This show has gone down the drain. George seems biased now since the ABC debates, the new set kind of sucks because its distracting and you can see the crew shaking the camera and not getting their focus, and the show has become boring. Also, putting Karl Rove on kind of boils my blood because if he is not speaking for the McCain campaign, why in the heck is he on the show? Are you guys trying to get the same ratings as President Bush? Fire someone and get back on track!

Karl Rove, just after saying the "experience" issue would be a problem for Obama, but would be an asset for McCain, turned around and said it will be important for McCain to focus more on "future reforms' argument than on past Bush's blunders to convince the American people that he is different than Bush. Karl Rove has a double standard for "experience", he thinks McCain/Bush negative experience should not be mentioned and advices McCain to help the American people erase from their memories the 8 years Bush's nightmare and instead believe "FUTURE REFORM PROMISES" by McCain. On the same breadth, he thinks the American people should question the promises of hope and change by a "clean slate" young charismatic candidate like Obama. Karl Rove is losing his touch. Doesn't he realize it is much easier for humans to give the benefit of a doubt to someone that has given them no reason to distrust him due to the lack of experience , than to believe someone that has given them plenty reasons to distrust him because of his ample record of negative experience? Unless, Karl Rove is scrapping his entire ideology of "republicanism" and is pleading with the American people to give yet another chance to convicted criminals, and here I am not saying that McCain & Bush are criminals. But that the two have given us plenty reasons not to believe their scandalous party( Karl Rove's words)is capable of changing its ways and tending to the issues and concerns of the average American.

George--one of your guests estimated that 19% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. Clearly, your pundit guest totally underestimates the anger that most Clinton-supporters--predominantly women--have for the Democratic Party, Obama, Howard Dean, the Democracy of America, and a media that did NOTHING to investigate and report on Obama. Not only have women of ALL RACES been denied an overdue opportunity to have a president who would address their issues, but the opposing candidate was HAND-PICKED by the Chairman of the DNC and his nazi-like organization, the Democracy of America. Then, Howard Dean STUFFED Obama down our throats by scheduling primaries stacked in favor of Obama, by his manipulation of the Black caucus and anti-Clinton superdelegates, and by a wave of Clinton-bashing tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. I’m one of many EDUCATED, over-50 women who won’t be voting for Obama and I’m guessing the percentage who will be joining me is much higher than 19%. (I've already contacted my state to determine how I can write in Clinton on the ballot in November.) BTW--since I'm past my child-bearing years, I'll let all of those YOUNG, EDUCATED, ELITE women who support Obama worry about Roe v. Wade being overturned.

How about a knock-down drag-out brokered convention?
If Obama doesn't get the necessary number of delegates and Clinton holds onto her forces, then maybe someone like Biden can emerge as a compromise candidate.

MS Redhead,
What is obvious is that many Clinton supporters like yourself are irrationally emotional and angry. What America is witnessing right now is in fact is not "sexism" or "racism" in their ugliest manifestations, it's an icon (at least many thought) of the democratic party (Hillary Clinton) wanting to scrap all the rules and laws of the DNC so that she can win the nomination. That's what should be worrying the democratic party today. Do we support a ruthless candidate that thinks the party belongs to her dynasty and that has shamelessly uttered "IF WE HAD THE REPUBLICAN SYSTEM I'D BE ALREADY THE NOMINEE BECAUSE I WON ALL THE BIG STATES", "IF WINNER TAKES ALL WAS THE RULE, I'D BE THE CANDIDATE ALREADY", "THE DELEGATE IS NOT NECESSARILY PLEDGED", "SMALL STATES DO NOT REALLY MATTER", "I CAN'T SAY FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WILL COUNT"...OOOPS" FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN MATTER AND IF WE DO NOT COUNT THEM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ZIMBABWE", " HARD-WORKING WORKING CLASS WHITES WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA", "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE POPULAR VOTE IT'S ABOUT THE DELEGATES", OOPS, "IT'S ABOUT THE POPULAR VOTE NOT THE DELEGATES", "I HAVE TO STAY UNTIL JUNE , WASN'T ROBERT KENNEDY ASSASSINATED IN JUNE", "BLACK PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR ME IN NOVEMBER, BUT WHITE BLUE-COLLAR WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA"....the list of mispeaking and blunders are endless for our "intelligent", "experienced", and "caring" ex-first lady, but the american people are taking notes and are supporting both FINANCIALLY and MORALLY the candidate that has been CONSISTENT WITH HIS MESSAGE, DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS, MATURITY,AND ABOVE ALL TEMPERAMENT. We need a man of character and trustworthiness, Obama fits that description. YOU stay bitter and even vote for McCAIN if you wish, it's your prerogative, but do not claim you represent the cause of women in America. Our cause is not about dishonesty, unruliness, cut-throat politics and divisiveness, it's about judging a human based on his/her merit and not innuendos and stereotypes.

