Hillary's Options

What are Hillary's options? The AP reports she lent her campaign another $6 million last month and George McGovern today called for her to drop out.

Hillary is campaigning in West Virginia today. The Boston Globe reports/p>

Her senior aides told reporters in a conference call this morning that her win in Indiana, however narrow, allows her to go forward.

Update: On CNN just now, Superdelegate David Parker from North Carolina said he's saying uncommitted. Taylor Marsh live-blogged the Clinton press conference today.

< The Morning After: Clinton Fights On | McCain on Judicial Appointments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We'll see (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    There's no great way to end a political campaign.

    Watching Obama Lose WVA and KY (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    after Clinton has dropped out is actually starting to work for me.

    More seriously, I think Clinton should aim to try to wrap up the remaining contests in a way that doesn't damage Obama, but keeps her viable if Obama melts down over the summer.

    On the upside, if Clinton is really done, then we'll all be getting that gas tax holiday.  Because the minute it's simply a McCain proposal, everyone in the media is going to love it.  And the Republicans will get credit for it and it will be unfunded.  


    Obama needs to win WV and KY (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    the way McCain needed to win MS. If Hillary's going to suspend her campaign, she should probably ask people in WV not to vote for her. They may nevertheless vote for her, which would be bad. . .

    At this point, I really kinda wish Obama had been able to knock her out in PA. We're muddling toward a disaster.


    A disaster of his making (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    And I think Hillary should stay in this as long as she can stand to - hopefully to the Convention, where Dean & co. will have some sense knocked into them by members of Congress from purple states, who'll have to run with Obama if he's the head of the ticket.

    Obama is on track to destroy this Party and a lot of the supers know it, which is why they're not rushing to support him.


    Not going to happen, I'm afraid (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    Well, I hear you (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    but at least the Clintons can afford to loan themselves money.  Look, we're almost there - three or so weeks till the primaries are over, and three of them will be wins for our gal.

    After that it's just machinations over MI/FL.

    If Hillary can stand down Ken Starr, you better believe she can handle a pipsqueak like Obama.  Actually, I'm feeling pretty good about her today (and going to give my mom some money to give her, since I can't donate any more.)


    Yes, there is (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    With a victory.  Look, I know that Hillary's chances are getting slimmer, but I live in Massachusetts and I don't have the luxury of casting a "protest" vote for John McCain that really doesn't change things.  My vote for John McCain may actually help put him in office.  I need to know that we did everything we could to get the nomination for Hillary before I resign myself to President McCain.  Particularly after Donna Brazile's performance last night, there will be no way I will vote for Obama.

    who is Tring this comment? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    Menopause Meg (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    see4ms to be having a grand ol' time TRing.

    Some BO supporter (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    downrating all the pro-Hillary stuff, most likely.  I wouldn't worry about it.

    A newbie this morn, "Menopause Meg" (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:06 AM EST
    who has done dozens of "1's" to many of us.  But no comments from the newcomer . . . or maybe someone we have seen before who played the dozens of "1's" then, too.

    Meh (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    To trollrate without an explanation IMO is childish. If this person wants to engage in adolescent behavior so be it.  

    Well Then (none / 0) (#223)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    Many more Clinton supporters trollrate here without explanation,  than Obama supporters, is what I have noticed.

    I can understand why that would not come into question for you though. Soon that will pass and we will get back to normal by  focusing on the GOP trolls and issues.


    I' glad she is going forward. (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    I have gained a new respect for Senator Clinton this campaign cycle. She started out near the bottom of my list and I'll be darned if she hasn't won a place in my heart for the way she has doggedly pursued her goal. A lesser man would have quit already(Then again a lesser MAN wouldn't have known that she'd have to work twice as hard to go half as far.) Senator Clinton is a role model that I'd be pleased s punch t emulate or have mydaughter emulate. I think I'll send her a letter that says as much.

    I agree. She has impressed me with her... (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    tenacity and still standing after so much is against her. The media. The hate. Seriously...I'm still not sure I like her all that much. But damned if she hasn't won my complete respect.

    I'm glad she's going forward too (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:01 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the only person running for President who actually earned the job.

    She is a role model for all Americans.  When this is all over, and November comes and McCain is elected President, perhaps  that is when people will finally have respect for the Clintons.  



    Calls for her to quit again? (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    If Indiana was the tie-breaker and she won it, then why the renewed calls for Clinton to drop out? I thought these were the results people were expecting.

    We were expecting a 5-10 pt (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    win in IN and a single-digit loss in NC. Didn't happen.

    They were only expecting a single digit loss... (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by northeast73 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    ....for about 4 days.  For WEEKS it was supposed to be an Obama blowout (due to the black vote of course) and 2 weeks ago he was 10 points ahead in IN.

    So she made up a LOT of ground and took IN...what is wrong with people?


    Yeahbut (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    The demographic math doesn't change.  BO won because of the African American vote. Big fat hairy deal.  I understand there's some concern regarding his campaign tactics in IN as well....but why again is it a loss for HRC, when she wins BO's neighboring state despite his 5 to 1 fundraising advantage?

    Here's hoping she's got enough money to stay in a while longer.  I'd give, but I'm maxed out.


    Its a Big Fat Hairy Deal (none / 0) (#60)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    Because we are at least 10% of the population and vote democratic year after year.  Why would you discount the black vote like that?  What is the point?  It sounds demeaning to me, though I am sure you don't mean it like that.  

    We have 2 great candidates, both have sizable groups behind them that are voting for them because they are (first off both very smart and accomplished) and secondly they are a women or they are black.

    Side note.  I am a Black/ White Jewish guy from Ca.  My mom who is a white jewish woman and I have great debates daily about this debate.  I have sided with obama, she has sided with Clinton, both us admittingly doing it over identity politics (which neither of us see any problem with), but the debate always comes back to thank god both of these people are 1 billion times better and more in touch then our republican opponent.

    Question to the moderator- was this side not acceptable for this thread (don't want to get thrown off again)  Trully and sincerely sam


    Because (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    AAs are only 10% of the vote in this country.  BO can't win the GE with his current demographic profile.  Not saying AAs aren't important, just that they're not the only important voting bloc.

    I live in the South (TN) where I do a lot of work on local campaigns. Don't I just wish the AA voters in Memphis and Nashville could overcome the likes of Bill Frist, but it just doesn't happen.


    Ten percent of the vote... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    ...in any given election in the swing states is decisive.  His demographic profile (as with Clinton) is a primary profile, not a GE profile.  

     Losing a larger percentage of the AA vote hurt us in OH in 2004.



    women (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    we lost OH in large part because Kerry lost white women known that year as soccer moms

    I agree the AA vote is important as is EVERY part of the party, but Brazile does not think so

    AA votes are 12% of the total US population, Latinas is 15%, college educated advanced degrees is what 3%, working class whites is like 80% IIRC

    and dont get me started on Seniors and the assorted other groups that dont make Obamas meme, Asian Pacific Americans, Native Americans..

    Which of these groups can we NOT win the GE without? which of these groups traditionally swings the GE?

    white working class, including white women, that is the group we must have to win a GE, IMHO


    But AA's already vote D at 90+% in GE's (none / 0) (#140)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    Yes, AA turnout will go up for Obama in the GE, but the gravy will be purely from turnout not from the margins.  The margins of AA vote for D's against R's is already essentially maxed.  Can the AA turnout boost alone be enough to counteract white defectors from the Dem base (some unclear but inevitable percentage of disappointed older women, security moms, patriotic indie men, seniors and lunch bucket Dems) and can Obama prove himself suddenly capable of winning Latinos who have not yet solidified as Dem voters?  McCain will appeal to all these groups.  Yes any Republican faces an incredible headwind in this election, but McCain is not just any Republican.  

    Is the boost in AA turnout enough to compensate for all the possible defections above?  Especially in light of Ayres and Wright?  Remember the latte sippers are also already D voters.  Sure you might get a boost in their turnout as well, and their may have been some drift into the latte sipping camp over the last few years, but will that be enough?

    So when you assess Ohio, ask yourself if the boost in AA turnout will be greater in number than the lunch bucket defectors and the suddenly squeamish indies who are thinking twice about Obama post-Wright.


    I'm referring... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    ...to a problem Senator Kerry had in 2004.  You're right, the margins are usually maxed out, but not in OH in 2004, where 16% of the African American vote went for Bush, compared to 11% nationally.  

     In OH, that could have made quite a difference in 2004.  In 2008, larger defections in more states could spell doom.  


    You might want to talk to Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    SHE is busy as a bee alienating whites and Latinos who are just as big a deal in an election as the AA demographic. The GOP has managed to garner majority status without the AA vote. I wish the Democratic party lots of luck attempting to win without any other demographic besides the AA vote.

