Hillary does not and will not need Obama for the Election. She will go for Edwards. I can bet on this and never being able to see Michelle Obama(America-hater) being patriotic very confidently.

Hillary-Edwards '08

Hillary Clinton has already destroyed the party. She has distorted and lied her way through this campaign, and the ignorant hang on her every word.
Well my chance to vote is coming, and she will not be getting my vote.

So CAM, as standards go, Obama is not permitted to respond to attacks now?
lol you are all so daggone pitiful! Let's tear down Obama. Ok, so where do you think all his votes will go???

Paul - good to see you. Comparing the voting records it is clear that since becoming a US Senator, Obama voted the same as Clinton on most national security issues. So I dont think he will be able to draw much contrast there at all. In fact, if he could I think he would have already done it since he was challenged to do so by Clinton. You already know my preference of candidates.

While I dont think much will change for anyone's preferences, it is evident the numbers are close enough that it could go either way. I think the party and the country has the right to know who the preferred candidate is after all the states have participated not just those up until next Wednesday.

It is absolutely wrong IMHO for Axelrod and Richardson and others to tell Clinton to step out of the race period. I think it is very cowardly of Obama to not be willing to finish the race as is.

Think about it: if one of them steps down, that will not unite the party anymore than they are now. If they both go the distance, the loser can endorse the winner and attempt to unite the party. I think voters would be more accepting of a fair race instead of arguing about who "could have or would have won" and never knowing the real outcome.

Why would anyone Trust Bill and Hilary Clinton?
Why would anyone want a rerun of Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton? I live through the Clinton years when he was president and she was first lady. Let’s take a look at the sad blast from the Past. Clinton years full of scandals, Whitewater, Allegations of affairs. one of his accusers attempted to sue him for sexual harassment while he was a sitting president a disgrace and embarrassment to all women and Americans around the world. He raised taxes; He signed NAFTA into Law, Causing Millions of Workers to lose their jobs to outsourcing for cheap labor at the expense of hard working families in this country. Bill Clinton disgraced this country and was almost IMPEACHEd for lying about having an alleged sexual relationship with a young woman in the white House. He pardon Known criminals. Finally I cannot forget the David Koresh event where many innocent children died in Waco Texas, Bin Laden could have been captured and 911 would not have happen. Should I go on.......... Time will not permit all of the negative. Why would anyone want a rerun of Bill and Hilary Clinton as President?

DC Voter - I didn't reference voting records. She's made some statements that illustrate her ignorance - despite the '35 years of experience.'

With regard to voting for emergency spending bills to support the military efforts, what you say is true. And if the Democrats as a whole hadn't financially supported the troops in a combat theater, the political winds right now would be behind the Republicans instead of the Democrats. It was what they had to do.

Their numerous scandals were investigated and properly vetted and no charges were ever filed, so this talk of scandals is really old bath water. I remember the Clinton years as years of peace, prosperity, good wages, plentiful jobs, and a solid economy and a huge surplus. Of course to all the Obamabots, they were not responsible for any of that, they were just sitting there for 8 years and were lucky. What a CROCK!!!

Where'd all that experience get her?

Well for starters she got to see the inside of the White House for 8 years, which is 8 more than you and your spouse will ever see.

Secondly, it got her New York, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Florida (where you ran ads all day long and still got your a$$ kicked), New Jersey, and probably is going to get her Ohio.

If you can't win big democratic states in a primary you damn sure aren't going to win the country. Winning Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa don't mean a thing, cause in November Obama you don't have a hope or one of your 'I pray to Jesus every night - after my sermon in that Farrakhan loving church' prayers.

You have lied about everything from Selma convincing your parents to get together and have you (you were born 4 years before Selma), to the fact that you were NOT a constituional lawyer, but rather a somewhat pathetic senior lecturer ON LEAVE. And as for Dad, he was no more a goat herder then Hillary. He was a well paid Goverment employee. And as for that Ethics Bill you wrote? You didn't write a line of it. And as for that Nuclear Bill to help out your campaign donor, Exelon? Even your own party threw it right back into your face.

This fraud will never be president. Not because of race or religion, but because his resume is an invention and his history is fantasy. He is the James Frey of politics - A Million Tiny Lies.

