home

What Clinton Should Do

Whatever she feels is right. She has earned that.

My own view is she should run her campaign against John McCain. She will win West Virginia and Kentucky by huge margins.

She might even challenge Obama in Oregon.

What she should not do, imo, is run against Barack Obama. If there is a path to the nomination for her, and I doubt there is, it won't come from attacking Obama now.

My two cents.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< A Plum for Hillary, A Black Eye for the Mayor of Gary, Indiana | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sober and wise!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:00:30 AM EST


    Good advice and I find (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:20 AM EST
    it hugely more acceptable than listening to CNN folks urging her to, yet again, bow out gracefully.  

    She should not quit.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:45 AM EST
    Hillary should not quit now. If she quits now, she will be handing over the white house to Republican John McCain. At least, she will be handing my vote over to John McCain. Democrats are elitist in general, I would not be surprise if they nominate Obama.

    Name poor elitist for you.... (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:12 AM EST
    I can name a few. Let's start with my brother who went to Berkley and graduated with a reasonable GPA. He does not work for 8 years now after quiting his first job which he hold for about 2 years. He doesn't earn anything at the moment and have no interest in finding jobs. He thinks it is a disgrace that richer do not want to pay much higher tax. Yet he pays ZERO by not working. He thinks those who have religions are retarded and too stupid to figure out that there is no such thing as God. He thinks anybody who buy a mercedez benz are evil. etc. I have another friend who work as a clerk in Kingo shares exactly the same kind of thing. He thinks if you are Republicans, you are a moron. etc. etc. etc. This seems elitist to me. You want more example?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:37 AM EST
    Democrats are elitist in general

    Huh?

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#17)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:49 AM EST
    I am a moderate, and that is how I see it all my life.

    Parent
    Is your life a FoxNews reality show? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:48 AM EST
    What world are you living in where Democrats are more elitist than Republicans? What definition of "elite" are you possibly using? This is bizarre.

    And yes, josephm, this one IS a 1-rating worthy comment.

    Parent

    Gross generalization (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:33 AM EST
    But leftists intellectuals (rich or poor) do have a tendency towards elitism.  The American electorate already has this view of the Democratic party (with some reason).   That is what bitter gate was all about and why it was damaging.  Republicans aren't viewed in nearly the same way.

    Parent
    He said Democrats... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:41 AM EST
    uh...yeah (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:00:49 AM EST
    Is your life a FoxNews reality show?

    Yep, that sort of talk is why Democrats are commonly perceived as elitist.

    What definition of "elite" are you possibly using?

    Well, I'm not the one you asked, but I would assume the definition is close to mine: the snobbish assumption that one's own intellectual and/or moral superiority is so obvious that it can be simply assumed as a given.

    Take, for instance, the above sentence - instead of arguing the point, it just takes it as obvious that anyone who doesn't understand the one true correct opinion must be(a) stupid and (b) fascist.


    Parent

    No it isn't (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:49 AM EST
    a one rated comment. You don't rate comments by whether you agree or disagree.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:52 AM EST
    ...I meant MINE was one.

    Parent
    True, people shouldnt... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:47 AM EST
    but it happens a lot.

    Parent
    Religion vs Economy (none / 0) (#100)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:52 AM EST
    You'll see what I mean after the general election. It is like explaining to democrats that religion and economic issues are not related in any pecking order.

    Parent
    The real elitists... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:15 AM EST
    are the rich, regardless of political affiliation.  But more to the point, its hard to characterize people in the inner city as 'elitist'.

    Parent
    Not so (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:14 AM EST
    There are plenty of poor elitists and some rich non elitists.

    Parent
    Poor elitists? Name some. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:14 AM EST
    Actually... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:08 AM EST
    our only evidence is anecdotal since you cant actually `prove' that kind of statement either way, so its moot.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:55 AM EST
    elistists are people who think they're better than everyone else and are snotty know it alls regardless of their financial background. Some of the wealthiest people I know are also the most down to Earth, some of the poorest are the most status conscious thinking their poo doesnt stink insufferable types on the planet.

    Parent
    Could you buy into... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:45 AM EST
    media talking points more?  

    Parent
    Media Darlingism (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:47 AM EST
    The alleged bad two weeks for Obama were saved by the MSM spinning his candidacy.  They are really vested in seeing him be the candidate.  Funny how little his big supporters came to support him during his crisis, he owes a big one to MSM.  

    BTD you called this early on.  

    Liberals buy the MSM craps but moderates don't ... (4.20 / 5) (#12)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:03 AM EST
    Moderates won't vote Obama. I won't. Another Jimmy Carter coming everyone.

    Parent
    Another Dukakis, you mean ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:16 AM EST
    Jimmy Carter actually won a Presidential election.

    Parent
    MSM spinning for McCain, not Obama, IMHO (none / 0) (#114)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:27 AM EST
    Actually, the MSM has been pro-McCain. How else to you explain all his gaffs, goofs, and his own bad preacher endorsment getting practically no play? And come on...all we've seen on MSM for weeks is Bittergate and Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright.

    With all due respect to Clinton...and she does deserve some respect, the MSM has been all over Obama and acting like Clinton had a stronger chance than she actually had.

    Clinton has proved that she is scrappy, but in the end she lost.

    I don't say this to rub it in, although I confess I have been an Obama supporter for a long time (I began donating to his campaign in $25 amounts like a year ago), but to point out that the time has come to rally around the soon-to-be presumptive nominee.

    Consider that the remaining deligates and popular vote will be roughly split 50/50 and that Obama will wind up with nearly 2000 deligates by June and that failing to rally around the nominee will result in McBush getting into the White House to nominate more anti-Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Justices, the time has come to end this for the good of us all.

    I know if the situation were reversed you would be saying the same thing to me.

    Parent

    I don't scare. (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:27 AM EST
    my favorite was (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:00 AM EST
    When Donna Brazile stated that she was an undeclared  
    Super delegate. My A$&, she's undeclared.

    "words are important" (none / 0) (#34)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:53 AM EST
    she said.

    "word games" more like.

    Parent

    On the Unity thing (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:58 AM EST
    If Clnton does not want the VP, but wants to call a shot on it, I am not averse to General Clark as the running mate.

    But would women accept this? Would Obama accept this?

    I Don't Want Clinton Anywhere Near (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:10 AM EST
    an Obama led ticket.  Not after the smears and sexist dogwhistles from Obama himself and his supporters.

    So, yes, I would embrace General Clark or any other white guy as a nominee.  Just spare me having to listen to how Hillary lost Obama the White House by dragging his ticket down all through 2009.

    Parent

    Couldn't agree with you more, BDB (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:36 AM EST
    I also don't Want Clinton Anywhere Near an Obama led ticket.

    If he gets the nom I could care less who gets the VP position. IMO One thing is for sure. It's not ever going to be Edwards or Richardson who (I bet a fortune would not say no but will never be asked) ... but very likely a Republican. That wouldn't surprise me at all. Bet he has a Repub VP short list while we type.

    Parent

    sexist dogwhistles? (none / 0) (#130)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:43 AM EST
    What sexist dogwhistles has Obama personally made?

    Parent
    periodically, when she's feeling down... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:33 AM EST
    Remember?

    Parent
    and... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:43 AM EST
    the claws come out.

    Parent
    "You're likeable enough" (5.00 / 10) (#202)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:32 AM EST
    More importantly -- I think for many of us crucially -- the behavior the Obama supporters online has been absolutely vile. If you'd hung out at Daily Kos before it was purged of Hillary supporters, you'd know. Sexist language, sexist slurs, and everything that the Republicans threw at the Clintons during the impeachment.

    Now, there are rational, nice Obama supporters out there. But they did nothing to rein this behavior in, nor did have the Obama online operatives.

    Since they do nothing, they're leveraging it.

    The online behavior of Obama supporters was one reason I had to go with Hillary -- I couldn't reward that.

    Parent

    Would Clark accept this? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:47 AM EST
    He's a Clintonite, pretty die-hard.

    And I don't care who Obama's VP is if it's not Clinton. The only way he's getting my vote now is if she's his VP.

    I'm done with him.