On CNN's Late Edition, Gloria Borger repeated the Axelrod response verbatim about the remarks of Sen. Clinton.

She definitely got the obama capaign's media memo.

Unbelievable....

What is Stephanopoulos thinking? Why does he (or any other TV host)have Karl Rove on his show, except as a Republican propagandist? Rove, not a college graduate and of no apparent erudition, is in no way objective and should never be asked to analyze the Democrats and give advice on what they should do. I realize Stephanoploulos is a Clinton shill and represents the ugly old-style politics andthus doesn't see how Hillary on the ticket would be disastrous to our goals, but as a man responsible for the journalistic integrity of This Week, one would think he'd quit having such a lying, corrupt, soon-to-beconvicted criminal Rove on the show. It's really as pathetic as it is disgusting.

Harerta Tesfa:
I previously admitted to being angry and make no apologies to YOU for being so. YOU, on the other hand, responded like a good Obamaniac—bashing Clinton and accusing me of being irrational and emotional. Who do YOU think you are pointing a finger at ME for choosing to support the person who I believe would best represent ALL Americans. But, that’s typical of you Obamaniacs—you think you know better than anyone else what is best for me and my country. If Clinton supporters are angry, you can look in the mirror for one of the reasons. Howard Dean, the DNC, and Obama loaded the gun, but the media and you Obamaniacs fired it. Let’s talk about RULES. You stated, “. . . (Hillary Clinton) wanting to scrap all the rules and laws of the DNC so that she can win the nomination.…” Do you really think that Hillary Clinton (an attorney) and her closest advisor, Terry McAuliff (former Chairman of the Democratic Party), could STEAL the nomination by breaking the rules??? Not! However, she could win the nomination because they both KNOW THE RULES. The rules state that a Democratic presidential candidate has to have 2025 pledged delegates to win the nomination. Tell me—does Obama have 2025 delegates? Not! I will agree that Clinton should withdraw from the contest the day Obama attains 2,025 delegates, but not a minute before then. (I’m an optimist who believes in “Hail Mary” passes and that anything can happen.) BTW--don’t you think YOU sound a little bitter and angry, and more than a little hypocritical in your accusations? YOU may be convinced that Obama is a man of character and trustworthiness, but I AM NOT. Obviously, you and I will have to wait to see if the majority of voters agrees with you--or me.

George -- another week of biased moderating. You don't really believe that it is the Obama campaign stirring up controversy about Hillary's comments, do you? Try looking at the entire country's newspapers and op ed pieces. You bias for the Clintons is a complete and total disappointment, and it is utterly clear. Ever since the debate I lost great respect for you. It just keeps getting worse.

Dear Harerta Tesfa.

