Political Punch

I live in Wisconsin. I voted for Barack Obama during the primary system. Since the Rev, Jeremiah Wright issue came to surface, I cannot understand how the DNC could now support Barack Obama as a presidential candidate for it’s party!

No matter what kind of spin is done to this issue, Rev. Wright was spewing anti -American rhetoric. Obama conveniently did not address that issue during his well delivered speech on Tuesday.

I “reject and denounce” my primary vote for Barack Obama! If Clinton does not get the nomination, I and my family, good number of our friends, will be voting for John McCain in the general election. Barack Obama is well suited to be a great civil rights leader, but not the President of The United States.

I have stopped all funding to the DNC. If the Democratic Party wants to win in November, the super delegates better wise up fast, support Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has disqualified himself by twenty years of supporting a radical, racist, divisive anti-American church. No speech is going to replace his actions.

If Barack Obama had respect for the Democratic Party, he would immediately withdraw from the race.

Again that is her way of bullying people. As for the previous comments of Barak Obama's pastor. That have nothing to do with what Obama stands for. The people who agrees with Hillary and the comments they made just show you that we still live in a very racist society. White people can't begin to understand the oppression that black people face even at the present moment. How would you feel if you were told that you can't drink from a water fountain? how would you feel if your family or loved ones were taken away from you? How would you feel if you work hard and for years and at the end of the day told taht you weren't qualified enough to be promoted and a white person with no college background was place ahead of you? how would you feel if you or your family was used for medical experiment? what Jerimiah Wright said is factual. I see and live it every single day. Walk a mile in my shoes. Don't be afraid understand where we coming from, acknowledge the racism and oppression that blacks was subjected and still having to endure so that we could start a dialogue.

How is it that the Jews are allowed to not forget the Holocaust and blacks cannot speak about the expression. It's time to acknowlege your deeds and atone.

Now Hillary wants the AP to start calling them 'automatic' rather than 'super.' And for some reason, they are following her instructions. Which suggests bias, since it's not the DNC making this change.

After Fridays exposure to Obama's spirtial advisor, mentor,inspiration for his book , and minister why would any delegate support Obama? And the caucus in Texas was a fraud. Obama people were running over Clinton"s elderly voters, giving them incorrect information and even locking the doors on them. The media knew of this but only Fox reported on it.Caucus' are the most unjust way to hold an election and when the elderly are pushed around, which seems to have happened at alot of the caucus', the voice of the people are not truly heard.What is Obama winning ? All caucus', strange, huh? Super Delegates can vote for anyone they please to vote for and after Obama has finally been exposed to so many "boneheaded" relationships, Wright, Ayers, and Rezko, who represent anything other than what America stands for, if they did support Obama alot of true Americans would be very upset.

If Hillary really were just working in the existing system, she wouldn't be trying to make up a new designation for delegates that come out of caucses. Newsflash for Hillary, they're exactly the same kinds of delegates that come out of primaries. There are NOT three kinds of delegates. Only two, pledged delegates (determined by the voters in either caucuses or primaries or even a primacaucus in one case) and SuperDelegates.

Another news flash for Hillary, Superdelegates are NOT "automatic" delegates. They are called Superdelegates. They were called that before you started losing and starting needing to steal the election using them, they'll be called that after, where if you do, you destroy the Democrats chance to win in November.

Hillary shows every day in some new way, how little she cares for the rules or the Democrats or their voters or anyone or anything that gets in the way of her winnning. Her naked ambition and lack of conscience is troubling, to say the least.

Nina -

Just because you belittle someone else's time or experience doesn't make it true - at all.

Hillary spent 8 years working in Bill's administration. Barack has spent 0 years in the White House.

There is nothing illegal in their papers or their tax returns. The government has seen all of them. Bill already released a lot of them earlier than most Presidents do.

Most importantly, I'm sure you are quite dreamy about it, but it is highly unlikely Barack would be able to beat McCain, after the Republicans get through with him, and they have plenty of ammo now. The Rezko and preacher relations will make it impossible in the general.

