Political Punch

Chris,

I know you're scared they are going to seat those states, however the Obama campaign pundits, and media should never have pissed off all the women voters who support Hillary. Probably that was a big mistake. Pissing off a large group of women is never a good thing. lol. As for Obama winning over voters....ummmm...probably he's not going to be winning anymore voters at this stage of the game. More like losing them at this point. Whereas Hillary has such a strong base all in the right places that it's going to be very difficult to beat her.

I thought Hillary's mantra is: "Count Every Vote." If that is the case, why doesn't she want to count the votes of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming? They all voted by caucus and, they voted for Obama. Could that be the reason she DOES NOT want every vote to count?

I thought Hillary's mantra is: "Count Every Vote." I that is the case, why doesn't she want to count the votes of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming? They all voted by caucus and, they voted for Obama. Could that be the reason she DOES NOT want every vote to count?

Who's good for the country
should be decided based
upon who the smart people
voted for. Smart people
did not vote for her.

YES, absolutely, and unfortunately.

The 2008 Presidential Election was being handed to the Democratic Party on a silver platter even as far back as 2007.

Typical of their inability to win the White House... the Democratic Party threw BOTH Clinton and Obama in the same ring to batlle it out! What they should have done is forge ahead with the Clinton candidacy to win versus McCain, and have Obama as VP, in the best position to take over... for a 16 year run.

Instead, they have a limping Obama, dragging himself to November, with a guaranteed LOSS to McCain.

She lost this nomination because
she is self-serving, doesn't
stand for anything good, has no
regard for rules, laws and legal
agreements - and she is
exceedingly incompetent.

Why superdelegates? Consult
astrologers or flip a coin
to decide who's more electable.

Maybe both the Hillary and the Obama supports have it wrong -- maybe the primary and caucus results are telling us that neither of the candidates is electable. All those rules experts -- is it possible to nominate a third person at the convention? Someone who didn't participate in the primaries at all?

jlynee writes: "If there were a 100% chance Hillary would win and a 100% chance Obama would lose, would you still put Obama on the ticket because the rules say to?"

Yes, I would. Absolutely. Because you're right, the superdelegates are in place to reduce the risk that a popular doomed candidate receives the nomination.

So I would follow the rules and let the superdelegates stop him.

What I would not do is steal the election from him and give it to Hillary by changing the agreed-upon rules in the middle of the game just because I don't like who's winning.

Don't like it? Fix it in 2012.

And, may I add, it is truly sad to see people who claim to be feminists invoking the civil right movement, the suffrage movement, and civil disobedience in the cause of a single hugely-powerful woman's right to arbitrarily change rules THAT SHE AGREED UPON once those rules were no longer to her advantage.

I do not believe a bra was ever burned for such a purpose.

jlynn 12:26:55pm...Amen.

Martin Luther King Jr didn't follow the rules or obey the laws -- and he was a great leader.

Susan B. Anthony didn't follow the rules or obey the laws -- and she was a great leader.

The rules are not the end all and the be all of this process. If you truly believe this country is in a crisis because of the Bush administration -- then surely the stakes are high enough to warrant a frank discussion about electability.

If there were a 100% chance Hillary would win and a 100% chance Obama would lose, would you still put Obama on the ticket because the rules say to? If not, then the party leaders have some discretion to act in accordance with both the party's and the nation's best interests. That is why the superdelegate system was put in place --to mitigate the damage done to the party by a caucus/primary process that led to an overwhelming and embarassing general election loss.

Many people refuse to take the threats of Hillary supporters seriously. They dismiss these women as being overly emotional -- or so terrified of losing their right to choose they will fall in line bcause they have to. They ignore the significant policy differences between Obama and Hillary -- and they ignore the fact that the blue dog or conservative wing of the democratic party can and does vote Republican in presidential elections. I think this is a huge mistake.

Hillary supporters are the women who fought for the right to vote. Hillary supporters are the women who burned their bras and fought for the right to work and to earn a living wage. Hillary supporters are the malcontents who brought about the social changes in the 60s and 70s that have so greatly benefited the young Obama supporters. Hillary supporters are the women who learned that the more someone tells you to sit down and shut up the more you have to fight for your rights. If there is any group of people out there who is likely to follow through on its threat, its this group of people.