I can list Obamas Blunders too and they are far worse. However, everyone lets Obama slide and they try to create problems for Hillary where there are none. The very first blunder Obama made which I believe showed his true character and not what he tells us to believe was in the very beginning of this campain when a person throwing a fundrasing party for him stated that the Clintons were liars. Hillary aked him publicly to distance himself from that statement and Obama in a nasty tone stated it was alright when he was fumraising for your husband. Then Obama started a nasty negative campain of painting Hillary as corrupt and dishonest a word he used himself while telling us all that he was not engaging in negative campaining she was. The press and the party came to his defense and Hillary could not even fight back without getting ganged up on. I would also note that in the beginning when he started this she was trying to stay away from negative campaining. Then in a debate he stated he would go into Pakistan and get AlQuaida or Osama Bin Laden without the consent of the Pakistan government. This almost caused an international incident with Pakistan who was cooperating with us and our troops lives depended on that cooperation. Pakistan was upset and said so publicly. When finally Hillary did fight back he called her desperate a term he did not use for any other candidate but the female candidate. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan his own bad decision and now he wants Michigan voters and Hillary Clinton to pay for his mistake. He stated he wanted to see a revote in Michigan while behind closed doors he blocked it by not aggreeing to any proposal that Michigan came up with. Then it comes out in the press that he had written off Michigan as Hillary's and I'll bet this is the reason he took his name off the ballot.
He has shown a pattern of writing off some states he thinks he can't possibly beat Hillary in like West Virginia. Then there was Reverend Wright controvery while he should not be held responsible for remarks made by his pastor he should answer the questions voters understandably have about this whole incident. Why did he put a man who was known to be in his own words a little rough a year ago and felt he should distance himself from him on his campain as his spiritual advisor? What had he heard him say that made him come to that conclusion a year ago? He did not answer either one of those questions. The press keeps bringing up the flag pin thing and dimissing it as not mattering and being hypocritical showing that a lot of other people are often not wearing one. I don't care about the flag pin issue. What voters really want the answer to is why he was caught on tape not putting his hand over his chest and participating either at the singing of the national anthem or the citing of the pledge of allegiance I can't remember which one it was at the time it was quite a while ago. Now the answer could be simple and totally innocent but this issue would have been dead along time ago if he had a reasonble explanation and just answered it. Then there was the comment about working class voters being bitter and clinging to there guns and religion. He also made another comment on working class voters more recently that was equally offensive and the press totally let it slide. He was asked why working class voters would not get behind his candidacy and he stated that it was because he was different this is a polite way of calling working class voters racist. Also there was his inolvement with Toney Resco who the issue he is being investigated for is infuencing politicians with bribes. He gave a large sum of money to Obama's campain and buys a lot at the regular price so that Obama can by the house that was only being sold together for a greatly discounted price. However most people who dislike Hillary Clinton it is because of White Water to which she was exonerated and believe me if there was any hint of the fact of any wrong doing on the part of the Clintons, President Clinton would probably have sucessfully been impeached with the Republican witch hunt that was going on at the time.Now we have the DNC trying to give this election to Obama without giving Hillary a chance and pretending matmatically she has no chance and should get out. You can't take millions of voters rights away over the actions of a few party leaders. Florida had ample televised debates and speaches to base there decision on. So Barack Obama did not get to use his huge monetary advantage against Hillary. To me that says the Florida Primary was more fair not less fair and as far Michigan goes he should have to live with the consequences of the coice he made. Especially since he may have made it with idea of keeping Hillary from being able to count it when the DNC finally did what everyone new and admitted they would have to do all along. I could go on but this is already way too long. The conclusion I have come to from all of this is that people should listen to what Obama does not the rhetoric he puts out to win the election. He is not a diferent politician. His message is to win and election at any cost.

Dear Harerta Tesfa.