CBS did a pretty fair and balanced piece on Hillary and Barack, called "For the Record," where they went over their records, and spoke with both their critics and supporters.

It does proves that indeed Hillary has 35 years experience. I have tried to post much of it here before, but Jake deleted half of it.

Peggy Noonan is a critic, writing a critical controversial book to make lots of money. If you only read books by opportunistic critics, you will only those critic's views.

I have to go now.

I think Barack has potential in the future, but he needs more than 3 years national experience to prove himself and be able to beat Republicans in a general election. And Hillary is truly our most qualified candidate.

She has the best plans and policy, and is the one who will best help our economy most efficiently and effectively.

*Cheers*

Hillary Clinton is an idiot. Doe she really think she can get the superdelegates? Barack Obama will clearly be viewed as the better candidate. And the whole 3 in the morning ad is pretty stupid. I know damn well I don't want Hillary Clinton answering the phone

Can Sen. Clinton explain this? Hillary Clinton's 35yrs.
Remember the Republican will talk about this. Can someone please find out why Sen. Clinton hasn't released her tax records or record of activities in the White House as First Lady. If there's something bad we need to know, she should inform us. We don't want the Republican to get the White House because of some hidden facts.

Posted by: Oretega M
---------------------
Hillary is running a campaign of deceit about her "experience". First of all, she was DENIED a Security Clearance the entire time she was in the White House!!
So how could she be involved in Foreign POLICY issues? Also, I would like to know just how she "crossed the threshold to Commander and Chief". She would have had to have a TOP SECRET SECURTY CLEARANCE. She had NO security clearance, Period! And those are just the tip of the iceberg to the extent she has deceived American voters. Her supporters do not bother to find facts, they just believe everything Hillary tells them and repeat after her. Just look at how, on these comments, they repeat/parrot everything she says as the TRUTH. Very sad, indeed.

I would say THE MOST POWERFUL WOMAN IN POLITICS, MS. PELOSI, HAS IT RIGHT! I would say the THE MOST WANNABE POWERFUL WOMAN IN POLITICS, MRS. CLINTON, HAS IT ALL WRONG.

The democrat election processes have been in place for decades; now because they are not going Clinton's way, she wants them changed. Same goes for the DNC rules, she agreed to them, just as the rest of the candidates did; now because things aren't going her way, she wants them changed 18 full months after she agreed to them!! Bottom line, it is Clinton's way or no way!! She does not play by the rules when they are not in her favor. Guess Hillary never grew up emotionally, she behaves like the bully in elementary school. And guess what? NO ONE LIKES A BULLY AND NO ONE TRUSTS A BULLY. A bully uses intimidation and lies, and that is what Hillary is using.

As usual, Sen. Clinton's answer makes NO sense!

She just keeps digging herself in deeper and deeper and deeper. Isn't it obvious by now that she cares more about winning the Presidency for herself than the good of America? Other democratic politicians never did well around the Clintons. They are doing their best to shove Barack aside too. But despite all their chattering, he is tougher than both of them. The Clintons have finally met their match.

Posted by: Duck Soup | Mar 14, 2008 10:43:46 PM
-------------
Hi Duck Soup. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. With the exception that "The Clintons have finally met their match". I would big to differ on that one. What the Clintons have finally met, is someone who actually is far more BRILLIANT, INTELLIGENT, AND HONEST POLITICAL SAVVY, than themselves. They have finally met someone who is GREATER than they are. And Hillary cannot stand it, she has gone into the depths of insanity in her rhetoric to the point where she does not make sense; continually contradicting herself! The entire world is watching and when Senator Obama is declared the nominee as a result of having won most states, most popular votes, most delegates and most superdelegates, Hillary will have to be carried off in a straight jacket!!

And NO, Hillary didn't sell me! As usual, she does NOT answer the questions directly...she runs around corners, crosses lawns, jumps over fences and she still does not give a direct answer, as you know. :)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

****************************************
From the Speaker of the House! The most powerful female democrat.

Finally the Democratic party is waking up! Good night Hillary, goodnight.