    I heard a different message (none / 0) (#125)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    I watched this discussion and read the transcripts (thanks to talkleft), and didn't get this sense she was attacking whites and latinos that others are getting.  To me it seemed like unit discussiion.  Sorry that is what I heard.  Also, in terms of Gore, she got him more votes then Bush, she just wasn't as good a thief as the other side.  Lets give her a break on that one.

    Obama/ Claire McCaskill 08 (I have convinced myself she is the VP we need)


    Can you take my word for it about what I heard? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    As a Latina? I wouldn't presume to ever tell you when you should be offended.

    Look at the live blog thread here (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    Since you've managed to convince (none / 0) (#133)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    yourself, how about you tell the rest up how you did that?

    Personally, I could vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket - Bill Clinton that is.  I can imagine the heads exploding all over the internet if that was announced.


    Great day in the morning! (none / 0) (#209)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    If I would have a hard time voting for Obama I can assure you with absolute certitude that I would never in one million years vote for Obama/McCaskill.

    She is one of the major disappointments among the freshman Senators from 2006. I wouldn't vote for her for dogcatcher!


    Sam for me it isn't about the African American (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    ...vote because, and I am sounding like a broken record but I take it seriously, Donna Brazile kicked my Latina ass out of the party last night. So right now I got to be thinking about my people.

    If that he how you feel I need to go rexamine (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    I need to go re listen and re-read the statements. I certainly trust your feelings on the whole thing.  Wouldn't even think about trying to divide us (trully to cynism implied).  The whole black vs. latino thing I find absurd, it it like fighting for who gets it worse off.  THUS saying this I will go back and try to read and listen to this stuff with a different eye and ear.

    Thanks Sam.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    ...again, maybe I am being too sensitive, but I have read a lot of Latino bashing on the web from so-called progressives lately and I don't like it. My spouse and kids are African American and we are a truly blended family....Jewish/Puerto nieces and nephews, plus several other varieties. Most of my family support Obama and I was inclined to do the same early on in the process until the Latino and woman bashing started. I know that it isn't coming from Obama himself, but Donna Brazile needs to own up to what she said, call it mispeaking, and apologize. That's my opinion.

    AGREE (none / 0) (#186)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    I agree with your take on what Brazile said
    she has been huffin and puffin IMHO since the discussions last year about the importance of the Latina vote for Dems for the next few generations

    IIRC Latinas are 15% of pop, AA 12%

    Donna also wouldnt allow gay rights to come on to the civil rights platform

    she is very driven by maintaining AA only civil rights platform IMHO and her comment that she would vote McCain if Obama were not the nominee last night should be enough for her to have to step down off the ROOLZ Cmte..


    MAria (none / 0) (#192)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    We need to throw all the people that would divide us under the bus.  There is no place for them in America in the 21st century, where we people of color, will be the majority.  


    I think Se. McCaskill would be great running mate for a couple of reasons.

    1. she is incredibly articulate
    2. shw is from a swing state (I don't know her numbers in her own state though?)
    3)she helps with the olderwhite older woman demographic (just a sorta important group :).  I have thought for a while one of the problems with an Obama Hilliary ticket is that they are both reasonably good looking people.  This means that there could be unforuntate sexualization of the campaign (I know it is stupid- but so is deep seeded racism and sexism)
    4) she will be able to go and talk to Older White women and get them on the ticket.  I am guessing this a group he loses badly in.
    1)she is not a white guy with military experience(e.g. Webb or Clark)
    2) she is not as smooth as Hiliary

    You are right (none / 0) (#217)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    After watching the clip again she definitly dropped the ball. Words count, and she screwed up. Personally I still think the overall message she was trying to get across was unity. But it was a devisive screw up none the less.

    Donna kicked a lot of ppl out last night (none / 0) (#213)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:52 PM EST
    you and me both.

    my ppl vote democratic year after year too....so? (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    Because we are at least 10% of the population and vote democratic year after year.  Why would you discount the black vote like that?

    Oh yeah? Well your candidate is marginalizing the clear voting preferences of women, who are important to the Democratic party and have been loyal voters! He must drop out now, because the women of the Democratic party deserve to be honored for their lifelong loyalty.

    There...doesn't that sound silly?


    Let me take a shot... (none / 0) (#134)
    by andrelee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    Yes, we are 10 percent of the population, deep in some places but  only a smidgen in others... the big hairy is some of those places have lots of EV's. Enough one point victories in states with lots of EV's matter more than  being a million votes ahead, i.e. Gore. Bad performances in big EV states makes for last place in a two person race i.e. Obama v. McCain, but not Clinton v. McCain.' I hope all the folks like yourself and your momma who voted based on identity politics instead of voting based on who's better to win in the General using the voting system of these United States learn that voting only on what you see in the mirror is always a loser even though you might not be.

    andrelee (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    I mean you no offense, but please look at a current census.  There are not enough blacks in most southern states to give him the election, even if the voting age was dropped to three.  There are states in the NE and Midwest with less than five percent aa population.  Some, like MT and WY and the Dakotas have less than one percent!

    No one is discounting the aa vote--no one.  It is important and it always will be, but it is a faction of the party, and a shrinking one at that.

    Whites:  80.1
    Blacks:  12.8
    Hispanics: 14.8
    Asian/Pacific Islanders: 4.6%

    You know the candidates' demographics as well as anyone here.  Tell me who has the winning coalition.


    But the problem... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    ...is that the AA vote has been close to 100% Democratic.  NO other vote, be it white, hispanic, jewish or gay, comes remotely close to that kind of loyalty.  Do you believe that loyalty is guaranteed if Senator Clinton is the nominee in 2008?  And what about MI, which has a large AA population where Obama was not on the ticket?

     The other problem with the primary coalition is that it is just that...a primary coalition.


    census (none / 0) (#188)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    I think you should review the census data, the big important EV states OH PA FL are not going to be decided by the AA voters, it is the white working class and women in those states that will make or break us in the GE..
    and without the Latinas in the SW and yes even CA we could still lose to McCain

    So (none / 0) (#20)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    Is the problem with that the popular vote? Or just that people built up their expectations so that they are disappointed?

    Expectations are the name of the game (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    Supers and the media expected better for Clinton last night.

    I warned people not to predict a NC win. . .


    Outside of the blogs (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    Wasn't Obama supposed to walk away easily with NC? And wasn't Indiana supposed to be close? If people were calling it a tiebreaker seems like it could have gone either way.

    The media seems pretty determined to hurt Clinton as much as possible. Since they get to spread the expectations, should anyone really base their opinion on them?


    Pssssst they moved the goalposts (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    They are over THERE now. LOL The conventional wisdom seems to be she needed to win double digits in IN since Obama won by double digits in NC. The media likes to keep there narratives nie and simple.

    OK (none / 0) (#25)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    I didn't watch last night and haven't read the threads so I thought I might have missed something.

    I don't understand the point about the win in IN (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM EST
    She can go forward because its up to her.  But saying the win in IN provides some rationale makes little sense.  Overall yesterday she fell behind about another 200,000 in popular vote and 13 pledged delegates.  That is a bad day.

    Does she have to drop out.  Of course not.  Should she.  I'm not sure.  What does seem clear to me is that Obama is almost certainly the nominee.  The process of bringing the party back to together needs to start and it needs to start with Obama.  No matter what happens from here on out he needs to do nothing that even faintly sounds like a negative attack and he needs to whip his surrogates into line.  He needs to stop running against Clinton and start running against McCain.

    Similarly Clinton, if she decides to stay in, needs to stick to the issues or to attacking McCain.  She also needs to cut anything even faintly negative, including questioning Obama's electability, ability to lead, etc.  And she too needs to get her surrogates in line.

    What part of her winning (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    the state next to Obama's home where a large chunk of the voters are in the Chicago market that Obama predicted to win by 7 points, do you not understand?

    The part where it has any impact (none / 0) (#219)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST
    on either the delegate count or the popular vote the two things that matter.

    I think it should be done better (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by ajain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    I dont think this kind of non-sense should happen. She should be let out the race on a high -note. She is after-all the first woman to have had serious shot at the presidency and this no way to push her out of the race.

    She will get out, just let her do it on her own terms. Plus, pushing her out is simply pissing off.

    Go the distance (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by jjsmoof on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    She should (and will) go the distance.  Thats the fighting spirit in her I've come to respect.  Make the bama smear machine work till the very end.  I sound bitter...where's my gun and bible. /snark off

    One other thing, that $6 mil loan is bad news (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    That, as much as anything else, may impact the view of the SDs who have to see Obama's formidable fundraising as a powerful reason to pick him.

    working class - dumped again! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    The wealthy class supports Obama - the working class supports Hillary.
    Which class has more money to donate?

    Sure - there are blacks in the working class, but fewer than whites and hispanics.

    No doubt - McCain gained supporters last night.