I can list Obamas Blunders too and they are far worse. However, everyone lets Obama slide and they try to create problems for Hillary where there are none. The very first blunder Obama made which I believe showed his true character and not what he tells us to believe was in the very beginning of this campain when a person throwing a fundrasing party for him stated that the Clintons were liars. Hillary aked him publicly to distance himself from that statement and Obama in a nasty tone stated it was alright when he was fumraising for your husband. Then Obama started a nasty negative campain of painting Hillary as corrupt and dishonest a word he used himself while telling us all that he was not engaging in negative campaining she was. The press and the party came to his defense and Hillary could not even fight back without getting ganged up on. I would also note that in the beginning when he started this she was trying to stay away from negative campaining. Then in a debate he stated he would go into Pakistan and get AlQuaida or Osama Bin Laden without the consent of the Pakistan government. This almost caused an international incident with Pakistan who was cooperating with us and our troops lives depended on that cooperation. Pakistan was upset and said so publicly. When finally Hillary did fight back he called her desperate a term he did not use for any other candidate but the female candidate. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan his own bad decision and now he wants Michigan voters and Hillary Clinton to pay for his mistake. He stated he wanted to see a revote in Michigan while behind closed doors he blocked it by not aggreeing to any proposal that Michigan came up with. Then it comes out in the press that he had written off Michigan as Hillary's and I'll bet this is the reason he took his name off the ballot.
He has shown a pattern of writing off some states he thinks he can't possibly beat Hillary in like West Virginia. Then there was Reverend Wright controvery while he should not be held responsible for remarks made by his pastor he should answer the questions voters understandably have about this whole incident. Why did he put a man who was known to be in his own words a little rough a year ago and felt he should distance himself from him on his campain as his spiritual advisor? What had he heard him say that made him come to that conclusion a year ago? He did not answer either one of those questions. The press keeps bringing up the flag pin thing and dimissing it as not mattering and being hypocritical showing that a lot of other people are often not wearing one. I don't care about the flag pin issue. What voters really want the answer to is why he was caught on tape not putting his hand over his chest and participating either at the singing of the national anthem or the citing of the pledge of allegiance I can't remember which one it was at the time it was quite a while ago. Now the answer could be simple and totally innocent but this issue would have been dead along time ago if he had a reasonble explanation and just answered it. Then there was the comment about working class voters being bitter and clinging to there guns and religion. He also made another comment on working class voters more recently that was equally offensive and the press totally let it slide. He was asked why working class voters would not get behind his candidacy and he stated that it was because he was different this is a polite way of calling working class voters racist. Also there was his inolvement with Toney Resco who the issue he is being investigated for is infuencing politicians with bribes. He gave a large sum of money to Obama's campain and buys a lot at the regular price so that Obama can by the house that was only being sold together for a greatly discounted price. However most people who dislike Hillary Clinton it is because of White Water to which she was exonerated and believe me if there was any hint of the fact of any wrong doing on the part of the Clintons, President Clinton would probably have sucessfully been impeached with the Republican witch hunt that was going on at the time.Now we have the DNC trying to give this election to Obama without giving Hillary a chance and pretending matmatically she has no chance and should get out. You can't take millions of voters rights away over the actions of a few party leaders. Florida had ample televised debates and speaches to base there decision on. So Barack Obama did not get to use his huge monetary advantage against Hillary. To me that says the Florida Primary was more fair not less fair and as far Michigan goes he should have to live with the consequences of the coice he made. Especially since he may have made it with idea of keeping Hillary from being able to count it when the DNC finally did what everyone new and admitted they would have to do all along. I could go on but this is already way too long. The conclusion I have come to from all of this is that people should listen to what Obama does not the rhetoric he puts out to win the election. He is not a diferent politician. His message is to win and election at any cost.