I can't imagine why any candidate would allow this group of people to be labeled uneducated bigots or dismiss their importance to not only the democratic party but to American society but that is what has happened.

Clinton is electable only
in dumbed-down states
like Arkansas.

After BO get used to Washington, he would change himself so fast that you see him no more. He is the least qualified of the three. With his credential running for CEO, he would be the first one to show the exit.

Money can't buy election as the Pennsylvania primary told us. Votes could not be bought to win. He is going to loss most of his caucus states, MI, FL, OH, Texas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona and even New York and California are in danger.

And your point is? Same as usual, Clinto is more electable I assume. The Rev. Wright issue was blown WAY out of proportion, but I've long since given up on trying to debate that issue with people. Too many feet stuck in the mud.

New Politics:

The half seated delegates is clearly stated in the DNC rules, and was present at the time that Hillary signed the pledge with the rest of the candidates. It seems people are awfully confused about what is fair. Just because Hillary is moving the goal posts, doesn't make seating delegates a fair solution. That would be fair to Hillary and Hillary only.

Obama hasn't once raised the race card. I wish you people would stop and think for yourselves, or better yet, back up your arguments with examples and facts.

Polls, polls, polls. Maybe Clinton should try to get the DNC rules changed for 2012 so that polls determine the nominee. It would save us all a lot of time and money.

All this talk about Hillary being divisive, it's the Obamaites that are touting that line.
I can't imagine any candidate that the Blacks split 90:10 can be anybody but divisive for America as a whole.
Obama has done more than anyone else to make race an issue to help him win.
We will be fielding the weak-don't know his American history/foreign policy/economics-confabulator-candidate to run against McCain by sidelining the best Democratic candidate to come along in a decade.
Obama’s antics over the past months and his complete distortion of Hillary’s remarks re:RFK leave a very bitter taste in my mouth, that will not be washed away by November.

Hill the Bosnin General must understand that there was a competition and she has lost that competition through vote and caucus. Nowhere any official is elected or chosen because of poll numbers. She cannot take away Obama's clean and strategic victory. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

this is the kind of math that has always made Hillary supporters skeptical and uneasy about BO and the Dems club :
"In the Texas primary on March 4, Clinton won by a margin of 100,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. For that victory, Clinton was awarded 65 delegates while Obama got 61. Then , on election night, according to the Texas democratic Party, nearly 1 million Democrats - many of whom had already voted in that day's primary - gathered in party caucuses. We don't know how many came down on either side, but we know that more came out for Obama than for Clinton. For that, Obama was awarded 38 delegates to Clinton's 29.

Put them together, and Obama left Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton's 94 - even though Clinton handily won the contest in which votes were actually counted.

In Idaho, about 21 000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. for that, he won 15 delegates to 3 for Clinton - a net gain of 12 delegates .
In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 - a net gain of 11 delegates." (article by Byron York).

This kind of maths come from the rules of DNC.

Sure go by the rules and you just walk out the door, because that's the kind of rules that they want everyone to accept.
Why don't they say from the beginning : we have already figured out the whole thing. The voters just have to go out for a little tour to make sure the whole race looks democratic. Is this the kind of hope and change that awaits America?

Unfortunately, if Hillary wins the nomination, and wins the Presidency, she will be extremely divisive. Much more so than either McCain or Obama. Less than Bush II. Being a realist, I don't think that Obama is going to solve all the nation's problems. Bill's recent comments have made me reevaluate my view on him and his legacy, which is sad. I finally can see why Republicans hated him. It is still really early for any poll to accurately predict what people will vote this coming November. If you recall, Bush I was extremely popular during Gulf War I, but became extremely unpopular during early 90's recession. Bush II, was obviously popular enough to win 2004 election [caveat: Ohio]. Things change. Hillary is allowed her own degree of puffery but has to be accountable for her own words.

HRC suffers from Chronic
Scatterbrain Disorder.
She's unfit for the job.

rosietheriveter,

how do you feel about sexual harrasement in the work place ?

