This explain how some calculated politicians pick to whom to endorse and make their moves, they just look for their own political interest. McCaskill got elected by one of the lowest margins in her State, so she is jut playing the oportunistic move in order to get reelected. Just like Obama did in the Illinois Senate and has done so far. I wouldn't surprise me if Gore is backing Obama to bask in the elite and under 25 vote. Go figures!

McCaskill is 100% right and I think that's why you see so many red state Democrats endorsing Obama. They know that he's our best chance (other than Edwards) of not only winning the White House, but winning down-ticket across the country.

Well, now, which Hillary Clinton are we talking about? The old Hillary Clinton, that behaved as if the Presidency was hers by divine right, or the new Hillary Clinton who has decided to actually answer questions and shake people's hands?

I agree with Tom. As a Democrat in a Republican county, I know that Hillary is poison for Democrats trying to expand the base.

She has one great political asset: as First Lady she didn't divorce the husband who betrayed her, disgraced the Presidency, and lied to the American people. That's what she calls "experience".

I have spent most of my life living in red states and I know for dead certain that Hillary would indeed be fatal for our efforts to build a larger majority in this country. The original intent of the Clintons while still young newlyweds was to "revolutionize the Democratic party". I wish that spirit of doing what's best for the party were still with them. It's not. They both have to know that she is the exact wrong person to build on the successes in 06 this year. They just don't care, they want her to win no matter what the cost to party or country. It's sad to see people so convinced that power is more important that principle.

The Clintons are dividers. Obama is a uniter, pure and simple. He's something people can vote FOR and not against. And the end result trickles down the party as well, for all the party canidates.

Should Hillary gain the nomination, the question on the November ballots will not be "Hillary: Yes or No?" The question will be "the Democrat or the Republican? The polls are already showing that both Hillary and Obama are favored over each Republican candidate.

The New Hampshire results show that people are getting fed up with mindless, unsubstantiated attacks on Sen Clinton. Do you really think American voters will select Huckabee over Hillary? Or Giuliani? Or McCain (Lets keep US troops in Iraq)? Or Thompson? Or Paul?

McCaskill won by a sliver of the votes cast in her Senate election. Her position is precarious. If she thinks she needs to distance herself from Hillary to solidify her position in Missouri, she has.

Should Hillary gain the nomination, the question on the November ballots will not be "Hillary: Yes or No?" The question will be "the Democrat or the Republican? The polls are already showing that both Hillary and Obama are favored over each Republican candidate.

The New Hampshire results show that people are getting fed up with mindless, unsubstantiated attacks on Sen Clinton. Do you really think American voters will select Huckabee over Hillary? Or Giuliani? Or McCain (Lets keep US troops in Iraq)? Or Thompson? Or Paul?

McCaskill won by a sliver of the votes cast in her Senate election. Her position is precarious. If she thinks she needs to distance herself from Hillary to solidify her position in Missouri, she has.

Say, what you want about McCaskill's decisions...this is another strong, smart professional woman elected to office who is not on Hillary's bandwagon. I find it interesting that Clinton's female supporters don't seem to have the largesse to accept the fact that not all women are supportng Hillary just because she is a woman. I say that because so many women in New Hampshire purportedly were voting for another candidate until Hillary welled up and found her voice. I am a bit confused I mus admit...just wondering why it seemed so easy for women to flip their vote? Were issues in this campaign ever a primary considerationof those women? if issues were a part of their consideration why was it so easy to skip over them and head straight for gender as the most compelling issue in this campaign?

It was very unfair to have Hillary Clinton spend an hour on Meet the Press attacking Barack Obama, without him there to defend her allegations.

It's amazing so many Democrats want to return to the Clinton years. She will not return to the White House by herself; this will also be Bill's third and maybe fourth term.

The Republicans are just rubbing their hands together just waiting to capture the presidency again.

does anyone honestly care what Claire McCaskill has to say? she's an irrelevant senator looking for some media spotlight and, more likely, a cabinet position. any smart politico knows endorsements rarely, if ever, matter to the electorate when they go into the booth to make their decision. having said that, Clinton has WAY more endorsements than Obama.

I think that many in the Democratic party are being naive if they believe that Hillary Clinton can win the general election. Those of us not living inside the beltway understand that she motivates the other side to come out and vote against her. For the better part of a year the Clinton campaign with help from the media have portrayed her as the presumptive nominee and have ignored the fact that she has the highest unfavorable ranking than any other candidate in the race. Unfortunately for her, the more she speaks and the more Bill whines, they remind us of why so many of us suffer from Clinton fatigue.

