone would say something, but sexism is OK on this blog. That strikes me as a pretty good reason to vote for Clinton, not despite what she does, but because of what she is doing — playing the game the way all men do, to win and for keeps.

    I have to go now — it is time to send Clinton some money again.

  • I think Clinton should stay in at least until the end of the primaries in June.

    I support Obama and think he’s a much better choice than Clinton, who has made some really bad decisions in the Senate and who has run an arrogant and slipshod campaign, right down to being so short of money that she has to be harassed in the media to pay some of her small creditors.

    But a hell of a lot of voters think she should stay in, and many of them, especially women (including a lot of women on a pop culture board I read) would be furious if she was seen to be pressured out by the supers, Obama or the party itself. Never mind the details that we political junkies have absorbed: medium and low information voters, as well as many high information voters, think that pressuring Clinton to leave is horribly unfair, not just to her, but to the people who haven’t voted yet.

    And as much as I like to follow rules, the common perception that FL and MI voters are being screwed has to be dealt with. MI (with all uncommitted delegates assigned to him) and FL should have 50% of their delegates seated, with Obama assigned all the uncommitted votes in MI. The states will have received a punishment for holding primaries early, but the voters will be represented.

    I think Obama will still have enough of a popular vote and delegates lead by the convention that we will win the nomination as the majority of the remaining supers swing to him. But there is a chance that something could happen to swing things to Clinton. She may even try some nefarious shit that will infuriate me.

    But we don’t know that for sure yet. The voters seem to want to let things play out. To shut things down now on the expectation — not shared by many people — that Clinton will get up to some dirty tricks will be profoundly counterproductive. It will piss off many Dems, and independents can be swayed by “straight-talking” St. McCain making hay off this mess.

    As much as I prefer seeing Obama get in, I’d take Clinton over McCain any time. If there’s anything the supers can do right now to make it more likely that either of them get the presidency over McCain, it would be to encourage them to focus on beating back McCain throughout the primary process. It’s the kitchen sink and all the associated shit that’s been flung that’s hurting them now.

  • I say, it’s all about the money–which for Hillary, seems to be running out. The Clinton campaign isn’t paying their bills; that speaks volumes. They’re desperate and see PA as their last chance. She needs to keep the contributions flowing in to remain competitive there.

    The ONLY way Hillary will get new contributions to fight on in PA is to convince her contributors she’s in it to stay. Even if that’s total bullshit–as I’m almost certain it is.

  • First of all, Hillary Clinton didn’t say anything that she hasn’t been saying for months. No one is going to be waking up to anything new this morning.

    Second, YES Florida and Michigan have been “resoloved.” And the current resolution is abominable. I am EXTREMELY disgusted to see so many prominent Obama supporters saying that’s it’s perfectly okay to disenfranchise millions of voters. It’s not okay for Bush to do it eight years ago, but hey, this is Saint Obama we’re talking about this time, so it’s “Screw you Florida and Michigan.”

    And forget about splitting the votes in half for the Clinton and Obama as Obama’s scummy little surrogates have been floating; such a decision would be against the will of the majority of Democrats in both states and still constitute a disenfranchisement. Dean needs to find a new way to punish the Democratic politicians in those two states — one that doesn’t punish those electorates.

    Barack Obama had no business entering this race, and I can’t wait to see Clinton knock him on his ass by making him her Vice President (although I’d rather see him booted out of the convention altogether because he is such a snake in the grass, but that just won’t happen). However, I worry about him undermining her once they’re in the White House, because he’s a power hungry opportunist who wants to Oval Office for the sake of having it.

    Obama keeps saying he wants to be like Reagan — the guy who bitterly divided the Democratic electorate and ushered in 12 years of corruption and incompetence — and he has certainly divided us as Reagan did.

    Nice candidate you idiots have there. What wonderful Democrats you Obama folks are.

  • Mary, it is stooooopid! if you insist on turning it into a chick thing. Please stop, you continue to make women look like twits. I am a white woman in my mid-40’s and I can vote for whoever the hell I want to without someone intimating that I am some type of traitor to my sex. Just look at the numbers…no names attached..just the numbers and then say who should throw it in…reality bytes, huh?

  • Here is where Obama can “take one for the team” and accept the VP slot that Clinton offered him weeks ago.

    Barack Obama had no business entering this race, and I can’t wait to see Clinton knock him on his ass by making him her Vice President (although I’d rather see him booted out of the convention altogether because he is such a snake in the grass, but that just won’t happen).

    Coalition of the unhinged.

  • I have to go now — it is time to send Clinton some money again.

    Great news! I suggest you go “all in” for your Hillbillies.
    I believe $2300 is the max.

    Barack is offering his contributors a chance to win a sit down dinner…
    It is a clever play on those $5000 a plate fund-raisers that the Clinton/Bush tribes usually hold.

    So perhaps Mary… Clinton can offer something simlar for her poor saps who go “all in.”
    How about tea on the tarmac for two? That’s a winner!

  • …I am EXTREMELY disgusted to see so many prominent Obama supporters saying that’s it’s perfectly okay to disenfranchise millions of voters. It’s not okay for Bush to do it eight years ago, but hey, this is Saint Obama we’re talking about this time, so it’s “Screw you Florida and Michigan.”

    First things first: it isn’t disenfranchisement. If you’re not capable of using a dictionary, that’s not my problem.

    Second: what happened in MI and FL (i’m from Michigan) is not ok or right, but i am EXTREMELY disgusted to so many prominent Clinton supporters trying to blame Obama for this. The fault lies with state parties and state legislatures, who willingly and knowingly broke rules.

    Sen Clinton had no business in this race…if she was half as tough and committed as she portrays herself as, she would have run against Bush in 04, when we really needed someone who couldn’t be brought down by the right wing slime machine (as she proclaims herself immune to it).

    In closing, whatever…

  • Mary, are you daft?

    Why on earth would the candidate in the lead become the VP of the candidate in second place? Your arrogance and delusion know no bounds, much like your chosen candidate.

  • BTW – this thing needs to be done with before Denver.

    Is no one else scared to death about only having a TWO MONTHS, literally, for general election campaigning?

  • simply because some people can more easily picture a woman stepping aside than a man.

    That’s not it at all. MOST people can more easily picture a loser stepping aside than a winner. Obama is winning, Hillary is losing. This has nothing to do with gender or race. Saying the winner should step aside to let the loser win is insanity Mary.

  • Does she really want the credentials committees to pull a Supreme Court (ala 2000) for her to win/steal the nomination? Shame on you…Hillary Clinton for playing politics in a way only George Bush and Karl Rove can love. Forget about the will of the people. Silly me I forgot that this whole thing was all about you….

    Is there a beacon we can shine into the night sky to get the Super Delegates to get off their butts in their orbiting space station and save the Democratic Party from the our former hero turned monster who is now set on destroying the very people who used to love her?

  • Another reason why the change in media narrative is so bad for Hillary is how the media is interpreting her behavior.

    CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC – “Hillary is pulling a ‘Tonya Harding’ on a fellow democrat to damage him.”

    MSNBC – “Hillary wants Obama to lose in 2008 so she can run in 2012”

    It’s not just that they are saying she’s losing and the math isn’t in her favor. They are saying she’s trying to destroy her party’s chances in the fall.

    If Hillary keeps this up, not only will she not get the nomination, but she will be blamed if Obama loses in the fall, AND she’ll be drummed out of the senate. She is delusional if she thinks there is hope for her in 2012 or for a senate re-election if she stays the course. She’s done.

  • Right now, it’s about Clinton arrogance and pride.

    They thought they had this in the bag.

    Hillary started with a SD lead of 100, a front-loaded Super Tuesday was created to benefit her (the well-financed name recognition candidate wins), and her people in MI and FL pushed those state’s contests ahead to help her win those states early on name recognition. This was all done to ensure that she’d have an impenetrable delegate-lead going out of Super Tuesday, but Obama messed her up every step of the way. He won Iowa, tied with her in delegates in NH, won the delegate-count in NV, blew her out of the water in SC, and won the most states and pledged-delegates on Super Tuesday. Few people realize that Obama has NEVER been behind Hillary in the pledged-delegate count on any voting day (when you look at Super Tuesday in total, rather than on a state-by-state basis), and was only momentarily behind Hillary in states won back in January after he lost NV.

    The fact that she needed such a huge head start to assure her the nomination only proves that she is NOT the strongest democratic candidate.

    Obama has EARNED this thing.

    The Clinton campaign’s plan was to shove Hillary down the throats of democrats. For heaven’s sake, Hillary couldn’t even be bothered to set up a proper caucus organization. Caucuses are nothing new and I have NEVER heard a candidate complain about them like Hillary. Besides Obama, no democrat has raised as much money at this point in a nomination contest as Hillary. At the end of 2007, before a single vote was cast, she had already raised $100 MILLION, and you’re going to tell me that with that kind of money they couldn’t set up a proper caucus ground game? Instead they were blowing their fundraising money using it to line the pockets of her “loyal friends” like Penn and Wolfson. She actually had the nerve to say that her campaign was having problems in IA because her HUSBAND did not campaign there during his presidential bids! What?!?! So she’s saying if her husband hasn’t done something before, she and her team can’t figure it out on their own? This is Obama’s first presidential run. He can figure it out but she can’t?

    A black guy with a name like Barack Hussein Obama started with nothing, built a $100 MILLION organization and ground game from scratch in one year, refused to take PAC or lobbyist money to achieve this, has beaten Hillary 2-to-1 in states won, and has built an insurmountable pledged-delegate lead against the wife of the last democratic president! Obama beat her fair and square and he has EARNED this nomination. Hillary is out of her mind to think the superdelegates will overturn his nomination and hand it to her, and if she sabotages him in November, she’s DONE.

