Also?  I don't think Obama can make it through the summer.  McCain is already attacking him hard.  And I don't think Obama (OOO I can't run in Kentucky) can stand up to him.

Taylor Marsh has an interesting Nightline clip about women who are ticked about the sexist treatment shown during this campaign.  The media keep glossing over an important fact, though, and concentrating on HRC instead of the anger we all feel not just toward the media, but toward the DNC and Howard Dean.  They have not stood up against any of the misogyny.  Dean personally called McCain to ask him to pull the NC Wright videos, but when the Chelsea "pimp" comment came out?  When the "stay in the bathtub" Fatal Attraction comment came out?  Crickets.

Keep in mind that the calls for Clinton to drop out became loud right after the DC-MD-VA primaries, and that was on 2/9 (I believe). That was way before OH, TX, PA and so on.

Moreover, Hillary supporters want her to stay in until we have a final resolution acceptable not to all, but to most Dems.

This is just the start...
Now the first female vice presidential candidate in U.S. history, Geraldine Ferraro, just hinted that she may not vote for Obama if he's the nominee. It's quite a signal to send.

... .. Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton "likeable enough" as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would "absolutely, positively not" vote for him come fall.

Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. "I think Obama was terribly sexist," she said.

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. ...

Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim. Don't think Clinton's female supporters aren't listening.

One thing is certain, Senator Obama has made a mess of this, as has his campaign. Early on, arrogantly pronouncing that he could get the vote of Clinton supporters, while he wasn't sure she could get his was the starter, with Mrs. Obama making it worse with her remarks. Obama's supporters didn't help either, attacking Clinton supporters with profanity and worse.

There long ago began a hardening of hearts and attitudes on the Clinton supporter side, with women now determined to stiff Obama if he's the nominee (taking myself out of the equation). But they're not just going to sit out the election. Many of Clinton's supporters are planning to vote for John McCain. It's hard to believe, I know, but it's a fact.

It's all about principle. Clinton's supporters don't understand why the woman with the big vote total is being pushed out. Brokering a nominee who refuses to count Michigan and Florida is not their idea of democracy from the Democratic Party, which they've supported for decades. Barack Obama stands for everything they've come to loathe this primary season, the sexism, his silence about it, his own complicity in it, the disrespect of Senator Clinton, the list is indelibly marked in each Clinton supporter's brain.

I was hesitant in my backing of her at the beginning. Now I am tremendously awed by her performance, especially since she found her voice.

Honestly, if this was a sporting event, which team would YOU choose to represent your side: The team that peaked early in the season and is coasting to a close finish, or the team that has proven it can win not just this game but the finals?

More importantly, it really pisses me off when Obama supporters brush her off as some insignificant gnat getting in the way of their chosen one.  And if one more of them preaches to me of her "diminished credibility" I'll spit.

For me, if this is the core Hillary, she's what I believed she was.

I wonder what the core Obama really is?

Lincoln Chafee is on WNYC right now, and discussed a lunch meeting of the 5 (Count'em, five) moderate Republican senators on the day after the decision of the Supreme Five gave Bush/Cheney the WH. Cheney was the guest/speaker for the lunch and told the moderates there about how the new administration was going to hit the ground running by doing everything they actually did do (abrogate the missile agreement, refuse to work for Kyoto, cut taxes, overturn environment, health, and safety regulations, take a more aggressive foreign policy stand, etc.).

Chafee says that he told Cheney this was contrary to how Bush and he had campaigned -- Cheney gave the trademark crooked smile. Chafee said he wrote a letter of protest after the meeting and sent it to Bush and Cheney. No response. And no "humble foreign policy."

No one is quite sure when Clinton hit her stride, when she stopped caring about the polls, when she took her campaign to the people and gave voters a window into her soul.

But she stayed, took the blows, and that was the right move. She hung in there through a rough week of boos and catcalls and won WV by 41 flippin' points. And today, Obama and Michelle are making kissy sounds her way and even ARIANNA has written a piece at the odious HuffPo praising Hillary's "historic" run and her admirable grit.

So I was wrong. I still worry that if she battles all the way through the convention, it will hurt her. At this point, it's pretty apparent that the deck is totally stacked against her because the DNC has obviously decided to support Obama, win or lose--and probably lose.

It's a branding thing. I think the DNC wants to lose to McCain, put Iraq and Bush's other mistakes on his plate, and hold the Congress. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but it's the only explanation I can come up with for the steady stream of five-superdees-a-day flowing to Obama, even after he lost OH and PA and RI decisively, even after he lost IN (no matter how slight the margin), and even after WV gave him the statistical finger. The Democrats-in-charge want Obama to be the nominee because they (foolishly) think it will help their  brand with young people more than running Hillary. They are wrong. Not all young people congregate in Starbucks and go to college--not in this land of "two Americas."

But I digress (sorry). I've learned to trust Hillary to know when to fight and when (if) to concede.  

Of course, the GOP may keep its powder dry until September, but I don't think they will.  The winds are blowing too strongly against them, they can't afford to wait to start the smear process.

If she doesn't, we're going to wind up with an amateur at the top of the ticket and a loss in November.  

Geez, how hard can it be?  We need someone with experience and leadership in the White House.  Barack Obama has neither.  He's a Johnny-come-lately who's good with pretty words but has virtually no track record.  He's mediocre in debates and none of his supporters can tell you why they support him ("Issues?  We're supposed to look at issues?") but they'll happily walk the Democratic party off the plank to do so.  

