For sixteen years the Right-Wing Noise Machine has accused both Clintons of everything from immoral behavior to rape and murder. We're not talking the National Enquirer (well, them too but not only) we're talking about major news networks, national newspapers, and numerous elected officials.

If you heard stories like that about someone for the better part of two decades, wouldn't you be a little wary of them?

Why don't we think Obama has any experience?

Hillary-don't trust but has their best interests at heart.

If she was everything the Obama Campaign claimed she  was, wouldn't the Voters pelted her with rocks or burned her at the stake by now?

Now.  Why would a state like PA vote for her when they don't "trust" her.

Well.  There's different kinds of trust.  If you ask me if I think any politician is 100% truthful or that being untruthful is of paramount importance, I can say "Sure."

But guess who was the most honest president in my lifetime?  The most trustworthy president in my lifetime?

Yep.   Jimmy Carter.  The man's integrity was never in question.  

Now.  Why would a voter vote for someone they think is less than truthful?  

I think Krugman today says it even better:

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they're looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama's eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign's central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can't afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run -- but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don't think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

I am always skeptical - hopeful at times - but still skeptical.

it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing

This is not my own reason for supporting Hillary, but it may apply for many voters who are not as plugged in to the election news and analysis, especially in these uncertain times.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?"

Plouffe blinked. It was a major give to Clinton to say: "Fairly or not, the majority of voters don't trust Senator Clinton." See, he said "or not."

We're in the primary and the majority of Dem voters DO trust Clinton. She has the highest popular vote, ever actually.

I do find it curious however that there has not been a single mention of Ambassador Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon's defection from Clinton to Obama.  Amb. Guerra-Mondragon was not only a President Clinton appointee, but was a Hilraiser, having brought in $500,000 for Senator Clinton.  Given the apparent importance of Puerto Rico if this campaign goes to the end, I am surprised that no one has mentioned it.