    As a fellow woman, I am ashamed at Hillary’s behavior and the way she’s run her campaign. How dare Geraldine Ferraro try to paint Obama as the affirmative action candidate! His campaign has out-worked and out-smarted Hillary’s throughout this campaign, and against amazing odds. Hillary’s campaign proves there’s affirmative action for white females, as evidenced by the out of control nepotism for the arrogant, entitled wife of a former president who has run a lazy, corrupt campaign, yet still got BEAT despite being given a massive head start. I am tired of women/people like Hillary, who have everything handed to them, but try to make it seem as if they’re achieving it all on their own.

    Go away Hillary. Losing the nomination is not the end of the world. If you stop now, you’ll have a distinguished career in the senate, and you and Bill can salvage your legacy as esteemed party elders. If you don’t, you’ll be disgraced and drummed out of the party.

  • 30. Mary said: Here is where Obama can “take one for the team” and accept the VP slot that Clinton offered him weeks ago. He has been persisting, despite being the less qualified candidate. He would be able to gain the foreign affairs experience he currently lacks, can learn more about the national political scene and would be well-positioned to run when Clinton’s terms end. He is young enough to play that role, which Clinton is not. It would clearly be best for the country and best for the party if he did so. Why is no one suggesting it? It makes as much sense for him to step aside as it does for Clinton to do so. What bias prevents the media and the party from seeing this solution?

    Okay, quick explanation for the perpetually stupid: Even Clinton’s advisers admit she has no more than a 10% chance of winning at this point. In what kind of delusional world do people call for the person with a 90+% chance of winning to step aside in favor of the lesser candidate? Your grasp of reality was always tenuous, now you’re way of the edge of sanity.

    As for your rambling about experience and sexism.
    Experience: Obama has more foreign policy experience than Bill did in 1992. How well do you think he did?

    Sexism: I think it’s really twisted that some people see Hillary as a stereotypical woman whom everyone has to get behind or be called a sexist pig, even though Penn’s campaign strategy from the start has been to run her as a tough-as-nails masculine leader who never shows weakness. Is this really what it takes for a woman to get ahead? Dozens of other women in national politics suggest that it isn’t. We don’t hate her because she’s a woman, we hate her because she has run an incredibly filthy campaign full of lies and distortions designed to destroy a fellow Democrat. In other words, we hate Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, Carville, Davis, et al even more than Hillary and none of the other slimeballs were women last I checked.

  • MaryL

    But a hell of a lot of voters think she should stay in, and many of them, especially women (including a lot of women on a pop culture board I read) would be furious if she was seen to be pressured out by the supers, Obama or the party itself. Never mind the details that we political junkies have absorbed: medium and low information voters, as well as many high information voters, think that pressuring Clinton to leave is horribly unfair, not just to her, but to the people who haven’t voted yet.

    Many Clinton supporters will be “furious” even if every voter in FL & MI got to vote again, if Obama got more popular votes, more delegate votes, AND more Superdelegate votes.

  • My use of Stooooopid was in response to “little bear” ‘s response to my post. It refers to all voters who vote because a candidate represents one issue that appeals to them regardless of what other positions that candidate holds (see Bush’s “Christian” supporters). My apologies if some took that to mean that I imply that women were stupid, that was not my point or intention.

    By definition, half the people are below average intelligence. They all have the right to vote. Not a lot of people study politics and the candidates as much as posters to political blogs do and it often shows in the quality of elected officials. That was my point. I know a lot of women who are going to vote for Clinton just because she is a woman. That is their prerogative. Whether or not it is a good reason to vote for her is a matter for discussion.

    I’m sorry that anyone misinterpretted my meaning.

  • Mary says: He would be able to gain the foreign affairs experience he currently lacks

    You mean she would serve him tea and teach him how to dodge imaginary hails of bullets?

    Why is no one suggesting it? It makes as much sense for him to step aside as it does for Clinton to do so. What bias prevents the media and the party from seeing this solution?

    I think it’s the “bias” of him winning by every possible measure of the race, and the mathematical odds of her convincing more than a handful of the remaining superdelegates, most of whom come from strongly pro-Obama states and none of whom are old Clinton cronies, to vote for her. None of which you’re capable of comprehending through your Bush-quality reality-denying filter.

  • Obama keeps saying he wants to be like Reagan

    Hey, what’s the weather like in your alternate universe? Does it rain green there?

  • Mary is, as usual, being very selective with her facts. “Today, women are accused of supporting Clinton no matter what she does (as if we could not independently evaluate her platform and actions) and we are called “stooooooooopid” by, count them, two, posters, with no one objecting.”

    She’s responding to little bear, who in responding to “Clinton is right. Women will turn out for her no matter what she stands for” argues that “sure – stoooooooopid women will, but stupid men will vote repug (along with many women) so this won’t really matter much.” He then goes on to talk about “stooopid voters” in a genderless way, and Big Ed responds to him with “Stooooooooooopid voters have been winning elections for politicians for a long time now. Why do you think their stooopid campaign ads work so well?”

    While little bear may suffer from a gallantry deficit, he can’t honestly be accused of sexism if he is really talking about voters and not specifically women as voters. He does muddy his message a little with “Really stoooooooopid women will have the votes evenly split across all candidates, cuz they are too stoooooooooopid to pull the correct lever.” But again – he’s not saying that all women are stupid, or that all women voters are stupid – he’s talking about a a category called stupid voters that includes many representatives from both genders.

    And Big Ed never mentioned women at all.

    For the record, I don’t believe that Clinton voters of either gender are necessarily stupid. But given the realities of the campaign numbers so far with about 80% of the votes in, and given the flip-flops (Florida/Michigan), “mis-speaks” (Tuzla), and misrepresentations (NAFTA) of their candidate, I’d have to say that some of them are getting delusional.

  • Barack Obama had no business entering this race

    That darned uppity upstart, ignoring the “The Queen Shall Have Her Coronation–Assimilate Now” memo and having the nerve to build vibrant grassroots support, record numbers of donors and dollars, and state and local GOTV efforts that actually work and positively influence down-ballot races. Who does he think he is?

  • Stephen 1947: And Big Ed never mentioned women at all.

    Wrong. Big Ed @#7 is the one who originally made the comment (unlike little bear’s, unqualified): “Women will turn out for her no matter what she stands for,” which can certainly be construed as sexist.

  • The left blogosphere has no shame when it comes to sexism.

    Neither does the Clinton campaign, as long as it suits their needs to portray Hillary Clinton as a poor little girl getting picked on by the “big boys” in the party.

    The Clinton campaign showed resolve in the face of the developments, rallying supporters and donors and enlisting prominent surrogates to fight back. Mrs. Clinton told aides that she would not be “bullied out” of the race.

    In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the “big boys” trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/us/politics/29dems.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

    Imagine this: If Obama had only a ten percent chance to win the nomination –by his own campaign’s estimations — and party leaders were saying it might be time for him to bow out, and his campaign’s response was “oh, so the black man has to get out because whitey says so?” that would rightly be condemned as a pathetic effort to play the race card.

    The effort to portray this as a gender issue is no different at all and just as pathetic.

  • As I have mentioned before, I was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter until mid January. At the same time I really liked what Obama was talking about as well.

    I’m no longer a Hillary Clinton supporter because of:
    her negative campaigning against a fellow Democratic contender.
    her praising McCain on various occasions.
    her wanting the FL and MI votes to count because it’s in her advantage.
    and a few more things…

    I’m not saying that Hillary has to drop out of the race right now. I would like to see her going negative against McCain and attack McCain instead of Obama. I think that her numbers in the polls would go up once she starts acting like the contest is Democrats against Republicans in stead of Democrats against Democrats while Republicans are saving their money.

    Look what happened to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John Edwards: As soon as they announced suspending their campaign, their media attention was gone.

    If Hillary drops out now, then the media attention will be gone too. If Hillary and Obama start treating the primaries in a similar fashion as the general election, they will raise their esteem amongst Democrats and Independents alike. Start attacking the Republican legacy and start running against McCain’s ill advised solutions for the country.

    I’d like to think that even some brain dead Republicans will have to admit that McCain’s solutions aren’t going to help America as a country.

    I know I’m probably talking to the walls, but it would certainly be nice to see Hillary start campaigning against McCain and the Republicans in general. In my opinion, her attacks on Obama show her weakness and desperation.

    Show some class, and leave the gutter politics to the Republicans; they’re good at it, no reason to try to best them.

  • Does Barack Obama have a degree in Foreign Policy from Georgetown? Was he a Roades Scholar in Europe, actually attacked during later campaigns for traveling so much to countries such as Russia in order to gain more foreign experience? Did he serve as an aide to Fulbright on the Foreign Relations Committee, during the time when Fulbright fought tirelessly to get the US out of Vietnam? No, Obama doesn’t have the same experience that Clinton did. In contrast, Obama lived in Indonesia briefly as a child. Once he decided to run for president he too traveled, but to what end? He dressed up in Somalian garb and unsuccessfully attempted to mediate Kenya rioting (in favor of his relative who was the one in power being rioted against). He did nothing as chair of the subcommittee on Europe, his real chance to earn some foreign relations cred. I’m not impressed by Obama’s “opportunistic” foreign junkets.

    Comparing Obama to Bill Clinton is as ludicrous as comparing him to JFK, in my opinion. JFK served in WWII and had earned a medal for rescuing members of his sunken PT boat, at an age when Obama was still experimenting with cocaine (by his own admission). You tell me why that particular comparison is justified! Maybe the only point of comparison between any of these three guys is that they are all charismatic. But in Clinton and JFK’s cases, they combined charisma with accomplishment. Obama took a free ride through law school, got elected in Chicago (a largely black city) via identity politics, did some work in the state legislature on behalf of prison inmates and now believes he should be president. Hey, why not?