    True dat (none / 0) (#27)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    But at what cost?  I can just imagine the Dems around here (Tennessee) backpeddling like mad to distance themselves from Obama if he's the head of the ticket.  Can BO raise enough money from Oprah to win both the Presidency - and 2/3 of the Congressional and local elections?

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#49)
    by goldberry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    The BBC reported this morning that Obama sent out a memo pleading for funds after last night.  And if HE'S hurting, then the DNC is hurting too.  

    The party just lost (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    Half their donor base.

    Obama's truly on his own now.

    And we all know his supporters never would have had it any other way.


    I heard that too, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Iphie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:58 AM EST
    but not the whole thing -- were they really saying he's strapped for cash? I heard that he sent out a fundraising request, but what information did they provide that would indicate that he is experiencing a lack of funds? I just imagined that his email was standard procedure.

    Don't Know (none / 0) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    but he's been spending like a drunken sailor trying to put it away.  He spent over $10 per vote in Pennsylvania only to lose by 10 points. He outspent Hillary 3 to 1 overall and 4 to 1 on the last weekend.  

    There's a point, a limit to how much any candidate can raise before the donor base just plain runs dry.  The maximum contribution during the primaries is $2,300.  How many people who can afford that level remain? How many of that group have already reached the limit?  How many small donors can still afford to give.  How much PAC money has already gone to the max.

    If Obama had the same financial limitations that Hillary had throughout he would have been beaten long ago.

    If he'd only had Edwards level money he would never have gotten off the ground.

    This situation applies to both candidates


    The DNC has been thinking (none / 0) (#177)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    that Obama's vaunted fundraising prowess will keep it rolling in cash in the fall.

    Think again, Howard and Donna.  The DNC ain't seeing a nickel from me. Not after the MI and FLA fiascoes. Not after the DNC found punishing innocent Democratic voters in FLA and MI preferable to working out a re-vote process, letting Obama veto every possible solution, and now pronouncing the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI permanent by permitting Obama to claim he is only 200 delegates away from clinching the nomination.

    Hellooooo.  Clinching the nomination does not occur at 2025 -- not if you want to have a prayer of winning MI and FLA in the fall -- because 2025 renders FLA and MI irrelevant. The DNC needs to make clear that 2209 is the magic number. Obama can get there with or without FLA and MI, but he can't claim victory based on a lower magic number that can only be calculated by disenfranchising MI and FLA.  


    She is expectd to win big in WV/KY- (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    enough to gain the lead back in pop. vote? I also never hear how she would do in delegates if she blows him out of the water there. And what about Puerto Rico? How many will vote, and how many votes can she pick up there?

    A few of important numbers-- (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    WV has 39 delegates at stake.
    KY has 60 up for grabs.
    Puerto Rico has 63 delegates.
    If Sen. Obama got them all, he's short of the magical, mystical, fantastical made-up number of 2025 (he now has 1836.5) & a very long haul from 2209 (he has 1908.5).

    Thus, the calls for Sen. Clinton to quit.

    Obama cannot seal the deal.  His best hope is for 70 to 80 of those delegates.

    Sen. Clinton will pick up a majority of those 162 delegates & leave the Obamarama waaaaaaay short on the first ballot.


    Obama needs to keep MI and FLA out (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    because he wants the magic number to be 2025, and thus only 200 delegates away.  If MI and FLA are counted, the number is 2209.  What needs to be driven home to him, his supporters, and the MSM, is that the magic number is 2209 whether MI and FLA are seated or not.  If he can get there without first agreeing to count MI and FLA, well, that means he's done a good job of sewing up all the SDs. But I don't think he can do it.  He NEEDS the number to be lower, and he thinks -- and apparently Howard and Donna and Timmeh and Tweety agree -- that he can justify the lower number by continuing the exclusion of FLA and MI.

    Sorry.  It doesn't work. The magic number is 2209. Period. No matter what.  Deal with it.


    Correct. (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    Until & if & when the Rules committee does something, the 50 percent + 1 is 2209.

    Actually, it may be higher!!!

    Somewhere got a bonus PLEO delegate &, I think, raised the total to 4417.


    she'll win in WV and KY (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    Thus, the calls for Sen. Clinton to quit.

    To me, she is out when she gives her concession speech.

    Til then, I ignore the attempts at manipulation.


    W VA, KY, PR (none / 0) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    "His best hope is for 70 to 80 of those delegates."

    And he ain't gonna get that many.


    I looked everywhere for you last night. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Teresa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    I owe you a huge apology for misreading one of your comments. I can't tell you how bad I feel. The thread closed before I could reply to you that I was wrong. Please accept my sincere apology. I feel terrible about it.

    Teresa- of course I accept (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:34 PM EST
    and I appreciate your apology.

    I'm so glad you read this comment (none / 0) (#225)
    by Teresa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    I have felt worse about that than any other comment I've ever written. I was tired and really should have put my glasses on! Thank you so much for being so gracious.

    You're a sweetie and I feel so much better now.


    Insult (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nellre on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    This is an insult to everyone who voted for her yesterday.
    Boy some men a dense. I'm figuring this is (perhaps unconscious) sexism.

    I dont think that she will get the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ajain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    So I think she shouldnt go crazy and make every effort to de-rail Obama. She should go out and promote the Democratic agenda. If she can afford to.

    I think she should be let out better. She has done enourmous good for the party and has in fact put health-care in center of the debate. She has forever changed the landscape for women in presidential politics.

    George McGovern is acting like a total douche-bag.

    A month of issues-only ads? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    Sign me up!  Any time someone wants to talk issues  and substance, my tiny cult will support them.

    [dkos sig line reference]


    Clinton's surrogates vs. Obama's (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by pixelpusher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    Besides Mark Penn, I don't know which of Clinton's surrogates haven't been "in line."

    It's Obama who hasn't got control over his.  Where do I begin?  Samantha Power, Joseph Andrew, his own wife, and of course the beloved Rev.  And then there are his nuthouse blogosphere groupies trying to project Obama's problem onto Clinton with their faux Mickey Kantor smear.

    The only way Obama can get all his people into line is to jack up the preacher act.  He hasn't got a coalition, he's got a personality cult.

    And PS:  How many of those Obama voters in the early primary states are still for him?  I know a guy who was truly torn between Obama and Clinton in the NY primary... he voted Obama (back in March) but I doubt he would do it again.

    And don't forget Donna Brazile.... (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    ..I'm starting to think that if the Dems want to keep me as a registered member, they are going to have to demote, if not fire, that woman.

    Add to Donna our magnificent Speaker Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    who has been so gracious to Hillary throughout. I wish I had a chance to cast a vote against her.

    The DNC has been stone cold stupid (none / 0) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    for playing favorites. They haven't been particularly good at hiding who they want to win the nomination. It's going to bit thm in the butt. They may have new Dems signing up but I'd say they have managed to alienate quite a few right on over to the Indy party.

    Early on Obama labeled Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    as polarizing and divisive.  He stated unequivically that many of his supporters would not support Hillary Clinton.  These gems came out of his own mouth.

    When the first rumors of Obama demonstrators disrupting the convention he failed to speek out.  He's still silent in face of renewed rumblings of disrupting the convention.


    Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Foxx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    loom as the deciders of this race. Think how different things would be if she had the momentum from winning those when she did.

    I'm sure Brazile and the others knew this from the beginning. And so the DNC's and Obama's vile backroom tactics are the deciders in this race. It really doesn't get any uglier than this. He's an illegitimate candidate.

    That said, her money situation is the killer now.

    Very good point (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
    I tend to agree with that (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Yesterday's results were bad news for Obama because it now means FL and MI were truly disenfranchised.

    personally i think the fix is in for the (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    convention. at least the dnc wannabes think so. now in politics anything can happen. stepping down and playing nice doesn't help her despite what mcgovern(who got to you, george) says.

    now since i am no longer needed or wanted per brazile and the dnc, then i can work for hillary if i choose and not feel guilty(i wouldn't anyway.)

    i despair because i think the backlash, which i have feared, is starting. talk about overplaying their hand! the coat tails won't be there. the repubs are happy i tell you. they are making a comeback without having to work for it. the arrogance of the dim leadership leaves me breathless. we just might lose seats you know. remember the newt revolution? the dims lost the south in the 60s. that couldn't be helped i think, but there is no excuse now. and guess what, once these folks walk, it will be a long time before the dims will see them again.


    They've managed to do so little since given the (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    majority in 2006 that I won't be surprised if races are closer.

    Coattails (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    The MSM and bloggers keep pointing out that Obama has coattails, but I don't see it.  State to state, Obama supporters were less likely to vote for other candidates or initiatives on the primary ballots, and in caucuses, they were less likely to stick around to discuss local party business.  Can someone PLEASE explain why the powers that be think he has long coattails?

    if the DNC followed their own rules (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    they would have noted that Obama violated DNC rules by airing TV ads in FL and holding a small campaign rally.
    But NO! It's St. Obama - and he's been in the bag from the gitgo.
    Backroom deal is apt description.

