Political Punch

to Roland S Martin,
You are right, and I insist that this is the fight for nomination but the whole deal is about who is the most viable when it comes to taking back the White House to the Dems. That's why HC should not be pushed out for many reasons. BO and his supporters try to push her out, HC and her supporters resist, that's fair politics but stop throwing the negative about her, sound like republican anti-Clinton machine at work.
I came to conclude about left wing conspiracy, after reading Matt Bai informative analysis "Mr Triangulation" and David D. Kirkpatrick's 'When Hillary Runs Some Old Foes stand on the Sidelines." (New york Times webpage on HC). And with theCityedition.com I kind of got the full map of what I read from the press and from supporters. For me it's important to understand. If you support BO that's your right. But stop being agressive with people who don't. This is not addressed to you Roland S. Martin but to some BO supporters.

Jane,
The only explanation for your insistence that HRC can and should get the nomination is that you are writing to us from Planet Hillary. I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about the rules of the DNC. No matter how much HRC and her supporters are complaining about them, they are the RULES, the ones agreed upon at the begining of the contest. George Bush didn't like the rules (the Constitution) and look where that got us! With Superdelegate support, Obama will fairly and rightly and triuphantly and finally win this nomination, and there is nothing HRC can do about it. There is NO left wing conspiracy at work here, one of the new and creative and utterly false notions circling HRC's campaign. And what do you think of Obama's support greatly increasing in HRC's base? Check out those numbers! We all need to remember the Democratic platform that both HRC and Obama are supporting - is that not why you are voting Democrat? Or do you just want some estrogen in the Oval Office? HRC and her supporters need to fight for the platform now, not for HRC. Please return to Earth HRC, and and any other Democrats lost in space!

Excuse me if a look of bewilderment crosses my face when a surrogate of Sen. Hillary Clinton's starts off on the "we need hard-working white workers to win in November" mantra.

Roland S. Martin contends the Democratic nominee will need a broad-based coalition to win in November.

The candidate herself has now made that notion the primary -- and latest argument -- to superdelegates to convince them she's the best person to beat Sen. John McCain in November.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today.

The newspaper quoted her as saying that an Associated Press article showed how Sen. Barack Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Now, I know I'm not one of those voters she's talking about, but the reality is that hard-working white Americans alone will not put Clinton or Obama in the White House.

Neither will African-Americans alone or young voters, senior citizens, the college-educated, the "no-working" Americans, gays and lesbians, nonreligious voters, veterans, Hispanics, women, etc.

Don't Miss
Martin: Wright issue will haunt conservative elite
Martin: How Obama can get beyond Wright
Snow: Democratic nomination comes down to personality
In Depth: Commentaries
In fact, Democrats alone won't do it. You also must take a good portion of independents.

No Democrat can win the White House unless he or she is able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it's downright silly for the Clinton campaign to assert that idea that hard-working white votes are the only ones that matter.

Sure, the Clinton camp will contend that's not what it's saying. But it sure sounds that way (and no, I don't agree with what's being said on blogs -- that this is playing the "race card").

Is Clinton suggesting that whites who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African-Americans" whom Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?

Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.

Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working-class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states the Democrats need to win in November -- shows she's the best choice.

But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion.

Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.

Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and he had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.

Small states? Sure. Winnable? Absolutely. Their electoral votes can be as important as the big states.

If Democrats are serious about winning, they are going to have to put on ice this notion that white working-class voters or any other constituencies are the be-all and end-all in November.

Winning the White House is about building a true broad coalition. You should judge which candidate has been able to do so in the primaries. If it's Obama, he's the nominee. If it's Clinton, then she is.

Such a coalition should be on the mind of every superdelegate -- not the debate over which ethnic group reigns supreme at the ballot box.

Hillary Clinton is a liar with a unlikable/truswt rate of 67% SHE will never win a general election. NO ONE with those numbers (actually no one has ever had that high) has ever won it. Add in her perverted husband who sleeps around with women his daughters age and then try again to tell me that Hillary stands a chance in the GE?
ROTFLMAO and now ask yourself why a black man named Barack Obama raised by a single mother, and who HAS family values was able to knock the brand name Clinton off the top of the heap?
Obama 08

Clinton, Obama offer lengthy interviews to the St. Pete Times:
Clinton is pressed on why she didn’t object to the delegate decision earlier, and is told some state Democrats initially supported moving the primary date.
Responds: “That’s not my reading, but of course you have more direct information.”