    Parent

    Win-Win for Clark (none / 0) (#72)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:31 AM EST
    If Obama flames out as many close to Clinton expect, he's positioned well for 2012.  

    If the anti-Republican sentiment propels Obama into office, he gets to be Vice President.  

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:57 AM EST
    I was thinking something different.

    From Clinton's perspective, she does not create a rival for 2012, just in case.

    If they win, she won't be running in 2016 anyway.

    Parent

    Frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:27 AM EST
    I'm sure that Tom Daschle is waiting to make his move. (UGH!)

    Parent
    ewww (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:33 AM EST
    as vp?

    Parent
    Unacceptable (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:04 AM EST
    Good Point (none / 0) (#118)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:26 AM EST
    Clinton can decide whether to run or not and Clark would be positioned to run if she didn't or to be her running mate if she did.

    I like Wes Clark a lot.  He worked his butt off for Hillary in NH.

    Parent

    Also if Obama Does Win (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:31 AM EST
    Clinton would have ties to the executive branch.  And she could be one of those democrats in Congress who make the democratic president crazy.  You know by insisting that his healthcare plan be universal and similar crazy things.

    Parent
    please reconsider (none / 0) (#160)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:48 AM EST
    Hi madamab,

    I am pretty new here. I've been over at TPM and The CarpetBaggerReport for quite a while.

    Please reconsider voting for Obama should he get the nomination. Seriously, a non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. I understand you feeling...heck, if the situation were reversed and Obama was in the position Clinton is now, I would probably feel much like you. But the reality is that a Dem in the White House far more valuable to us than McCain. Just think about possible SCOTUS nominees in a McCain administration.

    The truth is Obama and Clinton are similar on most policy issues. Not identical, but certainly not so far apart. The time has come for unity in the party for the greater good of the nation.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:10 AM EST
    I really don't know if I can vote for him.

    I don't know if you understand the depth of anger a lot of us feel towards Obama and his supporters (and his media enablers).

    I know this is stupid, but the Jay-Z references really were the final straw for me. So blatantly disrespectful and childish.

    Plus, I have no idea what it is Obama really cares about, beyond getting elected. Universal health care? Nope. The environment? Um, not so much.

    He's a blank slate as far as I can determine.

    At the very least, he and his team have some serious outreach to do. And I mean serious.

    Parent

    Hi independent thinker! (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:53 AM EST
    Well, this is the first time I've said what I've said tonight. I guess I've reached my limit with Obama at last. (It could be the allergy medicine talking, though.)

    However, I do appreciate your non-confrontational tone when making your argument for Obama. Believe me, I've considered it quite seriously.

    To be honest, I don't think my vote will make a difference in the GE in any case. I think Obama will lose because of Indys and Clinton Dems.

    Obama needs to make his case with those voters, and he hasn't and doesn't seem to want to. We die-hard Dems could all vote for him and he'd still lose.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    No they aren't (4.85 / 7) (#171)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:44 AM EST
    their positions have never been similar. Obama is to the right. He entertains too many supply-side economic proposals and even the privatization of Social Security. If I want a Repub might as well vote for McCain because at least then Dems in congress will be obstructionists.

    Parent
    Clark! (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by phat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:31 AM EST
    That is the best thing I've heard all day.

    A Wesley Clark VP nominee would make me me less sad.

    phat

    Parent

    Oh, that's good. I'll match your (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    war hero w/my General.  

    Parent
    I tell you who is not acceptable (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:38 AM EST
    Bill Richardson.

    Parent
    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:52 AM EST
    He's a living, breathing, gaffe machine.

    Parent
    Judas. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:10 AM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:57 AM EST
    A slap in the face.

    Parent
    What about Hagel? Bloomberg? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:08 AM EST
    Unacceptable (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:13 AM EST
    To Obama? They are probably (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:37 AM EST
    in his top tier. Hell, he might choose Condi Rice.

    Parent
    Obama if he gets nomination (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:59 AM EST
    will swing so far to the right that the people that made him will not recognize him.  He will go for the farthest right he can get.  

    Parent
    I hear he'll turn into a werewolf, too. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:03 AM EST
    Ahh... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:32 AM EST
    nice scare tactics you got going on there.

    Parent
    what makes you feel this way? (none / 0) (#182)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:03 AM EST
    Stellaaa,

    What makes you feel this way? I mean, if we remove the tense, hard fought campaign from the equasion, aren't Obama and Clinton similar in most policy issues? There are some differences...healthcare, for instance, but on most issues they agree.

    I just don't see any reason to believe Obama is going to suddenly jump to the far right.

    Parent

    Hell, he's already half-way there (4.66 / 3) (#192)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:21 AM EST
    Hanging out as he does with economic advisors who favor privatizing social security.

    I already ranted about health care and the environment above, so I'll skip that here.

    Parent

    Clark could work (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:51 AM EST
    But I like my pitch for Ed Rendell.

    Parent
    I was thinking if he picks a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#70)
    by magster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:28 AM EST
    it should be from PA or FL, like Rendell or Nelson or Wasserman Schulz maybe.


    Parent
    Wasserman Schulz (none / 0) (#120)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:09 AM EST
    will not be on his ticket. She's from Florida and furious about their delegation not counting.

    Parent
    Gen. Clark (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:52 AM EST
    Is a perfect VP choice for Obama. I don't know that he'd accept it though.

    Other possibilities IMO:
    Gov. Kaine
    Gov. Easley
    Fmr. Sen. Edwards
    (maybe?) Gov. Sebelius

    Parent

    He'd support it... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:27 AM EST
    ...if Hillary suspended her campaign. White. General. Southern. Deal. Lickity-split. Although not taking certain MI/FL deals makes me wonder about certain strategic weaknesses in the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    Not Sebelius (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:28 AM EST
    Who's that female governor of Arizona, I think? Napolitano. Her. Sebelius is a horrible choice.

    Parent
    clark is a poor (none / 0) (#164)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:19 AM EST
    campaigner.

    Parent
    What about Webb? (none / 0) (#193)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:26 AM EST
    What about Webb?

    Parent
    I also like Gov. Sebelius (none / 0) (#199)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:01 AM EST
    I also like Gov. Sebelius and Richardson. Clark isn't a bad choice either.

    Parent
    What women would there be? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:45 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is really exceptional because the political process up until now has simply not produced -- or allowed -- women candidates to reach that level. I don't see a Hillary-supported woman (besides herself) that's really in play for this sort of deal. That seems to be a stumbling block -- of our party's own making -- if there's a demand for a woman on the ticket.

    Parent
    Oh, I'll do whatever (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:17 AM EST
    Clinton tells me to do.  pfffft.

    Parent
    Clark... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:40 AM EST
    or someone like him may be the only way he gets close to the WHouse.

    He's already being defined by the Right in connection to those around him. Clark (or someone like him) may be able to take away some of the sting...

    Though I'm not sure that it isn't already too late.

    And Clark may not go for it.

    Parent

    Clark was my preferred candidate (none / 0) (#179)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:31 AM EST
    Also, perhaps Clinton could work a deal - I'll suspend my campaign today if you agree to accept the FL/MI delegations tomorrow.

    Parent
    Hm... I think the ONLY path to the (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:33 AM EST
    nomination is to attack Obama. It will be dirty and unpleasant, but could work. She has to project a lot of confidence and simply let loose. She has been delicate in her attacks to date, while Obama has been attacking her character non-stop.
    Payback time, IMO.
    Ratchet up the rhetoric against Obama and win WV and KY by 50 pt margins.

    Or Wait for the Media To Do It (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    Every time they've thought she was done, they've turned on Obama.

    Actually, I think he best path to the nomination is to do as BTD says and hit McCain.  Run up the popular vote, draw close in the delegates and then wait.  Let Obama be the presumptive nominee in June.  There's a decent shot he'll be roadkill by August.

    Parent

    But, one of the CNN guys sd. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:32 AM EST
    Obama survived Wright, won NC, and now Wright issue is over!

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:19 AM EST
    I'm sure that the Republicans will not use Wright against Obama. Or Ayers. Or Reszko.

    Oh wait.