Oprah should have a show on The Audacity Of Hope. She can retitle it 'The Audacity To Lie'.

Paul - I agree the Dems did what they had to do and that was support the troops. We simply cannot abandon them or those who have helped them.

On foreign policy statements any of them make or decisions they make, since none of us as voters are privvy to the details they are, isnt it all really an issue of trust?

I certainly do not claim to be a foreign policy expert and do not believe any one Senator is because it is just not possible. We do not expect them all to know everything about everything but we do expect them to represent our values and interests. Obama and Clinton share almost identical values and interests and have almost identical platforms. The difference to me between them is that Clinton has more experience under fire and a stronger resume. Therefore, I trust her more than him.

Plenty of Washington insiders have Experience. What we need is someone who as a better persepctive, and the courage to put it on the table. I'm sick of the same old same old. I want someone with energy and vision and well as a sincerity.

BARACK OBAMA

We need someone with the courage to vote "present".???
Kennedy, Kerry and Rockefeller, but he is sick of the same old same old...
Energy he's got. Vision and sincerity are written in his speeches by his writers.

Jay - LOL actually I think most of his supporters dont remember those years because they were too young. They are also too young to remember any movements relating to civil rights, womens rights, and human rights. They are too young to have experienced first hand discrimination, beatings, and inhumane treatment. They live in a country that has a great deal more equality today (even though much more progress is needed that I can personally attest to) because of the sacrifices made by people over the age of 45. Even if our education system were up to par (which it is not) and taught them the real truth about these things, having not experienced it they cannot know the depth of sacrifice and fight that Senator Clinton and people like her have endured. He was right about one thing... the community still today has not embraced the visions of Dr. King and his own wife is not embracing it in his campaign.

I'm tired of the shrill pro-Clinton and the shrill pro-Obama remarks. Obama is not going to sell out the country. We've had almost 16 years of rude, inflammatory political "discourse" and it is long past time it stopped. I think it's great that for the first time an African-American and a female are serious candidates for president. Now while we need to make up our own minds, I will suggest some reasons why I don't believe Ms. Clinton is presidential material. AND before her supporters go ballistic, these objections are based on observations of Ms. Clinton in action.

The first characteristic I think we need from a president is an ability to lead. Ms. Clinton has not demonstrated that. As Ms. Doud noted in her column, Ms. Clinton has complained about being asked the first question in debates. I’m sorry, but there are real issues to deal with. For someone of Ms. Clinton’s experience it is completely ludicrous for her to complain about something so petty. Her experience should inform her about how ridiculous her complaints are however accurate. Secondly, while I think that a completely consistent candidate shows little to no capacity for growth, on the other hand a candidate who is unable to articulate a consistent theme is also concerning. In other words, I think that the charge of “flip flopping” is over used, over rated, and overdone. Nonetheless, Ms. Clinton’s performance since she found her voice in New Hampshire does not inspire confidence. The voice continues to change. Thirdly, her critiques of Mr. Obama are often so lacking substance that it's hard to take her seriously. The old adage about people in glass houses not throwing stones holds here. Take for example the charge of plagiarism. It wasn't, it was shown not to be, and Ms. Clinton has been shown to use phrases and thoughts from others that she has also not attributed to their author. There isn't much room on this. Either she isn't aware of her own behaviors which would call into question her ability to monitor her own behaviors or she is and does it anyhow - which means she's hoping that people will buy it what is at best hypocrisy. My next objection is that Ms. Clinton as president will have to respond quickly and decisively to new situations. Her response to finding herself loosing to Mr. Obama since “Super Tuesday” would indicate that she will have difficulty doing so. My point is this. Her whole campaign was predicated on the assumption that she would have the nomination wrapped up by then. That didn’t happen. That it didn’t is not the issue. Life happens. But the way Ms. Clinton has responded by downplaying the significance of the states in which she lost, totally ignoring Wisconsin when she lost and making excuses for those losses when she acknowledged them suggests a leader who will blame others when things do not go her way. We think of her as being battle tested. I know I did. But now as I observe the campaign, I think that she has been “smear” tested. Whatever testing she has endured and in all fairness she has, it has not been as a leader having to make decisions. And now when it is, her responses do not suggest a capacity to respond to crisis’s in any that makes me feel safe that she is the one answering the red phone in the White House.