Thank you Ms Redhead. You surely speak for me as I write the same blogs daily. I especially agree about the young women who have gone to the polls with tears in their eyes voting for a black man who has accomplished nothing but a speech. Harerta Tesfa listen up. I too am over 50, and all the women I know will not be blackmailed into voting for BO with threats of conservative judges for the Supreme Court and overturned legislation for women. I worked hard to get those bills passed to the obvious yawns of many of our daughters and granddaughters. So why should we care, Ms Redhead! Let them re-fight our battles. The party establishment is astounding me and I will not support their rammed at us choice either. I think Howard Dean is living vicariously through BO and is determined if he couldn't win in 2004, he will win it this time - that is, with the help of Donna Brazille (thank you, George, today, for NOT having such an obvious backer of BO on ThisWeek who presents herself as "Uncommitted" and a voice for democrats.) She should be thrown off the DNC. I think we are going to learn tonight on the HBO special "Recount" of the FL votes in 2000 as to one of the main reasons Al Gore lost in 2000 - his campaign manager and staff (Ms. Brazille et al). But, the biggest thing I have to say is how women have given permission to the Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermanns, and virtually ALL the other male reporters and pundits to say the most disrespectful, misogyny, vitriolic, matter-of-fact, expressions about Hillary Clinton that have ever been uttered about anyone in American politics. Unfortunately, women who crash through the glass ceiling rarely mentor or take other women with them and themselves become part of the exclusive good o'l boys system. Men then look at them for clues as to how to treat women. What a mistake as we have so graphically seen in this primary season! These women are: our elected officials - Nancy Pelosi, Clair McCaskill, most noteably. Inside the Washington Belt - Sally Quinn (who involked an Obama name and speech idea while covering the Pope's visit for MSNBC - astonishing!) Senior media correspondents -
Andrea Mitchell, Gloria Borger, Margaret Carlson, Candy Crowly, Linda Douglas(who Thurs OFFICIALLY became part of the Obama campaign. It was unofficial before). Male Congressmen - Ted Kennedy, most notably. Former elected officials - Al Gore, George McGovern (Clintons' ran his campaign in Texas in '72), President Carter, who you would think would be happy to support a former First Lady, since they are all in a very exclusive group. Washington insider, Carl Bernstein who not only has written a very critical book about Hillary, now serves CNN as some kind of 'objective' pundit, who is one of the worst critics of Hillary. The sprew of negative, negative, negative about a former First Lady and her President husband is beyond belief to me. I have followed the Clintons' as closely as anyone, and I have never heard or read this stuff before this horrible Primary season that is taking years off my life. And THIS from democrats! What happened to staying neutral until after the primaries?? If Hillary is not the nominee, I will have absolutely no problem voting republican for the first time in my life (I AM a liberal democrat who was a delegate to a national democratic convention) because this war will end due to public pressure, and it won't take a radical, unvetted candidate to do that. What is BO going to do after that??? "Bring us all together" - for WHAT? I also am NOT in favor of HC being the VP. Remember, it is up to the president as to what, if anything, the VP will do. He would never ask anything of her beyond going to funerals because of his fear of being overshadowed. She would be USED to get women, the working class voters, the over 65 vote, the Hispanics to vote for him since he can only get Afr-Ams, the eggheads,and college kids. Good luck on that fairy tale as well as the arrogant suggestion he will "redraw the electoral map and win by a landslde". God, please help us!!

MS Redhead,
Of course we can all claim that our candidate is the right candidate, that can be an endless debate full of spin-doctoring. But I would like to base my arguments on facts. You invoked Hillary's law credentials to argue that she is not trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, as if a law degree a a guarantor of honesty and as if Obama's law degree just doesn't have the same weight. Again, let's resist the temptation to pander and look at the facts. FACTS:1)The democratic party decides nominations based on delegate count (this is the same system that was never disputed when Clinton was twice the nominee of the party and the same system Hillary AGREE TO BEFORE THE primaries)2) Now that Hillary is losing the nomination this is what she has to say about the democratic system “We’re going to have to change the system by which we pick the nominees, I believe, and we are with the system we have now,”, 3) The DNC decided to punish Florida and Michigan because they moved the primary date 4) Hillary and Obama agreed with the DNC ( not an utter on Hillary's side prior to Obama' surge concerning disenfranchising the voters of both states) , 5) Hillary has now become the champion of democracy and not only has changed her mind about how important the votes from the two states and wants the DNC to rescind its decision by including the votes in their entirety (never mind that she was the only one running in Michigan primary, and democracy requires at least two opponents in order to validate a contest as democratic) , but also has OPENLY said that not 2025 (you need to follow your own candidate's moving target numbers) but 2210 should be the magic number 6)The democratic party system counts the delegates whether they come from primary states or from caucus states 7) Hillary knew that when she agreed to run on that system ,now she argues that the caucus states shouldn't really matter... Again the list goes on...The facts are there for all of us to see and judge for ourselves. Now the challenge for you is to present facts that show Obama has not played by the rules he agreed at the beginning of his candidacy. As for my bitterness( our bitterness as you say), you're off the mark there. Polls have consistently showed that higher percentage of the Obama supporters, including myself, would not have any problems voting for Hillary in November if for some reason she ended up being our nominee. The reason is simple. Most of us believe our party platform is by far bigger than the two candidates put together and we can't risk our future and the future of our children by allowing third term of the party that is destroying our country, the republican party. At the end of the day we believe, Hillary with all her overzealous manipulations to win this campaign and all her misspoken words, still has more compassion for the average american than Mccain or any other republican will. That's the fact dear and that's why I invite you to make your determination based on facts and not emotions.