AMAZING!!!

The Dem's wanted to move the Primary in FL!

Anti-Clinton bias.

The popular vote total is the votes cast by individuals in state primaries. Caucus votes don't count in the popular vote total because they are counted in terms of delegates, not votes, and many states don't count the number of people attending caucuses. How is Hillary accounting for that? She wants to count Michigan where she was the only candidate, and Florida where many voters stayed home, but not the nine caucus states? That’s her idea of counting every vote?
Caucus state include (Obama won all of them) Washington and Texas caucuses (also won by Obama) not included because these states hold primaries AND caucuses
• Iowa
• Alaska
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Minnesota
• N Dakota
• Nebraska

Something tells me that if the votes were falling the exact opposite of the way they are and Hillary were ahead by the margins Obama has, no matter how small, she would think the nomination process was just fine.

Posted by: fool me once | May 21, 2008 9:24:10 PM

-----------------------If Chief Black Hack were in this position you would be circling your wagons!!!
there would be riots in the streets and super delegates would be hanging in the square!!!

Jane

When Bill was prez and challanged by Gingrich, Hillary cired "right wing conspiracy" Now Hillary is loosing and the fact that every vote simply anc't be counted (as she suggests but eliminates the caucus states won by Obama) you decry "Left wing conspiracy".

There is no conspiracy at work here. For all its failings, this is how the democratic process works. She knew the rules going in. She was riding on hopes of super delate votes when she saw her lead shrinking, now she has formulated a mathematical calcultion by which she wins using some of the popular vote. The problem is she says she wants every vote counted, but her math does not do that. It must be a Hillary campaign conspiracy

The number of delegates Bo has now, then, or EVER will not win him the GE! Barry who?? Barak a what?? Obama? OBOMBA? is that what McCain said about IRAN???

BO is unelectable, no amount of delegates or media hype can change that FACT!!!

To Sharen,
don't you know that JFKennedy had many affairs in the White House. His wife suffered in silence and the staff around avoided the subject?
History books now only talk about how he handled the cuban missile crisis and what have you.
And how many republicans who cried foul supporting the crushing anti-Clinton machine turned out to have affairs themselves?
Can't you see this is wasting of time and energy and money about some soap-opera affairs while real issues are overlooked?

According to the primaries contests results she seems more likely to win the electoral college, than BO who built up his delegates number based on the caucuses.

The mistakes made by HC campaign were their underestimating of the left wing conspiracy which includes Dean, the pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor who switched side to discredit her, as he is now chairman of DNC and spokerman of MoveOn.Org.
I got information from the Cityedition.com that the republicans started their usual discrediting of HC from the very beginning, all the vocabulary used "pandering", "polarizing", "power-hungered" etc...which was taken up by the left-wing side as projections of all the negative on HC as a character, a politician etc...
In this case it's like using the enemy's weapon to defeat your closest enemy, your running opponent, except they are from the same party. The republicans largely crossed lines to vote for BO in the caucuses. And later even when it was signalled to cross over to vote for HC many republicans did it except that they voted for BO. Those voters are called oneday democrats.
Now are these votes real enough to be reliable in November? The caucuses exclude a lot of voters because of the voting conditions, that's to say the people who work or don't have much mobility. And the numbers of voters are small in caucuses, yet the difference in the popular vote even if small allow a difference of delegates that is mathematically disproportionate.
In Michigan it was said that he removed his name because he deducted that he would get anyway little support there.
The real math should be what votes are reliable in November, and who is more likely to get them. The real issue at hand is to get the White House back to the Democratic party. It looks like Dean and the left wing trying to show that they can do well without HC and Bill legacy.
So their strategy was largely helped by the republicans, in pushing the anti-Clinton machine through press coverage and the republican crossing line votes. That's why they push hard to get HC to step out. Now not all superdelegates have had their say yet. And for them winning is the most important factor.
BO electability based on the caucuses votes can be very questionable. And how can one establish electability in terms of math, realistic math and not one that is manipulated by republican cross over line voting, without taken into account big states votes like Florida's and Michigan's.
That's why HC want to take this matter to the convention. So if the DNC rules help BO for the moment, they may not help him in November. Besides, for the moment his support fails completely among white working class and white blue collar workers and among the majority of women voters.
The figures as calmely and rationally studied will speak for themselves. So all of this, and the upcoming votes in 3 more states, will add and will be examined carefully for the superdelegates to decide.
HC supporters don't accept her being pushed to step out and they wait to see the unfolding of the process and reserve their decisions for casting their votes in November. Don't buy the skin of the bear before you have it. That's a wise saying I heard.
And beside, why should she be wrong when Ted Kennedy brought the matter to the convention while he was about 700 delegates behind, as I read it from many sources. Should she be wrong because she is HC ?