Just because people have virulent opinions, doesn't make them right.

But many Obama supporters are convinced that they are.

Your sense of reality is about as realistic as a Hollywood BlockBluster.

This is the danger of the pop-culture generation. You cannot differentiate between fiction and reality.

I am not saying you are stupid, but I am saying that you have quite a ways to go with developing your thinking and comprehension. You do not study comphrensive history. You do not even reason well. You jump to conclusions. You believe everything you hear. You judge and blame in an instant, without even knowing the true more accurate context. You live in a context of blame for the past and blindness to the true dynamics of the future.

Barack will never be able to beat McCain.

Hillary is a good woman, and she has not lied or changed her position any more than Barack.

She is our most qualified candidate and she is in the best position to beat McCain. She is a good woman.

You have positive eyes for Barack,
and negative ones for Hillary -
that does not mean that your eyes are not exaggerating either way.

I have watched Hillary through her whole career, I know those who love to hate are wrong. You're just being 'haters.'

Everyone is human. You ignore the human mistakes of Barack. He has made many. And dig up every last bit on Hillary - most of it are lies and rubbish. You are the ones who thrive on spewing hate and lies - acting like real monsters.

You are very scary indeed. But not in a powerful way. In a disatrous for our country kind of way.

p.s. I am highly educated, an Award-winning scholar. under 40, and I approve of this message.

I am leaving now to do work, so I won't be around to discuss these matter further with you. Please think about them - for the greater good.

I know lots of comited democrats who will vote mccain instead of a cheating clinton.

Almost as many as the racists who would never vote for Obama.

Its a huge mess fer sure

Hurricane Hillary is causing severe damage to the Democrat Party. Similar to the Clintons' mastery of "scorched earth" and "vise-grip" politics: if she doesn't get her nomination to the presidency Hurricane Hillary will spawn off whirlwinds of destruction with the anger and the perpetual fury the party have yet to witness. Katrina will look like the eye of the storm compared to the Clintons' wrath. Shore up and brace yourselves for the perfect storm Democrats!

Hillary can't even run a campaign. How could she run the country?

Thanks to "dl" for offering the suggestion that Obama supporters might vote for McCain over Clinton because they believe he is a more appealing character than Clinton. I'm not convinced that Obama himself would sympathise with them, but that is not the point, I suppose.

1) Neither candidate should have to explain the rules; the DNC should do that, since they wrote them. If that causes one candidate problems, tough.

2) The DNC should either admit it was foolish in its decision to strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates and pay for new primaries - or it should stick to the decision and just live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

3) The Democrats should forget caucasus and open primaries and just have closed primaries in every state.

You mean this is still being debated? Hope America isn't still thinking about voting for a racist, inexperienced candidate who hates the country. Send Barack and his divisive viewpoints back to Kenya.

No, absolutely unconvincing. So, you mean 800 people can change the will of millions of voters? What a shame, this is not democracy, but theocracy. Why don't we do that also at national level? People choose between Obama and Mac Cain, and then a Council of the Wise and Elderly (800 people) will decide if in fact people made the right choice. If Obama wins states, pledged delegates and popular vote, NO CHANCE that anybiody overturns this. This is the end of the Democratic Party.

There you all go again, slicing and dicing the American people. We are all one people!

Sen. Clinton does herself, the Democratic Party, the individual states, and the United States a disservice by acting as if the pledged delegates from caucus states aren't representative because they are "small."

The House and Senate are "small" when you consider the population of the U.S.

It was certainly a "small" Second Continental Congress that met in Philadelphia in 1776 and declared our independence. Are these "small" delegates inconsequential?

Not at all. It just shows that she is absolutely dedicated to a process which is top-down, as opposed to bottom up.

As usual, she is deadset AGAINST the will of the people.

Nothing new.

Matt

If Hillary is nominated, progressives and most independents will not even vote in November, and McCain will win the general election.

Not that it matters. Her politics are more aligned with McCain's than with the Democratic Party. She'd be a perfect fpick for his VP.