    I woke up wondering how much an endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Angel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    from Edwards would have helped Hillary.  Would it have made a difference?  Enough to change the results?

    But I have now resigned myself to President McCain.  

    Obama may have won last night but the Democratic party has lost.  He cannot win the general election.  

    I spoke with the typical hillary voter today (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    She didn't vote.

    She said she was going to vote for Hillary but didn't get around to it.  You have to realize, which many never did, that NC is a state that never liked Bill Clinton.  So when Hillary is needing these so called rural white votes on her side, she needed to get them fired up for her.  The thing was, they never were.  It was more of a "if I had to pick, I'd pick Hillary" kind of thing.  

    And no, I seriously doubt that an unpopular John Edwards would have helped much at all.  Hillary never had a shot in NC and frankly, the 14 point deficit is actually pretty good considering the demographics involved here.  If she could have run this well in other states like VA, MD, and GA like she should have, she'd be a lot closer to her nomination now.  It is too bad for her that her campaign was run so poorly early on.  


    it also helps (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    that Obama, with the media's assistance, cast the "first black president" and his wife as racists.
    And of course, Oprah telling blacks to not think - but just vote for THE ONE - the black one.

    No leader in the Dem Party has stepped forward to denounce Obama campaign's false racist charges against the Clintons.

    Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. can all have a beer with the empty suit they propped up.
    Mission Accomplished!


    i agree that playing the race card (none / 0) (#121)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
     is troubling.  but with that said, the white house might be the final barrier we as a society need to cross where we can begin to even the responses to this sort of thing out.

    but then again, ethnic divisions are all over the world and always have been so i'm not sure why it should be any different here.  i guess the point is, if a black man earns the presidency, it might become more acceptable to fire back when such accusations are made.  living in the south, i really don't like the way this was played, but at the same time, i'm almost willing to give it a pass so we can get beyond it.

    it is kind of like when oj got off...people were furious but in a way, i think that decision helped smooth some things around the country that may have lingered for a long time had he been convicted.  something about sacrificing one thing for greater good or something.


    oldnorth (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    i'm almost willing to give it a pass so we can get beyond it.

    How in the world do you think we'll ever get beyond it?  We both live in the south.  We have both seen what these specious charges of racism have done to our neighborhoods, our people.  The disunity will eventually heal, but it'll only take one pick at the scab to pull it off.  Rodney King didn't put it behind us.  OJ didn't put it behind us.  Obama sure as h*ll ain't gonna put it behind us.

    All these white male pundits living and working in predominantly white enclaves calling people like you and me racist because we have the audacity to support Clinton make me physically ill.

    I am not going to change my vote or my allegiances in the off-chance that it might soothe some folks.  When in the f-ing h*ll is anyone going to worry about soothing ME?


    your response is very important (none / 0) (#143)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    Israel always fires back.  Where does that get them?

    An eye for an eye only makes the world blind, right?

    The best thing is to let it go.  Fact is, black people have a right to be pissed.  If I was black, I'd be pissed too.  Is it your fault or mine?  No, but somebody or something is to blame.  There's a reason more black people in America are unemployed than anybody else.  Hell, it hasn't been more than a generation that saw blacks having to drink at separate water fountains and eat in different restaurants, let alone get equal educations and paying jobs.  

    Time will go on and generations will pass growing up in equal circumstances.  The important thing is that we do give a chance for people to heal.  If the response we give is anger an confrontational, where ultimately is that going to get anybody?  

    I, like you, believe the whole thing is total BS.  With that said, I also know that it will always be this way if WE, as the historically powerful majority don't accept, we will be a part in preventing things from getting better.  


    You say (5.00 / 9) (#157)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    black people have a right to be pissed.

    Well, so do I.  So do a lot of us here.  Why aren't we owed anything?  Why aren't you saying we deserve a break?  Why should I take the high road when it means that, yet again, another woman has to sit at the back of the bus?  Why does the human condition only come into play when it's a black man asking for something?  And how can you be so f-ing sure that throwing Obama this nomination will achieve this great healing of the rift in one go?

    Lookit, my daddy ate dirt pies when he was growing up with his twelve brothers and sisters, living within a stone's throw of the wretched reservation on which his mother grew up.  He got scurvy because he was so malnourished.  His only hot meal came from the lunch program at school, started by local dems, and he didn't even get that when the cotton came in because he had to leave school and go work at the mill.  I suppose you could say this gave him foreign policy experience, because a lot of Gullah came down to work the mill, and he learned from them.

    I'm supposed to lay down and let Obama have the nomination because I feel guilty about being white?  I'm supposed to hand him the potential presidency because it might hurt the aa community's feelings?  That is just as audacious to me as someone saying Clinton should get the nom because she is a white woman.  And Obama should be disgusted by the notion because he should be able to go by his merits, not a bunch of pansy-a*sed liberal elites who say things like, "I'd rather lose with Obama because it's the right thing to do."

    Honey, please.  Since when is losing a noble thing?

    NOTHING will heal as long as there are Wrights in the world.  It is not my responsibility to salve the nation's race wounds by voting for an unqualified first term senator.  It is my responsibility to make sure my vote means something, and it will mean nothing but that I am a compliant, idiotic liberal motivated by white guilt if I give Obama mine.

    I refuse.


    Kathy - Well said (4.75 / 4) (#178)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    Somehow you managed to see into my head and perfectly express feelings I have been having for some time now.

    Thank you.


    BRAVO! (4.66 / 3) (#163)
    by Angel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    first of all (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    nobody is "handing" anybody anything.  believe it or not, lots of white people have voted for barack.   that's the first thing you need to realize.  you may disagree with his tactics, but he's winning.  

    you're perfectly free to do what you want with your vote, that's certainly within your rights.  but i assure you that there will be people voting for obama based on much more than so called white guilt.

    and yes, there is such thing nobility in losing.  how you respond, how we respond, how the world responds to adversity is in part what defines our character but more importantly, is how everything comes together.  

    i know you're upset right now and maybe time will help you realize this, but this is also the closest a woman has ever gotten to the white house.  it isn't going to happen now, but it the time is coming.  rome wasn't built in a day, right?  strides have been made and are continuing to be made in all arenas, and the reaction people like you give with either further those strides or blunt them.  


    Condescend much? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    Black people have good reasons to be pissed (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    and paranoid. They have a right to demand economic, political and civil justice. But no one has a "right" to bigotry -- and most certainly no one has a right to exploit bigotry for personal gain. That not only is not a right it is morally reprehensible and destructive. We all have an obligation to question our prejudices, to move beyond stereotypes, to see others clearly and individually rather than to dismiss them collectively on the basis of our fears, limited experience, personal resentments, etc. The principles Martin Luther King spoke of and based his movement on are universal -- the principles of equality, dignity, respect -- the obligation to treat others with dignity and respect and to see them as individuals rather than dismiss them with hated stereotype applies to the white working class as much as to anyone else. Past suffering doesn't excuse anyone's obligation to behave as principled and moral human beings.

    Black people have good reasons to be pissed (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    and paranoid. They have a right to demand economic, political and civil justice. But no one has a "right" to bigotry -- and most certainly no one has a right to exploit bigotry for personal gain. That not only is not a right it is morally reprehensible and destructive. We all have an obligation to question our prejudices, to move beyond stereotypes, to see others clearly and individually rather than to dismiss them collectively on the basis of our fears, limited experience, personal resentments, etc. The principles Martin Luther King spoke of and based his movement on are universal -- the principles of equality, dignity, respect -- the obligation to treat others with dignity and respect and to see them as individuals rather than dismiss them with hated stereotype applies to the white working class as much as to anyone else. Past suffering doesn't excuse anyone's obligation to behave as principled and moral human beings.

    If the country were not in such dire straights, (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    we could afford to suspend all other concerns and pay attention to just that one. As it is we need the candidate (and president) that actually has the foresight and fortitude to pull as back from the brink, both domestically and internationally. And that person is Clinton, not Obama.

    This "race" cannot just be about race. The stakes are way too high.


    barrier (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    how about breaking that barrier for women to get past some of the misogyny which is all over MSM this primary season, all over..

    wouldn't work (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    the white house might be the final barrier we as a society need to cross where we can begin to even the responses to this sort of thing out.

    No...no affirmative action Presidency. The job is too important.

    There will come a candidate who will win the office by merit, not by race baiting. But I have come to believe it will certainly be a Republican. I could imagine Condi Rice being our first AA pres ... whatever else she is, she is strong and competent and would win on her own considerable achievements, not by repeating slanders over and over again.


    Just what (none / 0) (#171)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    did allowing a man who murdered two people go free do to smooth things over?  Have you served on a jury lately?