Obama will not win GE. Obama is unelectable. I support Hillary but I will Never vote for OB.

How often will Hillary and her supporters persist with the "winning the popular vote" myth. You people want the voters of Florida to be counted, and Hillary's own supporters in Michigan, but you don't want the votes of hundreds of thousands of people whose States held a caucus to count. Nor those people who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan. You would rather we forgot that barely a few hundred people in each of the caucus States are counted in the figures you claim represent the will of the American people. Neither do you care that not one single Obama supporter in Michigan was able to register their vote for him. You are trying to deprive all of those people of their democratic right to support their candidate because he respected the views of the National Democratic Party and left his name off the ballot.

Stop this misrepresentation of the facts now. Stop it because it smacks of being a bad loser. Even the most blinkered and embittered Hillary fan should be able to see that for the popular vote to truly count you have to count the votes of everyone. No matter which nominee they wanted to vote for. Every person who wants to vote has to be able to do so and each and every vote must carry equal weight. The only way this could happen is if we repoll Michigan and count the hundreds of thousands of voters who wanted to place an X next to Barack Obama. Then repoll every single caucus State and turn the hundreds of votes in each into the hundreds of thousands that would have voted in a primary. But if that happened then the figures point to Obama extending his lead still further. Something that would blow the popular vote myth to pieces. Something that would consign Hillary to the political dustbin because her last chance to be Vice President would be destroyed.

What no side should do is to use every trick in the book to exclude ordinary working people in the States that they lost whilst including those in the States they won. Neither should you reward those States who illegally held a primary early - while at the same time punishing those States that held a Caucus. Florida and Michigan broke the rules. The caucus States did not. Had the "popular vote" been the measure at the start then every single caucus State would have held a Primary. You can't change the rules at the end and punish those States. And for anyone who tries to do that. Shame on you. In fact shame on anybody who quotes the "popular vote" myth because its the only thing you have left. A twisted, statistically unfair, highly politicized version of the true facts.

The saving grace of course is that the people who now need to be convinced of the "popular vote" myth are the Super Delegates. People who are experienced politicians who know full well that the claim is a false measure of what the American people are saying. The ardent and blinkered fans who often frequent these internet chat threads may be convinced of the myth, but its not so easy to convince the only people who can actually save Hillary now. If anyone can spot a lie when they see it - its a politician. And they are already indicating they aren't listening to this claim.

As for the other claim, that the media is sexist, now that really annoys me. It sets back the woman's movement by years when a woman uses the sexism card to justify their own failings. I have no doubt that some people will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman, and some will not want her to win because she is a woman, but there are just as many people who will not vote for Obama or want him to win because he is black. However these people are in the minority. Is anyone really suggesting that there are so many sexist Americans that they could have turned around the huge lead Hillary possessed at the start of this campaign. Or saying that the American people are so dumb they simply vote for the person the media tells them to vote for? If so why did these same people indicate they were going to vote for Hillary just a year ago? How can Hillary have so little confidence in the integrity and decency of the people she hopes to serve as President? Remember this time last year she was the clear front-runner. She had almost won the race before it began. Yet somehow she threw it away. That isn't the media's fault. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It is her fault. President Truman had a sign on his desk that famously said "The Buck Stops Here". As President the winner in November will have to live by that motto. Every decision they make. Every policy they endorse. Every act will define the lives of millions of people. And if and when it all goes wrong they can't turn around and blame someone else. They have to take responsibility. Just as Hillary has to start taking responsibility for snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Otherwise how could we ever be sure she wouldn't pull the same trick every time the press disagreed with her policies?