I'd be happy to take Hillary to the UK with me... Thankyou so much for offering. In the UK, we actually vote our leaders on experience... We vote our leaders because they tell us exactly what they will do and how they will do it. We used your logic once... When we voted for Tony Blair... Sure, he was bright, charismatic, and promised change and restructuring... What did we get instead? a war, amongst other things which slowly began to rise to the surface after we voted him. Believe me... We are more experienced to cast our judgement than most of you seem to be... You forget that we have been electing prime ministers for twice as long as you have.
Hillary would be a valid and welcome change for out country... And should be for yours too.

One more thing...
Obama supporters seem intent on pushing the idea of '20 years of bushes and clintons'...
Do you forget that it's 12 years of Bush and 8 of Clinton... How can you call it a 'dynasty'... She hasn't even won the nomination yet!

To nico, from the U. K. Take Hillary with you to the U.K. I'm sure you two will be perfect together.Win at any cost. rules be dammed.

Hillary is the status quo candidate and sold me nothing. The two party duopoly of Bush/Clinton has had a stranglehold on this nation for nigh on 20 years now.

Obama represents change, and an implicit threat, so she's pulling out all the stops to defeat him and to make her victory look legitimate in the eyes of democrats everywhere.. Even if it means lawyering the rules to ignore their collective will in favor of "party insiders" with whom her and bill are very close.

Frankly, she's the cover up candidate. The establishment needs someone to cover and conceal the crimes of GHWB, her husband and (especially) little Emperor Georgie.

(And Boy, does he need help! A little digging and he might join the Henry Kissinger "There's places I can't go.." Travel Club!)

Her run and her support is much more about conserving the status quo and protecting vested interests than it is about reform, or even concern, about the ills visited upon us for the last 20 years.

Expect to hear more tortured denials and warped logic in the weeks to come as she continues to advocate a Hillary Presidency by any means necessary.

Also expect a chorus of support as vested interests pile on to preserve the last ring of the Bush/Clinton traveling circus.

I'm curious.
Are Obama supporters so bitter that they are willing to give power to the republicans should Obama lose the eventual nomination? If this is the case... And you decide not to vote at all, or vote republican... Then shame on you! There is no evidence that Clinton supporters would do the same. You say Hillary is selfish? She has been democratic in answering the question of the 'joint ticket' and I agree that, due to how tight the race is, that she is perfectly qualified to say such a thing. That is democratic! Obama has flat out rejected the suggestion... Surely this makes Obama look even MORE selfish and secular than Clinton?

I'm not American, I'm actually from the UK, but if I did get the chance to vote in the election, I'd be sincerely worried about voting for Obama should he win... Based on the fact that the majority of his voters are quite willing to sell the party to the republicans should Obama not win. Shame on you, you are not democratic at all

if the democratic party is so fragile that it can't take the sparring of two candidates without imploding, then there isn't much there. We should stop demonizing either side and just be able to have a spirited debate about what is best for the part and the nation. Neither Hillary nor Obama is the unmitigated disaster that these flame wars suggest. Likening Hillary to a republican is idiotic. And a dual ticket would probably best the best thing overall (regardless of who gets the top spot).
Let's just get on with it.

If hillary thinks caucuses are undemocratic and unrepresentative of the will of the voters -- a bit of illogic that overlooks the fact that voters participate in them -- then she shouldn't have worked so hard to win the Iowa caucuses. Just goes to show that people are in favor of things when those things work for them, and against things when those things work against them.

Sounds like clintonism itself.

She's a lost soul and thinks we are idiots. Can she hear herself, what's she saying?

Presidential material?

The obvious thing is that she'd be spinning this thing about the superdelegates exactly the opposite way if that is what benefited her.

IT LOOKS LIKE HILLARY WANTS TO FOLLOW THE RULES. SO I SAY SHE FOLLOWS THE RULES SET FORTH BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! NO DO OVERS NO SEAT AT THE CONVENTION. SHE SAID SHE WANTS TO FOLLOW THE RULES! "Clinton: I think that, you know, we are we are following what it was determined to be an appropriate process for picking a nominee." OR IS THAT ONLY WHEN IT HELPS HE. If i were Obama i would be very careful or he too could end up in fort mary park.............
Hillary CLinton is a PURE FASCIST.