    Parent

    Yep. Show pictures of the Obama mansion, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:03 AM EST
    give the facts, and let viewers judge for themselves. On it's face, the deal looks completely corrupt, to a layman. You have to be a lawyer to see there is nothing wrong with it.

    Parent
    Not sure the GOP will want to (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM EST
    bring up the purchase of the mansion w/Randy "Duke" Cunningham fairly fresh in the minds of voters.

    Parent
    Doesn't it play perfectly for McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:23 AM EST
    In the public's mind he is Mr. campaign finance reform.

    Parent
    Did you forget the snark tag again? (none / 0) (#216)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:54 AM EST
    Gosh it's late. ;-)

    Parent
    Despite what everyone says she won't do anything (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:07 AM EST
    to win, she is too good a democrat. She will do what is right for the party.

    Parent
    bad idea (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:06 AM EST
    Look. At this point, attacking a fellow Dem is a bad idea. McCain is just laughing while Dems fight among themselves. The time has come to heal the rift. Look at the larger picture. Imagine a SCOTUS with 2 or 3 more conservative Justices....shiver

    The reality is Obama is the likely nominee. Starting a nasty family feud now is a recipe for a McCain administration in '09.

    Parent

    Specifically, attack his community organizing (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM EST
    creds. He keeps on saying that his 3 years of being a community organizer are such an important part of his background, and yet he ignored all the complaints about Rezko's buildings in his district after being elected?
    Not credible.
    Show that he is just a dirty pol. Don't forget to use the video of him flipping Hillary off, one way or another. Go down with a blaze of glory, or taken him out. Either way, she will keep the respect of her supporters.

    Parent
    The time for that has come and gone (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:59 AM EST
    The most annoying unfair attack on Hillary's character has been the one about how she would do and say anything to win.  Clearly she could have been far more negative with Obama.  She is too loyal a Democrat, however.

    Parent
    In tonight's speech, Obama talked (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:34 AM EST
    about working around all those shuttered steel mills on the South Side.  

    Parent
    I seriously doubt that would have any traction (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:26 AM EST
    how could it work? (none / 0) (#77)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:39 AM EST
    Do the delegate math.  It's a simple matter of numbers, of how many Obama already leads by, and how many are left for the taking.

    That's why BTD's advice is good.  Keep going, but let them both attack McCain.  He's been getting a free ride for far too long.  Let the remaining super-d's see how well the candidates do attacking our real opponent, instead of attacking each other, and having to make mountains of molehills because their policies are 90% the same.

    Parent

    She should continue (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by DaleA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
    to run against Obama. Making sure he is so bloodied, so unacceptabe. that he can not win. It would be nothing like the Republicans will do, but will help. She needs to also recognize that a signifigant portion of her support will never under any circumstances support Obama. This means to quit pushing a unity pony. Maybe a statement like: I respect and accept that many of my supporters will not vote for Obama, and I understand their reasons. But wish that things were otherwise.

    smart idea (not) (none / 0) (#78)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:23 AM EST
    She does that, then there will be so many others turned off that she might as well be bloodying herself.

    Parent
    Has any one confirmed the MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by clio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:59 AM EST
    story about no public appearances by Senator C. tomorrow?  MSNBC is the only place I've found it.

    no, (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by OldCoastie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:22 AM EST
    I don't know that this is anything other than Russert shooting off his mouth...

    Does Obama have any events scheduled for tomorrow? the day after? geez! if he's taking a couple days off, perhaps he is rethinking his run for the nomination...

    (pretty easy to start this stuff, eh?)

    Parent

    speaking of MSNBC and rumors (none / 0) (#97)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:09 AM EST
    Love their headline writing: "Clinton will pull out narrow win in Indiana, NBC projects"

    That threw me for a moment.

    Parent

    I hope this is what she'll do. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:45 AM EST
    At least, I hope she continues to run. I think tonight she finally realized how high the odds are against her winning (what with the media and Obama's and the DNC's gamesmanship), and it was discouraging. She looked sad and thrown off during her speech tonight, as did Bill and Chelsea.  But I hope she will get some sleep and realize that nothing has really changed with her electability argument. In fact, it has been reinforced.

    As for her attacking Obama, I think she will do what she has been doing - talk about the issues and highlight their differences. She gives him a few gentle slaps, but has never really attacked him the way McCain and the Republican 527's will.

    I agree 100% (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:32 AM EST
    She should keep running, bringing people out to vote, building infrastructure for the GE, but cut a deal with Obama: no more nastiness. Her final days on the trail might look like Huckabee's, in fact. As long as it's clear she's no longer truly contesting the nomination (that she can't win - let's face it - barring a major gaffe), there is no harm, but potentially much good that could come from her continuing on for three more weeks. I've seen first hand the mobilizing impact this campaign has had in North Carolina - no reason we shouldn't shore up Oregon and work to turn WV blue again (although that will be tough).

    I'm not sure Obama should put her on the ticket, but I think they could cut a deal whereby she becomes the Senate majority leader and gets to shepherd a health care bill with her name on it (it could even be her plan) through Congress.

    I think she's got class and is a good Democrat and will do her best to unify the party. And should Obama lose (which I just don't think is going to happen given the current economic and political climate), she will be almost guaranteed the nomination in 2012.

    Stop the insanity! (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:51:39 AM EST
    NC is not a swing state! For crying out loud, Jesse Helms was the Senator in NC until 2002 and if he hadn't gotten cancer he would still be in there -- Elizabeth Dole has his seat now. No way on god's green earth is NC is going blue in the fall. Good grief.
    And while I'm at it -- everyone needs to stop buying into the new media narrative -- Hillary did not have to win NC; Obama had to win IN -- that was the tie breaker. He didn't do it. He still, outspending her 3-1 and with whatever funky stuff was going on in Lake County, could not close the deal. Simply put: this changes NOTHING. They are still in a DEAD HEAT. It is no more possible today for Obama to get to the 2209 delegates he needs to win the nomination then it was yesterday. If anything, this new media narrative is obscuring the fact that the demographics of today's results pretty much put the nail in the coffin for any chances of an Obama win in the GE.  We all need to take a step back, get a good night's sleep, and remember that. Tomorrow is another day.

    Parent
    I don't think she should suspend her campaign. (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Iphie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:42 AM EST
    Though I do agree with BTD that she has earned the right to do whatever she wants. But I find it untenable that a nominee might be chosen without counting FL and MI. It is undemocratic and I used to think, unDemocratic. The nomination will not be legitimate without without full participation of all states. I'm sorry that Howard Dean and Donna Brazile felt they needed to make a point by punishing MI and FL, but the more important point should be that all voters count and all votes should be counted. Without that simple and most basic concept, the nominee will will always have an asterisk next to their name.

    I really hope that tomorrow is just a day of regrouping and recuperating, and not a day to drop out. Marc Ambinder has her basic schedule for tomorrow, and in his reporting of it, he doesn't seem to take it as a sign that she's bowing out.

    Me thinks... (none / 0) (#65)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    ...that a deal will soon be made for Michigan and Florida.  They will be seated as soon as Obama sows this up.  As it is, they can be counted and not change the delegate math or the popular vote total.

    Parent
    They may do that... (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:51 AM EST
    but it's absolutely the wrong move.

    It will just reinforce my decision to leave the party.

    Could they have their thumb on the scale any more?

    Parent

    I just hope... (none / 0) (#108)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:36 AM EST
    ...that all progressives and Democrats don't do anything to abet a McCain victory. Although I support Obama, I would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over McCain, because I actually care about policy, on which Clinton and Obama are very close.

    Parent
    Oh come on. (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:44 AM EST
    The die-hard Democrats will mostly suck it up and vote for Obama.

    It's the Independents and Clinton Dems who will carry John McCain to victory. Obama won't get their votes.

    So stop the condescension and statements about how you actually care about policy. We all do. We just don't think Obama will get to enact his policies if he's the nominee.

    Parent

    He is the nominee... (none / 0) (#213)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:23 AM EST
    ...and one reason is that he's preferred by independents.

    There are plenty of people on this board who have said they will under no circumstances vote for Obama in November.  Those people, in my opinion, do not care about actual policy. And if "Clinton Dems" want to vote against their economic interests, so be it. I won't shed a tear for them when their kids don't have a president who is concerned about them having health insurance.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:26 AM EST
    Factually untrue in almost every respect.