I recall, early in the campaign season, that Bill Clinton said that if McCain ran against Hillary, it would be an extremely civil contest as they respected each other. Wouldn't that be nice, for a "change?" .... (sigh)

Contrary to wishful thinking, many of Clinton's supporters simply do not see O as qualified. We are all entitled to our opinion. On the other hand, there will certainly be protest votes from women who support Hillary and now feel betrayed by the dem party who will cast a vote for McCain. Ever hear of a women scorned? Hang on to your shorts, O supporters. We've got a movement of our own!

Hotair,

I laugh myself. Thanks.

Lots of people said it, she is the stronger one .
DNC doesn't believe it.
Maybe Pelosi and the gangs think they can train him to become stronger.
What...?? go to the gym?

Questioner, I just don't see Pro-Choice Democratic women voting for Sen. McCain. They certainly won't boycott and not vote since that would mean Sen. McCain will win in the general election. So those women who would be upset that Sen. Clinton didn't win the nomination will still vote for Sen. Obama.

SandyB, I chose to concentrate on the African-American electorate because they are voting 90% plus in favor of Sen. Obama. If 50% of that block does not vote for the Democratic candidate that will likely mean a Democratic defeat in November. However, my analysis does not take into account the possibility that Sen. Clinton would select Sen. Obama to be her running mate. That would change everything. While I am sure that Sen. Obama would be tempted to not accept the VP nomination, there is no way that he would turn it down.

However, while Sen. Obama, should he be the nominee, might consider selecting Sen. Clinton to be his running mate to unite the Democratic Party, I think that is now less likely to happen. I believe Sen. Obama would want to have nothing more to do with the Clintons. Besides, I don't believe Sen. Clinton would accept the offer anyway. She has been number two for too long. (NOTE: I mentioned this over a week ago, Sen. Clinton could offer her support on a promise that should Sen. Obama win the general election that he would make her his first nomination to the Supreme Court, should an opening occur. That would also change everything.)

Now as for the Hispanic vote, while they traditionally vote Democratic, they aren't anywhere near as united behind the Democratic party. Besides, in all likelihood that will not change in this election -- whether the Democratic nominee is Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton. While they may be voting more for Sen. Clinton in the primaries, they don't appear to have the emotional tie that African-Americans have for Sen. Obama or even women have for Sen. Clinton.

Why is the media only mention HRC wants to change the rule on FL and MI, but not Obama. Both want the delegates to be seated, so they both change the rule (DNC ruled that no FL & MI delegates to be seated at the convention originally). They both agree to seat the delegates. The only disagreement is HOW. Should we just seat the delegates, and skip the results from the primaries? This not only changes the rule, but changes the fundamental of democracy. I assume DNC recognizes this, and comes up with half delegate and half vote. That's very problematic, you can't count people's votes as halves. If I remember correctly, African American used to be counted as 3/7 of a vote during the slavery time. Now, we want to treat people from the 2 states as half citizen? Should we give credit to DNC that they allow these people to be counted as 1/2, a little better than the slaves?

if sen. clinton were the nominee, the aa community would comeback and support her-they were supporting her in the beginning, when they were still asking barack who? because they will see as in the beginning-sen. clinton' understanding of the issues, and how to solve them will help them.
on the other hand the core of sen. clinton' supporters may not be so inclined to go with obama, because so much of what we know of him now, makes him a big question mark as to if he has the real will to do what is needed for the country.
it really is a shame and almost sureal
this man has just about become th dem. party nominee for president, and so many lifelong dems still don't know what obama stands for, and what kind of hope and change he plans to bring.
i think if he is the nominee between july and nov. after really listening (and not drooling and swooning) closely to what he is saying, there will be a lot of disappointed dem. because it will come crystal clear by voting time,
we backed the wrong person.

mr. richard,
i understand what sen. clinton said about the polls, and believe she meant the most recent polls, and not EVERY
poll.-if you are trying to say she meant every poll that has every been taken.