    What a hateful comment here. (none / 0) (#146)
    by DodgeIND on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    You should be ashamed of yourself.  Then again, this is the internet.

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#148)
    by DodgeIND on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    My comment got housed in the wrong one.  Oh well.

    Beer? (none / 0) (#203)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    "Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. can all have a beer with the empty suit they propped up."

    Don't you mean wine?


    Typical? (none / 0) (#115)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    How so?

    typical as in (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    rural white middle of the road female.

    not black, male, liberal, etc.


    Lump in throat today. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Lil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST

    I said it yesterday and I'll say it again now (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    There's really no way she can win now.  Even if you count Florida and Michigan, she won't be able to take the lead in just about any count that matters so it may be time to hang them up.

    She can do so in a way that positions her well for 2012 in the process.  She can "bring" everybody together in some kind of striking farewell to the campaign.  She will have already gained some new respect around the country by her toughness and and refusal to go down without a fight.  She's also won a spot in my heart by actually giving my home state a chance to vote for once.  By hanging in there this long, she's actually done a great deed for Democrats in giving millions of people a chance to participate when they may never really have had that option before.

    If Obama loses goes on to lose against McCain, he would not be the choice for Democrats again in 2012.  With that, Hillary would be the strongest candidate by far as people will look and realize that they knocked out the most electable and best candidate out there this time around.  She'll also be a stronger candidate in four years after having more time to work in the Senate with some plans that "unite" the country and will give the country a break from Bush/Clinton/Bush which has been a problem she's been dealing with all along as well.

    If she plays this right, she really does have a tremendous shot at 2012.  Look at North Carolina's results for example.  While terrible for her in terms of winning this election, you saw that she did considerably better than she did in the other states in the region like Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.   She has lost this time around, but her actions from here on out can win it or lose it for the next time.

    Scuse me but (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    She won Tennessee, which last I checked shared a border with NC, by 14 points.

    I think she's still in for sure, and the way to do it is to let the SDs weigh in at the Convention.  I seriously can't believe all the Dem members of Congress and various electeds from purple states will let Dean just fix this, when they're going to have a slew of hyper-negative attacks on Obama from the GOP hung around their necks for weeks in their own general elections.


    Tennessee (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    Tennessee is a very different state in many different ways than the others I mentioned.

    It's very hard this morning (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:49 AM EST
     to feel energized and positive about the next three weeks, even though I know Hillary will do well in WV and Kentucky, because I think the superdelegates are going to ignore the GE polling, are going to ignore the divisiveness within the party that has only sharpened, and will see getting Obama the numbers he needs for the nomination as a way to justify doing nothing about Florida and Michigan.

    As for Donna Brazile and all the others who see Obama as chance to re-make the party, all I can say is that if what my party is beginning to look like is their vision for the future, if this is what they think the Democratic party should be, I will have no choice but to dismiss them as they have dismissed me.  What saddens me is that I think that works to their peril, not mine, and I think it works to the country's peril.

    As for coming together and uniting behind Obama, I feel as an abused spouse must feel when her husband beats her up, pleads for forgiveness, but manages to excuse himself by saying that he did it for her own good.  What Obama has done to this process, and to this party he has not done for my good - he has done it for his own, and that's why there is not going to be unity.  As much as I would like to turn on a dime and support Obama, I cannot - I don't believe in his message, I don't believe in his tactics, I have seen too much racism and chauvinism, too little accountability, heard too many GOP talking points.

    I'm not ready to make nice.

    Amen to that... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    you know, if he had ANY record of EVER doing ANYTHING for ANYBODY else, it would be a lot easier to forgive. George Bush has pushed the country off a cliff, and now the Democratic Party and the major media players are chopping away at any handholds that might stop the free fall. I despair...

    it is bizarre all right (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    when was there ever a better time to proudly stick up for Democratic Common Good ideas?

    Why this annointing of the Lieberman unity pony - NOW of all times???


    I don't know what's going on here (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by andrelee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    It's not that she won or won by a little, it's that he lost where he was supposed to have won because of...well, whatever the reasons were that he was supposed to win both Indiana and N.Carolina. Yeah, some wanted to her upset him in NC but 'demographics as destiny' held firm again. If that's to contiue, he get his tukus handed to him in PR, WV, and KY by losses in the 20's and win OR by teens or less. If the popluar vote counted for anything before tueday it still will, or it never should have. Right? Will someone please explain it to me so I'll know who to scream at when I see them on tv trying to explain why BHO lost to JMcC by a score of Penn, OH, Mich and FL, Mass, NV to his CO, OR, IL WI, etc.. Thx in advance.

    Newsflash: The MSM has been saying this is over (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    ...since February.  Hillary won the tiebreaker... on to West Virginia and Kentucky!

    I find the fact that David Parker (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    is staying uncommitted very interesting indeed.

    it speaks to the doubts they have (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    about Obama.
    they are not going away.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    One would think that Obama's win in NC last night would give and and all NC supers the cover they need to come out without hesitation for Obama today.

    The fact that he has not and presumably will not for right now, makes me wonder what is going on today in the minds of the supers and behind closed doors.


    WV and KY (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pixelpusher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    Should be interesting watching the Koserati hurling every bit of abuse they can muster against mountain people.

    We mountain people (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    can take it.  

    Montani semper liberi.


    'koserati' (none / 0) (#86)
    by jjsmoof on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    a 5 for that one.  made me chuckle.

    and coal miners. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    Although Obama is pro-Coal.

    She'll win for sure (none / 0) (#107)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    There's a strong Obama coalition - AAs and eggheads - in Louisville, but most of the rest of the state is rural-ish.  She'll romp.

    I plan to go hang out in Paducah for most of the week before the election...


    Write in HRC (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    Wouldn't it be a hoot if she got enough write-in votes that the MSM actually had to report it?

    I'd say start a campaign to do that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    But Clinton would have to disown us.

    Which is fine.  Blacks will still support Obama after he disowns Wright.

    We can certainly still support Clinton after she disowns us with the same sort of smile on our face.


    We can start a campaign to do that, just (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    keep it under the radar and she won't have to disown it. Do it on the net and by phone, etc. What Hillary doesn't know, in this case, can't hurt her. And if enough people get mad and write her in, she can win. Wouldn't that be an historic political coup?? First woman President elected, and elected by acclamation in spite of the party nominee. I would laugh and cheer for a year, I really would.

    It's gonna happen (none / 0) (#194)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    One thing that surprised me in this primary is the loyalty I have towards to the Clintons is shared by many others.

    It surprised me the first 5 times I was confronted with it.

    I won't be surprised at all that a Clinton faction of the party splinters off.  And I think it will be a story.


    technically, how can you write in anyone (none / 0) (#199)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    on a voting machine?

    Lets not get carried away...


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    what I'm planning to do.  I'm voting for Clinton in November whether she's the Democratic nominee or not.  I won't vote for Obama and I don't vote for Republicans.

    That I will. (none / 0) (#129)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    Hahahahahah (none / 0) (#142)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    I didn't think of that.  I will have to ask if I can do that in NYC.

    It's a good idea and it should be a movement.  I also plan on switching parties, to the Independent party.  I'm not voting for Nader, but I'm sick of the Democratic Party.


    I Sent Her $25 (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    I think Obama will be the nominee because the party loves nothing more than a noble loss.  

    However, even if that happens, I wanted to thank Clinton for fighting for UHC, women's rights, and the working class.

    I hope she won't drop out (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by A little night musing on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    I'm not sure I agree with any of the analyses I'm reading this morning. It's like everyone is reading tea leaves. (I've felt this way for some time.)

    Still, I hope she stays in the race. Having her in keeps Obama on his toes, if nothing else. If he's going to be the candidate it seems to me that he still needs some seasoning. (Plus, as others pointed out, it keeps her better positioned for 2012 if necessary, but I really can't think about at the moment that because the prospect of 4 years of McCain is too awful to contemplate.)

    One side note: despite the candidates' very gracious talk about their supporters supporting the other candidate as well, the nastiness has not died. I think it's getting less, but I have no real way to know. However, this morning the DJ I listen to (who is a fairly ardent Obama fan) played "Ding Ding the Witch is Dead" and I just had to turn the radio off in disgust. He's a person who is in other respects a feminist, and I really wonder if I ought to write him something about this. (What I wonder is, if it would do any good.)

    ...like I think she has no chance to get the nomination, that is.

    Didn't mean to come across that way. I think it's still very much in play. And I'm still rooting for her.