Sooooooo, she criticized "party activists" who are regular voters and called them "unrepresentative of the electorate," yet she considers the "party activist" superdelegates to be representative?

No, no sell. We're tired of double-speak and attempts at political stunts.

I'm for Hillary and darn sick of reading opposition trash. She is one of the great minds of our times and is in place to support the party, which ever way it goes. Dems need to come together, because Obama and Hillary are closer to friends than arch enemies. You all are hurting Obama by trashing Sen. Clinton.

Fredrika,

I agree with what you say about being a real feminist. I have no intention of voting for Hillary - who I completely distrust - just because I'm a woman. That would be stupid and that is what Hillary is counting on. The way she treated the women her husband accosted was enough for me to see what she's all about. The fact that she gets so much of the women's vote is mind boggling and sadly in a way proves Hillary's point - there are plenty of stupid voters.

NEWS FLASH:

1. For those who talk of the good of the party, didn't democrats lose the House and Senate under Clinton's two terms?

2. Didn't Obama recently endorse and campaign for democrat Bill Foster who won a House seat in a republican district over Jim Oberweis? They're calling this a "political earthquake".

3. Can anyone explain how the logic of seating Florida and Michigan is following party rules?

4. Did you know that the DNC is a private company and not a federal public venture?

5. Did anyone hear McCain say he wanted to end the war swiftly and include everybody in uplifting the nation? He did say this in the speech he gave when he won the required delegates. So, he's speaking to Obama supporters there. He even said he wanted McCain-democrats.

6. Telling people they are not really for the party if they don't vote for Hillary, or choose McCain instead, could be rephrased thusly:

If people are not really for the party, how can the party or Hillary motivate people to vote for her, OR HER PARTY, regardless of the nominee?

In addition to brains and experience, a leader (or a party) has to be able to communicate a vision and rally support. Right?

These three candidates are very impressive.

Uh no. Voting for Hillary would mean a slow death for the nation whereas McCain would destroy us fast and clean. I'll go with fast and clean.

Hillary is a republican. A lying, pandering, power-mad, rule breaking, kleptocrat who doesn't give a damn about anyone other than herself. If you don't get that - you deserve the government and nation that will result.

A real feminist supports the best CANDIDATE for the job. Not the only WOMAN for the job. Seriously, the 1st and 2nd wave dinosaurs are just destroying any credibility they had with younger women by acting exactly like Evangelical Christian republicans - supporting their identity politics at the nation's expense.

Can someone please explain to me why the democratic party is letting Bill and Hillary bully them around. We really are the party of wimps. No wonder we can't get anything done. If they can't handle Hillary then I'm sure they can't handle Karl Rove. I'm so thoroughly disgusted and disheartened I can't even tell you. Where's Pelosi? Where's Edwards? Where's Gore? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. She is making it impossible for him to win in the general, and we all know she can't win so what is going on here. At this pt congressional seats are becoming at risk because one woman wants the presidency so badly that she will destroy the party to get there and the rest of the party is sitting around twittling their thumbs while she does it!
If Hillary wins I will gladly campaign for McCain afterall he is the "more experienced candidate"

for a decade or more the right wingers have hated Hillary. One of the things they say it that this woman will do ANYTHING to get power. I always used to dismiss them as propogandists, but recently I have had the horrific realization that it appears they were right about this all along.
She is tearing the Democratic Party in 2, and if she steals the nomination it will be devastating to the party, and we will be looking at a republican president come 2009.
We already had one election stolen from us in 2000, let's not let it happen again in the democratic primaries. We all need to rally around Obama, the rightful democratic candidate.

Here's what super delegates are for,

"Democrats created the superdelegate slots to avoid politically ill-advised nominees, not to arbitrate between two popular choices."

Clinton and Obama are both deserving, strong contenders, and they both come with their own set of risks.