well hank,
i agree with you, it does seem the real goal of the dnc,with the help of the msm' goal was to beat sen. clinton.
i will concede that, and they have succeeded.
but in doing so they have lost the white house and failed to help set the country back on the right track again.
but i do not see how it was such an achievement-obama had the msm, and all the dem bigwigs pulling for him, really not thinking about the average voters but their own gain.
so for me it is not with strength that obama has beaten sen. clinton, but with a lot of help. now sen. clinton having survived this long, with the deck stacked against her, that takes a lot of internal strength and fortitude, and a good ability to keep your own counsel when everyone around you are saying otherwise. and that is what is needed in a president during this time.
everyday obama is proving how inexperienced and possibly ineffective he will be as president, and everyone is willing to over look that or make excuses for it, and HOPE something will CHANGE, and he will become the person he has convienced so many people that he is.
if you will remember everyone was in awe of the powerful karl rove and how well run and orchestrated the bush campaign team was.
a great campaign run for bush, with all of the red flags beginning to show, but the train had left the station, and in the end the american people have suffered.

In Montana Hillary said she is the strongest candidate and "every poll that has been taken" proves it.

Wow! Every poll ever taken, ever? Well if Hillary said it then it just must be the gospel truth.

Mr. Denley:

While I see the point you are making regarding the A-A vote in the general election, it doesn't appear that you have paid attention to the exit polls in the last few primaries, or to the other minority groups who make up a large portion of Democratic voters.

If I remember correctly (and my memory might not be perfect), 70 % of A-A voters in North Carolina (I believe it was)said that they would still vote for Hillary if she were the nominee and not Obama. On the other hand, I believe it was less than 50% of those that have voted for Hillary (women in particular), said they would vote for Obama, should Hillary not be the nominee.

I find it somewhat peculiar that you would look only at the attitude of the African-America Democratic voters and how they would react were Hillary the nominee and not Obama.

From what I have heard in the media and on these blogs, I wholeheartedly believe there is an extremely large percentage of Democratic WOMEN voters who would react just as strongly (if not more so), should Obama be the nominee rather than Hillary.

When you think about it, this has been an extraordinary primary race, with the two top Democratic contenders being members of two different, loyal, Democratic-voting minority groups, women and African-Americans. I think this is why the popular vote differential in this race is probably less than 1% by now, and the delegate race is almost as close. There has never been a primary race like this one: it has indeed been historic.

I personally feel both sides have a viable argument, as both candidates have received nearly half of the votes cast apiece. Granted Obama is ahead in delegates, but there have also been several factors that have figured into this race that did not occur in other election years, i.e., Michigan and Florida (and at this point I really don't care whose fault that was, it is STILL an unusual circumstance); the extra caucuses; the alleged media biases, etc. etc.

Strange too that the Hispanic voting block (also traditionally heavily Democratic for the most part, and who also tend to lean in favor of Hillary), was not mentioned in your post. If I'm not mistaken, Hispanics are now a larger percentage of the U.S. population than African-Americans. Therefore, I believe the DNC and the Super Delegates should also be devoting some of their concern to the potential of alienating this important traditionally Democratic voting group by whom they ultimately select as the candidate.

I just think that the DNC, whatever they decide to do, needs to take into account the feelings and attitudes of ALL Democratic minority voting blocks, and not just the African-Americans.

Hsank:

He hasn't beat her yet!

James Danley | May 28, 2008 10:15:39 PM:

On the other hand,

If B O is given the nomination, more than 50 percent of our Democratics will feel that he won unfairly in an election which was predtermined by a flawed DNC and a a blind-sided, pushy press.

In general, the feminine vote, which includes all ethnicities, obviously is the more perceptive of the Dems, and Will probably turn away from the party and embrace McCain.

Have we forgotten how incredibly STRONG Obama as the nominee will be?

As a young senator he was already able to beat THE WHOLE CLINTON FAMILY in the looong primary race. Their supporters still can't believe it actually happened, nor can the o so powerful establishment family itself.

An incredible achievement and an amazing show of political strength.

Obama is the strongest DEM candidate since Bill Clinton in a presidential race. Plus, he's a MOVEMENT, and a VERY large one.

sen. clinton is the stronger of the two to go up against mccain.
every objective minds knows it.
the dnc with the help of the msm are to blame for this.
and the dnc will be the blame in the fall when the dem. party loses the election.
it was always said the dems have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. so this is no different.

i think it is going to be another four years of upheaval for our country, with either obama or mccain.

people should have gone with the middle sen. clinton.
in the long run she would have been better for our country. black people and all.