    The Uncommitted SD in SC (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    said this morning that he will stay uncommited until at least 6/4. He also floated (I think it was him) that at the convention, to seat MI and FL, they should get past the first "vote" and get to a second vote where they can seat these two states. Interesting?? I gave to Hillary this morning and as long as she hangs in, I will hang in with her. She won Indiana (like she planned), hoped to win SC (which he planned) and altho' he did it by 14 points (a good win), he still lost IN, thereby still not blowing her out of the water.

    yep (none / 0) (#176)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    I gave another $150.00 to Hill this morning with another $150 coming to her Friday
    She isnt giving up on us and I am not giving up on her
    if Brazile wants to throw the working class whites under the bus and if she feels strongly enough to say on CNN she would vote McCain if Obama is not the nominee, she needs to step down off the ROOLZ cmte immediately!

    She should stay in until the convention (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    If she can stand it, at least. I know that the media are pushing for her to drop out, but this is too close and there are too many questions for that to be right. We've known for a while that she wouldn't get enough delegates to win outright. I've personally felt for a while that she doesn't have a chance. But not being likely to win is not a good reason to drop out. I guarantee that if Obama is behind just before the general election, there will not be cries for him to drop out. I don't see why primaries should be any different. People have a right to have their vote counted.

    This is about votes. About representation. For a long time we have had primaries that are so skewed that the states that vote later don't get to impact the process at all. Yet, when they try to push their elections forward the DNC punishes them. This is effectively disenfranchising all but a small minority of voter's in the few states that vote early.

    Iagree (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    I guarantee that if Obama is behind just before the general election, there will not be cries for him to drop out. I don't see why primaries should be any different.

    To me, Hillary Clinton is fighting for us. She's the only thing left fighting for us to be represented. If she wins her fight, we're still part of the party - just because we can only see Donna Brazile doesn't mean Donna = the entire Democratic party.

    When Brazile and Dean and Obama take such extreme positions, hostile to what used to be the party's core values, it becomes possible that Clinton could score a victory or two even if she loses the nomination. She scores that victory by not letting values or issues die, not letting those values or issues get booted from the party.

    So I am all in favor of her staying in until all the voting is done.


    Hanging in there (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by pixelpusher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    Whatever Clinton does, I will admire her for putting up the fight, but as for "hanging in there," that is what working class people (of all colors) do.

    We will have to keep hanging in there whether she stays in the race or not.  We will survive.  

    Nobody's going to speak for us in an Obama administration, that is for sure.  The prospect having to live through four years of amateurish irrational exuberance clothed in phony progressivism is truly depressing, but we will survive.

    We will outlast a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency too, while the affluent whites in his fan club will find it tougher and tougher going with no firm base to cling to.  Obama's "coalition " will be at each others' throats in no time.  Let's think of the long haul that our mothers and fathers made and also not forget to give working-class blacks and Hispanics a REAL guiding voice in 2012!!!

    Some of y'all (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    are reminding me of my high school days, when my mood rose or fell depending on how a potential date felt about me.

    Coming off the NC loss, and the squeaker IN win, we're acting like the world is coming to an end.  When WVA votes next Tues, we'll be all happy again.  Then KY will make us even happier.  The perception of wins is what has driven this season from the get-go.  Obama had eleven straight wins, and after TX, PA and OH, Clinton was on top.  What happened?  Perception.  And, lookit, NC was a squeaker for Obama, too, considering past elections.  It does him no favors that he would be flat on his face without over 90% of the black vote.  And, I'd like to point out that it's a bit after noon now.  If the SDs thought this should be over, then it would be over.

    Remember: she WON Indiana when she was expected to lose.  This news, in and of itself, would have made us happy two weeks ago.  She was completely expected to lose by double digits in IN and NC.   If anything, all the win/loss does is keep us in the holding pattern.

    I'm not giving up because she's not giving up.  Rise, Hillary, rise!

    Go Kathy...but seriously (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    did you watch the Lake County Late Night Theater?   It was some of the best political theater unfolding on National Tv.  Poor King and company were dumbfounded.  John was playing weatherman with him map and the two mayors were at it.  Unbelievable.  

    I turned it off (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    and went to bed.  That crap, along with the awful trolls who pounced on us here last night, was just too much for me to handle.  I knew I was gonna go apesh*t and get myself permanently banned or something.

    Speaking as a woman: how many times do we have to get kicked into the teeth before we stand up that one last time and kick back?

    I am tired of taking this crap.  I'm sending her money, I'm working the phones, and I am doing what I can do to help her as much as I can.  When she takes WVA, things will feel different, and then KY will come, and she'll start chipping off Oregon.  Rezko will go to jury next week.  Ayers is still out there.  Obama's numbers are going to be looked at closely.  There is still more to come.

    I will not give up until she gives up.


    Kathy (none / 0) (#221)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    There are a lot of us men who also think that Hillary is not only the best choice, but a superb one. It's not just about women. And this includes me as a male hispanic (regardless of the last name, I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, and my mother's maiden name is San Juan). I really enjoy reading your posts and you had me on a roll when you came up with KUSA. What does KUSA now say as to Puerto Rico?

    YES. thank you for saying this. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    i'm reading everybody here feeling down and out and frankly i'm dismayed at the lack of courage around here.  nothing has changed except for the corrupt media's renewed push to ram WWTSBQ down our throats.  and we're just going to roll over and given in?!!  

    NO.  not this hillary supporter, damn it.  what the hell does it even mean to be a "fighter" if you won't fight when things get a little tough?  i'm with kathy.  i'm not giving up until hillary gives up--and hillary's not giving up, so i'm not giving up.

    jeeesus.  people like mcgovern and the like--the quitters, the naysayers, the pessimists, and the cowards--need to STFU.  and you know, iirc, not too long ago, hillary supporter kathleen kennedy-townsend was denouncing hillary and suggesting she should get out of the race--only to fall silent soon thereafter and get back to stumping for hillary again.  nobody, and least of all mcgovern of all people, should be declaring this over.

    i'm sure you all know that heavy hitters, the ones who hit the most home runs, also strike out a lot.  babe ruth struck out 1,330 times, but he also hit 714 home runs.

    abraham lincoln was faced with defeat time and time again throughout his life--twice failing in business, suffering a nervous breakdown, and losing eight elections.  time and time again, he could have quit, but NO--he was a champion like hillary rodham clinton and he never gave up.  and he ultimately became one of our greatest presidents of all time.

    i'm not afraid of failing, goddamn it.  i'm afraid of the chances i'm going to miss by not even trying.  i'm afraid of how i'll feel a year from now under a mccain presidency and wondering why i didn't fight harder when i had the chance.  and that chance is NOW.

    i refuse to be demoralized, i refuse to despair, and i refuse to back down.  i am PUSHING BACK, goddamn it, and i hope you all do too.  i considered myself maxed out yesterday, but ya know what, i'm digging deeper and contributing to hillary again today.  i hope you all will too.


    Beat up or defeat (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    The leadership, or whatever it's called, needed to establish an atmosphere and they have not.  It was obvious that the two candidates were appealing to two different coalitions.  One coalition is long standing the other was just put together by Obama.  What the leadership needed to do they did not do.  They needed to seduce, cajole and stroke both coalitions.  They needed to set up the tone.  Instead, they became bullies and thugs for one candidate.  

    Now, it may be too late to bring the coalitions together.  Their differences have  been articulated and made to seem like it's either or, Donna did not help.  

    The art of diplomacy and seduction is lost to these people.  The campaigns had the obligation to fight it out, the party has the obligation to bring everyone together.  

    Strategies (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by pixelpusher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST

    I respect Howard Dean a lot; I was a supporter of his in 2004.  And the 50-state strategy is great... but only as long as you have a unified message.  When people talk about 50-state strategies, what do they mean?  "Democrat" means everything these days.  It means one thing to white-collar Democrats in Colorado or Montana, it means another thing to poor blacks in Alabama, to Hispanics in Texas, it means another thing to white blue-collar workers in New York or Michigan.  You can "build the party" in all 50 states all you want, but what use is it if these well-funded 50 state parties aren't on the same wavelength?  You have a general election disaster, like this one.

    John Edwards wanted to rebuild the party from the base up - from the working class - the Obama Nation wants to rebuild it from the top down (or, as they vainly flatter themselves, from the "middle" as in "middle class").  Without a driving force for true, structurally sound rebuilding, a 50-state strategy is worthless.  Wasted money.


    Fight on (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by zebedee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    Of course she should fight on, it's way not over. If the polls hold up, she'll regain the pop vote lead after WV and KY, assuming same turnout we've seen in PA, IN and NC (in each case more dems voting than came out for Kerry in 2004). This is, of course, counting Florida and Michigan but also using the estimate for the 4 caucus states that didn't officially report pop vote.

    It then comes down to Oregon and Puerto Rico (Montana and S Dakota are very few voters). If more people voted for her than Obama and she would have won on any other deployed voting method (electoral votes, Republican winner-takes-all, both of which she already leads comfortable) it is difficult to see how denying her won't be seen as unfair. This would then lead to pressure to count Florada and Michigan, to give BO a chance to make up the missing Michigan votes.

