home

NY Times: Hillary to Drop Out Friday

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times reports Hillary Clinton will drop out of the Presidential race on Friday.

This Times report says she will both drop out and endorse Barack Obama.

If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

There was never any question whether I would support the ultimate Democratic nominee. I always said I would. With only one candidate in the race, Obama is the nominee -- on Friday.

Comments closed

< 59% Of Dems Want Unity Ticket | Obama Won . . . Barely >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times: Hillary to Drop Out Friday | 317 comments (317 topical)
    the right thing to do and (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:57:26 PM EST
    a chance for another great speech.  she has changed the landscape for women.  I wish she could have been the first female president, but we can hope that whoever it is will be her equal.

    How exactly has she changed the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:58:48 PM EST
    landscape for women? If anything, she raised the bar.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she has made a path (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    and for the next woman it will be better, I hope!

    [ Parent ]
    You have to ask yourself who'd do it (5.00 / 13) (#33)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    after watching the witch hunt.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't say (5.00 / 21) (#105)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    "raised the bar" but I would say that her campaign highlighted all the cr@p that any woman who follows in her footsteps should expect.

    It's not enough that a woman has to avoid the gender stereotypes like getting choked up means too emotional and not tough enough.  (Does anyone jump on Teddy Kennedy every time he chokes up at his dead brothers' names?)  She has to expect that the media will happily slam her in ways that men never will be.  Ambitious?  Admirable in a man, but somehow a fault in a woman.  And so on.

    As one commenter pointed out, the difference between racism and sexism is that racism creates ethnic stereotypes of the way people are.  Once someone proves they don't fit that stereotype, they can largely break free of it.  Sexism is about how men and women should be.  So if women are expected to defer to men, then they are always expected to do so even if they don't and have no intention of doing so.  There's no way to break free of that societal expectation.  It's always there.

    People's expectation that Bill Clinton would demand an active role in any administration that includes his wife is also sexist.  I don't recall anyone asking him point blank if he would want that, yet many assumed that because he's a man and Hillary's husband, he'd want to be right in the thick of it.  

    I learned a lot this season.  I learned that people are frequently unaware of their biases and prejudices or think they are perfectly normal and acceptable. Clueless, in other words.  Well educated, professional and surrounded by people who think just like they do.  Virtual gated communities made up of smug, superior people who think we want them to tell us what to think.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you, (1.80 / 5) (#215)
    by sander60tx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    however, I think that it is hard to tease out the sexism from Clintonism... I think the two are intertwined.  When the next woman runs for president, hopefully she won't have as much baggage.   I am amazed at how well Clinton did, despite her baggage and the sexism that occurred during her campaign.   She is incredible!! I think that the she has cleared the path for the next woman to run.  

    [ Parent ]
    BULL (5.00 / 9) (#292)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:56 PM EST
    It is not hard to 'tease out the sexism from the Clintonism' and it is NEVER hard to recognize sexism. That is just a meme use to excuse sexism. There was never any problem with people criticizing her Clintonian policies - that can EASILY be done without demeaning her in a sexist fashion. She's been called a b!tch, a wh*re, a c*nt, and harridan repeatedly. They have mocked her for being just a wife, just a first lady, never acknowledging her lifetime of political accomplishments. Sexism is very easy to see if you don't NOT want to see it.

    Further, sexism is much more acceptable in this society than racism, and we now know that most liberals don't care about that anymore than the right wing. Imagine Condi Rice had been running for President. All the democrats hate her politics. Do you think they would all have called her a n*gger and used repeated racist slurs against her 24/7 on MSM and the blogs? And then everyone would tolerate it by saying 'well, it's just so hard to separate the racism from the Rice-ism'? Hillary was called a b!tch on CNN for crying out loud, and nary a peep.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, all of that (1.80 / 5) (#305)
    by sander60tx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    is sexist and I agree totally that sexism is more accepted (and less recognized) than racism.  But I think that the fact that she is a Clinton (and therefore hated by many, though I believe that it is unjustified) is what fueled some of the sexism.   Some people hate her because she is a Clinton (not necessarily because she is a woman) and because they irrationally believe she is "evil" then they seem to think it is okay to say awful things about her because they think it is true.  It is WRONG and I am disgusted by all of it.  All I was trying to say is that the next woman to run for president won't necessarily bring that kind of baggage into the race.   That woman may have to endure sexism as well, but there may not be another factor fueling it.  I'm just hoping that anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, all of that (1.00 / 3) (#308)
    by sander60tx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    is sexist and I agree totally that sexism is more accepted (and less recognized) than racism.  But I think that the fact that she is a Clinton (and therefore hated by many, though I believe that it is unjustified) is what fueled some of the sexism.   Some people hate her because she is a Clinton (not necessarily because she is a woman) and because they irrationally believe she is "evil" then they seem to think it is okay to say awful things about her because they think it is true.  It is WRONG and I am disgusted by all of it.  All I was trying to say is that the next woman to run for president won't necessarily bring that kind of baggage into the race.   That woman may have to endure sexism as well, but there may not be another factor fueling it.  I'm just hoping that anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, clearer (5.00 / 1) (#316)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    I agree with you partially - people have an irrational hatred of the Clintons and this made them feel they could get away with the sexism. Yes, I can see this.