I acknowledge that I have not read all of the previous posts. So I don't know if someone has already made the same point that I am about to make.

There is one tremendous flaw in the premise to Jake's question: "Are the Democrats about to nominate their weaker candidate?" That is now an irrelevant question. That's because the dynamics have changed.

If Sen. Clinton is now handed the nomination by the super delegates, most African-Americans will consider her as having stolen the nomination. Or more precisely, the Democrats will have robbed Sen. Obama of the nomination. So there will likely be a very large African-American boycott of the election. While I don't see a large percentage of African-Americans defecting and voting for Sen. McCain, there will probably be some defections. There will also probably be some who will go ahead and vote for Sen. Clinton. But the most likely scenario will be that at least 50% will just not vote for president. It is almost inconceivable that any Democrat can win the White House with at least 50% of the African-American electorate NOT voting for that Democratic candidate. (NOTE: And that doesn't even take into account any non-African-American Democrats who may boycott or defect.)

So even IF Sen. Clinton is technically the stronger of the two candidates, her defeat in the general election may already be sealed.

I believe that the super delegates will do what is best for our country. They would not be afraid to choose the STRONGER candidate - not a puppet like BHO.

Willlllbuuuurrr, Why do you refer to his state senate record? Why don't you compare the US Senate record of both?

HOTAIR; Thanks for the funny.

Barack Obama in New Mexico said: On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
Does Obama see dead people? Coming from Chicago, one might be tempted to joke that they would form a natural portion of his constituency, but obviously Obama confused this with Veterans Day

No matter what the experts say, the fact is Obama has earned the nomination by the agreed upon rules and deserves the chance to run. If the self-important decide not to vote for him and instead vote for more of the same horrible Bush-like leadership so be it. Fair is fair and he has earned the his chance at history.

Questioner:

You would be wrong to assume I was not aware of that slant on the story, but that is what it is. One way of looking at it. He was entrusted to work both sides of the aisle to move legislation along. That is what he did, successfully.

So, you trash his record, and you cite Hillary as a writer of legislation. Like what? The famed Clinton plan for...

Scan back, see how much I have trashed Hillary. I will give you a moment. Then go back and see how much I have trashed McCain. I will give you another moment.

Raise the bar on discussion here. Tell me something she accomplished. No matter how you slice Obama's Illinois record, you have to admit he got things done and reached across the aisle. Unlike the huge failure of Universal Health Care during the Clinton administration. That is not mud, just a fact.

Lightnin:

Do you believe that if you repeat a lie it will eventually become the truth? You have the wrong reference on Obama's great uncle, I pointed that out before, and rather than acknowledge your error you just reposted it.

Either you are stupid or you think everyone else is.

To Carl29:

Ross Perot did himself in by disappearing during the summer and leaving Bill and Bush to fight it out for themselves. At this point Perot lost his advantage.

Nice try though.

I believe that the super delegates will do what is best for our country. They will look at the polls and the maps and decide who can really beat McCain. Hillary 08

Will someone tell the Clinton's that this is an election and not a poll.

Elections win elections not polls.

As everyone knows Hillary led Obama by over 70% in the polls when all this first started.

Obama08

Allison:
Taking you at your word that you are who you claim to be, why not summarize Hillary's legislative accomplishments vs Obama's?

After all, Obama has supporters in both the Illinois legislature and the Senate who think highly of him. In fact, he has more Senate endorsements that Hillary. He has a Republican legislator in Illinois (legislator of the year, no less) who speaks highly of his reaching across the aisle to get things done.

So, show me the error in my ways of thinking he is every bit as accomplished as either McCain or Clinton in getting things done.

I am an educated African American woman. I am for Hillary Clinton 100%. I will not vote for Obama for any reason. He has no substance. If he wins he will be a disgrace to the black race. His inexperience and policies will take the country back 40 years. When Obama started this race he did'nt think he could win, he just wanted to get his name out there for a future run at the white house, but he got lucky because Clinton ran a bad campaign. If Hillary would have ran her whole campaign like she ran the last two months, she would be ahead in the delegate count, but that's not the case.