  • You know, I keep seeing the suggestion that Hillary run against McCain instead of Obama. This week she announced a comprehensive program to address the financial crisis. That IS running against McCain. She has been continuously focused on issues. The rest of this has come from the media and from inflation of chance remarks during Q&A into pseudo-issues. Clinton has been focused on issues but it isn’t reported. It was a frustration to those of us who are Clinton supporters that she issued her financial plan first but it was only mentioned as a contrast to Obama’s plans. Further, he plans (as Krugman noted) are more progressive and have more to offer the everyday person, aimed not solely at financial institutions but also at consumers. I began talking about that here in the blogs when it was first issued, so you should all be able to see the dynamic at work here. Clinton IS ALREADY focused on beating McCain. She does not control the media, nor can she stop the relentless focus of Obama supporters and surrogates on driving her out of the race before the next set of primaries. Blaming that on her is unfair and incorrect.

  • Mary @ 55… Your thought process fits right in with the Republican party. Have you considered switching? I’m sure they’d accept you with open arms. Their membership is dwindling and they can use all the help they can get.

    While you’re at it, can you give us a history lesson on McCain and compare his accomplishments – or should I say flip-flops?

  • Mary: Obama took a free ride through law school, got elected in Chicago (a largely black city)

    Obama was editor of the law review, the top honor any student can earn. Or do you think it’s earned when a woman gets it but not when a racial minority does?

    Chicago is approximately 37 percent black.

    Your issues with race are showing. I’m doing you the courtesy of assuming you’re woefully uneducated and ignorant rather than blatantly racist.

  • Does Barack Obama have a degree in Foreign Policy from Georgetown? Was he a Roades Scholar in Europe

    No, but I think we’ve just made it clear that you’re not who you say you are, Mary. You’ve referred to the “Democrat Party” and made other errors in the past that make it seem like you’re just a troll, but I’ve chalked them up to carelessness.

    But there’s no way in hell an actual university professor would think that “Foreign Policy” is a college major — international relations or international affairs would be the closest one, I’d imagine. And, for that matter, there’s no way an actual university professor would misspell “Rhodes Scholar.”

    Game over, troll.

  • It doesn’t matter who estimated that Clinton has a 10% chance of winning. People made similar estimates about McCain and now he is the nominee. Whatever her chance of winning, it becomes 0% if she leaves the race now. With support of 50% of voters +- 3-6% depending on who you read, this race is too close to be conceded at this point. Obama’s folks no doubt wish that she would concede, but what else would you expect from them?

  • Comparing Obama to Bill Clinton

    Those five little words, Mary, just exposed the horrific fraud of the entire Hillary campaign. This isn’t about putting HER in the WH; it’s about putting HIM back in the WH.

    And you dare the audacious lie of promoting yourself as an educator? As a pedagogue?

    You’re nothing but a cheap, double-dealing, enabling shill for a bunch of lackluster has-beens who will do nothing for this country but to hand the reins of government back to the Bushes and Cheneys.

    If you had even a modicum of common sense and decency, you’d turn in your teaching license and retire forthwith.

  • And Mary, I’d add that the spectacle of someone who won’t stop screaming about how every criticism of Clinton is rooted in sexism…who continually talks about Clinton’s womanhood being a special qualification for her…who repeatedly derides men as a group…now accusing someone of “identity politics” would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

    I’m not convinced you’re not just a clumsy Republican troll, but if you are for real, someone should really do a psychological workup on you.

  • Mary (#55) – Bill Clinton isn’t running and it’s time that his wife stopped running on Bill’s record.

    The Economy – Hillary was not the treasury secretary and had nothing to do with domestic economic policy during her husband’s administration, so she’s got no standing (at least no better than Obama) to claim superior knowledge about the economy.

    Foreign Policy – She has exaggerated/lied about much of her foreign policy experience, and we can’t put a person who has lied about dodging sniper fire up against a POW in the fall. Obama can shift the focus from military service (as has been done successfully in the past), but it will be hard for Hillary to do so with her Bosnia lie.

    Healthcare – Her dismal failure to pass healthcare reform was such a disaster that no only is the country still waiting for universal healthcare 15 years later, but it caused the democrats to lose congress and the senate in 1994.

    Clinton Scandals – Obama has not dredged up the Clinton scandals, but the republicans will. Wright pales in comparison to the Clinton’s many scandals.

    Etc., etc.

  • Today, they just officially announced that Obama won the TX Prim/caucus at least in terms of delegates. Hils may have won the official vote

    The worst scenario I can think of is that Hils becomes an independent or becomes the Party of Hillary. I don’t know when the cutoffs are to be on the ballot in all 50 states are, but if it is in Sept and considering the fiscal backing she has this could be a legit concern. Otherwise, if she’s out of time then forget it.

  • I am committing to getting involved in the election. The fact that Obama took his family to listen to such angry, hatefilled lectures that as a regular diet must influence the way they see the world tells me that Obama is not my idea of an American president. Obama has had a 20 year relationship with a personal and spiritual advisor who is anti-white which is half of the us population. This is not the unifying, inspiring leader who deserves to be our children’s next president. Give us someone who cares for black, white, asian, hispanic, all colors. That is an inspired leader.

  • Obama has had a 20 year relationship with a personal and spiritual advisor who is anti-white which is half of the us population

    And half of his own racial makeup. Do you think he hates half of himself?

    Can someone fine-tune the automated program that’s spitting out these almost identical concern troll posts about Wright? This one’s getting repetitive.

  • TR, calling me a troll or implying that I am a Republican is namecalling — the refuge of someone out of arguments.

    I don’t have to tell you who I am, but I will say that I was present during the formation of the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, voted for Eugene McCarthy in my first presidential election, supported the ERA and was a 2nd wave feminist, lived in Chicago, lived in Boston, and was living in NY when the trade towers were hit (AND voted for Clinton). I have never voted or supported anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. I argued against Nader to my friends in the past, but increasingly, I see their point now. I worked in the civil rights movement back when it was about voting and civil rights, instead of self-esteem and identity. Unlike most of you, I’ve read the seminal works of Afrocentrism and I’ve not only read Malcolm X but also W.E.B. DuBois, from whom most of the ideas were cribbed. I know enough African American people to recognize a huckster, even if well educated, and I understand why African Americans would support him anyway. I’ve also worked on Hispanic community organizing and issues and I have observed first hand the tensions between them, especially in Chicago. Now tell me about your contribution to real life.

    You are most likely: (a) the kind of troll you suggest I am, based on your projection; (b) a campaign shill, student or disabled person or perhaps several people using the same name, based on the posting at all hours of day and night; (c) a political neophyte, based on the naivete of your beliefs; (d) male, based on the aggressiveness of your namecalling and hostility; (e) an idiot, based on your expectation that once you post a link or a quote everyone should agree with you. Go home — I think your mother is calling you.

  • 58. Maria said: Chicago is approximately 37 percent black.
    Your issues with race are showing. I’m doing you the courtesy of assuming you’re woefully uneducated and ignorant rather than blatantly racist.

    Mary lived in Chicago for awhile, though clearly she wasn’t able to find a whites-only neighborhood that suited her. I don’t think it was a good experience judging by how often she speaks negatively of the city.

    On another note, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone who is so selective with which facts she hears as Mary is. She could go to a football game and watch her team lose 21-6, totally convinced that they really won because they got lots of first downs and more field goals and the opposing team threw 3 interceptions so they didn’t deserve to win anyway.

  • You idiots! I was responding to the post earlier about Obama having the same amount of foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton when he ran for president.

    I understand that it is hard to read through all of the posts before replying. But, you are wrong that Hillary is running on Bill’s record. She is running on her own experience, which was congruent with but is different than his. Her ideas are also different than his — they are not clones and those supporting Hillary tend to recognize that, perhaps more than you Obama folks do.

    Here is a basic fact of sexism — women have and still engage in a wide variety of volunteer activities, frequently performed at high levels of responsibility, without pay. Our society has traditionally relegated women to such roles and it does not acknowledge them as part of the economy (although the economy could not function without them) nor as work experience. When Hillary Clinton was first lady in Arkansas and later during Bill’s presidency, she continued to engage in responsible activities that she was forbidden by law to be compensated for. These things can only appear as volunteer activities. To denigrate them as someone either low level or not real is an aspect of institutional sexism, akin to the concept of institutional racism. The only way she could have gotten full credit for the things she did would have been to have never married Bill Clinton (or anyone else in office) and to have pursued her own independent campaigns. The catch is that she would have had to have done so during a time when women were less than 20% of the entering classes of all colleges, when professional women (entering law schools and medical schools) were less than 5%, not the over 50% they are today. Clinton was ground-breaking when she became an attorney, even more ground-breaking when she became a partner at a top law firm, and she was ground-breaking when she continued to engage in meaningful contributions to change while first lady, at both the state and national levels. She was mercilessly attacked because she was actively involved in Bill’s presidency and in so many activities in Arkansas, because she was powerful. No one bothers to attack Laura Bush, or Barbara Bush for that matter, despite her being a bossy matriarch of a political family. Many of us who are die-hard Clinton supporters recognize this accomplish because we’ve been there fighting those same battles and know how hard it is and how much she has done. It is a pity that anyone should have to explain this to you guys.

  • Thanks for the lengthy biography, Mary, but you didn’t answer my challenge at all.

    You’ve presented yourself yo us as a college professor, and yet your postings suggest you’re nothing of the sort. No college professor on earth would think “Foreign Policy” is an accredited major or that the most prestigious scholarship in modern academia is the “Roades” scholarship.

    You’re a fraud, and a liar, and yes, a troll.

  • I beg everyone’s pardon. Chicago is projected for 2008 as not quite 20 percent black, not 37 percent. A very long way from the “largely black” Mary describes. But when one doesn’t like something, one does tend to exaggerate its ubiquity.

    The catch is that she would have had to have done so during a time when women were less than 20% of the entering classes of all colleges, when professional women (entering law schools and medical schools) were less than 5%, not the over 50% they are today.

    I’m very proud of the women who managed to prevail against such odds. I’m equally proud of the African Americans whose percentages were considerably lower than the ones you cite. And yet you dismiss Obama’s academic achievements, calling his superlative performance in law school “a free ride.” What are we to make of this disconnect, other than that you have a problem with race?