Women all over America may feel let down. However when history look back on the last few months it will show they were let down not by white men, or by blacks, or by the media - they were let down by the ill-conceived and astonishing incompetence of Hillary Clinton and her advisers. They lost a race that was there to be won. A race that was almost impossible to lose. No amount of complaining about how "unfair" it was will change that fact.

SMB

While I am sympathetic to Ivan, and I actually do think that Hillary might be the strongest general election candidate, I do not think it right to claim that somehow the collective wool has been pulled over the eyes of the nation. I saw in Obama that stopped me from going out for Hillary even though I love and respect her. I agree with the idea that sexism may have played an issue, but she ran a more hardcore foreign policy push than Obama and the people responded to him just as much. I love Hillary, would be thrilled with her as VP and would vote for her over McCain anyday, but its ridiculous to say that this process of selecting delegates is totally bogus simply because she played it wrong. Also, super delegates are smart people. Some are aligning for support, some because they believe in Obama's vision for America. Don't act like everyone has been duped.

I am a staunch Democrat. I will vote for a Democrat in November. I will write in the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" mainly because I can't get behind a candidate like Obama that has such hateful supporters. I don't care if McCain wins--at least we know a little something about him. We know nothing about Obama except he supported his preacher before he didn't support him and his wife is proud for the first time and that he goes to closed door meetings with his fellow elitists and bad-mouths working people. I hope Clinton supporters will join me in sending a message to Move-On, MSNBC and all the co-conspirators that stole this election for Obama. Bitter? You bet!!

I find it profoundly sad that the Clinton supporters on this blog have been so misled by someone who I once loved and respected. The rules are the rules, no matter how you slice it or spin it. Please come to your senses - we have a dear man who has won the nomination of the democratic party who needs all democrats to come together to heal all of our country's wounds. Please put your hatred aside and think about your actions and the darkness that you find yourself in right now. I genuinely feel sorry for your loss, but as we all know, when you are grieving, the first thing you must do is accept the reality of your loss and move on. Obama has won by all of the rules everyone agreed to prior to all of the primary voting this year. We are patiently waiting for your renewed support for OUR democratic party. Democrats unite under our nominee: Barack Obama! Don't wait until it is too late.

It's the Obama people that do not understand the rules. The super delegates were not created to bless the outcome of the primary season. They were created to have the courage to vote based on the electability of the candidates. The ones that have made an endorsement can change their minds. It's not likely. I'm sure the Obama fan club can sleep well knowing he has won the nomination but there is no doubt that they never understood this basic rule and they were never willing to abide by it. All we've heard over the last three months is how the super delegates can't overturn the pledged delegate count. Whine whine whine without any understanding of the super delegates with their backroom cigar smoke.

Something tells me that if the votes were falling the exact opposite of the way they are and Hillary were ahead by the margins Obama has, no matter how small, she would think the nomination process was just fine.

Danielle:

That's completely dishonest. Obama taking his name off the ballot in Michigan had NOTHING to do with Iowa.

Obama came off the Michigan ballot - just like Edwards, Dodd and Gravel - because of the pledge that ALL Democratic candidates signed with the DNC and the four approved "early" states in the primary process.

The agreement specifically stated that the candidate signing would not campaign OR PARTICIPATE in any unapproved early primary or caucus. (Yes, Clinton signed it too - and even told NPR New Hampshire's Laura Knoy that "it's clear this primary [Michigan is] having won't count for anything.")

I wonder how many of the above posters would sit down in a poker game without the rules being established and agreed to. If the rules in FL and MI were established and agreed to then all parties to the agreement need to abide by them. You don't changethe rules in the middle of the game.