    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by MonaL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    And I donated $100 before the Lake County votes came in. Hillary should not drop out, she won Indiana and has the intestinal fortitude to see this through the convention if necessary.  What's the difference between them?  1% - 2%  she still has a chance.

    Send her money now if you want her to keep going.


    Keep going Hillary! (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MisterPleasant on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:38 AM EST
    Just matched your $100 donation, MonaL.

    Parent
    On the last point... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:57 AM EST
    Re: Hillary v. McCain...

    Since Obama won't debate her.

    She should challenge McCain to an Oregon debate.

    He'll decline but it'll be good for a half a news cycle at least.  Or he'll accept and Obama's campaign will panic and say something stupid like they don't need working-class whites.

    I'm guessing they think people will forget (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:35 AM EST
    all the "bitter" and "cling" remarks by November. And now this one where they just flatly said they didn't need working class people

    Parent
    I hope Brazille's comments (none / 0) (#102)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:06 AM EST
    Are enough for the DNC to run away from her far and fast.  Then maybe we can look at realistic options for FL & MI without her interference.  I know she's not the only obstacle, but she's seems to have been a significant one.

    Parent
    unless Obama attacks (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:31 AM EST
    then she should hit back and keep hitting. And that includes surrogates as well. If there's any nastiness from Donna, Gary mayor, and similar people, then I'd recommend campaigning against Obama.

    Tonight's primary played out like most people thought in the last day or two. A small win in Indian for Clinton and a good size win in North Carolina for Obama. So we're on the same path we were a few days ago. The same holds true tonight, Clinton has the popular vote with FL and MI. Obama blocked the revote. Obama is not electable. So there is a good case for Clinton.

    But of course the party that gave us our previous looser pres. nominees will likely do it again. So I'm bracing myself.

    He won't (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:20 AM EST
    Oh, but he will. (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    He has been attacking her since Day One. He will not change his tactics.

    Besides, everything is fine in his campaign. Didn't you listen to CNN, The Best Election Team Evah?

    Parent

    Obama will (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by OldCoastie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    do himself in soon enough, I suspect...

    No Way She Drops Out (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:46 AM EST
    Here is what I wrongly posted in another thread. But again I see no reason that anything changed with tonight's vote. Not until we have hear meaningfully from Michigan and Florida.

    >>She needs to keep running the election through the convention.

    Tonight's victories may turn out hollow for Obama. This sideshow in Gary won't help because it raises specter of Chicago politics. But once it clears away, the theme will return to why can't he get the white working class vote. That will only get reinforced with West Virgina and Kentucky.

    I feel my depression tonight stemmed from how much this reminded me of 2000 with press manipulating stories and calls. BTD, with all due respect I don't want these folks picking our presidents. It's too high a price to pay so I don't see it as a benefit to tout its advantage.<<


    A LITTLE perspective here folks! (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:06 AM EST
    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of NY WON the Indiana primary tonight.  Defintion of win: MORE than the loser!

    WHAT is ALL this DOOM and GLOOM about?!?

    Sbe WON for goodness sake!  A win is a win!  She won PA by 10, he won NC by 12 or 14, she WON IN by a nose!  

    Politics is about WINNING elections. And tonight, Clinton WON Indiana.  How many unbelievable contests have been won by ONE point or percentages of percentages?

    Buck up everybody!  Go to HillaryClinton.com, drop a coupla bux and slam a whiskey shot with a beer chaser.

    CONGRATULATIONS Hillary! YOU WON TONIGHT!

    unless, of course... (none / 0) (#93)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:28 AM EST
    you actually count the delegates that were secured this evening.  By that metric, she lost.

    Parent
    At least be accurate (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:16 AM EST
    She didn't lose because of the "delegate math." She lost because she failed to change the dynamic sufficiently for the SDs to take a risk on alienating AA voters and nominate the candidate who could win the GE. Because what Sen Obama lost tonight was any illusion that he has any draw in the demographics that will determine the GE.


    Parent
    Forgive me 4 (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:26 AM EST
    not being a slave to "the math".  I cruised all the news blogs and all those pouting at DK and HP with banners splashed that HRC won IN tonight.

    If I were a super D I would ask Obama how he could lose in his own backyard to where a good portion of one end of the state shares his hometown media market?

    He LOST where he should have WON. IN was the "tie-breaker."

    Tie broken.  Hillary wins...keep on truckin'!

    Parent

    or the popular vote (none / 0) (#115)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:10 AM EST
    Where she's been set back by about 100k votes today.

    Parent
    Let's get serious here (none / 0) (#137)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:00 AM EST
    You can't say she's losing the popular vote metric if you don't include ALL 50 states

    Parent
    what's the count? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:40 AM EST
    I can't remember where to find the popular vote count that includes FL and MI. By the way, I was wrong, it's closer to 200k.

    Parent
    realclearpolitics.com (none / 0) (#170)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:39 AM EST
    I'm still shocked by the NC results (none / 0) (#104)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST
    I guess I shouldn't be because she was up against a 600 thousand 91% solid AA voting block. I predicted she would win 65 counties, turns out she won around 50.

    Parent
    except of course for the math... (none / 0) (#231)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:15 AM EST
    Except, of course that delegates (the only measure that really matters) will be virtually split between them in IN, while in NC Obama Picks up a significant increase. Further, Obama picked up a 150,000 - 200,000 increase tonight in his popular vote lead. Even adding FL and MI, which broke the rules (and especially MI where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) won't get Clinton close enough to pull ahead in the popular vote...and like I said, the only measure that counts by the rules everyone agreed upon, is delegates.

    Parent
    Obama can't win the GE (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:29 AM EST
    I think that's obvious now.

    So why should Hillary stop saying it?

    We should just accept our loss like good little soldiers because the media and proggy bloggers tell us to?

    This is why the Democrats lose Presidential elections.

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:31 AM EST
    Democrats lose Pres elections because we give up.  Polls, the media, and everyone else said HRC was toast a long time ago, yet look how far shes gotten and its not even over yet.  So just because people tell you X Democrat cant get elected doesnt mean they cant.  Dont just give up.

    Parent
    Um ... that's what I was saying (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:05 AM EST
    Great... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:33 AM EST
    Im glad we agree that we shouldnt give up IF Obama gets the nom.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ajain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:53 AM EST
     She should do whatever she wants to. In fact I think there is no real way she will get out now. She promised to stay in until the MI/FL stuff is settled and she will probably win in the upcoming states. So, I think she should stay in until she wants, but attacking Obama as directly and aggressively as she has been will not suit her case.

    Not a quitter (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by jen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:14 AM EST
    She will not quit. Nor should she. There's so much more to come out about that will sink Obama like a stone, and Hillary knows it. She's in it to win it.

    Didn't come out quite right (none / 0) (#109)
    by jen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:51 AM EST
    Time to go to bed. G'nite all.

    Parent
    Unlikely (none / 0) (#172)
    by Korha on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:52 AM EST
    If something huge and dramatic was going to come out, why hasn't it come out yet? This idea that some killer scandal is going to hit Obama is nothing more than a pipe dream. He already got hit with a load of incredibly damaging stuff. There isn't going to be anything more like that coming, and as the election tonight proved, Obama is still standing.

    Parent
    I for one say take it all the way (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Regency on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:14 AM EST
    She's a Clinton and they never say die even when they're dying.

    It's easy to be pessimistic in the night, but in a week I'll wonder why I felt this way.  If there is any good sense and order in this world she will be the nominee. I believe that and will work my heart out to see that through to completion. Then, I will work my heart out to make sure she is President.

    The people of America have not given up on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, but this American has given up on the Democratic Party.  I've had my fill of misnomers.

    I've just donated $20.44 to HDRC and hope many others will also. It's an uphill battle, but I'm a Scorpio, a veteran of the Clinton years, and I never say die.

    Hillary and Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:22 AM EST
    should start a third party.  Complete populist agenda.  The goal, to keep universal healthcare as the # 1 issue.  Do or die.  