Politically ill-advised nominees? Ralph Nader and Ron Paul come to mind, though both have compelling principles they seek to advance. So I'm not knocking them in total.

It's curious to note that the super delegate creation, in reaction to Humphrey's failed bid in the 1968 general election (the whole smoke-filled room thing wherein party bosses made him the nominee), produced a more open process of designating super delegates (senators and the like instead of smoke-filled rooms). But this more open super delegate structure is also blamed for two of the worst loses in history--McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1980. Go figure. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

In all, the role of super delegates seems like a dressed up version of the smoke-filled room version. I haven't come across an affirmative case of the super delegates making a winning difference. But I'm still looking. Any links are appreciated.

It's also rare that such a prolonged campaign produces a nominee that wins the general.

I don't like it when they say democrats are like a circular firing squad, but....

I'm longing for Al Gore, don't know why but I am.

Jeanine,

You're so right. Hillary thinks we are stupid. Lauren, a Hillary supporter, agrees. She just posted "the reason why we have superdelegates is that we got tired of losing to the Republicans"

I remember Bill saying - when there was a surplus - that he couldn't give it back to the taxpayers because we wouldn't know what to do with it. So...we were in effect overcharged but not deserving of the refund.

So Obama has some problems now but this arrogant attitude doesn't seem to be one of them.

Hillary will pander to the Latinos in every way possible....unless one of them opposes her and/or gets uppity and runs against her. If that happens I hope the poor person battens down the hatches because Hillary will let lose a barrage of the results of "opposition research" .....just like she's doing to Obama.

"The reason why we have Superdelegates is because we got tired of losing to the Republicans."

Indeed. And if the superdelegates overturn the will of the rank-and-file, particularly under the suggestion that they are somehow "wiser" than them, this party will be devastated for a generation, maybe more. That's an entire generation of Republican victories.

So if the superdelegates are tired of losing to Republicans, they better not capitulate to the Clinton arm-twisting -- or else.

Of course she didn't sell me, I tend to think for myself. Senator Clinton is from the old school, she believes that the American people are stupid.

There are only two kinds of delegates, pledged delegates and superdelegates. Unless you want to break out the 76 add-on delegates that are included in the 796 superdelegates.

What Hillary is trying to do is separate out the caucus delegates from the primary delegates because she's hoping that when all is said and done, she might have a lead in primary pledged delegates. Barack has won virtually all of the caucus states, so she wants to pull those delegates out of the pledged delegates total. That way she would be able to say, "Hey, look, I'm leading in this category."

Hillary is beyond being a mere embarrassment to the Democratic Party. She has now become a national disgrace.

Considering that Mr. Obama is leading in popular vote, delegate count and most states won, I don't see a scenario where the super delegates would vote overwhelmingly for Mrs. Clinton. She already has approximately a 30 vote lead with the supers delegates. I wouldn't expect that to change in her favor before the June primaries.

By the way, If a super delegate decides to vote the will of its constituency (That is to say he or she will vote according to popular vote), wouldn't that be the same as a super delegate voting his or her conscience? After all, a super delegate is allowed to vote anyway he or she chooses.

In other words, if a super delegate votes for Obama because he won the popular vote in a particular congressional district, isn't justifiable for the Clinton camp?

Lauren, regarding Hillary's "Well, you know..." statements:

It's the way she says it. Even when I supported her, I was always unnerved and knew whatever she was about to say was compromised.

I'm not saying that everyone who says those words is lying.

But I am saying that honesty counts. It would be a breath of fresh air for her to go off script and tell the truth. It's not like it isn't obvious.

I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I know how it feels when my candidate is down or misunderstood. All the candidates are qualified and at the same time flawed.

Sometimes this feels like a battle of principalities.

Lauren, I wish you the best whichever way this contest goes. Whichever candidate wins the general, they will certainly face an invigorated and more participatory electorate. It's a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.

Take care.

Did she convince me? Definitely not.

Note that she cited the rules, "and that's what we're following."

The rules for Michigan and Florida are quite clear. Yet our Shillary want to scrap those because she sees doing so to her advantage.