Dawn, Obama took his own name off the Michigan ballot to better position himself in Iowa. If you remove yourself from the race why do you think you should still get a prize? There were no rules that he had to remove his name.

Funny how the Obama supporters are always yelling that Obama has the popular vote, but when Hillary says she has it all of a sudden the popular vote doesn't count.

Mike--Pay attention. It's your sputtering, uhhh, hero, uhhh, that's, uhhh, sucking up to Clinton and her supporters. Believe me, he cares if we vote for McCain. He needs Clinton's voters to win. If you don't get that, you know nothing about politics. He'll really need the votes when Wright gets cooking again and Michelle spouts off about some elitist nonsense. The sad part is that Obama will get Clinton's voters because McCain is completely unacceptable though much more sincere than the guy who could "no more denounce Reverend Wright than he could his own grandmother." Give me a break.

Tim. Valid point. Set game match.

How many people have done man in the street interviews with African Americans if what these Clinton women want to come true, actually happens?

What would Clinton do to regain African American support especially since she told the nation and the world that her base is hard-working white voters. She never came out and refuted that statement. What would she need with anyone except her hard-working white voters?

Sen Clinton believes that she is the one standing up for FL and MI voters. She may be unable to admit to herself that she previously said that these votes would not count and said nothing to change this until after the votes would help her. Like the Bosnia story, if Sen Clinton really wishes something was true, she seems to convince herself that it is true. After 8 years of Bush, it would be frightening to elect another individual with such a loose grip on reality.

Ivan. Nobody would care if you voted for McCain. As a matter a fact. I hope you canvass for him and phonebank as well! Don't want you or need you to win.

I notice the numbers you give don't allocate any Michigan votes to Obama. Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Biden all took their names off of the MI ballot. So does that mean the 238,168 people that voted uncommitted in the MI primary don't count?

I think she should stay in the race but saying she can still win it, spouting lies about the popular vote, and blaming the media and sexism for her loss are damaging unity within the Democratic party.

See RealClearPolitics for popular vote totals.

Obama voters--Get with it. Your mumbling, sputtering uhhh, Messiah has, uhhh, implored you to be nice to Clinton supporters. So he's the nominee. Someone needs to convince us to vote for him. Based on the illiterate, hateful people who blog on his behalf, I'm not too impressed. And you're not very nice either.

countallthevotes, I agree with you about Hillary and Florida. She's very strong there. If Crist isn't McCain's running mate I still think it will go to McCain although it would be close.

THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT HILARY WILL WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT A DELUSIONAL, IRRATIONAL, LYING, HILARY IN THE WHITEHOUSE...OH YES, NOW I KNOW, ONE OF HER MAIN SUPPORT GROUPS ARE THE "UNEDUCATED". NOW I UNDERSTAND.

HILARY REFUSES TO ACCEPT REALITY SAME AS GEORGE BUSH AND THE IRAQUE WAR WHICH BY THE WAY HILARY VOTED FOR. HER "SLASH & BURN" CAMPAIGN TACTICS HAVE UNDERMINED HER REMAINING TIME IN CONGRESS AND RUINED WHATEVER POSTIVE LEGACY BILL HAD.

THE BIG BAD BLOND WITCH IS GOING DOWN BIG TIME AND AS HER BID FOR VP, FORGET IT. IN THE WORDS OF THE NY POST, SHES TOAST.

Hillary's tax returns were made public in April 2008. Check your facts.

JOHN & KATE: WHAT PART OF THE 1990's DIDN'T I LIKE? I didn't like the wages ($5.00 per hour) - try raising 3 kids on $12,000 a year like my husband and I did - all because of NAFTA!!! I also didn't like the lying and flagrant obstruction of justice (Whitewater) and the political job selling (Travelgate), additional obstruction of justice (Filegate) - but most of all, I didn't like Bill Clinton turning the White House into a brothel - which will happen again (a leopard can't change its spots), since I don't see where the Clintons have changed much -- still lying (Bosnia and NAFTA), still job selling (Mark Penn). "Nuff said??"

The following excerpts are from Deroy Murdock' column of March 18, 2008.