There are indications that the reason that Ms. Clinton's campaign is in trouble in part because she has selected her team based on loyalty rather than competence. I've already had almost eight years of that and I really, really, really don't want to see more. We need competent leadership. The challenges are real. But Ms. Clinton's actions suggest an inability to do so despite her much touted experience.

Someone wrote all of the scandals were invistagated? If Hilary is Prsident Expect More Scandals deceptions,and 4 years of Investigations, and who will lose we the American People. Why would anyone Want a Rerun of Bill and Hilary Clinton?

DC Voter - it is an issue of trust. Right now I think most Republicans laugh if you ask if Clinton is trusted with national security issues. Even the TV pundits were amazed she went with red phone ad, because in the end its not an intuitive choice that it would be Hillary we prefer to be answering that call.

Inside the Democratic Party, she is given some benefit of doubt; mostly by those who don't question whether she really has 35 years of public experience.

If the red phone (or off-white, in this case) ad shows some effect in Texas, Obama and the Republicans will both take notice. He'll have to transition into someone who can hit back on national security - at the expense of Hillary - to demonstrate to the Republicans that there's a price to pay for going there.

That's been the subtext of the last couple weeks, with McCain probing and Obama answering. They're testing general election waters.

Sorry Rhys, your wordy and long document is trying to say that campaigning for the presidency and being the President are one in the same. They are not.
There is a huge distinction in how anyone would operate running for a job, and then being hired for that job.

I think Obama is an arrogant, pompous @$$!!!! Also, I notice this race is being divided among racial and actually possibly(from what I can sort of tell anyway)gender lines. Look at the fact that his endorsers that VOTED for the Iraq Resolution are all male(again from the ones I know of that he has anyway), and yet he CRITICIZES Hillary for voting for THE SAME THING??? There is something really utterly wrong with this picture if you ask me. I'm not a Dem, BUT I DO SUPPORT HILLARY 110% and frnakly your party is so messed up after this election that I don't see how you all are going to fix it.

Oh yea, back to the gender thing. I think Obama's stance on what I was saying is VERY sexist and a double standard if you ask me.

Just my thoughts anyway.

It's nice to see all the neocons backing Hilliary and "threatening" to vote for McCain if she doesn't get to be the nominee. I never knew loyality to the war and the neocon establishment was so prevalent among so-called "Democratic" voters. I guess this evidence proves once and for all that a vote for Hilliary really is a vote for BUSH. Don't blame Obama voters for voting for a Democrat in the Democrat party. If your such a Republican, I'm sure that McCain will suit you just fine. Forgive us if we choose an alternative to neo-con John with Obama. But don't worry John will still be there for you in November, satisfied???

Paul - exactly... Clinton's record on national security is very similar to McCain's but they have some distinct differences. Their vote on the 2002 authorization was the same making that not an issue of an election between them. They also have major differences on most other campaign issues. So if Clinton is the nominee against McCain, she would run on policy relating to all campaign issues while McCain would run on a typical Rep platform with the exception of immigration since he leans the same way Clinton does. McCain of course would point out he has more experience than Clinton and Bill Clinton has already begun a defense for her in the latest stump speeches.

With Obama, experience and judgement would be the key issues McCain will hit him with but I think the Rep machine could possibly take him down with the Rezko issues depending on what details become public or even with perception. They are very good at convincing people of guilt without proof.

I am still waiting on someone to tell me what her great amount of experience is? Is it the 80 countries she visited on the tax payers dime? If so then people need to recall back in..I think 96 when she got in trouble for taking "vacations" in other countries where she also used tax payers money to take her friends along...big difference in experience and what she was doing.

"How come everyone is saying that Sen Clinton should get out now in order not to divide the party but no one says that about Huckabee who has no chance of catching up to McCain"

Bad example. Some in the GOP are indeed unhappy with Huckabee wearing out his welcome. He is now just an irritant to McCain and has no chance.

I guess Hillary will become an irrelevent nuisance with no chance.

Hillary = DNC Huckabee?