There is an illogic at work here, ad the shrill one is a master at it.

Gee, Karen -

I know a lot of people who say "Well, you know," and then don't lie. Myself included.

And nothing Hillary said in these statements was a lie.

You are just being prejudiced against Hillary.

No, she did not sell it to me, because her argument in favor of super delegates is the same as the argument for caucus/pledged delegates--the activists of the party but less representative. Only, she disparages caucus/pledged delegates and esteems super delegates.

Then she goes on to talk about tradition and rules being the appropriate way to follow a process and determine the nominee. But if she says this out loud a few times, she'll realize she's making an argument against Florida and Michigan who threw tradition out the window and broke the rules by jumping the primary calendar date.

And, also, when she begins any statement with, "Well, you know," it's a cue that she's about to lie.

I'd rather she just say, "I'm trying to win this by seating Florida and Michigan, along with having super delegates vote for me." There, was that so hard?

The Superdelegates are the experts of the party. They are there to pick the nominee who has the most votes and is most likely to win against the Republicans.

The reason why we have Superdelegates is because we got tired of losing to the Republicans.

Yes, too often - too many of the peoples did not pick the Democratic candidate strong enough to win against the Republican candidate.

Hillary is better positioned to beat McCain than Barack. The Republicans will portray him as an 'inexperienced anti-war liberal,' and even though he's renounced them, his relations and association with Rezko and this pastor may just serve to seal his unelectability. The Republicans will use the pastors remarks, and Michelle's remarks about the first time she's been proud of being an American; they will use the images of Barack without his hand on his heart - this is they type of stuff that makes Republicans giddy and gleeful.

You have to be realistic about the rest of the country. How likely do you think it is that a country where the majority last voted for Bush, would vote for Barack after the Republicans get done with him?

He's already started to go down in national numbers against McCain. Hillary's the one most qualifed to help the economy. She is a good woman - not all the smears - paranoid people like to believe. The reality is much more ordinary. But she is extremely qualified and knowledgeable. I have watched her through her whole career.
The first Clinton administration was the most socio-economically successful we've ever had. Hillary's the one who's in the best position to beat McCain.

Hahahahahaha

Senator Liar hasn't convinced me of anything.

I used cnnpolitics.com figures and tallied ONLY the primary delegates.

Obama: 1098
Clinton: 1080

Actually, both Will and Mary are wrong about the popular vote totals.
Totals (w/out FL or MI):
Obama:13,281,132 (49.5%)
Clinton:12,577,409 (46.9%)

Totals (w/FL):
Obama:13,857,346 (48.5%)
Clinton:13,448,395 (47.1%)

Totals (w/FL and MI, where Obama wasn't on the ballot):
Obama:13,857,346 (47.5%)
Clinton:13,776,704 (47.3%)

Conclusion: No popular vote total places Clinton ahead of Obama, even if MI, where only Clinton received votes, is included. Where are these other people getting their information? The numbers I posted came from realclearpolitics.com today

She just keeps digging herself in deeper and deeper and deeper. Isn't it obvious by now that she cares more about winning the Presidency for herself than the good of America? Other democratic politicians never did well around the Clintons. They are doing their best to shove Barack aside too. But despite all their chattering, he is tougher than both of them. The Clintons have finally met their match.

One of the many problems with her argument is that she makes caucus delegates second-class delegates. My state does caucuses. I did not have a choice to participate in a primary to get a delegate, I had the choice to participate in how my state handles selecting delegates, or... not! It is a terrible thing to put down how some states chooses delegates over others. BTW, I'm 34, my folks are older and it was our first caucus. We have always lived in primary states (like CA). Tell you what, caucuses are WAY more fun! WA state, just a 20 min drive from me, also does caucuses and they do it as a form of party unity. It's fun to get together for an hour with your neighbors and see where everyone stands (literally and figuratively) and another plus is that you get the results right away. It felt great to see 1200 democrats in one room in this red-state red-neck county. I had no idea there were so many of us dems, so it was really great and empowering from a party stand point. For her to dismiss that and put down our delegates is not good leadership. BTW2: 200 people stood for Hillary and 1,000 people stood up in north Idaho for a black man to be president. It was a powerful and I was really proud of this area. It's a big deal here and shouldn't be put down. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, thanks for the article.