America's chief domestic priority this year is to prevent Hillary Rodham Clinton's election as president. Beyond her dreadful ideas, she shares her husband's allergy to the rule of law and the basic standards of fairness and honesty most people expect of them selves. Instead, the Clintons do whatever it takes to accomplish whatever they want. If normal conduct or even federal statutes interfere, they smash right through them.

Hillary turned a $1,000 cattle-futures investment into a $99,540 bovine bonanza in conjunction with Tyson Foods' counsel, James Blair and her REFCO agent, Red Bone. After she collected her 9,954% return on investment, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's administration secured Tyson at least $9 million in state loans and special permission to dump chicken waste into local rivers.

As first lady, Hillary concocted her notorious healthcare nationalization scheme with a public/private task force behind closed doors, violating 1972 federal open-meeting laws.

After White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster died from a gunshot wound to the head in Fort Marcy Park near Washington in July 1993, his office should have remained sealed for forensic purposes. Yet two day later, "After speaking with the first lady, I arranged for the (Clintons' personal financial records in Fosters office) to be temporary kept in a locked closet in the White House residence," Maggie Williams-Hillary's then-chief of staff and current campaign manager-told the Senate Whitewater Committee on January 26, 1995.

Note: Since Deroy Murdock' column of March 18, 2008 Hilary has released her tax forms and has loaned her campaign over 11 million dollars.

WELL ALL YOU CLINTONITES, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR HEROS BILL & HIL NOW?

LIsa,

You are so right. If McCain chooses Gov. Crist, there is no way in fell Obama would ever have a shot at that state. However, Hillary does really have solid support in FL. Call it what you want - the senior vote, the Jewish vote, the Litino vote, the moderate vote, she has it, even with Gov. Crist running. With Obama, not a chance!!

What part of the 1990's didn't you like the PEACE OR THE PROSPERITY? WE LOVED BOTH! WE LOVED THE GREAT ECONOMY, MADE MONEY, LIVED IN PEACE. WOW. IT WAS GREAT.

Bill Clinton left a SURPLUS, yes, the Democratic President left a huge surplus which Bush has squandered.

Bill Clinton was a great President.

Hillary Clinton will be an even BETTER President.

Bill Clinton won West Virginia and Kentucky TWICE and Hillary Clinton can win them too. That's the point. Hillary has won and can win the must win states for the Dems in a general election. Obama cannot win.

No Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916! Hillary crushed Obama by 41 points in West Virginia.

Hillary could win Florida. Obama can not.

Last night, Hillary won more than 200,000 MORE votes than Obama. She's crushing him. He's losing support in every voting group.

Hillary is clearly the better candidate. The Dems would be foolish to nominate an unqualified and unelectable candidate.

Scary Barry and Manic Michelle gonna run '08 OH NOEZ!

If McCain choses Gov. Crist as his running mate the dems can definately kiss Florida good bye even if Hillary is the nominee. He's extremely popular.

Obama talked to 50,000 Floridians today and never mentioned that they must be seated. He's just ignoring his loss there and trying to re-campaign.

What's with all the hate and infighting? I think it's a testament to sexism and racism. When you go beyond disagreement, which is clearly evident here in this posts, there has to be some subconscious issues yet resolved.

I mean, how can you hate either one of these candidates (who both have baggage) when they don't hate each other?

McCain or Hillary....McCain or Obama. God how republicans must laugh at us.

In the general election I will pull the lever for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama I suggest if you're a registred voter that you do the same to end 8 years of George Bush.

I think McCain is going to get the Gov of FL as his running mate....so Dems won't win FL probably...can't wait for McCain to battle BO through Nov.

Both Clinton and Obama are in FL, and KY voters said if Obama is the nom, half will vote McCain or stay home. You bet the Dem big wigs are listening. I guess BO thinks his campaigning in FL tonight will somehow help him in Nov. Hope he flew in alot of his posse to fill the arenas he loves so much. His ego is well suited for rock star....he could never relate to the average blue collar American.

Most of those who side with BO or HRC forget that they both received their training in the land of Chicago politics.

Hillary with her Midwestern work ethic and Obama with his ability to organize self-interest groups. No wonder the national Democratic vote was nearly 50% for either candidate.