I'm stuck between staying home or voting for McCain.The only presidential candidate that I disliked more than Obama was Ronald Reagan....just listening to Reagan's voice made my stomach crawl....now, just looking at Obama makes my stomach crawl. I did'nt feel that way when Obama made his speech in 2004, but I feel that way now....Obama talks about doing things differently, but he is a politician just like all the other politicians, that's why he is now wearing a flag pin everyday. He is a hopemonger, he's fooling the American people. He has them duped because of their desperation to exist. He can only win because republicans have made a mess out of the last seven years. He can not win on his own merits because he does'nt have any merits, no record of legislative success, no evidence of economic understanding and no experience with playing on the foreign policy stage. Down with Obama.

I wish that Hillary can somehow turn the corner and find herself as the democratic nominee...say that I'm in denial but for me it's not over until it's over. Go Hillary. Lord save us...

The Dems are absolutely electing the weaker candidate. Obama is a fad. He is not JFK or MLK like so many delusionals think.

Hey Wilbur,

It would be so nice if Obama, the fraud, would quit paying his staff workers, like you, to try to misrepresent the truth on these blogs. Are you also a member of the bigot church he attended for twenty years. The one that inspired the many racist rants in his book, including the one in which he say, "The difference between a good white person and a bad white person is negligible. Sorry for the big words, I realize they strain your pee brain! I also loved his lie about his Uncle liberating Auschwitz! What a fake and complete fraud your boy is!

Ray:

WOW! Really, it is documented publicly? Care to share where you found that? Because actually, it is not. This is where you went from making stuff up to resorting to name calling.

In fact, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. Did you manage such an honor? Thought not. That is a FACT. Documented, provable from many sources, something you should familiarize yourself with.

Ray:

So Hillary's bona fides are better because her father could afford Wellesley?

We don't need another president born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth...

Ray:
No, a fact is something that you know to be true and can be supported by evidence.

You have no evidence to say that Obama was an affirmative action candidate, therefore your definition of 'fact' is quite different than what is in common usage in these United States.

Weaker is a relative term. Hillary's negatives in the other states, combined with the likelihood that 10 to 15 percent of the Democratic base will sit on it's hands in November if she wrestles the nomination from Obama, means she is no more, or less electable than Obama in those swing states.

The bigger question is whether she can put more states in play than Kerry or Gore did, who lost. The current wisdom is that she can't, she can carry the traditional Democratic states and lose.

Which might be a good thing...if you believe, as I do, that it's time to put to rest the Clinton/Bush dynasties.

Obama got into Harvard under affirmative action and now thinks he can do the same to become President!

Both Obama and his wife got into Harvard through affirmative action and that is a fact. Harvard still gives affirmative action based scholarships to those who could not cut the mustard otherwise!

As long as both democratic candidates are in the race, it is no surprise that their supporters will claim that they will vote for their candidate in the general election.
This won't change until the race is decided. Until then, all polls are moot.

As for money - Obama: many contributors, small donations; Clinton: medium number of contributors, medium to large donations; McCain: few contributors, large donations, swift boat veterans for truth. Go figure.

Meg, 5:44 post:

Do you think he had a normal, grade-based admission to Harvard? There are other possibilities.

Lightnin'

— Since 2005, Obama’s committees gave $228,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed him, $363,900 to those who were still undecided, and $102,400 to those who have endorsed Clinton.
–Clinton’s committee’s gave $95,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed her, $88,000 to those who were still neutral, and $12,500 to those who have endorsed Obama.

Hillary 08 :)....

I am glad about your article. I hope that it is not too late for Obama lover to recognize how overrated their candidate is.
He is really not that bright :).
Hillary may not be perfect (well she had her moments, :)) but she is definitely not stupid, but Obama's remarks are so illogical that make me think that Harvard should revise their admission requirements :).