  • Mary @ 67

    You kind’a sound like McCain… We can’t say anything bad about McCain because he was a POW (due to his own stupidity)

    Now, after reading your life’s accomplishments, we should all bow down and thank the heavens for sending you to educate us all about the many great qualities Hillary exhibits and all the nastiness that represents Obama.

    As I mentioned in previous posts… you would be warmly welcomed in the Republican party.

  • All these people screaming for Hillary to get out of the race are delusional. There are 10 states left to vote. There is no logical reason to get out as close as it is. Obama supporters are scared. It is not Clinton’s fault that there is an idiotic 6 week space between primaries. It is also not Clinton’s fault that the Democrats don’t have their convention scheduled until August. Have it in June and wrap this up then, but at least let people vote. If they don’t get their say this time around then trust me we will have the MI and FL problem rear it’s head again next time around as states try to go early again so that they can have their say. By the way, seat those states. People came out to vote and with the race as close as it is they need to be heard in some way.

    Lastly, I really think Obama supporters should rethink their calls for her to quit. It would be quite embarassing for him to lose PA to a candidate that is out of the race, and I believe that would likely be the case.

  • Chicago was over 60% black when I lived there — I am not going to take the trouble to verify Shalimar’s current statistic to see whether it was made up from her imagination, whether it includes the greater metro area or just city limits, or what — it is still a high %. Obama runs from a black constituency. It is why he belongs to Wright’s church. Chicago was one of the most segregated cities in the country, much more so than LA (where I now live). There aren’t a lot of people living in desegregated areas there.

    Here’s a funny. Shalimar accuses me of being selective in my reading but she calls me a bigot while ignoring all of the things I said about working for civil rights, etc. Way to go Shalimar! Way to play a race card, Obama supporter!

    My most seminal memory of Chicago politics, where I was a precinct worker, was going in to vote and being told that I had already voted. It was only because the precinct judge recognized me that I was allowed to vote at all. Chicago is one of the few places where someone can be elected alderman while serving a term in prison for misuse of funds. I doubt it has changed much, but somehow Obama remained pure. Yes, I believe that. Can you say Rezko? I knew that you could. Ask someone from Chicago how candidates get slated in the first place.

  • Gil Reed wrote:

    “Remember she won FL, NY, CA, OH, TX, and MA too, in spite of The Kennedys. These are the big states.”

    Right, and MA will vote Republican if Obama is the candidate! LOL

    Ditto the other states. Obama will get votes Hillary would have gotten, but it will never be the other way around.

    see also:

    “PPIC Poll Shows Barack Obama Much Stronger in California Against McCain Than Clinton”

    http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/03/ppic_poll_shows_1.html

    Hillary’s unfavorable ratings are huge, she’s got NO chance in the general election.

    “The Gallup Poll recently asked voters the favorable/unfavorable rating question, and the results show once again that Sen. Hillary Clinton is far and away the most unlikable in the bunch. In answer to the question, “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?” 53 percent said favorable and 44 percent said unfavorable. Her unfavorability rating has been as high as 50 percent in a number of other polls over this two-year period, but rarely lower than the mid-to-high 40s. Among all of the major candidates in her party, she has consistently been the least likeable — usually by a wide margin.”

    Friday, March 28, 2008
    http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/03/28/political_favoritism_in_the_race_for_prez

  • No college professor on earth would think “Foreign Policy” is an accredited major or that the most prestigious scholarship in modern academia is the “Roades” scholarship.

    There are some professors who don’t get out much. Perhaps Mary teaches ceramics at a community college or coaches women’s lacrosse at a fourth-tier state school. I would be more inclined to be concerned about her patently unstable emotional state, obvious biases, and inability to pursue or understand a logical argument than I would about her many errors of this type.

  • Well, women are sooooo stoooooooooooopid that they will vote for Hillary, right? No. It’;s because their adoration of the Phony Messiah of the Rev. Wrong Congregation has gone DOWN THE HILL. This opportunitistic neophyte gave a long, lofty 20-YEARS-TOO-LATE NARCOLEPTIC SPEECH to pacify the whole nation. Why did he not choose to start a dialog instead 20 years erlier with the man he calls his “Sounding Board Mentor” who “makes sure I’m not losing myself”–as His Hopeness said to RS! Wouldn’t it be easier to try to start that conversation with his own Congregation? Is he to be trusted? Not when he makes the soporophic Speech as a tool for his political survival! What has Obamyopia been doin the last 20 years, sleeping at the pews drinking KoolAid? Where was the Love? Where was the Hope? Where was the Unity all them years?!!

    And forget his “Presidential Judgment” Where in Hell or Heaven was his PARENTAL JUDGMENT in removing his own 2 young girls from the Sunday School Hate Sermons, where they had a clear view of PORN-ON-THE-PULPIT, when an angry clenched fisted Uncle Jeremiah was rocking back and forth on stage, simulating clearly a Sex act in front of young people, shouting:

    “Ya! Bill Clinton loves us like he did Monica! He is riding us Dirty like he did Monica!”–while being pushed on his back by an enthusiastic congregant on cue, yelling at Hillary for not being a ‘black boy like Barack with single parent’! Why did he not remove his kids from this TOXIC environment if he stands for Children’s Rights (which he obviously does not!) or any kind of protection that in the last 20 years Human Rights advocates and Women’s Rights advocates have fought for??

    His only salvation if he wants to atone for his stooooooooooooooooopid unelectable MESSIAH SELF is to donate an ‘X-RATED SIGN’ to post outside his Church of Hate. At least Uncle Jeremiah,in a position of trust, will not be abusing more children with his profanity and hate Sermons!
    THINK BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE! OBAMA’S A SELF-SERVING FRAUD WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE CHILDREN SHOULD BE FREE FROM WITNESSING SEX ACTS ON THE PULPIT OF HIS OWN CHURCH. SHAME ON HIM

  • Chicago was over 60% black when I lived there

    An utter falsehood. Chicago has never been anywhere near 60 percent black. Do you, like Hillary, think the desperate lies you spew can’t be checked? You get busted constantly here for your fibbing, yet you just keep swinging wildly.

    You are correct that Chicago is highly segregated and that there aren’t enough fully integrated neighborhoods. It’s pretty obvious that you never went near one while you were there.

  • 69.Mary said: You idiots! I was responding to the post earlier about Obama having the same amount of foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton when he ran for president.

    So what foreign policy experience did Bill have in 1992 that Obama doesn’t now? I don’t recall you actually answering despite all the circles you ran round the issue.

  • Bill Clinton did have somewhat more foreign policy education and experience when he ran for president than Obama has now.

    The problem is that Hillary Clinton does not. And her constant lying about it, now that it’s been exposed, is doing her more harm than if she had never said anything on this topic at all.

  • Maria — don’t you see a difference between being routinely excluded from law schools, as women were during Clinton’s admission in the 70’s and the current situation where affirmative action ensures that qualified African Americans are admitted? A situation where well-prepared minority students are actively recruited is very different than one where they were routinely excluded despite their qualifications, even if Obama was occasionally snubbed while in school. That is Obama’s free ride. He did not have to fight for inclusion the way the civil rights leaders of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s did. Yet, he claims their legacy, acts as if his burden were theirs. He grew up not in segregated neighborhoods of South Chicago but in Hawaii, raised by a white mother who left him a different legacy, middle class expectations and a confusion about his identity. He has addressed that confusion by emphasizing his African American heritage to the virtual exclusion of his mother’s contribution (to the point of calling his granny a bigot). That’s what it meant when he became Barack instead of Barry, decided to refer to himself as a black man, married an Afrocentric black woman and chose a church that emphasized those same values. It is not the choice of every man with a biracial heritage, as illustrated by the highly visible choices of Tiger Woods, whose father was not absent, as Barack’s was, but modeled an angry black man seeking revenge against the golf establishment for relegating him to caddy status. Tiger doesn’t have the same confusion that Barack does so he can embrace his mother’s heritage as well as his father’s and be biracial instead of an all-or-nothing black categorization.

    Ivy league schools are full of similar minority children who grow up middle class and well-prepared academically, are ambitious and intelligent, but feel they do not have a visible place in society (despite the spate of Tyler Perry movies). They are forced by African American student organizations to declare themselves as strongly black or they are shunned and called names for trying to be white. It exacerbates the kind of identity concern Obama struggles with. Now there are clubs on campuses for biracial students, but that didn’t exist when Obama was in school. As a politician, he astutely recognized that he would have difficulty getting elected if he were not clearly white and not clearly black, so he emphasized his African American heritage. I don’t blame him, but it doesn’t change the fact that he has been playing racial politics for his whole career, something that has not stopped during this election.

    Obama is the only person who can talk about race without being called a racist, which is why we have no dialog on the subject.

    Shalimar, you can come in and blow now, I’m through.

  • Chicago was over 60% black when I lived there — I am not going to take the trouble to verify Shalimar’s current statistic to see whether it was made up from her imagination, whether it includes the greater metro area or just city limits, or what — it is still a high %.

    Hey, another easily disproven lie from Mary!

    As a real professor might know, Mary, there’s something called the Census Bureau which tallies this sort of information and keeps records. And according to their data, the city of Chicago has never had a black population higher than 40%, much less anywhere close to the 60% you claim it to have been when you lived there. In 1990, Chicago was 39.1% black; in 1980, 39.8% black, in 1970, 32.7% black, and 1960, 22.9% black.

    The census data with the racial breakdown is available here:
    http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076.html

    Scroll down to “Detailed Tables” and Illinois is 14th on the list. Excel or PDF at your fingertips for anyone who cares about things like “facts” and “data.”

    Oh, and the 2000 census has Chicago at 38% black, so Maria and Shalimar were absolutely right and you were wrong. Again.