    Where (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:34 AM EST
    do I sign up? I've been disgusted with the Democratic party for years. This is just the final straw to get me away from the toothless, gutless, idiots who are currently letting the Republicans steam roller them.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:15 AM EST
    We need a third party badly.  In fact, we need multiple parties.  The two party system has run its course and is no longer helpful to the republic.

    Parent
    Single Agenda Item (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:00 AM EST
    Universal Healthcare.  Obama is gonna sell it down the river.  

    Parent
    To all (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:09 AM EST
    IS it possible not to insult each other or the candidates for one thread please?

    Tonight? honestly, no. (1.00 / 0) (#185)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:17 AM EST
    I'm off to bed soon.

    Parent
    I wasn't the one who was going to say it (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:32 AM EST
    If we have any more gracious victors here tonight there is going to be a gun fight!

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#201)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:32 AM EST
    I think its going to be like this from now until the convention...and beyond. Not saying it should, BTD, but at this point, stakes are too high.

    Parent
    Thanks Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:32 AM EST
    for your dedication to getting the most current and accurate information out there tonight.  Great critical analyses of the emerging situations; I loved reading them.

    Thanks also to all the "regulars" whose eloquent and thoughtful posts made this board by far the best place to be on this election night -- I was literally reading from this board verbatim to my best friend who was temporarily without internet access. She appreciated the comments as well, BTW :)

    When did the Democratic Party (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:58 AM EST
    stop being democratic?  When did it decide that democracy was a bad IDEA, and that listening to all the members of the party and giving them a voice was wrong.  I was born during the time of Eisenhower and  grew up in the time of Assassinations, I remember the time when the name Rockerfeller meant "Liberal Republican" or "ratf*cking was a brand new political term, before the malaise "infected" Carter and RayGun (yeah cheap shot) bought us a new dawn.  And yet, I can't for the life of me, ever remember people clamoring for one candidate to drop out of the race to save the (not so now) Democratic party. even in the debacle of "68".  When did we Democrats become synonymous with disenfranchisement and voter negation?  And while 1968 may not be a great year to remember, realize this - no one would have raised a stink that someone had to quit for the good of the party.
    It's late - for me, going to bed.

    Run against McCain (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by dishwithdi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:09 AM EST
    I agree, Hillary ought to focus on McCain and the general and just ignore Obama.  I hope her surrogates and supporters follow that lead as well.  God, I love this woman for working this hard, for coming so far, for taking as much abuse as she has from Obama and for enduring the myth-making by the media.  They always say, You get the government you deserve.  So what did we do to deserve Obama as the nominee who will give us McCain as the President?  Ye Gods!  Once again the party of sadists (Republicans) will beat the party of masochists (Democrats).  Again!  And so it goes.  

    From Riverdaughter and I agree 100 percent (5.00 / 4) (#234)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:20 AM EST
    I think what we're seeing here is a real racial divide. It was engineered, deliberately, by Obama's campaign in order to separate African Americans from the Clintons. It has worked spectacularly well. Obama consistently wins urban and southern AA voters, by lopsided margins. It didn't have to be this way. There was no reason for the African-American community to spurn Clinton. But in this America, in 2008, color is everything. It seems like the civil rights movement of the 60's was just a dream. As long as you are the right color, you're golden. Color masks a multitude of deficiencies- experience, knowledge base, earned coalitions, even interest. Obama has not reached out to the working class, to women, to the elderly, the loyal base of the Democratic party. But he has managed to exacerbate the fault line in the party when it comes to race. There's no doubt about that now.

    Winning NC does not make me like him more nor do I have an elevated desire to vote for him. Let me dispel the notion that he and his supporters have about me voting for him in the fall: unless Florida and Michigan are seated and have an impact on the nomination, I will not consider the nomination legitimate. That doesn't mean I'll vote for John McCain. It just means that I don't know what I'll do when I stand in front of that button. And don't hang this on Hillary. If it comes to that, I'm sure she would do her best to GOTV. It has nothing to do with her. It has to do with how deeply offended I am by how Obama has split my party on racial lines and pitted race against their regular party members, as if there was a real split there to begin with. As if I were the enemy. He has pitted Dem against Dem. I am insulted that Howard Dean and Donna Brazile have put their thumbs on the scales for Obama instead of encouraging him to agree to revotes in FL and MI. The thought of voting for him under these circumstances fills me with revulsion. And there's no amount of cheerleading that Hillary can do to make me change my mind. It's not her. It's him.
    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

    Thank you for talkleft.com (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by unclesamsgirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:32 AM EST
    I've been seeking solace here for some time.  Decided to sign up after last night.
    Hillary should keep going if she can.  If she doesn't prevail, I'll have to vote against Obama in the GE (painful). God help my country.

    I Agree She Should Run Against McCain (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by Richjo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    with one exception. She needs to call Obama out forcefully on his false and negative attacks on her. His position on the gas tax holiday was both hypocritical and dishonest. He and his surrogates continually tried to imply that her plan was the same as McCain's, as well as to suggest that what was needed was long term solutions; which was totally dishonest because all the long term solutions that he proposes, Clinton has proposed as well. The only difference is that Obama now, for political reasons, opposses something which he previously supported rigorously, even though the idea as it is being presented now is superior to the version he supported in the past because it pays for itself. His position is also simply morally repugnant because it fails to offer relief, which no matter how small it may seem to some, is still relief, and to others wouldn't certainly would be quite meaningful. This is a constant pattern where Obama has taken terrible positions on issues, just to distinguish himself from his opponents. Health care comes to mind as well. That as well as his ridiculous claim that he should be trusted to change Washington because he doesn't take $5,000 from a PAC, but will on the other hand allow the CEO of the company that PAC is part of to bundle $50,000 for him. This is a man who is against things that would help working people like the gas tax holiday and the limit on credit card interests rates, and who claims he opposes them because they wouldn't provide enough relief; when in fact by opposing them working people wind up with no relief, and industries that he is heavily supported by just happen to benefit. Obama needs to clean up his act in these areas before the general election, and she does him no favors by giving him a free pass on them in the name of party unity. There are ALOT of legtimate and valid attacks on Obama and the game he has been playing. She shouldn't hesitate to make them as long as he hasn't wrapped up the nomination yet.

    My personal opinion now (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:33 AM EST
    is that she should probably suspend her campaign.

    But my bigger concern is for November: I don't know how we put the humpty dumpty that is the Democratic Party back together again.

    The same way they did it in 1960. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:02 AM EST
    Shotgun wedding for the win!

    Parent
    What's fun about that... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:42 AM EST
    ...is that it almost benefits them that they and their supporters dislike each other so much. They're doing it for UNITY! It's a weirdly motivating, positive force for the party.

    Parent
    I Strongly Object to a Unity Ticket (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:10 AM EST
    After that crap Obama supporters pulled with Kantor and then the Gary mayor tonight.  When Obama flames out in November, the last thing I want is Clinton being blamed and you know that's what the Obama people will do.

    If he's the nominee, let her campaign for him.  But I've spent six months having the Obama campaign call Hillary a liar and his supporters spewing rightwing smears against her.   They don't need her help.  Obama is a movement.

    Parent

    Actually I don't believe Obama will (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:46 AM EST
    ask Hillary to campaign for him.

    Parent
    I've been thinking this, too (none / 0) (#131)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:45 AM EST
    In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he publicly "asked" her not to.

    Parent
    Would you object to Gen. Clark? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    Speaking Only For Me (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:11 AM EST
    No VP candidate will ensure that I vote for Obama. Obama himself will have to convince me that he will actually support the things that I value in the Democratic Party.

    So far, he has IMO put many things that I value at risk. It will be up to Obama to earn my vote. No one else can do it for him.

    Parent

    Rovian Campaign Tactics (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:57 AM EST
    and misogyny don't make you want to get all unified?   What kind of democrat are you?

    Parent
    Oh I dunno (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:46 AM EST
    for example, if Obama nominated my mom for VP, I'm pretty sure I'd vote for that ticket no matter what.

    Parent
    Very Time Magazine (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:10 AM EST
    The Vice President. . .is you!

    Parent
    Too many holes to plug (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:54 AM EST
    Women
    Large swing states
    Battleground states
    Hispanics
    White working class
    Moderate Democrats
    Conservative Democrats
    Experience
    National Security

    I guess Clark helps with some of these but it may not be enough.