Jolene and FrancS,
Especially FrancS, I do not think you should vote for anyone that does not represent your aspirations and hopes in life. But do not get unglued if other people think that Obama more than Clinton represents their aspirations and hopes for America. I also believe it's very childish to threaten the Obama supporters with a vote for McCain if Hillary loses the nomination. Folks, it's your vote, cast it for whomever you wish. As for all the speculations about Obama's associations and "mispoken" words, etc. , I disagree with your assessment of the media behavior. The media has covered everything associated with Obama, and Clinton ad nauseam. In fact, if anything, the media should be blamed for giving so undue to the "non-issues" and have given little coverage to the real issues that are keeping the American sleepless at night: the economic and war issues. As for the Rescoe issue, again I base my judgment on facts not emotional speculations. FACT is Obama has not been in any way implicated in the RESCOE legal case, he has not been served any subpoenas or indictments. What Obama or Clinton said and had to apologize for or later recant , both have had their share of "mispoken" words. You think Obama's are graver, I disagree. I think they both have their share of sloppy mispeaking. I guess each and everyone of us would probably do the same , had we had to endure non-stop grueling campaign schedule for five months. It's gets tiring after a while, and mispeaking is just part of it. What I am totally opposing about Clinton right now is the fact that she thinks the system need to be changed to accommodate her. Whether the system is good or bad is a debate for the future, and perhaps this may be the first time that is has been tested. But today that's the system we have in the Democratic Party, that's the system to which all the candidates agreed before the primaries began. That's all.

Get real Mr/Ms Tesfa! 1) I am not threatening to vote McCain if Obama is the nominee - it's a fact! 2) HC did not misspeak Friday when speaking about the "Calendar". It was the crazed Obamaniacs who thought they had finally gotten what they have been laying in the weeds waiting for. NOT! 3) You obviously don't even know what sexism is - most people don't, including women. Look it up! 4) HC change the rules? Far left-wing democrats insisting on everyone 'following the rules' is laughable. As Ms Redhead pointed out, HC has people on her staff who know the "rules" of the DNC better than anyone - even wrote many of them. The move-on.org thugs who took over the undemocratic caucuses in repub states that have put BO in this position, won't be able to takeover those meetings, thank God! 5) As far as FL & MI, if you lived in FL or MI I doubt you would be so eager to disenfranchise 2 million votes CAST by real people. And if BO is given one of those votes cast for HC, I will be ready to march in the streets and do no-telling what! 6) So...you disagree about the media coverage - you obviously are not watching what I watch. I defy you to find *one* positive comment in the media about HC in the past 2-3 months - all media panels are ALL Pro-Obama unless Terry McAulliffe or Howard Wolfson is on. 7) Any Obama gaffs are safety-netted by the media pundits. HC is daily thrown to the dogs. 8) BTW, Mr/Ms Tesfa, which of the three Obama demographics do you fit into? I am in no mood for lectures from someone who obviously needs to study more.

FranSC,
"8) BTW, Mr/Ms Tesfa, which of the three Obama demographics do you fit into? I am in no mood for lectures from someone who obviously needs to study more."
=====================
Forgive my lack of studying, but I am struggling to connect your answer into a logical sequence. Anyhow, just to respond to your question about my demographic affiliation, I am 48, white, female, with college education, world-travelled, city dweller, fairly involved in the democratic party, voted for Clinton twice, admired Senator Clinton for her personal strength for many years, despises the republic platform... But this primary has unveiled a side of Hillary that is very unsettling to me as a woman and as an American and have decided to listen to what Barack had to say before I made up my mind. I do find Barack demeanor and message by far more refreshing and I do believe he will lead this country to a better future. He also shows a strength of character and reconciliatory attitude that will serve him well in bringing the two parties to work together for the common good. More importantly, Barack seems to be better equipped to change the image of America in the eyes of the international community because he has the benefit of having been exposed to different cultures and beliefs. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with me. What will settle our disagreement are however the rules of the DNC. I am ready to stand corrected if the DNC will invoke some rules that will allow Hillary to become the nominee in spite of the fact that Obama has the majority of the delegates today. The question is will you abide by the decision your party makes with regards to the nomination?