  • The math for Clinton is for all intents and purposes impossible in both delegates and popular vote.

    Donating to Clinton is pissing money down a hole. You’ll never get a “quid for your “pro quo”.

    The Clinton donor letter last week was an attempt to protect their investment in her. Rich people have already donated $100 million to her campaign, they won’t get their $100 million worth of influence if she loses.

  • A couple of people here have suggested that Hillary Clinton can continue, but focus her campaign on Senator McCain (to which I basically agree).

    However, consider how that’s turned out,

    Clinton Campaign: “John McCain is a patriot, and has the experience to be Commander in Chief, but he sucks on the economy.”

    Obama Campaign response (why respond?): “Clinton (Hill or Bill) is calling Obama inexperienced and unpatriotic!”

    You have to SHUT UP and let the Clintons attack McCain how they want if you want that policy to play out. If you claim that everything the Clinton Campaign says is really about you, then you are the ones mudding the water.

  • Why are the Obamites so afraid of letting Democracy take its course and allow for the revoting of the Fla and Mich. ? The Great Uniter is afraid that he’ll lose big time. Like he will in Pennsylvania-HRC country. His sexist statement “the claws are coming out” and what he said,unforgivably, in N.H.: “Yah, i guess Hillary’s likeable Enough!” were bad enough. What his Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr. said in Iowa was RAcist and Sexist:

    “guess it’s a negative for Obama to attack, knock down a white woman…it’s the O.J. natural thing to do!..”

    Did any media pick this horrendous attack on Hillary Clinton up then? No. Because Obamites can get away with anything. Now they’re bullying a capable, strong Democrat pushing her out of the race. BULLY BOY OBAMA wants his cake and eat it too. Women willl not forgive that spoiled ethical solipsist whose self-importance should be a sin even in his own Church of Hate.

    Let the woman finish the race, bully-boy and you ask your spiritual advisor for guidance later. No, Obama you ain’t no Kennedy. Just another politician who wants to shortcircuit the Democratic System that your beloved REv. Wright thinks should be demolished. Show me your friends, and i’ll show you who you really are. Obama, take a hint and get out of the race now.

    Obama, and Obamites, please Grow up first. When you’ve done that, read some history on European slavery, the holocaust, the Ottoman Empire junder which southern Europe was enslaved for centuries and open your eyes. “Garlic nosed Ittalians” did not crucify Jesus. Adn the cradle of Civilization was not Africa, but Athens who gave birth to Plate and Aristotle. Read your History books. Stop playing the victim. Hundreds of thousands of Ameicans died in the l860s defending your rights, 620,00 white soldiers to be exact. More than 100,00 maimed and crippled to protect your Civil Rights you now enjoy and have enable dyou to get to where you are.

    Do you need more blood? Talk not to your trusted spiritual advisor, another not sharing his extremist black liberation Marxist pseudo-theology. You will find that to hold Ingratitude is a Sin. Be grateful and remove your anger from your heart. Then you will let the Democratic process take its course and your bullying Hillary will end. Of course you have your surrogates pass the ‘bully mustard’ and you’re above the frey. You’re self serving and opportunistic and more people want to find out why you keep your tightly-lid anger agaisnt women so well hidden.

    That’s why you supported a bill to keep sex shops open on Sundays near schools and churches in Chicago. Truth is coming out;let’s hope before it’s too late and the irresponsible Obama=adoring media finish the race prematurely to annoint the New Messiah. God save us. And try to agree with someone you need to convince:

    “I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President” –DNC Chairman Howard Dean!

  • Chicago was over 60% black when I lived there — I am not going to take the trouble to verify Shalimar’s current statistic to see whether it was made up from her imagination, whether it includes the greater metro area or just city limits, or what — it is still a high %.

    Chicago has never been 60% black. You are entirely incorrect on this and frankly, the fact that you seem to imagine a lot more black people around you then actually exist is pretty telling but its also irrelevant. Apparently, Obama wasn’t running for the Senate when you lived there.

    Obama runs from a black constituency. It is why he belongs to Wright’s church. Chicago was one of the most segregated cities in the country, much more so than LA (where I now live). There aren’t a lot of people living in desegregated areas there.

    To the extent that this is true at all, and the situation is certainly far more complex than you seem to think, so what? What is this supposed to tell us about Obama or his run for the Presidency?

    Here is where Obama can “take one for the team” and accept the VP slot that Clinton offered him weeks ago. He has been persisting, despite being the less qualified candidate. He would be able to gain the foreign affairs experience he currently lacks, can learn more about the national political scene and would be well-positioned to run when Clinton’s terms end.

    1) Clinton never offered him any VP slot. She suggested it might be soemthing to think about.

    2) Your opinion that he is the less qualified candidate is obviously not shared by him so I am not sure why it would be relevant to his decision.

    3) He really would be, as you say, “taking one for the team” in that he would absolutely be sacrificing his political career for the good of the party. The VP slot is possibly the worst thing he could ever do to himself, especially in a Clinton White House.

    4) The idea that being a VP provides experience of any type is one of the most enduring and palpably stupid ideas in our political discourse. For the most part, its a useless figurehead position that some politicians use to gain exposure by riding the coattails of other politicians. Frankly, its probably the worst job in Washington.

    5) Running from the VP slot is highly overrated in any case. It has only happened 5 times in history that a former VP has been elected to President.

  • Hillary has a new strategy. She’s figured out that she can’t win on experience. She’s can’t win on the issues. She can’t win on name recognition. She can’t win on credibility. She can’t win by demonstrating the best leadership skills. She’s can’t win on on honesty, judgement, or temperment.

    So, she’s down to her last, best hope…identity voters. By continuing to point out, implicitly, that Obama is black and, explicitly that she’s a woman, she’s hoping that voters will vote identity. That is, she wants non-blacks to voter for her and women to vote for her. If she can persuade voters to forget about all the rest and vote their idenities, then obviously the numbers are on her side.

    Look for her and her surrogates to begin playing up the gender/race card more and more. We saw it with Hillary’s attempt to bring race back to the fore by bringing up Wright again earlier this week. We’re seeing it with Bill Clinton referring to suggestions for Hillary to drop out as another example of gender discrimination. We’re seeing it with a lady superdelegate in Vermont making the same accusation.

    Of course, Dems wanting to bring this thing to a close are not exercising mysoginism; they’re exercising their arithmetic skills. Obama has developed an insurmountable lead, and Hillary is our Huckabee. Yes, Huckabee won some more states after Florida, but those victories didn’t matter any more than the rest of the states will matter to the outcome of the Democratic nomination. She already lost too many states by too large a margin.

    Addition and substraction be damned. Race relations be damned. Gender relations be damned. The party be damned. The country be damned. Hillary’s going all the way to the convention.

    Fuck me.

  • Re #87,

    Yep, funny thing how more than 50% of American voters are women, and might, just once, appreciate a chance to vote for a candidate who represents that majority.

    But I’ve come to believe it’s women who keep women down. They own a majority of the wealth in this country, but they’d rather let their nephews run their companies than their neices.

  • A situation where well-prepared minority students are actively recruited is very different than one where they [women] were routinely excluded despite their qualifications

    Again with the selective recognition of facts. Are you actually unaware that the reason that American law schools are now more than 50% female is that we had decades of actively recruiting female students? Do you believe women went from “routinely excluded” to the majority of students without that step in between? The convoluted arguments you’ll make in a fruitless attempt to add nobility to Clinton’s achievements while denigrating Obama’s!

    Your “free ride” language is deeply offensive to every woman who sincerely cares about not just other women’s struggles for parity, but those of all underrepresented and marginalized groups. I’m very glad that your “it’s all about my own demographic and screw everyone else” attitude, in which you mirror the very worst elements of a bigoted white patriarchy, is not representative of most women. Most of us — including most women who voted for Clinton — are able to see the bigger picture and recognize Obama’s success not as a blow against women but as a major victory in expanding the nation’s perception of who can lead it.

    It is really disappointing to see that you possess no abstract regard for truth or ability to objectively review data and evidence. Yours is not the mind of a competent scientist or academic.

  • Erik in Maine said: “Can some Clinton supporter out there please outline a way she can get the nomination?”

    She would win the same way Obama would, but getting not enough pledged delegates and then convincing enough super delegates to get to 2025.

    That’s what they BOTH have to do.

    Them’s the rules, and despite what Nancy Pelosi and Bill Bradley say, they will remain the rules.

  • Chicago has never been 60% black. You are entirely incorrect on this and frankly, the fact that you seem to imagine a lot more black people around you then actually exist is pretty telling but its also irrelevant.

    The census data (posted in 82) shows she’s wrong again, but we shouldn’t be too hard on Mary.

    I heard she was busy dodging sniper fire at O’Hare airport when she lived there.

  • Here’s a scenario:

    She wins PA 60-40 (possible, but unlikely)
    She wins Indiana 55-45
    She wins WV 55-45
    Oregon splits 50-50 (more likely Obama will win Oregon)
    SD splits 50-50 (more likely Obama will win Oregon)
    Guam splits 50-50
    North Carolina splits 50-50 (wildly unlikely)
    She wins Kentucky 55-45
    Montana splits 50-50 (more likely Obama will win Oregon)
    She wins PR 60-40

    If all that happens… She’s only made up half of her deficit in pledged delegates. She’s still down 75 delegates.

    She STILL needs to superdelegates to break 65-35 in her favor

  • More likely scenario

    She wins PA 60-40
    Indiana splits 50-50
    She wins WV 55-45
    He wins SD 55-45
    He wins NC 60-40
    She wins Kentucky 55-45
    He wins Montana 55-45
    She wins PR 60-40

    Under that scenario to get to 2024

    She’s need the superdelegates to break 73-27

    He’d only be 92 delegates short

  • Number 87 above nailed it. The Clintons have a new emphasis — If you can’t think of another reason to vote for Hillary, then vote for her either because she’s a woman or vote for her because she’s not black.