Too bad the Republicans were allowed to mix up the numbers in several states. Especially since they have no desire to vote for either in the fall election.

It really is up to the superdelegates to forge ahead and appoint a nominee.

Both Clinton and Obama are in FL, and KY voters said if Obama is the nom, half will vote McCain or stay home. You bet the Dem big wigs are listening. I guess BO thinks his campaigning in FL tonight will somehow help him in Nov. Hope he flew in alot of his posse to fill the arenas he loves so much. His ego is well suited for rock star....he could never relate to the average blue collar American.

Insulting people will not win them to your side.

We happen to be Dem voters who are in the top tax brackets. We happen to be Dem voters with professional degrees. Democrats have been known to vote against their own economic self interests on all sides of the spectrum.

We happen to think that people who live in trailors are just as good and just as smart as we are. They just haven't been given the life breaks we have or make different life choices.

That's why we are Democrats. We believe that we are all in this together. That's why we feel so strongly that we are fighting for the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

We believe that all workers are "working class". We don't like labels. That's why we feel so strongly that the Democratic party must denounce the sexism, classism, racism and voter disenfranchisement practiced by Obama, his campaign and supporters.

Taylor Marsh is a great site. We highly recommend it. Taylor is a wise woman and a great Democrat.

This should go all the way to convention in August, and Democrats should get behind that. It's Democratic. This race is too close to call and if the tables were turned, I would support BO wanting to take it to the convention. Plus...think how boring cable news would be without this Democratic struggle...Hillary and BO have such chemistry.

You're assuming all women who support Hillary will vote McCain.

duh,

We are MORE THAN HALF the party no matter how you figure it. THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!

The fact remains that neither Hillary or Obama will have won anything until the DNC convention in August. That's when the nominee will be chosen.

No amount of corporate owned media proclamations will change this fact.

John & Kate -
I think that it is you who better learn to "deal with it"
("it" being defeat)

Hillary LOST.

duh

That's where you are very wrong. WE WILL be missed,the Dems cannot win without us. That's the point, duh.

The Democrats would be wise to remember that for decades women have been the majority voting block of the Democratic party and women want Hillary. It's that simple. When women vote, Democrats win. Women decide EVERY election. Deal with it.

Mrs Jones,

Those are some strange conspiracy theories.

So tell me....Do you know who was the gunman on the grassy knoll??

Obama is no dummy. Chicago taught him well.

Obama established HopeFund which gave between 4,000 - 9,000 to superdelegates who were running for office.

Surprise. Surprise. They endorse Obama.

At the start of the primary, Obama said supers should follow how their states voted and when he was only winning small states he reminded them about the money.

Look at Byrd from West Virginia. Moveon.org donated 80,000 to Byrd. Hillary wind WV and Byrd endorsed Obama.

Look up HopeFund and follow the money!

Your one vote doesn't and never did matter

Let us say it again. The delegates are not really "pledged" to ANY candidate. They can vote for whomever they want to. Their job is vote for the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November. We firmly believe that candidate is and will continue to be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The bottom line is this race really is more about winning and less about delegates and votes.

We have been lifelong Democrats. Our parents and grandparents brought us into activism. We have been among the less than 15% of Americans who are ever politically active. We have been the workers, the stalwarts who have carried the deadwood loser elite liberal candidates on our backs to a certain defeat in general elections, year after year.

That's precisely why we feel so strongly that Hillary Clinton MUST be the Democratic nominee for President. Hillary's detailed grasp of domestic and international issues is unmatched. Hillary's intelligence, experience, political skills, electability, and grace throughout this vile campaign have been amazing. For the Democrats to reject this candidate Hillary Clinton is favor of an unqualified and unelectable candidate is unacceptable to us.

The failure of the Democratic party to denounce the sexism, racism, classism and voter disenfranchisement is unacceptable to us. A strong message must be sent to the Dem party. We will NOT stand for this. We have given too much for too long. We have supported this Dem party for a lifetime. If the Dems foolishly nominate Barack Obama, we will NOT support this party, not this year, not this time. Paybacks are hell.

Julia,

Girl, you said it all!!