Ms Tesfa, I am a bit taken aback that you fall into my demographic which I hope you understand is most unusual in that you are supporting BO. I do not take on people to try to change them since I firmly believe our views on issues are due to our life's experiences. However, I'm struck by your broad-brushed views, nothing specific which is exactly why BO is freightening to me. He doesn't tell you what he's going to do just platitudes like you've used - "bring everybody together to work for the common good". Oh, please. How can anyone bring everybody together when you lose 30-40% of your own party? Forget republicans. And the only thing he's done is get elected to the US Senate 1 and 1/2 years ago in an easy election with an opponent that was unpopular, was in the Illinois Legislature and was a volunteer on the streets of Chicago before that? None (0) of his supporters can point to one piece of legislation he gotten through in the US Senate or his state legislature, voting "not present" a shameful number of times. And the thing about this primary unveiling a side of HC "as a woman??" that you aren't comfortable with is particularly troubling. If you have gotten your information from the news media during this campaign, that is your problem. I guarantee your concerns are vague and non-specific. She has got quite an impressive history. You need to go to hillaryclinton.com and see for yourself, since you aspire to making an informed decision. And as far as women's issues, HC is 100% more reliable on that than BO. We don't know what he does and does not support. I've never seen such disrespect in my life as the Clintons' have endured during this. Ms Tesfa, I wouldn't be surprised if you have children who have convinced you to vote for BO - like Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Sen. Clair McCaskill (Missouri), Ted Kennedy, Gov. of Wis, President Carter, Chris Matthews, Rep. James Clyburn (SC). It is disgusting that these elected officials,in particular, are trying to help elect someone their kids want. Good luck, Ms Tesfa.

Harerta Tesfa

Obviously you did not read what I wrote very well. I never threatended to vote for McCain in todays post as far as being emotional it sounds to me with all the stuff you wrote today that you are the one who is being emtional. And don't tell us about the rules we know them very well and we also know that the super delegates came about after the 1980 convention and there purpose was to make the decision if it was felt that the people made the wrong one like someone who could not win in the general election. So when Hillary tries to get super delegates to vote for her she is following the party rules it is the DNC who is not. Anyone who thinks the DNC rules are fair probably really thinks George Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. What a better world we would be living in right now if the true winner of the 2000 election had been sworn in as President. Americans sat by and did nothing they did not stand up for themselves or Democracy no wonder the Democratic party thinks they can do the same. What I will do is leave the Democratic party, the party I have been a member of for almost 30 years I will become and Independent because I am ashamed that my party has become no better than the republican party and its dirty tricks of the last 12 years. Before you judge Hillary Clinton as the awful person the media and Obama has made her out to be you should read more about her. Read her book a living history and check out her record at a reliable place like the United states congress Website.

hillary kennedy comment. Muchadoaboutnothing.

You talk as if there is no way for her to win. The race is not over. Florida and Michigan must count or the Dems are going to lose a lot of loyalty. Who knows how the delegates will vote at the convention?

I am getting really annoyed with your bias towards BO. Hillary is not out. Stop pushing her out. The media respects the DNC rules but not the process.

I love This Week but stop the bias.

Obviously emotions are running high but think about it. Obama is not the one that is having horrible sexist remarks made about him by the media. Any remarks made about him are gone in a day, except for Rev Wright and they tend to be justified by the media. He has been just as critical and negative but yet it just is neglected by the media.
And, the superdelegates were put in place for a reason. It is not about the delegate vote or the popular vote. It is for them to decide if the people, at the time and circumstances when the convention is held, have chosen the right candidate. It is their job to review and decide who is the most electable, the most experienced, the best candidate for the nomination.
If you want to go by the rules for Mi and FL, they signed that they would not campaign, they did not sign that they had to take their name off the ballot. If you want to go by the rules, then the DNC rules says only 50 percent of the delegates should be taken away..not all of them. If you want to go by the rules, then anyone who campaigns in a state where they are not supposed to would not get any delegates. That would leave Obama getting 0 for FL, as whether it was intentional or not, he had ads running there. So why did he not get more votes for him...because FL chose Hillary over him!