Carlos Mencia wrote:
Gallup Analysis: Clinton Has Swing State Advantage, sounds interesting. If she wanted to win the nomination she should have planned past the first Super Tuesday, she should have found a way to raise more money & pay her debts, she should have taken the caucus & small states primaries serious. Finally, she should have kept her tongue in check.
You cannot change the rules of a game more than half way into that game. Things don't work that way, sorry.
-----------------------

How could anyone be expected to be prepared for this kind of horrible onslaught of personal attacks, propaganda from the MSM and the connivance of the Obama campaign and the DNC? Who could have predicted that Obama would use the same tactics as the Bush campaign did? The fact is, she shouldn't have NEEDED to be prepared for that kind of nastiness from another Democratic candidate.

As for the rules needing to be changed, the same thing goes. It may be too late to change them now, but they cirtainly do need to be changed after the election.

Ron | May 28, 2008 5:26:04 PM:

but but but but BUT SHE HASN'T LOST!!!!!

THE RACE IS STILL ON!

GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!!!

what ever...the fact is bho doesn't have enough delegates to lock this nomination.

The truth is what will take Obama down.
The truth is being be told.
People are listening.
I love it!

I'm going to supper!

Lightnin'

The Obama campaign stated about three weeks ago they planned to set aside $20 million to help elect the superdelegates. A few days later the DNC confirmed this. About three weeks ago the superdelegates starting going to Obama in doves. Is it a co-incidence or what? I call it buying the election.
-----------------------

Well, the DNC is low on money, you know. And, gee, I wonder why. Obama has most of the big money in his corner (like General Electric (which owns MSNBC, by the way, Exelon (Axelrod lobbied for them), and many oil companies), so he can certainly afford to buy the superdelegates and the DNC, too, if he feels he needs to.

Obama is a disgusting, shameless and power-mad person.

There is NO WAY I will vote for him. The more research I do on him, the more sickening lazineness and corruption I find. He's nothing but a con artist.

I understand the importance of voting Democratic. I've been a Democrat all my adult life. I vote that way because of the need to have a more liberal Supreme Court and good federal judges. But this time around is different. I can't support Obama and I can't support the DNC when they are using the same kinds of tactics the neocons have been using ever since Reagan became President.

I fear for my country at the hands of these delegates, superdelegates and Obama. I fear for the minorities and for the working class people.

Bill Clinton was right in what he said about this election race. It's been horrendous!

GO HILLARY!!!

Obama doesn’t know history and he doesn’t know that there are fifty states (as opposed to 57). He certainly represents change.

I guess BHO thinks this qualifies him to be commander in chief of his 57 states…how about the morons that will vote for him…

Maybe Obama WILL get the % of the vote that McGovern did, from these posts, it appears to me that a lot of people are TICKED OFF! That's a GOOD thing!

Lightnin'

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF only she would have won the nomination, but she didn't.

He doesn’t even know where he is (two towns lately he got wrong).

I wonder if all the excuses being given by the Obama-campaigning media because poor baby has been working so hard applying for a job he’s not qualified for, would also be given to over-worked medical personnel.

My oldest granddaughter graduates from 8th grade this year, and has decided to skip all further unnecessary stuff like high school, college, and so on, and plans to apply for a CEO job. All she has to do is have a huge group of enormously wealthy people buy the job for her, and there you go, she’s in!

0, how I want to see the CAVEMEN at MSNBC cry on Nov. 4th.

My-O-my…Hussein Obama’s pants are on fire again, again, again, again, and again!

Wilbur!

"I think very few of the supposed Hillary supporters on this site are actually Hillary supporters, they are just trying to divide Democrats. There are some Hillary supporters who are angry or disappointed that Hillary is not going to be the nominee, but they will lick their wounds and soldier on for the party. The others were not going to show up for the part at...."

How stupid do you have to be to go along with such a scenario?

answer:

V E R Y!!!

Well, here's one of those Hillary supporters who is not going to lick her wounds and sit idly by while sexists like you and cretins like YOUR followers wait for us to "fall in line"....
GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!!!

At last, Obama has named his “crazy uncle in the attic.”

Obama lied the second time about his uncle

1st. In West Virginia a few weeks ago, Obama said his grandfather enlisted the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which was December, 1941. [Charleston Gazette (West Virginia) April 8, 2008, Tuesday, available on Lexis.com]“My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.”

2nd “I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,”

bho will be a president who will mislead our nations, as his mislead about his family history. So, please stop him!