    Identity voting is all she has left, and this divide and conquer strategy is what we have to look forward to over the course of the next weeks or months.

    Disgraceful.

  • She would win the same way Obama would, but getting not enough pledged delegates and then convincing enough super delegates to get to 2025.

    That’s a very nice dream, but take a look at Erik@93’s numbers. Then take a look at how many remaining uncommitted superdelegates there are and where they’re from.

    Hint: All the diehard Clintonites committed back at the beginning, there aren’t many uncommitted superdelegates left and almost all of them are from strongly pro-Obama states. Not only are these people looking at the party’s interests in general, they’re also very interested in keeping their own seats when they come up for reelection among strongly Obama constituencies. A few will go for Clinton anyway, but it won’t be many.

    And don’t start pretending that Clinton will be able to peel off already-committed Obama superdelegates in June. Ain’t gonna happen. She hasn’t gotten a one yet, and her popularity is tanking by the week.

    It’s over for Clinton. We wait until the last primary, and then the superdelegates make it official.

  • Yep, funny thing how more than 50% of American voters are women, and might, just once, appreciate a chance to vote for a candidate who represents that majority. (#89)

    Why does one have to be a woman to represent women?

    Was FDR poor? Was LBJ black?

  • I think she can stay in at least for this moment that is still awaiting for PA primary. Also, given the past episodes, pressuring her to get out of the race might actually urge more female voters to vote for her. So, at least for now, Obama camp should remain out of this discussion, I think.

    What is more upsetting for me is why media is not reporting fiscal disasters that Clinton campaign is creating?

    Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

    The more news about her campaign’s fiscal mismanagement, the more I am convinced she won’t be a good president for solution of economic issues. How come such a person could solve this current financial fiasco of the country, if she is not able to manage even her own campaign? For me, this is much more serious, and more relevant topic to enormous issues we are facing, rather than some controversial comments made by a paster.

  • How pathetic! Mary spews the same kind of racist, hate-filled dialogue that she seems so concerned about via Jeremiah Wright. It is obvious to everyone that her mind is just like cement–all mixed up and permanently set. Pray for her! Personally, I’m glad that she is on the Clinton side.

  • Yes Erik there is a way.

    She wins PA by a huge margin. That in turn helps her to win Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Guam and possibly even squeak out wins or statistical ties in Oregon and North Carolina. He wins South Dakota and Montana. They resolve FL & MI in a fair way seating the delegates or halving them and seating them. Either way, she now has likely won the popular vote and armed with the popular vote and big state argument is able to win over the remaining superdelegates. Some of the superdelegates may have noticed that 1) Obama’s fortune seems to have turned and 2) a lot of his delegate advantage has come from states that had caucuses and/or states that they will never win in November (Utah, Idaho, etc.)…

    This is not really even that much of a stretch. If she wins PA big then she gains a lot of delegates, she gains momentum and validity to her fight. And, depending on the turnout, she may practically make up her loss in the popular vote right there in one day.

  • That’s a plausible scenario, Isaac, and you’re absolutely right that a blowout win in Penn. would change the rest of the game.

    However, it doesn’t seem likely. The polls have been trending the other way, with Clinton’s one-time 20-point lead shrinking to 16 a week or so ago and now 10-12 in the last two polls. As Obama tours the state with Casey, that’ll likely shrink further.

  • The question is does Obama believe in the below Black Liberation Theology teachings of his church?Per the founder of black liberation theology James Cone:“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love”. This is the self-proclaimed basis of Rev. Wright’s belief and teaching. Obama is still a member of the Trinity Church so one would presume it is still part of his religious beliefs as well. The media is not doing its job by not asking Obama if he believes is Black Liberation Theology or not. The public has a right to know.

  • So it’s guilt-by-association twice removed now? Obama is accountable not just for everything his old pastor believes, but everything his old pastor’s theologian believes? Why stop there? Doesn’t the public have a right to know what his old pastor’s theologian’s mother’s college roommate believes, too?

    Somebody wake me when the trolls make it to six degrees and are demanding that Obama apologize for Kevin Bacon’s performance in “Footloose.”

  • Rev. Wright said:

    “Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

    He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

    “What is the state of your family?” he asked.

    And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

    His sermon thesis:

    1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

    2. This is a time for social transformation

    3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

    This is from the sermon Rev. Wright gave on the Sunday after 9/11 (thanks to Anderson Cooper 360 blog)

    Real hateful, huh?…None is so blind as he who refuses to see…

    can we just drop it now?

  • BIG ED – the 2000 and 2004 elections were STOLEN – get real, will ya? If you accept stolen elections – you are also part of the problem.

  • Yes Erik there is a way. -Isaac

    No, there isn’t. She cannot win by the margins necessary to overtake Obama’s lead. McCain didn’t even beat Huckabee in the end by the margins Hillary needs. It’s simply not in the realm of reasonable, rational thought to discuss Hillary winning this race in the manner you described.

  • If The Democratic Party Wants A Huge Backlash…

    Then most certainly party elders should step in and shut down Clinton’s campaign. There has already been a mini-backlash as a result of Richardson’s comments, Leahy’s comments, Pelosi’s publication of online the “big donor” letter to her, and ongoing nastiness by Obama’s supporters. But if the party is willing to gamble with 22-25 percent of the loyal base, by all means they should step in.

  • ‘Doubtful’ I respectfully disagree despite your assertion that I can’t have a rational thought. I did not say it was likely, but it is within the realm of possibility, there are a lot of unknowns at this point. Yes, Obama will maintain his delegate lead. But if there is a shift in the race (and yes I understand that that may be unlikely) then there are still openings for Clinton to win. Is your argument that she should bow out as well then? Should we not hear the voices of FL, MI, KY, NC, PA, PR, OR, SD, IN, WV, etc.?

    I tend to think it will be more beneficial to Obama if he won this fair and square and still let everyone have their voice.

    If she wins PA by only a few points then it’s over. Until then, let’s just see what happens. The problem I have had with all these people calling on her to quit extends to all these people clamoring that Clinton herself is tearing the party apart and will do anything to win and will knee-cap her opponent. These assertions are ridiculous and are their way of fueling the anti-Clinton fire. Well, I would be careful, she tends to do best when she is down and people tend to show up to support her too.

    I have a feeling we will have to agree to disagree though.

  • I would love for someone to show me one of Wright’s so called racist sermons. The way the concern trolls say it there’s 30 years of these sermons out there yet I can’t seem to find one despite watching several. I can say though that I might not be agnostic today if any of my pastors had given sermons half as interesting as WRight’s.

    I’m a white redneck borne amongst corn and bean fields btw..

  • Lance said: “Them’s the rules, and despite what Nancy Pelosi and Bill Bradley say, they will remain the rules.”

    Isn’t that funny… one of those rules before the election started was that FL and MI wouldn’t count. Why is it then that Hillary keeps insisting that the ‘rules’ be changed to let those disenfranchised voters have a say as well?

    Or is it more: the rules only count when they are favoring Hillary. ??

  • little bear,

    One of the reasons that the elections were able to be stolen, which they were, was the number of voters who were unable to recognize the consequences of their vote, making the election close enough to be stolen. It’s possible that Clinton will have the same effect on this year’s election that Nader did on the 2000 election.

  • Issac, let’s follow your scenario out.

    She wins PA 70-30
    She wins Indiana 60-40
    She wins WVA 60-40
    Oregon ties
    SD ties
    She wins Guam 60-40
    N Carolina ties
    She wins Kentucky 60-40
    Montana ties
    She wins PR 60-40

    All of that happens… She’s still behind 35 pledged delegates.

    and she STILL needs the superdelegates to break 60-40 her way.

    Reality check guys.

    Haven’t you had enough of a president that looks at a losing scenario through rose colored glasses?

    The Clinton campaign is looking more and more like the Bush Iraq strategy every day.

  • 98. sedto said: What is more upsetting for me is why media is not reporting fiscal disasters that Clinton campaign is creating?
    Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

    File this under “Facts Mary and her cohorts will conveniently never notice or comment on” since there is no way to spin them positively for their candidate.

  • big ed – if it was stolen – it was stolen. Quit blaming people, the majority of which DID NOT vote for the chimp.

    If it was STOLEN, then it is the fault of those that STOLE IT – see!

    Folks like YOU make it all possible and are more responsible for disenfranchising voters than the MSM.

    You’re condescending attitude is what enables the theft of elections. How about talking about the plain and simple truth instead of the distractions?

    All they need to steal 2008 are many of the lies that are being put forward here and idiots like YOU that will blame the voters instead of the criminals.

  • 112. Erik in Maine said: …..
    All of that happens… She’s still behind 35 pledged delegates.
    and she STILL needs the superdelegates to break 60-40 her way.

    In their current campaign fantasies, Hillary meets personally with Obama’s pledged delegates until she gets more than enough to change their minds and vote for her, then she only has to split the remaining superdelegates 50-50. After all, Wolfson and Clinton herself have said repeatedly that pledged delegates aren’t committed to vote for any candidate so it could happen.

    Of course, in reality the Clinton fanatics are ignoring the reality that their candidate is the one running the gutter campaign and it is her pledged delegated who are more likely to have buyer’s remorse and switch their vote, not Obama’s. We have several reports of this among caucus delegates in various states already. Though I guess when you live in fantasyland anything is possible.

  • little bear said: “All they need to steal 2008 are many of the lies that are being put forward here and idiots like YOU that will blame the voters instead of the criminals.”

    You’re giving the average voter too much credit. Any person voting for Bush because he’s a likable guy and you can have a beer with him, should be denied voting privileges. Especially considering there was ample evidence to show how Bush had screwed up pretty much anything else in his life before the elections in 2000.

  • Wouldn’t YOU be mad if you lived in the United States, paid taxes, and lived within the law, raised your family, and maye/even probably served your country…………and then didn’t have your vote count when you wanted to pick who you wanted for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

    In as close a race as the Democratic presidential campaign is….I would hope that BOTH candidates continued to accumulate the votes that people want to give them! And I’m also including in that thought……….MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!!