Mrs. Jones,

Obama really did not follow the rules at all. He campaigned in violation of the pledge in both MI and FL. That is well documented.

The word is he will move to seat all FL and MI delegates AFTER he is nominated. So, how is that not Disenfranchisement?

Hoosier

Your last comment was completely off the wall. It only serves to validate the belief that Clinton gets the racist vote. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I'm quite certain she would denounce what you said and not want you campaigning for her with that nonsense.
Go ahead and vote against your own best interest if you want. You'll only hurt yourself, and the women you claim to support, in the end.

stephen-while some may have attended for the concert, certainly many attended for Obama. Let's not add your own personal spin to it and pretend like people left when Obama was speaking (they performed first).

stephen, hoosier and others hanging on to the popular vote lead: while it is clearly true that neither has the majority of the delegates needed (yet) it is also clearly true that the Clinton campaign is determined to twist this into whatever sounds good for them. They knew MI and FL were not going to count last year. Why was there no outrage then? (Because they thought they didn't need those votes). How can you have the popular vote in MI when your opponent followed the rules and withdrew his name from the ballot?

They have tried everything--the superdelegates are behind us, caucuses aren't really democratic, only the big states count (guess IL, GA, and even TX are small), only the swing states (those that Clinton calls swing states) matter, its the popular vote that matters (even though she really hasn't won that, either), she wins the states with hard-working whites (I guess they don't live in Virginia or Missouri), if we had the Republican party rules, I'd be the winner (yeah, she said that, too)...

The bottom line is the Obama campaign knew the rules, followed the rules, and is winning. It may not yet be over, but the fat lady is warming up and the band is beginning to play. Game... set....

I would like to thank the DNC for taking away my voting rights. The DNC has freed me, I am enlightened. Now that all the caucuskids have spoken, I can see that they know best, who needs one person, one vote anymore. I now see that change you can believe in, is more important than actual democracy. I would like to thank them for overturning the popular vote in Texas. Didn't our fearless leader Mr. Dean say that actual votes don't elect presidents.

The point is, Obama will lose the general election. The problem with the argument regarding delegate votes is that it represents such a small group and the members of that group are politically motivated to switch candidates mid stream, etc. Voters are not politically motivated. When we go to the polls, we're looking at our own needs and experiences and hoping we;ll vote for the candidate that will bring about the best scenario not just for us but for this country based on what they know, what they've proven they can do, and who they are in the world. At the end of the day, Obama's world is so much smaller than the rest of the world because it encompasses his ego and those willing to be manipulated to support it. He does not have the best interest of this country at heart. What he has is a need to prove something. That being said, I won't support that because the job has to be done and when voters go to the polls in November, John McCain will win the election. Most of Senator Clinton's supporters do not trust him and therefore will not vote for him; the African American population is not large enough in this country to sway a national election, he'll lose all conservatives and many White and older voters. Clinton has a good cross over, she has an excellent track record to get things done, and despite the BS garbage that will be spouted by Obama bloggers, the fact is, the lady is just a better leader, hands down.

KY has a closed primary so Republicans wouldn't have been immediately able to switch over to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

I can tell you that in Indiana (which is open) I had more Republicans telling me they were voting for Obama because they thought he'd be easier to beat than told me they were voting for Clinton due to Operation Chaos.

Crowds mean nothing and BO camped out in Oregon because he knew his numbers were slipping and McGovern had huge crowds too...see how well that helped him.

Don't you find it odd that she signed the pledge even though it states in black and white:

"WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar."

Why didn't she protest with "count EVERY vote" then?

Oh - wait a minute!! Wasn't she ahead then?

I find her "count the vote" scheme pretty transparent.

Hey...HoosierSue...I'm a Hillary supporter, but speak for yourself. Obama's skin color has nothing to do with why I want her over him. You've always made some good points, but even I took a little offense here.
Obama is losing to McCain in FL by 5 points.

most of these whiny hillary supporters aren't even democrats - thats why they can so easily threaten with a vote for mccain.

DemocratsUnited

when you say "counter the white problem" didn't you mean to use the official Clinton lingo "Counter the HARD WORKING white problem"

sigh