    Another factor is based on exit polls, she's averaged around 62-37 with white voters (she did better with them in NC and IN, despite results).
    If you extrapolate over the entire country, she would be winning handily if these demographics prevail. For the GE, the effect of the AA vote is less pronounced as they are a smaller percentage of the voters and his near monopoly of the AA vote won't serve him anywhere near as well.

    This is just one of the factors that make BO a better primary candidate than a GE candidate. Others are:

    1. He's got where he is with the MSM solidly behind him ( MSNBC, CNN, Wash Po,...). This won't hold with McCain in the picture.

    2. He'll have the full weight of the republican attack machine against him. I think there's more to be made of the Ayers issue and even Rezko (eg emails showing he colluded with Rezko to buy his house at a discount could surface). Plus lots we don't know about coming out and being blown up, fairly or not.

    3. The public will have tired of his change rhetoric my November

    4.Voters will be less inclined to hand over the keys of the White House to a charismatic but inexperienced candidate than hand him the nomination. You see that in European elections (eg UK) where voters vote very differently in by-elections in favor of more radical opposition parties but when the general comes revert back to the devil they know best, the incumbents.

    And the real issue most dems care about is not who is better out of BO and HRC (they're both fine) but avoiding the glorious defeat that the dems are renowned for.

    Obama knows it too (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    >>>>she knows you cannot win the primary without African Americans.

    That's why he and his supporters have consistently smeared the Clintons as racists.

    Obama not only makes sexist remarks, but uses offensive gestures to signal hate for Hillary. And the crowd laughs it up! - demonstrating their racism and sexism.

    And the MSM helped him (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:51:27 AM EST
    to smear the Clintons because the MSM have always been jealous of the Clintons.

    Obama has always been the one playing the race card, I've said it 100 times.  And when the race card is played on him, Obama won't know what hit him.


    George McGovern (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    Oh yeah. I'll take strategic advice from him.

    I also believe in unicorns.

    Interesting that McGovern only gets (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    major attention when he starts Hillary-hating. I'm not looking forward to the next few weeks of playing by the Obama Rules.

    you'll see (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    you can't piss off women and expect to win a Democratic primary campaign

    Apparently you can, because Obama has pissed off an awful lot of women. And a lot of those women are really, really pissed.

    Notice how we aren't even mentioned now. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    nycstray (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    I certainly noticed.

    Second largest group of voters in the nation completely ignored.


    Much as I (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    respect George McGovern the man; on this issue he can keep his trap shut and kiss my ...

    It's not just the by district allocation.  The McGovern Commission, in the end, gave us our current system.  A system vulnerable to sticking us with candidates like Obama.

    A candidate with a resume so thin that calling him Presidential timber is like equating the Amazon rainforest to half a box of toothpicks.

    Tiebreaker to HRC - it is a good day! (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Terry M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    Yes, we got our hopes up that the Wright mess 2.0 would peel off more NC voters - but she beat the expectations regarding NC and Indiana prior to the latest Wright blow up.  Obama declared Indiana the tie-breaker b/c he smugly thought he could win, and he didn't!  Wrong again Obama!

    It is clear that the divisions in the Democratic party have hardened.  I think that is good for Hillary.  She'll win WV, KY and PR - he'll take the rest, and so we'll go to the convention essentially tied.  The fact that Hillary supporters are so fiercely loyal to her means that she has to be taken seriously by the party leadership.  She has real power, and surely the party recognizes that.  The DNC, as stupid as its leadership is, knows that Dems can't win the GE if the Hillary wing of the party (you know the ones that Brazile wants to deep-six) bolts.

    There is a lot which can happen btwn now and the convention. Alot.  One controversy can still kill him politically.  And a tie with hardening support on either side will make it more likely that Fl and Mich will get involved - and that is good news for Hillary.  Besides, I have a suspicion that there is more baggage for Obama; he still has a rocky road ahead (Ok, pun intended).

    So buck up Hillary people!  Give money.  DO NOT LET MSNBC, the DNC and all the other powers that be control the narrative of this campaign.  We still believe, we will still fight, and there are no guarantees that Obama wills be the nominee.  Until he is named the nominee in Denver, there is a chance so long as Hillary keeps her options open.  But if her base is seen as dejected, it makes it harder for her to make her case that she is the party's best hope in the fall.  Rise!

    It's only 3 more weeks... (4.88 / 9) (#5)
    by northeast73 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    ...my GOD the "drop out now" crowds sounds really PETTY, since June 3rd is just a few weeks away.

    Not to mention, Obama got nothing more than and EXPECTED win, and did not win the "tiebreaker" state.

    If the Clinton camp had made a similar statement, the media would have HARPED on that as being the benchmark for winning the night.

    As to McGovern, maybe he wants her to drop out so Obama can replace him as the biggest far left loser the dems have ever nominated.

    The symbolism is rich (4.75 / 8) (#1)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    mcGovern made the call?

    salt in your wounds anyone?

    That is sad. I supported McGovern (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    when his prospects and campaign were poor.

    For him to do this now is unacceptable.  


    Fyi, the "1" for this comment (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    is from a "Menopause Meg" -- never commented here, comes on only to "1" this comment?  Why, Ms. Menopause?  What about the comment earns a "1"?  

    Break your silence, explain yourself, Ms. Menopause.


    And I see she has strewn dozens of "1's" (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    in only her first hours here.  Ms. Menopause just maybe someone we have seen before, hmmmmm?

    Yeah, I got one too (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Probably McGovern's sister or something....

    Actually, she's now strewn several more (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    Just a reminder to self to rate 5s for comments I ordinarily might overlook....

    Meg is the typical Obama supporter (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    No doubt. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    When unknown commenters down rate me, I ignore them figuring that they will be dealt with.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    TL must have made the big time to attract a troll down-rater.

    A sock puppet downrater... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    yup, i noticed also and uprated. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    Yeah. I thought the same thing (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    McGovern, who won one state, giving advice in support of Obama, a candidate who is behind in the polls in Massachusetts, the bluest state in the Union...

    And I'm sure the MSM is proclaiming loudly that we're supposed to think this should be the deciding factor for Hillary!  Can you hear my eyes rolling from here?


    It almost looks like a deliberate (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST

    Who's next, Dukakais?


    Massachusetts could go Red in Nov? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:08 AM EST
    I was thinking about that...I have read alot about the disappointments and anger in MA over their governor, Deval Patrick.  Seems like a lot of trouble going on up there.  And because Patrick is connected to Obama, it will be used by the Republicans in Massachusetts to boost McCain.

    Obama is the new McGovern.


    The polls (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    show that Hillary takes Massachusetts easily, but it's a dead heat or McCain wins against Obama.  We went through an Axelrod marketing job here with Patrick, and he's not living up to the hype.  It's kind of a "fooled me once" kind of thing.  We're also more than a little bit put out by Kerry's and Kennedy's endorsements. And we gave the world both Kerry and Dukakis as elitist candidates already. And Massachusetts women are "uppity". 8^)

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    The party elites will deliver the state:  Kerry and Teddy.  Just you watch them do it.  

    Like they did for the primary? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    no offense (none / 0) (#190)
    by jedimom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    Ia m too young to remember mcgovern and no offense intended but how many losers will they drag out to demoralize Hillary and her supporters..



    Well, If Anyone Should (4.87 / 16) (#4)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    know when an unelectable candidate has clinched the democratic nomination, it should be McGovern.

    Ugh (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    Cheap shot at a great American (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    and a real war hero and someone who supported Hillary.  

    There are no coincidences in the universe. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    It's also ironic beyond the 72 results and the McGovern coalition.

    McGovern was the architect of the Proportional Representation System.


    I Like McGovern (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    but, really, he was a horrible choice to be the nominee of the democratic party.

    I'll concede he was not (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    in the same political class as the Clintons.

    Who now has said (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    he has switched is allegence!!

    I think it is time to unite as a party (none / 0) (#26)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM EST
    I just don't want McSame to win the presidency in the Fall.

    Donna Brazile kicked me out of the party.... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    ...last night so apparently I have no choice in the matter.

    You matter Maria Garcia (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:37:10 AM EST
    It's Donna Brazille who doesn't matter.

    You matter baby, YOU MATTER!!!  I don't listen to those snobby liberal elitists.  And neither should you.


    Maria Garcia (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    she told a lot of us that we don't matter last night. We're part of the "old coalition" and they are going to remake the party without us. Good luck with that.

    Ever wonder who in the Democratic Leadership thinks that offending as much of their base as possible is a winning strategy?

    Just wondering because the only successful Democratic Administration in the last 40 years was the Clinton Administration. That would be the administration that Obama keeps attacking while praising Reagan.

    Vote for him? I think not!


    There will be no "uniting" (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    the party. What a dream. The damage has been done. You could offer me a million dollars to cast a vote for that man and I would turn you down. He will never get my vote. I refuse to vote for anyone that painted Bill and Hillary as "racists." Forget it. It's not going to happen. "Unity" by the Obamaroids is a pipe dream.