  • I’m still waiting for the godless un-American uberscheinen Hillary people to explain how their debt-dodging freeloader candidate can make it to her political suicide going away party Denver if she’s demonstrating Clintonian thievery at its finest not paying her bills. She’s got an angry mob with pitchforks and torches chanting “Kill the Beast” unpaid string of debts going all the way back to Iowa. It’ll be a K-Mart blue-light special in Aisle 9 on guillotines funny if people start telling her to eat, sh**, and die refusing to give her a free ride.

    Subliminal-message schadenfreude is good….

  • Wouldn’t YOU be mad if you…didn’t have your vote count when you wanted to pick who you wanted for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? -Kactus Kathy

    I think you have primaries confused with general elections. There is nothing that guarantees us a right to vote in a primary. If someone disfranchises you in November, then you can complain.

    In as close a race as the Democratic presidential campaign is… -Kactus Kathy

    It’s not close. Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead. How in one breath can you advocate for people’s voices to count and in the next argue for the legitimacy of a candidate who absolutely cannot win the majority of delegates selected by the people?

    If you want the people’s voice to be heard, then all you have to do is listen. They’ve spoken. This race is over, and Hillary has lost. Wake up, people.

  • 117. Kactus Kathy said: Wouldn’t YOU be mad if you lived in the United States, paid taxes, and lived within the law, raised your family, and maye/even probably served your country…………and then didn’t have your vote count when you wanted to pick who you wanted for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

    You mean if I was a Republican and the primary race ended a month ago? No, I’d probably shoot myself rather than go on living as a Republican. As for the votes counting nonsense, if all of the remaining superdelegates come out for Obama tomorrow, Pennsylvania will still count even though it won’t help determine the nominee. Saying it won’t count is nonsense, your logic isn’t even understandable.

    If you don’t like the current primary system (and most of us don’t) then push for reform. My idea is to divide the states up by size into 5 groups, then have one state from each group (5 states each week) vote each week for 10 weeks until we are finished. That would fix some of the mess we have now while still allowing the candidates to campaign in each group of states as they come up instead of having one big primary day where money is the main determinant and retail politics on a national level is dead.

    In as close a race as the Democratic presidential campaign is….I would hope that BOTH candidates continued to accumulate the votes that people want to give them! And I’m also including in that thought……….MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!!

    Regarding MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!!, they both broke the rules and got punished. I think the punishment was too harsh, but all the candidates knew what that punishment was going in and agreed to it. They don’t get delegates. It was a bad call, but changing the rules after the fact to reward the candidate who didn’t respect those rules in the first place and stayed on the ballot in Michigan would be even worse. I’m more sympathetic to Florida’s argument and have no objection personally to seating their delegates or at least seating 1/2 of them since it was the Republican legislature who changed the date. But to argue for seating Michigan is basically admitting to having situational ethics, which disgusts me. Every Vote Counts! Whatever, you know you would be arguing the opposite if it was Obama who had remained on the ballot and Clinton who respected the party by removing her name.

  • “Roades Scholar”…that’s a good one. No wonder we have to ask, “Is our children learning?”

    If you didn’t read Sue @43, you should.

  • Mary, @67, said:

    TR, calling me a troll or implying that I am a Republican is namecalling — the refuge of someone out of arguments.

    And, later in the same message:

    You are most likely: (a) the kind of troll you suggest I am, based on your projection; (b) a campaign shill, student or disabled person or perhaps several people using the same name, based on the posting at all hours of day and night; (c) a political neophyte, based on the naivete of your beliefs; (d) male, based on the aggressiveness of your namecalling and hostility; (e) an idiot, based on your expectation that once you post a link or a quote everyone should agree with you. Go home — I think your mother is calling you.

    Also, in message #69, first sentence: “You idiots!”

    Sigh… Mary, I would have suggested checking a dictionary for the meaning of the word “irony”, except that Mark Pencil (on another “thread”) assures me that Repubs have their own dictionaries (perhaps Republican women have yet another subset of them, simplified?), so there’s no telling what you’d find there.

    Therefore, after some thought, I have another piece of advice; one that should be easy to remember and follow (even if it does come from that “darkie” side of the world which you’re uncomfortable with):

    Hit the Roades, Mary;
    And don’t you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.
    Hit the Roades, Mary;
    And don’t you come back no more.

    Oh… and while you’re at it… take your Bestest Girlfriend (Hillary) with you.

  • Actually, I’m not that wrong about the African American population of Chicago for the time when I was living there, which I did not state in any post. You only went back as far as 1990. Wikipedia states that Chicago did have an African American population as large as 60% in the 1930s and that it increased again during the second migration from the south following WWII. I didn’t specify when I lived there. I also suspect that I was mistakenly combining the African American and Hispanic populations (about 15% IIRC) and estimating the minority population. Wikipedia also states that Chicago has been losing its African American population fairly rapidly since the 60% high point, as evident in the statistics you cited, which show decreases just in the few years you looked up.

    I don’t have time to stay online all day and you have already trashed me, but I don’t make these things up.

  • You lived in Chicago in the 30s? That explains your senility pretty thoroughly. My 83 year-old grandmother is extremely selective with facts and has a lousy memory too. Her reasoning ability is also pretty much gone, just like yours!

  • Bravo! Bravo! What a great thread. Quite entertaining all day long.

    Mary, you must be in fantastic shape. You have jumped the shark with conviction and real style so many times. But I must admit, this was was a triple twist with a respectful nod to the judges in mid air and then a perfect landing.

    “You only went back as far as 1990. Wikipedia states that Chicago did have an African American population as large as 60% in the 1930s and that it increased again during the second migration from the south following WWII.”

    The sheer audacity of the move is breathtaking. A perfect 10. I hope Hillary sends you a singing card this X-mas. And a snow globe. A sweet, relaxing, non threatening, very, very, very peaceful snow globe. You’ve earned it.

    Shhhhhhhh……Sleep little Mary. Close your eyes. There you go. Off to dreamland. Tomorrow is another day.

  • Erik – the problem with your argument is that you are ignoring FL & MI and you are also ignoring the sway that a win in the popular vote could have in this situation.

    So, while I don’t even think she will win by those kind of margins, don’t you think that if she did win that big the remaining superdelegates might see how badly tarnished Obama has become as a candidate? Not to mention that you are STILL leaving out MI & FL and that she would handily have the popular vote if it ended in such a way. It is for this reason that we even have superdelegates, or else they would always just go with whoever was in the pledged delegate lead.

    With the race this close, I believe there will be a resolution to MI & FL. Maybe I’m in the minority on that assumption, but I just don’t see how the DNC doesn’t screw themselves (or Obama) if they don’t figure it out. Add in those states and Clinton is likely to take the popular vote. That is a strong argument to have in your back pocket.

  • That’s pretty funny, Mary – if that is your real name. After several people have suggested you should check your facts instead of just talking out of your butt, you check your facts – on Wikipedia!!! Way to go, university professor; place your faith in an online resource that relies completely on lay people for accuracy. I could pop in to Wikipedia before tomorrow morning, and change it to read that Chicago is 100% black. Would that make it true? Sometimes Wikipedia has some interesting information that you can’t find anywhere else, and quite a bit less often, it even turns out to be true. Suggesting Wikipedia is more likely to be correct than the state’s bureau of statistics is just….well…desperate and sad. Somewhere several points below desperate and sad is suggesting that you may have meant you lived in Chicago in the 1930’s.

    Here’s what I think, Mary. You never lived in Chicago; in fact, you’re not even from earth. In a closet somewhere in your residence, in a big leathery pod, is Mary’s body. And you, alien creature, sit deep into the night hours, tapping away at the keyboard with your big green alien fingers.

    No, wait!!! I know!!! You’re actually Hillary Clinton herself!!!!!!!! Why didn’t I think of that earlier?

  • Mary said:

    I don’t have to tell you who I am, but I will say that I was present during the formation of the Peace and Freedom Party in CA,

    As someone else who was there, I can no confirm that Mary is in fact a moron, that after 40 years she would think this is something to be proud of.

    I can just see our 60+ failed kindergarten teacher, Mary.

    Back about the time Mary was going to teacher’s training school, I went to “the #2 teacher’s training school in America” (their official claim to fame), a little place in Greeley then known as Colorado State College, nowadays known as the “University” of Northern California after finding a way to get the Ed.D. accepted as a real doctorate. After resisting through six quarters, I finally took two “education” classes. When I finally saw how they made teachers, and what they made them out of, all my questions of why I had been bored stiff through 12 years of public miseducation were answered. I quit at the end of the quarter.

    “Indoctrination” – the pedagogic style in use there – is different from actual “education”-

    I’m sure Mary must have gone to San Bernardino State, the “#3 Teachers Training School in America,” and the home of such effective teaching methods as “Whole Language,” in which a student is placed near a “great book” and expected to learn how to read by osmosis, while any “reactionary” who suggests such efrfective methods as phonics must be a fascist. When you wonder how Generation X and Generation Y ended up with so many functional illiterates, thank Mary. Her posts prove she teaches what she knows.

  • One reason why Obama may be so sanguine about all of this:

    http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/clinton-campaign-has-earned-rep-as.html

    “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.”

    “A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.”
    ______________________________________________________________

    The superdelegates may not have to lift a finger. That coughing sound is the Hillmobile Rocket ’08 running on fumes. All of those millions sitting in Obama’s account that should have been Hillzilla’s. He ruined everything.

    Git out while the gittin’s good Hil. Those overdraft fees are a bitch.

  • Mary said:

    Maria — don’t you see a difference between being routinely excluded from law schools, as women were during Clinton’s admission in the 70’s and the current situation where affirmative action ensures that qualified African Americans are admitted?