    Parent

    Could someone explain (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:02 AM EST
    why he is supposed to be a suitable substitute for Clinton?   He isn't even close for me.

    Parent
    Didn't seem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:41 AM EST
    to have that "unity" effect with Kerry and Edwards ... just saying.

    Parent
    Different situation... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:08 AM EST
    ...it's only the extreme animus between the two groups that would make coming together such a cathartic, symbiotic thing. That's just my gut feeling on it, however, don't ask for further explanation.

    Parent
    Unity would have been Dean (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:59 AM EST
    Perhaps you'll feel (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:06:51 AM EST
    differently in the a.m.?

    Parent
    Doubtful (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:45 AM EST
    There's just no way for her to win this now.

    Parent
    why? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:42 AM EST
    There's just no way for her to win this now.

    Don't see that anything has changed.

    I think she stands a good chance of winning. The reason she's still in this race even though the media is actively pushing WWTSBQ is, people really do trust her to govern well. She's got good positions and there's reason to assume she'll stock the government with people who know what they're doing. She'll fix the economy and she'll come up with the best possible solution in Iraq.

    What does the vote in East Chicago, Indiana have to do with that?

    Parent

    The media has ensured (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:50 AM EST
    that Hillary could not be a legitimate nominee. The superdelegates will take that to heart, and will not overturn the media's conception of "the will of the people."

    Parent
    A good middle ground... (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    ...she would either be running for herself or, considering the high likelihood that Obama is now the nominee, supporting Obama. All at the same time. I hope you hold her to this in your judgement of her campaign from here on out.

    It Would Also Be Nice If Obama Ran Against (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:32:24 AM EST
    McCain and stopped his negative comments about Hillary and Bill's presidency. If he continues to attack her, then as far as I'm concerned he is still fair game.

    Parent
    I would guess that... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:42 AM EST
    ...except for mentions of mathematics, your wish is granted.

    Parent
    Just for any future 1-raters... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:48 AM EST
    ...I'm saying Hillary should stay in the race, under BTD's guidelines, and that this would be good for everyone interested in not having McCain as president.

    Parent
    Ultimately, she will do what's best for her party. (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:05 AM EST
    Unlike several of her "supporters" here, she actuall wants a Democrat in the White House, not just a Clinton.

    She absolutely deserves to decide for herself. All candidates have the right to decide what to do with their campaigns. It's her name on the signs.

    At this point, it would be nice, imo, if she didn't drag this out 'til June 3. If she does, I really hope she focuses her ire on McCain and stops the bloodletting on Obama.

    The unity thing is gonna take some work, but hopefully in the end punishing Obama is not worth having four more years of Bush policies.

    Obama's not going to make to the White House... (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:21 AM EST
    he doesn't have the demographics to win the GE. So what difference does it make if she chooses to stay in?

    Parent
    That is just such a silly argument. (1.00 / 3) (#133)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:47 AM EST
    She doesn't have the demographics, either, right now. She has almost zero black support, and the upper-class liberals don't like her very much, either.

    If you all would really watch 4 more years of our young people dying in Iraq, rich people getting the tax cuts, women's choice being put at risk, gays continuing to live in the shadows of society, and children to continue falling behind in underfunded schools just b/c you don't like Barack Obama, then I really don't want to be in your party to start with.

    Grow up and stop being a bunch of whiny a$$ babies. Bill and Hillary have both said repeatedly that people like you should stay out of the game b/c you can't take it. You're weak.

    Parent

    How many elections have upper class liberals won (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:55 AM EST
    Obama and Clinton have won a few, and (none / 0) (#187)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:43:34 AM EST
    they're both upper-class liberals. I would venture that a good # of elected Dems are upper class liberals.

    Based on the past 2 elections, every demo matters. She has some. Obama has some. Neither can win w/o any support from the other's demos.

    Parent

    I thought Obama said... (none / 0) (#221)
    by Nigel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:45 AM EST
    ...he would have no problem winning over her supporters??

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:21 AM EST
    You're on a roll tonight!  Voters, real people, don't care for your candidate and aren't going to vote for him... and your response is

    Grow up and stop being a bunch of whiny a$$ babies. Bill and Hillary have both said repeatedly that people like you should stay out of the game b/c you can't take it. You're weak.

    I'm sorry, but that is too funny.  Some people are so over the top the stereotype of the friggin' arrogant, stick up the butt, self-aggrandizing, elitist Dem and they can't figure out why Dems keep losing.

    I just imagine you doing get out the vote activities....


    Parent

    You think I give a rip (1.33 / 3) (#203)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:34 AM EST
    if you stay home? If you vote for McCain? Heck, all that does is confirm that you are in fact a loser.

    Go ahead. Give me the power to determine your vote. I'd love it. It just confirms my superior intellect.

    The GOP has been fooling tools like you into giving them power for years. They'll be happy to know you in fact don't learn and ultimately don't care about the things you claim to support.

    Parent

    Front-page this comment (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:29 AM EST
    Unity talk!

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    if you dont agree with this:

    If you all would really watch 4 more years of our young people dying in Iraq, rich people getting the tax cuts, women's choice being put at risk, gays continuing to live in the shadows of society, and children to continue falling behind in underfunded schools just b/c you don't like Barack Obama, then I really don't want to be in your party to start with.

    Then how are you a democrat?  Thats not being an elitist, thats just staying within what defines democratic values.

    Parent

    Do the MATH (none / 0) (#196)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:27 AM EST
    What percentage are AA's and upper class liberals in a general election?

    Parent
    when you've lost the last two, (1.00 / 6) (#225)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:13 AM EST
    you really can't afford to lose anybody, moron!

    you act as though democrats have some big cushion to work with. they're trying to scrape together another point or two here and there. blacks and rich liberals are worth a couple points, at least.

    think. there is not enough white trash to elect a president by themselves. especially not when a lot of them will vote against gays and gun control.

    just b/c hillbilly's like clinton now, when the gop has a candidate and she's up against a black man, doesn't mean they'll like her in the fall.

    you people really don't understand how badly you're being used.

    Parent

    Yes I want a democrat (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:01 AM EST
    That is why Sen Obama is not an option. Stop being insulting.

    Parent
    You say stop being insulting (1.00 / 3) (#111)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:03 AM EST
    right after insulting Obama.

    Hypocrite much?


    Parent

    Look up definition of insult (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST
    Saying someone is not a democrat is NOT an insult.

    Parent
    When you call Obama a liar-- (1.00 / 6) (#140)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:21 AM EST
    which is what you do when you claim he's not a Democrat--that's insulting. And immature.

    If 42 is your age, you should act it. If it's your IQ, I understand your petulance.

    Parent

    Ouch ouch, so witty (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:36 AM EST
    My poor IQ is too low to understand your clever attacks.

    You are right, I have seen the error of my ways. I am running off to donate to Sen Obama. Thanks!

    Parent

    Good boy. And don't be late to your job (1.00 / 3) (#209)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:57 AM EST
    at Starbucks. I need my latte!!

    Parent
    You're just a troll (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:23 AM EST
    Any Democrat... (1.00 / 2) (#152)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:14 AM EST
    ...who abets the victory of McCain is not a Democrat in my eyes. If you care about actual policy and the direction of the country and consider yourself a progressive or a Democrat, you'll vote for Obama. To do otherwise would be spiteful and, in a way really, almost immoral, that is if you consider fairer tax policies, stronger environmental legislation, expanded health care coverage, and all of the other things that Obama and Clinton agree upon more moral. You would be contradicting your own principles by doing anything that would help McCain win.


    Parent
    Well, just means that (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:00 AM EST
    Obama supporters will have to work a bit harder.  

    Parent
    No, it doesn't mean that... (1.00 / 2) (#181)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:42 AM EST
    ...it means that Clinton supporters need to get real and support the candidate who most closely matches their values and policies.  And that is, undeniably, Obama.

    Again, to not support Obama and this aid a McCain victory would be to directly contradict the very values and principles that led you to support Clinton.