    McCain will win the GE because OBAMA CANNOT WIN IT. By the time the Republican slime machine is finished with him, he'll be lucky to win Illinois.


    there is always the convention. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    second ballot anyone?
    ok, its not the best option.  but its an option.

    I'm okay with her staying in... (none / 0) (#33)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    ...as long as her "kitchen sink" is deployed against McCain, not the presumptive nominee of her party.  She'll win WV, KY, and probably PR, while Obama wins OR, MT and SD.  When he wins OR, he'll probably have a majority of the pledged delegates from "official" contests(i.e., not including FL/MI), and he can go into May 31 with a proposal to seat FL as is, and either a 50-50 split of MI, or the 69/59 split proposed by the Gang of 4.  It will be seen as a magnanimous gesture(considering he'll have the muscle to block seating them all the way to the convention), and enough members of the RBC will go along with it for Clinton to be unable to oppose it without looking bad.  In all likelihood, Obama will have clinched the 2025 mark after Oregon via a flood of Superdelegate endorsements, and when the RBC passes some kind of compromise, he will be able to clinch 2209 by June 3.  

    Fewer "ifs" now, huh?

    MI/FL (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    If he deigns to seat MI and Florida when they don't mean anything, I say scr*w him.

    Dude... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    ...they were never going to be seated before the RBC met, and since the RBC isn't meeting before May 31st, it's just a simple fact that the results of that meeting won't alter the outcome of the race.  He was never morally obligated to accept the results of contests which were not supposed to count according to the rules all candidates agreed to.  If Clinton wanted those states to be fully counted, she should have said so explicitly before Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all voted.  Then it would have looked a bit less opportunistic and a bit more principled on her part.  

    Dude, (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    the reason they haven't been counted is because Obama vetoed the recounts. I love how people try to change history. sheesh.

    Obama will go down in the history books as the first AA candidate for President, but also the second Presidential candidate to STEAL AN ELECTION. Hope he and Michelle are proud of that.


    dude... (none / 0) (#197)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    ...you leave out the part where the legislative delegations from both states weren't crazy about a re-vote, and how there were legitimate process issues about both logistics and what voters would be included/excluded(issues which weren't only brought up by Obama-ites but also legal observers).  But, y'know, if she had advocated for that stuff a lot earlier--like, say, late last year, she probably could have gotten her re-votes, sometime in late May/early June.  Of course, since she probably would have lost NH and NV by pushing for it before those primaries, probably a moot point.

    Oh, please. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    supporters in MI. took his orders and stopped the revotes via the MI. legislature. We aren't stupid. We all know what happened. We also know the revotes were paid for and the Obamaroids refused to accept the funds because Hillary supporters raised it for them. Disenfranchising 2 states will do NOTHING for BO in November, but of course, we know he doesn't NEED FL. and MI. because he's going to win Colorado and Virginia. LOL! What a joke.

    They will be seated.... (none / 0) (#218)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    ...but they were never going to be seated earlier than May 31.  In this instance, that's after the nomination is decided.  No disenfranchisement--they just didn't get to jump in line and decide the winner.

    Please don't propagate falsehood (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    She never threw the kitchen sink at him. If she had he would be gone long ago, so would the democratic coalition. The Clintons were too smart for that, and its dishonest to accuse them of something they would not have done.

    Obama and the democratic leadership however are a different story.


    The next time you want to refer to the kitchen sin (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    ask yourself how many Clinton ads you saw with Rev. Wright in them. Boy, some of you folks are going to be in for a shock when the Repubs get their smear machine warmed up.

    good thing we don't need your approval (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    I'm okay with her staying in...
    ...as long as her "kitchen sink" is deployed against McCain, not the presumptive nominee of her party.

    Obama's supporters have done an excellent job of killing any sense that Hillary or her supporters ought to have any loyalty to the party, or should care in the slightest what you want or don't want.


    She should stay in (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    because she has promised all the states a voice.  But she does not have to do the full-court press campaigning.  I expect her to kind of wind down slowly over the next 3 weeks and withdraw after Puerto Rico.

    Obama should just take the month off and let the rest of the states have their say.

    Nodding (none / 0) (#159)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    She really gave a concession speech in Indiana.  I think you guys are right.  I was thinking....bow out and save yourself the headache!  But just letting the voters get their say is a good way to let it wind down naturally.

    Don't trust polls (none / 0) (#66)
    by Saul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    None of the legitimate polls I saw yesterday hit it the way it came out IMO

    Diane Rehm's first hour (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeany on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    was a postmortem on yesterday's primaries and discussion of what's next; a caller from WV who presented himself as undecided said he's been getting calls and flyers and knocks from Team Obama, both before yesterday and even before 10 am today, and he hasn't seen hide nor hair of Team Clinton.

    I would say that giving up ground is a signal that she knows it's over, but she's been pretty consistent at letting him get a step on her, to use a basketball metaphor.

    I hope both candidates will now campaign to lead their supporters in a spirit of reconciliation and party unity. The outcome of the general election will turn on party unification.

    Oh gee whiz, (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    one guy called in and said he hasn't heard from the Clinton campaign so this means that she knows its over?

    I don't even know how to respond to such drivel.

    At this point in time I am not interested in reconciliation and party unity.

    As one poster here said earlier, "I ain't ready to make nice." And I doubt, that I ever will be.

    After voting a straight Democratic ticket in every election for 40 years I am free at last from the feeling that I have to vote for every pinhead with a "D" after his/her name. It's very liberating really.

    And after all, I part of the "Old Democratic coalition" and the party doesn't need me anymore anyway.


    Another brand new poster (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    What is it this morning?  Are these the paid Obama bloggers out hitting all the sites?  It just seems very odd to have all these new posters pop up.

    Hello kenoshaMarge, BDB, and waldenpond (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeany on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:42 AM EST
    Jeßus, thanks for the welcome.

    I'll just go back to the message board from whence I came, while I listen to Matt Taibbi talk about vomiting demons.


    Reports from WVA (none / 0) (#93)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    have said he has more people on the ground there.  I think given her lead, she hasn't bothered spending as many resources even before yesterday.  

    write in (none / 0) (#97)
    by deminma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST
    Well   if we are going to do that.    We should make it Ralph Nader so he can be responsible for us losing two elections.

    The point would be (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    Obama is going to lose it for us anyways. If HRC's name has to be mentioned by the media, it'll sure send a message to those SD's what idiots they were and will make Dean and Brazile look foolish.

    Don't forget... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    ...President Clinton was running in a three-way race both times.  And political realities shifted a great deal in the interim.

    Bill Clinton left office with 65% approval (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    And political realities shifted a great deal in the interim.

    Yeah...Donna Brazile is now in a position to gut what used to be the Democratic Party.


    he still had to do better than Bush... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:43 AM EST
    ...and Perot effectively shaved of the NAFTA crowd that resides in the protectionist wing of the Dem party.

    So it's possible he might have flipped a blue state here and there if Clinton had been careless.


    Thank you for a perfect example (none / 0) (#102)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    of the kind of thing both sides need to stop doing right now.  

    Unfortunately, I don't think either candidate (none / 0) (#141)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    will be viable in 2012. I'm already seeing comments from Obama supporters that if he loses in Novemebr it won't be his fault, it will be Hillary's. If he loses, the lashing out by his supporters who can't handle the death of the dream will be ugly, and will create the kind of animosity that never goes away. If Obama gets the nom and loses in November, I can't see supporting him in 2012, and I'm sure a lot of Hillary supporters will feel the same way.

    The pary is really split in half right now, and although I'm sure most of the wounds will heal, both Clinton and Obama will be the figureheads who represent all of the bad feelings. I'm not advocating any of this, it's just my opinion.

    NO foul language (none / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    I messes with the filtering software.  Just replace with symbols... b!tch etc.  :)

    there's a reason for that (none / 0) (#180)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    ...I swear supporters see racism, sexism, reverse racism, reverse sexism EVERYWHERE.

    no...only in places where Hillary nutcrackers are sold, people are buying all the lies and filth about Clinton that Obama has spread, and anyone not voting for Obama stands automatically presumed racist.

    Which pretty much means wherever Obama and his supporters are. Which is pretty near everywhere, but there are still a few clean places left.

    Write in campaign (none / 0) (#206)
    by calyxcause on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    If anyone is interested, there is already a site to write Hillary in. Information is listed by state (legal requirements) so you can see if your state allows write-ins. If it does not, there are also petitions to gather enough names to add her to the ticket. Site is: http://writehillaryin.com//

    Of course McGovern wants her to drop out. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Left of center on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    He's tired of being the low water mark for democratic candidates and he knows that Barrack Hussein Obama can turn in a lamer performance than he did in 72.