oh..if it were only as easy as

"If you wanna vote for Hillary...raise your hand"
"If you want Obama ..raise your hand"

The super delagates are here for this very reason, so It baffles me that people get upset by the fact that the Super delagestes votes might count. This race is really too close to say THE VAST MAJORITY LOVE OBAMA.WE WONT VOTE IF THE SUPERS PICK HILLARY!!!
Thats just not the truth. Its about half and half. Let the delagates do their jobs.Frankly...they all scare the crap out of me.

It is imperative that we as a nation embrace the winds of change and Hillary represents the complacency of the elite and status quo!

In other words, Hillary, you're willing to say or do anything to win. Like we've always known.

Hillary Clinton IS a monster. She's possibly the most destructive force within the Democratic Party since Joe Lieberman.

she didnt make the rules peoples funny how it was not even said in this piece that master o doesnt have enough del either? no

A alley cat has more morals then the Clintons. Power and money are all they care about. I would vote for a member of the mafia before the Clintons.

Hillary doesnt need to sell anyone on the process, thats not her decision. What she needs to sell the american people on, is the issues that matter. Ask Obama straight forward questions on key issues, like health care, and he side steps the issue. He has no real plan. He has "hope". Hillary has a detailed plan and the experience to back it.

I fail to understand the female vote for Clinton. She was ready to trash Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky (but for the famous blue dress) in the Clintonian quest for political power. I was an original Hillary fan and supporter of the idea that she could have succeeded Bill in the office. Now,I am weary of the Clinton scandals and the double speak. I would love to able to vote for someone whose only scandals were his association with Rezko (who also raised money for the Clintons) and a minister whose words have already been disavowed by Obama. The inside joke of the Clinton campaign is that she is capable of returning more times than Freddie Kreuger.

... because many of them are long time elected officials long time party activists who can exercise independent judgment...

How much INDEPENDENT judgement can you expect from "long time elected officials and PARTY activists?

Independent means NO affiliation with a party in my mind. Hillary is an elitist.

"But she has my sincere admiration in one respect: she never gives up."

That's right, Ernie of Bayside. She never gives up. Nor should she. Lets take this to the convention, and may the best man, or woman, win.

We finally get large numbers of young people participating in the election and they are told that their work and vote don't count? This could set the Democratic Party back for a generation.

"You know, caucuses are small not particularly representative. … Superdelegates, so called, are in the process because …"

So, caucuses are not OK because they are not representive, but the superdelegates are OK. Yes, Clinton sold me the Brooklyn Bridge.

for all its worth,the clintons are for thenselves and the high dollar, hillary is all about the power in office, for after all bill and his cigar in the white house, and the woman he said he never had sex with.. what woman would go for all that, if she was not a loose woman her self..so 1+1=2 timing people for office.. God help us if this country of ours is crazy enough to elect her or mccain..PEOPLE DON'T YOU THINK ITS HIGH TIME WE HAD ENOUGH OF THE BUSHES AND CLINTONS? IF AMERICANS DON'T GO OUT AND VOTE TO ELECT BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.. THEN AS A FIRST TIME VOTER AND 54 YRS OLD..I SURELY TELL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..YOU DESERVE WHAT EVER COMES YOUR WAY OF HARDSHIP..FOR YOU SURELY WILL HAVE YOUR FILL..

If one claims that the caucuses are not representative of the electorate, then how can one suggest the superdelegates are?

You can't have it both ways.

In her opening statement (notice the rhetorical "we all know") Hillary is getting into higher metaphysics by telling us there are caucus delegates and primary delegates. No such distinction exists as far as the DNC is concerned. A delegate is a delegate is a delegate. One delegate, one vote.

What she is trying to do is undermine the fact the Obama won significantly more delegates in caucus based elections than she did, and therefore she is trying to demote their value. If she pulls this stunt at the convention they might jus