    I think most Clinton supporters will realize this in the end. If they don't, well, then they're not really concerned with actual policies, but instead with personality. That's fine, but I think that most of the pro-Clinton majority here are rational political actors who, in the end, will vote for a president who supports most of the things they do and their former candidate does as well.  Because, well, that's just the right and smart thing to do.

    Parent

    It's in the tone. (5.00 / 7) (#210)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:12 AM EST
    Well, we are taking the tone in consideration.  I like Michelle am really concerned about tone.  Tone is really important to me.  So, I will have to think about  it.  Like I said to me voting is not something I was born into, I earned it, so I take it really seriously.  It's all about tone.  You see, I am not tone deaf.  

    Parent
    wow, way to win hearts and minds (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:08 AM EST
    there. NOT. Whoever gets the nomination of the party must work hard to win over the votes from the other candidates side. It's not automatic, nor should it be. If Obama gets the nomination through disenfranchising FL and MI, and through SD's selecting him to stop the election even though it's clear he doesn't have the demographics to win, then many Clinton supporters and many undecideds will not be happy.

    And many Clinton supporters actually care about the issue of Choice, and haven't forgotten that Obama has decided where he stands on that issue. Remember, he said he hadn't decided if life begins and conception or not. If he decides it does, then he's pro-life. So we don't know. That's a pretty hard pill to take. And what if McCain picks a pro choice female republican running mate. I'd say that would change that quite a bit.

    Parent

    I agree with you completely (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:08 AM EST
    So let's all agree not to nominate the candidate that will lose to McCain, and let's nominate the candidate that can win.

    Agreed? Now go talk to the SDs.

    Parent

    But Marvin, my good friend... (none / 0) (#204)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:44 AM EST
    ...the voters have spoken through a process that, however flawed, is coming to an end. That process has produced a nominee (or is very close to doing so). Once that nominee is officially confirmed, it will be hard for any Democrat who cares about actual policy not to support him or her.

    That's what I'm talking about and you know it. I've read your posts before, and while I disagree with you on who should be the nominee, I'm sure you're a good Democrat who cares about actual policies, not just personalities. That's my gut feeling of almost all Clinton supporters here (with the exception of the fool who actually said he'd rather die than vote for Obama - yuck!). You care about things like health insurance, the environment, fairer tax policies, education, and thus will vote for Obama. If you don't, then you just don't care about actual policy.  That's your prerogative, but please, do not complain about McCain's policies, which you will, in your own small way, have helped to realize.

    Parent

    I was being a little snarky (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:51:26 AM EST
    And honestly I have no issues with what you say. You are making reasoned rational arguments that I can't refute. But tonight is not the night of reason my friend. On top of that we have a few people who should read "How to make friend and influence people" a few times before ever posting, anywhere.

    So I say: let it be, for now. What I am in some ways most upset about is that I strongly believe we have already lost the election in November, and it makes me angry. I can't take watching the democrats do this AGAIN.

    Parent

    There are a number of commentators (none / 0) (#136)
    by Korha on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:32:38 AM EST
    Who have declared that they will either support McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. These commentators do not want a democrat. They want, they need, Clinton.

    Parent
    no. (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:41 AM EST
    We want a democrat who was fairly chosen by the system. Not a republican/chameleon who was annointed and pushed forward by a bunch of people who couldn't win the White House on a bet but want to be in power and who don't want a Clinton.

    If the Democratic party = vote for Obama or else, then the constant accusations that I am not a Democrat actually are true. Funny considering I've been supporting the party since before I was even able to vote. As have my parents (both over 70) who feel the exact same way.

    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#206)
    by Korha on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    I'll gladly say it. If you vote for John McCain over Barack Obama for POTUS, then are proving that you do not care about Iraq, health care, poverty, the environment, or any number of other extremely important policy issues. You are elevating one specific politician and that candidate's political fortunes above the interests of the party and the country.

    You and your parents are not true democrats.

    Parent

    And you're in a position (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:32 AM EST
    to determne this because...?

    Funny, the Democrats in power now (and I use that term loosely) haven't stopped any of the above anyway.

    And actually, I am not elevating one candidate and her fortunes over the interests of anything. I would gladly have voted for any other Democratic nominee in the race assuming they actually stayed on message and didn't run the kind of campaign that was run by Obama. Many of us have been insulted, condescended to, treated like garbage and told we're not truly Democrats from the start because it's YOUR way or the highway. Well, fine -- have it your way. I will not vote for someone I think is unelectable or that does not uphold any of the values, or the principles I hold dear. Sorry but the cycle of abuse is over -- I and many others are not going to be treated this way and then expected to vote for someone who is pretty much a losing proposition just because he's got a D after his name. And the only reason for that IMHO, is because it's expedient to be a Democrat in Illinois (and I used to live there. I know the score). He certainly doesn't sound like any true Democrat I know.

    If you and your ilk are the current litmus for what the Democratic party is, count me out. And take your annointed one with you. There are third party candidates who can use my vote.

    Parent

    I want a democrat in WH too (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:18 AM EST
    but Obama is no Dem and my vote will not be held hostage by Roland Martin/Obama screeching Roe v. Wade. I will also not kowtow to the johny-come-lately OBAMACANS who are here only for Obama and who have never been nor will they remain democrats.

    Parent
    You (4.50 / 8) (#122)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:19 AM EST
    have written as many classless, taunting comments tonight as anyone.

    You need to get a clue about what the word "unity" means before you start pontificating about it to others.  Being a sore winner is not the way.

    Parent

    Martin Luther King couldn't steal NC for Obama. (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ben Masel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:29 AM EST
    It took a President to sign the Voting Rights Act.

    That's pretty nasty (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:17 AM EST
    You're right. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Ben Masel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:24 AM EST
    It was appropriate in context of the comment on mydd to which I'd originally posted it as a reply, but I shouldn't have carried that here. Apologies.

    Parent
    That's big of you (none / 0) (#218)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:51:02 AM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    You understood what it meant? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:54 AM EST
    I didn't get it. (none / 0) (#180)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:32 AM EST
    He's talking (none / 0) (#191)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:19 AM EST
    about this. For the record, I think Hillary is absolutely right. It was one of the best arguments for her candidacy.

    And it seems that Ben, like many Obama supporters, has taken to interpreting it as a vaguely racist attack.

    Parent

    OK I'm embarrassed (none / 0) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:34 AM EST
    what did it mean?

    Parent
    Clinton "Came from Behind" in Indiana? (1.00 / 2) (#236)
    by caseynm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:45:17 AM EST
    Oh, Christ. Give me a break.  When was she ever behind in Indiana (except in her rhetoric?)

    The notion that Obama split the party is obscene. The notion that Obama is an elitist--except in the sense that he's the candidate--is absurd.  

    In short, get over yourselves.  Hillary was not entitled to this nomination, she had to earn it.  And she didn't.  The fact that people on sites like this (i.e., supposedly left wing) are using Republican talking points about Obama explains why we lose all the time.

    Sounds like a plan! (none / 0) (#5)
    by clio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:33 AM EST


    It seems to me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST
    the electability card has been played to death at this point.  Voters have seen the evidence, they understand the concerns, they are moved by the argument but not dispositively so.  Even if he is unelectable, the argument has been played out.  It's one that needs to be made delicately and it has pretty much been bludgeoned, so enough.  I like BTD's advice instead.

    At the end of the day, we are a democratic party and if enough people want to take their chances with Obama in November, then that's how it is going to be.  I don't think it is over at this point unless Hillary wants it to be over, but I know that not all of us can get our way.

    I heard some shots at Hillary in Obama's speech tonight but I also heard some pointed attacks on McCain.  A sustained period of both candidates double-teaming McCain could be very helpful.  Despite all the hate, Hillary Clinton is a good Democrat and she will do what is right for the Democratic Party.

    Meh. Obama may as well take all his (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:05 AM EST
    shots at McCain while he can. In the general he'll be so busy fending off Wright, Rezko, bitter, Ayers, that he'll forget  he has issues. They're gonna keep him back on his heels one knock after another...now that ass Hannity is claiming to have a pic of Farrakhan and Obama sitting together.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    but the electability argument (none / 0) (#46)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:44 AM EST
    is not being made to the voters, at least not primarily. it's being made to the superdelegates. they have not been heard.

    i get your point, but i disagree about electability no longer being the issue.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:18 AM EST
    Arguments to the superdelegates are best made rather quietly.  My view remains unchanged: I have concerns about the exact same issues that everyone else is concerned about, but there's no empirical evidence that the superdelegates are moved by all this.  Speculate as you will about their motives, but they're simply not moving en masse to Hillary.

