if obama was standing up against these attacks i may feel differently even though i am not a supporter, but he is playing into them, adding to them and benefiting from them.

i am just tired of it..... and i do caution all those that buy into the BO can get HRCs votes but not vice versa.... that he polls even to her without ever being vetted means he only has one direction to go when the repubs are through....

If the superdelegates override the winner and decide the nomination, there will be a civil war.

One thing is absolutely certain - if Hillary is Barack's VP, Repbulicans will never allow the thought of impeachment to cross their minds.

Thats why I often thought that Dennis Kucinich would be the best VP for Hillary.

The support for Hillary, and not a generic democrat, from working class women and quite a few men is easy to miss unless you look for it.  You will see very few of these people on the internet because they're too busy trying to survive in a none too friendly environment to screw around with it.

For reasons that seem obvious to me, but seem to be lost on many, these supporters believe that Clinton really cares about people like them.

Reines was incredulous at the lack of an apology, but Shuster stood his ground.

Until this morning, that is. Shuster plans to apologize tonight on "Tucker," the 6 p.m. show on which he was filling in for host Tucker Carlson yesterday.

"The comment was completely inappropriate, and we have called the Clinton campaign to apologize," network spokesman Jeremy Gaines said today. Phil Griffin, the NBC News executive who runs MSNBC, called Reines, telling him that the comment was clearly wrong, and tried unsuccessfully to reach Wolfson."

Link

For those of you who think yelling at MSNBC/NBC is tantamount to bashing your head into the wall, try this:

Jeff Immelt is the CEO of GE, their parent company.  You know, the folks who sell dishwashers and washing machines and blenders to...your average Hillary supporter.  And some men, too, but come on, let's be honest here.

But it's also clear that huge numbers of people are energized but each of these two fantastic candidates.

The determinants of whether the first place finisher offers the veep slot to the second placer include:

1. Their willingness to be truly audacious in ticket construction.

2. The wishes of the second place finisher to be on the ticket (I don't know if Clinton would want it, and Obama might be better off knocking of Blago in Illinois)

3. The degree of personal animosity going forward (I don't get the sense that Obama likes Clinton very much as this point).

People have been focusing about the youth Obama brings out and his other constituencies. At the same time they have totally underestimated the enthusiastic Clinton constituencies and the new voters she brings out. I know these are not people who are on the internets but they exist and many of them will not show if it's not for her.

I know Obama arrogantly said he will get all of Clinton's voters but Hillary will not get his. God he is wrong. He is oblivious to the fact that many of Democratic core constituencies do not warm up to him. We cannot win without the Latinos, Asian-Americans, and a strong showing of Women.

I'm not saying that to say anything negative about either of them. It just seems like that would be an unnatural combination.

Also, Clinton has already played the role of advisor and co-policy maker (in a few areas) in the White House. I don't see how she would want to do that again.

The other way around seems a more natural fit.

It looks like it'll come down to bragging rights at or before the convention.

Who has the most pledged delegates?

Who won the popular vote?

Clinton could include Florida in the above counts, too.

There are tons of Democrats in my age group who say they are not voting for Obama under any circumstances, to the point of sitting this election out or voting for McCain, because of his experience.   Obama is viewed as a showhorse, not a workhorse.  He doesn't impress us.

That TIME poll can be trashed, by the way; it's a national poll, first of all, which is not how we run presidential campaigns.  Second, it's a snapshot in time which, coincidentally, was taken while Obama was riding the wave of his life with the media love fest and the Kennedy stuff; third, there are other polls which show that Clinton would kick McCain's scrawny behind.  On that point, there are individual red state polls that show Clinton beats McCain (go to pollster.com to find them all).

That said.. I beleive they have to come out united on the ticket.

I would like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket with the understanding that if she can keep the White House through 2 terms (Only a Clinton has been able to do that in recent history) that she would throw all her support to Obama for the next election.

HOWARD KURTZ: Hi, Howard Kurtz here. Howard, as I'm sure you know, on MSNBC yesterday David Shuster was talking about Chelsea Clinton's role on the campaign. He was complaining about the fact that she calls delegates but doesn't talk to the press and then he said the following: "doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way." I'm told that MSNBC has apologized. I wonder if you had any reaction to Shuster's characterization and to the networks apology.

HOWARD WOLFSON: I'm not aware that they've apologized. I haven't received any phone call. I'm not aware that Senator Clinton or Chelsea Clinton has received any phone calls so I'm not familiar with any apology. Look, I think that the comment is disgusting. It's beneath contempt. And it's the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network. There was an apology by another NBC news personality last month on air. I'm not aware that that person ever apologized to the Senator for anything he had said. And I think at some point you really have to question whether or not there is a pattern here at this particular network where you have comments being made and then apologies given. Is this part of a pattern? Is there something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don't know, but the comment was beneath contempt and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way. I'll say this. We've done a number of debates on that network. We had agreed yesterday to do a debate on that network. And I at this point can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network given the comments that were made and have been made.

via Taylor Marsh

Being new on the scene, Obama can argue that he represents more of a change/break from "Washington politics as usual".  He can paint McCain as part of the problem and position himself as the solution.  Because of her years of experience in Washington, Clinton cannot make this argument with the same effectiveness.  Obama can push a variant of the "Washington is broken" argument that Romney used in Michigan (I hate Romney for a multitude of reasons, but I thought that was actually not a bad campaign theme - there's no denying that many many people are cynical about Washington).  

As things stand now (this could change once Obama's record becomes more public), a Hillary candidacy unites a very disorganized Republican party in a way that a Obama candidacy does not. I don't think the Republican disdain for/derangement  about the Clintons is at all justified or deserved (it strikes me as a bit psychotic), but there is no denying that there are many people in this country with an intense dislike of the Clintons. Hillary would start with a large portion of the electorate united against her.

As BTD points out, the press (unfairly) favors Obama over Clinton.  Again, this could change (as much as the Media loves to build people up, it enjoys tearing them down).

I am no huge Obama partisan; in many ways i think Hillary is the better candidate.  (For one thing, she's a much better debater than Obama).

Just see them together---then let them debate.  There is no question people will vote Hillary.

Plus the talk of Guiliani as Atty Gen, Bolton as Sec of State--McCain is toast.

Obama doesn't need Clinton to get women vote or Hispanic vote, he can select a more pleasant female VP like Kathleen Sebelius or a Hispanic Vp like Bill Richardson.

The irony about all you so called "feminist" that support Hillary is that she got to this position because of Bill.

What has she accomplished in her 35 years of experience? She couldn't get universal health care passed in 1993 so how would she get it passed if she is elected? She voted for the war and she can't even successfully manage her own campaign  so why should we trust her with our country?