(2) After the conclusion of the last primary, devote the vast majority of her time attacking McCain.  Demonstrate willingness to tag-team with Obama to take McCain on.  This shows unity, reassures people who are worried about the party if this goes to the convention, and gives a flavour of how strong a unity ticket could work (on either variant).  If Obama won't be part of it, and insists on doing his own thing, then I guess we'll have found out a little more about who he considers his main enemy this year.

Heck, for all the shouts of "Drop out!" (and worse), I have yet hear anyone talk about giving Clinton any kind of condolence prize.  No recognition, just jeering.

I mean, for pity's sake folks, give the woman some kind of carrot, some kind of "Good show!", "Now there's a great Democrat!".  Anything?  Bueller?

This party cannot be remade into the image of  the plastic Axelrod nothingness or it will be doomed into the Rovian collapse of the Republican party.  

There have been so many PR missteps by the DNC and the Obama camp that any resemblance to a fix, winning over Hillary's voters is NIL.

What five months of political rancor has done begs the question: whether Obama can pull the party back together. Despite pundits writing about it and talking about it like it was a given, a pre-ordered fix, a spell he could divine to switch millions of Hillary supporters to him.

We're talking about 5 mos of acrimony which has culminated in at least a quarter of both Clinton and Obama's supporters refusing to vote for the other candidate, instead switching to McCain or not voting.

It's not a given, in other words, it won't fall out of the sky or result from natural selection, because it's unnatural; it's an intangible that can't be measured by pollsters. But it's a fair bet that with the electorate split in half, Obama actually has two opponents, not one. Funny, the pundits have never characterized it that way. And for good reason, most are in the tank for Obama.

There has never been a primary before, in recent history, where one party's electorate was so impaired, so divided, not just by one or two differences, but by gender, race, socio-economics, values and regional dissimilarities. The curative will not come from speech making or huge rallys, it won't come from endorsements, or a media double standard, it won't come from any measure by which Obama has made his case successfully to half the electorate.

So, how will the presumptive nominee unite the party? The rift is so expansive, it would be impossible to win over the other's base. Despite that reality he's pitching it, with all its unreasonableness, its improbability, as if it was an eventuality? Ridiculous.

Try to find a pundit who's even attempting a discussion of what should be front and center, but is a no go. The reality: each camp is equally uncomfortable with the other's, not exactly a winning coalition.....

And I'm still waiting for all the wonderful things that our voting Democrats into power in 2006 was gonna bring. What have they done for us?
How have they governed effectively? How are we better off with the Democrats in power than we were before?

She is the last and only candidate that can take the party away from the Dems insiders who selected Obama for the same reason the Reps selected GWB in 2000 and give it back to the people.

Thinking the political landscape was going to give them an unprecedented win, the party elitists/insiders went for a coup-stile campaign and selected Obama as a maneuverable front and Donna Brazile as their mouthpiece to take the party in the IVORY TOWER direction.   They have sold to their ambition all basic social-democracy principles of a just society where the less fortunate are protected by a strong safety net.

Their game has been exposed, they are out there naked now because ordinary people are smarter that  all of them put together with their university degrees and false doctrine.

All the way to the convention is our only way to restore the party, the safety net we need and our economy.  

I also don't think Barack was being condescending when he said Hillary should stay in. I feel as if many of you are simply either misunderstanding his words or tone. That Clinton can do as well as she is doing commands respect, and I think Obama has it for her - he's just playing his cards as any politician would.

Some of you are getting upset at things that I don't think many people at all, including Obama, realize that you think is sexist. Let him know how you feel - either independantly or as a collective - and see if he changes. Just saying you don't like him and won't vote for him because of it is silly, especially when their policies (IE what matters) are so close.

I've disagreed with a lot of things BOTH candidates have done over the course of this campaign. Neither of them are saints, I doubt many people alive would even qualify. They will both have their mistakes, and do - and you can either hang on to those mistakes and punish them for it or you can recognize them for what they are - mistakes - and look past them.

If she drops out in June it will leave Obama wide open and exposed to GOP attacks for more than two months. Obama can't tolerate the scrutiny of a long race as we've seen since March.

After Indiana and Obama's much weaker showing in North Carolina I've felt he should drop out. He's losing momentum and I believe we're not even close to the bottom.

If she drops out then the convention may fumble about looking for a way to re-present or back off Obama.

The question for me is how the process plays out.  Clinton has GE money, why not just start campaigning for the GE as Obama is doing without the nom?  Go for it.  She'll pull some of the Repubs attention off Obama.  The media can rant about Clinton for the next months instead of vetting Obama.

Will the immediate weeks after June 3 be spent watching media trot out every Tom, Dick and Jane Obama supporter that opposes a joint ticket?  I know they won't give equal time to those that want a joint ticket.

Where will she campaign and what will she campaign about?  Will she go around campaigning against Obama even though there are no more votes to win?  Or will she ignore Obama and campaign against McCain as though she had, somehow, already been named the Democratic nominee?

On the other hand, whenever she exits it is going to be annoying for her supporters and the later she does it, the easier it may be.

At this point, despite desperately wanting to be think it's possible, she doesn't have much of a chance, it seems that the SDs are determined to have Obama, no matter what. I'm honestly betting that even if the pledged delegates hadn't turned out to be, essentially, tied, the SDs would have gone with Obama.

Opinion:
HRC should stay in until the democratic party picks a nominee.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/sweetie-happens-to-men-too.php