    I understand why some people are utterly convinced that Obama is unelectable.  Maybe they're right.  But at the end of the day, unless the right people are persuaded to agree with that, it makes no difference if they're right or wrong.

    Parent

    we don't disagree (none / 0) (#110)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:01 AM EST
    on too much then. thanks for clarifying.

    Parent
    Good call BTD. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:56 AM EST
    I'm not happy tonight, but continuing to bang on him won't do her much good.  But I'm so mad at the blogosphere right now I might not vote for him, although in the end I probably will.  It will be a pointless vote, since Donna "I've never won a Presedential Campaign" Brazile pretty much defined what her "new" coalition of about 25% of the American people will deliver:

    A McGovernish-Mondale lopsided beatdown of epic proportions.  Man are we going to get our clock cleaned.  He'll lose Whites, Hispanics, some of the Women (funny on how they're never considered, eh?  The gender gap is as important as the AA vote), maybe even Jewish Americans.  Begala nailed it, "Eggheads and AA's is not a winning coalition, at least IMHO.

    Badly worded... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:16 AM EST
    My main point on women is that the Gender Gap will not be near as large as it would be for Hillary and some of the hard feelings that I hear around here confirm that.  I don't blame women a bit for being p*ssed.

    Sorry, I'm quickly losing my lucidity.

    Parent

    I hate to tell you this... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:01 AM EST
    but there are definitely women who hate HRC.  Dont think that just because she would be running they'll swarm to her.  By the way, I hope HRC gets the nom.

    Parent
    she showed his deficiencies... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    ...sheepish voters not woken up.

    Time to drop out now.  There's not much she can do now.

    Agree mostly (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:12 AM EST
    She needs to run a unity campaign and bow out after her next loss (OR).  And Obama needs to reach out to her and her supporters too.

    I don't see how she wins OR with the media narrative continuing and her likely having no $$.

    BTD is right (none / 0) (#84)
    by onemanrules on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:27 AM EST
    I think HRC will stay in until 5/20 when Oregon and Kentucky vote. I don't look for her to attack Obama at all. I do see her going after McCain in a big way though. After 5/20 she will win Kentucky and Obama will win Oregon and clinch the pledged delegate race. Here comes the big unity push. Good thing there is a long time between now and November.

    Ed Rendell for VP

    I agree she should run it as she sees fit. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:28 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan are key for me.  I do not believe the nominee will be legitimate unless Michigan and Florida voters have their full say.

    That means honoring the votes cast, fully.  Or, a revote.

    I'll vote for the nominee, legit or not.  But I don't expect Florida and Michigan Democrats will be so loyal.  I'd be extremely bitter, if I were them, and I think it will be justified if the DNC disenfranchises them, as it plans to do right now.

    Finally, I don't relish being in the same party as many in the left blogosphere.  Thanks to BTD and Jeralyn for offering this island of probity.  I am donating to you, and to Hillary (again).  

    Do you think he could get away with a Republican? (none / 0) (#90)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:04 AM EST
    Say a Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar? I know, probably not.

    I'd love to see General Zinni, but that too is probably impossible.

    Great...he should (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:00 AM EST
    it will show his true colors.  

    Parent
    I fully expect (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:45 AM EST
    a LieberDem like Bloomberg or a Republican like Chuck Hagel to be his pick.

    After all, John Kerry asked McCain to be his VP. And Joe Lieberman is Obama's mentor in the Senate.

    Parent

    I Thought He Wanted Both Hagel & Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:34 AM EST
    It will be great. We will have a Reagan foreign policy and Republicans at Defense and State. Boy am I excited.  just can't wait.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#155)
    by Korha on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:29 AM EST
    Obama needs to do a lot of work now shoring up his support among Clinton's base. Hagel or Lugar would be a huge disaster (abortion rights anyone?). Right now I'm leaning towards having Clinton herself as his VP.

    Parent
    perhaps not surprising... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:34 AM EST
    But I agree with you, BTD.

    This went almost as I expected.

    I'd agree entirely. (none / 0) (#215)
    by RickTaylor on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:48 AM EST
    In fact I think it would have been to her advantage to start before now. Clinton is at her best when she's discussing policy, and I think all the concentration on Wright and bitter-gate and so on have distracted from what is actually her strong suit. Also I don't think she needs to concentrate on the negative; Republicans have already started as they consider Obama the likely eventual nominee, and even the media has been less friendly. Negative attacks hurt the one attack, but they also tend to hurt the attacker as well.

    Clinton forges on? (none / 0) (#232)
    by gandy007 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:40 AM EST
    As per MSNBC, at her late night rally before calling it a night, these were the comments:

    Despite the uncertainty of the outcome in Indiana, Clinton staked a claim to victory there.

    "Not too long ago, my opponent made a prediction," she said at the rally, joined by her husband, Bill, his face sunburned after hours spent campaigning in small-town North Carolina, and their daughter, Chelsea. "I would win Pennsylvania, he would win North Carolina and Indiana would be the tie-breaker.

    "Well, tonight we've come from behind, we've broken the tie, and thanks to you it's full speed on to the White House."

    To emphasize her determination, Clinton announced plans to campaign Thursday in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon, three of the remaining primary states.

    But Clinton also made a direct fundraising appeal to backers -- unusual remarks at a victory party.

    Doesn't sound like she's planning on quitting, since she had to know at that time if she won ir would be by a small margin.  You don't usually plan on campaigning two day after and pleading for funds if you are planning to quit.  In fact I think she went out of her way to do this to make sure of an infusion of cash like after Pa.  She may feel different in the morning but it seems like a signal to supporters that she is going ahead.

    Late antics have an ulterior motive...money (none / 0) (#235)
    by gandy007 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:10 AM EST
    I starting thinking about the huge infusion of money after the big win in Pa.

    It seems to me that a lot of the money was donated in a spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm.  Such enthusiasm is obviously more extreme the closer it is to the precipitating event.

    I believe that the Obama campaign wanted to stifle any enthusiastic outpouring of money given the uncertainty that had been spawned by the Gary mayor who made the outcome seem in doubt.  In addition, there would be lingering doubts of Clinton's intentions.  (see comments about cancellation of events, which may or may not be true)  Lots of people are generous to an ongoing viable campaign, but not many are that excited to just contribute to eliminating a campaign debt. Believe me, I know.

    I'm headed to give Clinton a hundred bucks.  Hope others follow suit in donating.

    Maybe the party (none / 0) (#243)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:18 AM EST
    Needs the Hillary supporters to not vote and campaign for Obama and help McCain win.  The party is obviously not unified and in four years I am certain that Hillary will run again unopposed and win by a landslide.  Or perhaps the bitterness from the Obama campaigners will return and vote for McCains second term paying back those Hillary supporters.  Than in 2020, Jenna Bush and Hillary can run and become the candidates and we will finally have our first woman president.  Of course, the democrats will still be pissed at each other like the sunni and shia and Jenna will win denying the clinton camp once again their right to the presidency and the feud will accelerate further and get really ugly.  So ugly in fact, that Obama will switch parties in 2028 and finally have a chance to face off with Hillary head to head for the top position.  Of course he will not stand a chance because of his association with reverend wright.

    What Hillary should do (none / 0) (#244)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    I think Hillary should run as hard as she can in WV and KY.  Run up that popular vote. Then I think she should "suspend" her campaign and grab Bill and Chelsea and take a much needed family vacation.  Let me suggest Puerto Rico.  It's beautiful there anytime of the year.  I think she and her family should mix with the locals (as much as one can with a secret service entourage) and just be themselves.  Two weeks sounds good. Let Obama have the spotlight running against John McCain.  She'll work for him in the general, but right now, family is more important.  When she's rested she can back and see how many intact feet Obama has left and whether they are on the floor or in his mouth.