The truth is that if the Democratic Party is foolish enough to have Senator Hillary Clinton lead the ticket, the Democratic party will lose in a landslide. The Clintons control the Democratic Party apparatus but the fact is that nearly 70% of the grassroots prefers another candidate to the lead the ticket very strongly. Hillary not only has absolutely NO CROSS OVER ABILITY for Independents and Republicans but Democrats en masse will abandon the Democratic party.

I agree with McCaskil not so for hurting the so called democratic party but for the distruction she will do to AMERICA,fatal is putting it lightly. Vote for socialism, higher tax's and less freedom. Vote for Hillieary.

I'd like to see HRC as an effective and very senior leader, in the senate, where we obviously need her. My fears about here are the following: 1. She will drag any dem. ticket she's on down - as she is a uniter, but of the GOP. House and senate will be weakened on the dem. side, no matter "who's ready to lead from day one". 2. Given her absolute ceiling within her own party (the party she is showing not to care too much about, given her willingness to damage it's chances by her sniping and insiduous attacks), the fac that she has NO cross-over rep. appeal and limited support from independents (see where they went in NH and Iowa), she could actally lose the general. May we all be saved by McCains talisman when he boms Iran... 3) even IF she would be able to eke out a 50.1% win, the other side (with a stronger congrss) will be "Fired up and ready to go", and we are looking at incredible division once more. She cannot heal... Plus, on the topic of "experience": I shall never forgive a vote FOR A WAR without reading the 90-something pages if the NIE Graham fought so hard to have access to. As a "vertified genius" (Bill's own words) this should not have taken too long, and she knew no one on her staff ahd clearance to see it. Experience?! I also remember what we experienced as a country when we had to live though lincoln and other bedroom (and desk and sigar and billing records and travelgate and parsing of definitions of "is", "sex"... Let's not forget that Chertoff is sitting on 7 years of all of Bill's 'comings and goings", and this can leak out, drop by drop. I frankly would like to move on, and raise my children under a president they can look up to and admire for his wisdom,without "compartmentalisation".
it's all about the Clintons, and they are showing us that day after day, smear after smear. Please show than that we deserve better!

Everyone in the Republican party and every news media stated over and over again that if Hillary ran, who can run against her? Well, guess who can run against Hillary and beat her. It is Obama. That is the reason why so many Hard Core Republicans posts their slanders against Obama on these boards. First they were complaining about a tough fight with Hillary. BUT now they are running scared because they know they will have a tougher time trying to beat Obama.

Angie, you are right. That's why Rove and Ginrich are meddling so actively and smiling at this slugfest, where the Clinton smears do their work for them. Weaker party and weaker opponent in November. What can we do to stop the Clintons from blowing up the party. Where is the outcry when institutions like Emily's List are abused as an arm of her campaign instead of using their resources in races where the opponent is a real "opponent", i.e. does not support their cause?!?! Does any one have any info on any fall-out?

HRC is a disaster waiting to unfold. She will energize the Republican base, whilst mildly enthusing her own. In short, the best hope for the GOP to get a Republican President elected in the fall, is to ensure Clinton is on the ballot.

She should stop hiding behind Bill, and come clean. She has only been in elected office for 8 years, and every one of those has been an attempt to build herself a platform for election to the Presidency. Obama, has in fact been an elected official for longer than she has, so I guess that actually in terms of direct hands on experience he has more than she does.

Even if Clinton were to win the nomination and went on to win the Presidency, she is poison for many Democrats in down ticket races, what use is a Democrat in the Oval Office if Republicans have both Senate and House majorities? Dem's don't do it. Vote no for HRC!

Hillary Clinton is becoming the most devisive candidate in history -- women vs men; old vs young; blacks vs whites; hispanics vs blacks. Now she's sounding like a union buster. She and her husband are damaging the Democratic party. The Clintons need to bow out gracefully and let the nation move on to a better future.

The endorsements for Obama are coming in from all over. Here they are from just the past 4 days:

Sen Claire McCaskill (MO)
Arizona Gov Janet Napalitano
Sen Ben Nelson (NE)
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin
Sen Tim Johnson (SD)
Sen John Kerry (MA)
Rep George Miller (CA)
Ned Lamont
Gary Hart
Unite HERE (National)
Nevada SEIU
Nevada Culinary 226

Obama's campaign also says they are bringing in about $1 milliion/day since Jan 1. Barack is on a major roll. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton supporters are sueing to limit the voting turnout in Nevada. Pathetic.

Only simple-minded, lazy people would look to endorsements to form their decisions on who to vote for. As for McCaskill stating that Clinto is "fatal" ... her endorsement of Obama may be "fatal" to her own re-election ... since she was only marginally elected the first time ... and by the way ... she too, is only a first term senator.