    I hate to tell you this, Mary, since it will burst your bubble of being the poor persecuted woman, but – as long ago as 1972 – law schools achieved a 50% female participation in the 1st year law class. How do I know? Because I was in law school in 1972. And it was indeed surprising to people to find a “conservative” law school like Golden Gate University with a 50% female entering class. And it was even more surprising to find that this 50% figure had been nearly achieved at all law schools outside the South that year.

    Now, graduation rates in the class of 1975 were not 50-50, but that’s because about 70% of first-year law students don’t make it to 2nd year, but trust me, the reasons for that have nothing to do with “sexism,” though one cannot say why it is that women and racial minorities (like Obama) have difficulty in making that leap still today, but educational background and a belief in onself are important factors.

    In case you were wondering, Mary, the worst law schools still take the top 10 percent of undergraduates. Harvard (where Obama went) takes the top 5 percent. And then, once you are in, if you were in the 91st percentile as an undergraduate, you are at the bottom of law school. And traditionally, a law school only accepts those who are in the top 10 percent of first year as members of law review – and there is no “affirmative action” on that one. When one becomes the Editor of the Harvard Law Review one can confidently consider themselves in the top 1 percent of the country, IQ-wise. And affirmative action has nothing to do with that, because all the top members of the American legal profession, who came from Harvard Law, would never allow such “dilution” since it would harm their own resumes.

    You sound like all the minorities and women I have ever heard who excused their failure by blaming the accident of their birth, their dysfunctional families, their brain defects, etc.

    I far perfer knowing guys like my friend, Wendell Pruitt, who was the only African-American ace in the Tuskeegee Airmen (despite the USAAF making it “impossible” for him to achieve that), or my “poor pathetic” female friend who happens to be the President of Production of Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company (I guarantee you that is no “affirmative action” position), and then there’s “poor pitiful me” who had only a working class background, graduated from a “second tier” university and had to deal with not knowing I had Aspergers while becoming one of the 500 new members of the Writer’s Guild the year I got in, when 100,000 wannabees arrive each year with that goal in mind (a job where the ability to “schmooze” is important).

    All you present, Mary, are “poor pitiful me” excuses. And excuses are what losers use to make it OK to be losers.

    You call yourself a “feminist” and you support a woman who would be unkown had she not followed the traditional route to female power: marry a powerful male and stick with him regardless.

    Not quite the path to success my old friend (going back to when she was “that little housewife in Marin County” 36 years ago), Senator Barbara Boxer, took, eh?

    I do give you credit for demonstrating an entirely new and original definition of the word “pathetic” though.

  • In 1990, Chicago was 39.1% black; in 1980, 39.8% black, in 1970, 32.7% black, and 1960, 22.9% black.

    The census data with the racial breakdown is available here:
    http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076.html
    TR, @82

    Despite that, and the data going back to to 1960, @123, Mary says:
    You only went back as far as 1990.

    That number (30 years of difference) must have made an impression, because, next thing you know, Mary is quoting the statistics for 1930. Never mind that, to have been a sentient being, with lasting memories of the racial makeup of her neighbourhood in 1930, she’d have to have been born no later than 1915.

    My hat’s off to you, Mary; 93yrs old and not only did you manage to master the Intertubes, but you’re still gainfully employed as a college teacher… Truly amazing, Mary. We’re all in awe of your achievements. And no longer surprised that, to you, what’s between one’s legs is more important that what’s between one’s ears.

    In that same — #123 — message, Mary also says:
    I also suspect that I was mistakenly combining the African American and Hispanic populations

    Quite understandable, Mary; I’m sure that, at 93, you do have some problems with vision, telling colours apart, etc. And all those “darkies” are the same anyway, eh? One hand stretched for handouts, the other holding a gun to “convince” you to fork over the cash and other goodies. No wonder then, that all you can see in Obama is his brown face.

    And, from that same — #123 — message:
    I don’t have time to stay online all day and you have already trashed me, […]

    Whether you have the time or not, you seem to have stayed on line — continuously — for most of the day (with a short intermission, when you pretended to send money to Clinton), while, at the same time, chastising the rest of us for being online layabouts with too much time to spend here. I’d suggest checking a dictionary for the word “hypocrisy” but I’m not sure that you’d even find it in a Repub one. Like “irony”, “hypocrisy” seems to be out of the Repub ken.

    As for “trashing you”… You’re doing such a splendid job yourself, we don’t have to lift a finger. I just hope that not only are you not a Dem but you’re not a female, either; I really don’t relish the idea of sharing sisterhood with *you*.

  • Shalimar: My 83 year-old grandmother is extremely selective with facts and has a lousy memory too

    How dare you throw your grandmother under the bus like that!

  • Issac –

    I think Hillary will win PA by ~10 points.

    I think Obama will win NC by at least the same margin.

    Any continuation of her campaign after that would be truly Rumsfeldian.

    As for Michigan and Florida…

    She won Florida, but even if the delegates are seated as voted, it doesn’t move the needle much.

    In Michigan she got 55% of the vote against “None of the above”. Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement. As she was the only one on the ballot in MI, an argument that includes the popular vote from MI is utter fraud.

    More importantly, even if she manages to swing the super delegates and gets the nomination, what kind of turnout do you think you’ll see among African Americans in November?

    There’s no way the dems win OH, PA, MI, IL without a strong black turnout in November. They’re not going to vote for McCain, but they’re also not going to turn out in numbers after the shit the Clinton campaign has been spewing.

  • Mary: Actually, I’m not that wrong about the African American population of Chicago for the time when I was living there, which I did not state in any post. You only went back as far as 1990.

    Me @ 82: As a real professor might know, Mary, there’s something called the Census Bureau which tallies this sort of information and keeps records. And according to their data, the city of Chicago has never had a black population higher than 40%, much less anywhere close to the 60% you claim it to have been when you lived there. In 1990, Chicago was 39.1% black; in 1980, 39.8% black, in 1970, 32.7% black, and 1960, 22.9% black.

    So I went back to 1960, and since you said your first presidential vote was for Gene McCarthy, in 1968, that seemed far enough.

    Mary: Wikipedia states that Chicago did have an African American population as large as 60% in the 1930s and that it increased again during the second migration from the south following WWII.

    Then Wikipedia is horribly wrong — as the Census link I provided shows, Chicago’s black population was even smaller back then — 6% in 1930, 8% in 1940, 12% in 1950.

    And Mary? A real professor would never cite anything as unreliable as Wiki. You’ve exposed yourself again as both an idiot and a liar.

  • I know this is at the bitter end of the thread and quite likely won’t be seen, but I wanted to figuratively take off my hat to Libra and TR, both of whom made me laugh harder than is probably good for me, and both of whom crushed Mary under the slow, relentless wheels of reason and research.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m always willing to acknowledge (albeit grudgingly, perhaps) cleverness and eloquence on the part of an ideological opposite; Mary, if you backed up your contentions with facts, I’d go to the wall with you even though I don’t agree. But you don’t. Simply citing data from whatever site happens to agree with what you’re trying to say is not research. Next you’ll be drawing from the KKK to support a suggestion that Chicago is too black – I’m sure they’d agree.

  • That 55% she got in Michigan was while running against every other candidate, including Edwards and Obama. People knew the situation because they campaigned (against the rules I might add) to vote for Uncommitted. So yes that is a very respectable number is my point, and if I were allocating delegates for MI I would give Hillary her 55% and Barack the other 45% which is way more than fair, because that would include All of Edwards votes and anyone else’s as well.

    I just thought I would point that out. I’m not saying this is a likelihood, just possible. Plus, if Clinton did by some force get the nomination, I do think she would be forced to take Obama as her VP to bring more people to the voting process. I still think that’s a winning ticket. I don’t think he would take her as his VP and I think that has the strong potential to create a losing situation in November.

  • I think Obama would turn down her offer of the VP slot. Why would he want to be VP on the losing ticket. Hillary has no appeal to anyone other than partisan democrats. Just look at the exit polls.

    By the way, if you give Hillary MI 55-45 you’re talking about a swing of less than 10 delegates. It’s not the savior you think it is. Obama’s name not being on the ballot makes MI moot in popular vote counts.

    It’s over.

  • Hell, give Obama ALL the uncommitted votes in MI (that’s over-representative) and it’s still quite possible she takes the Popular Vote.

    I guess that phrase ‘partisan democrats’ is an ugly one now. Hm. I am 31 and have voted Democratic in every election. I actually value the Democratic party and respect that base, do you? Without those Democrats I’d love to hear your winning scenario for November and I’d be surprised if it included places like Utah, Idaho and Florida, or even Ohio and Pennsylvania. But that’s just my opinion.

    Honestly, I was just trying to answer your call to give a possible winning scenario. You obviously didn’t want to hear one since you think it’s already over. So you can join Dodd and Leahy in that call. I will not however.

    I am very happy to just disagree.

  • The math is hard for Obama too, I guess that’s at the base of my point. I think it’s an illusion that has been put forward very well that she is so far behind that she can’t catch up.

    I am interested to hear people’s take on what happens if Obama comes out of this with the delegate lead and Clinton has the Popular Vote lead. Then what?

  • Isaac asked: I am interested to hear people’s take on what happens if Obama comes out of this with the delegate lead and Clinton has the Popular Vote lead. Then what?

    Might I suggest you go over to the Slate delgate counter and try any set of possibilities you want. What you are suggesting is statistically and mathmatically impossible.

    But then you come from the generation who was taught to read (and thus to use logic and be able to reason) by the Mary’s of the miseducation establishment with their Whole Language baloney.

  • Wow Tom that was a little uncalled for wasn’t it? I asked a simple question, what happens if she wins the Popular Vote and he has more delegates? Does he just win or are there questions then?

    Sorry if being in my 30’s is such a horrible thing. By the way, I graduated from UCLA. I’m not an idiot. Not that you would care to notice.

  • Cleaver:

    With all your arrogance, I would have thought at the very least Boalt, not GGU.

  • Comments are closed.