    The problem with this is that now it is out there, condoned, and set as a precedent for acceptable treatment and language of a female candidate. And, heartbreakingly, hardly any progressives objected to this. In fact, they went along with it lock, stock and barrel. I can't tell you how many times on the blogs and elsewhere people told me she deserved to be called those names because, well because she was Hillary. I keep trying to imagine them saying that about a situation like I described above with Condi or another black candidate.

    See Stellaa's post below in this thread - liberals have their own pathologies, partly a libertarian streak that allows this kind of stuff and says it's all just well and fine and free speech.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Clinton Would Demand a Role (1.75 / 4) (#248)
    by Cugel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:23 PM EST
    Not because he's a man, but because he's Bill Clinton. He can't stand to take a back-seat to anybody! He made far more gaffs and misteps in this campaign than Hillary and certainly didn't do her any favors.

    Far from strengthening her campaign, he alienated the super-delegates right and left. He managed at times to make the race seem all about HIM. It looked like Hillary couldn't get him to shut up.

    Bill needed to realize that this race was NEVER about him or his legacy! It was a record breaking effort by a woman who happened to be his wife, but who is NOT defined by being his wife.

    Bill is also the reason Hillary won't be Obama's VP. The thought of him back roaming the White House would undermine everything Obama is trying to achieve in the campaign. He's the definition of a "loose cannon."

    Without Bill and Bill's baggage, I'd say that Hillary would be the VP nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you sure? (1.00 / 0) (#226)
    by Laertes on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    "People's expectation that Bill Clinton would demand an active role in any administration that includes his wife is also sexist."

    Hang on a sec.  Bill Clinton, when he was president, made his spouse a key player in his administration.  Since she was a person of formidable achievement in her own right, this seemed perfectly natural, and we all came to understand that the two of them were a team.

    Now I'm to believe that it's sexist for me to assume that Hillary Clinton would treat her husband with as much respect as he treated her?

    Nonsense.  That's the precise opposite of sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:13 PM EST
    The obvious difference is that it wouldn't be her administration.  She wouldn't have the power to delegate.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't Make Her a Key Player On (none / 0) (#288)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    NAFTA, which was one of the most important issues the Clinton Administration pushed.  At least by what HRC's campaign said.

    [ Parent ]
    Well there's always Sebelius and McCaskill. (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    /SNARK

    [ Parent ]
    I'm close to the Kansas Missouri line and I say (5.00 / 6) (#199)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    PLEASE. McCaskill could not be elected to anything right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank heavens you added snark. (4.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST
    I was about to launch into a scathing response.

    I truly hope they suggest either for VP - that way it will be twice as sweet when BO and New Lady Friend fall flat on their a**es.

    [ Parent ]

    Shainzona and PsstComere08 (5.00 / 12) (#81)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    I am feeling a bit alone right now....so many people here are rolling over - or is this so-called news (which I won't believe until I see it) bringing the switch-hitters out of the woodwork? It boggles my mind that people could even consider Obama...does Hillary really want the friggin VP spot? I can't imagine a more dead-end slot for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Job title or description (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    I have never been restricted by a job title or a job description.  Clinton is a powerful politician with a lot to bring this country.  I admire her and I think Clinton can do great things.  I would like to see what she does with the position.

    Clinton and Obama bring different personalities.  Clinton gutsy/strong; Obama more cerebral.  I can not think of a man that has the broad reputation she does (FP, military backing, economy) and that can bring the states she can.  Clinton has connected with one divide in the demographics, Obama the other.  Together they ARE the big tent.

    My position has been the same for awhile.  BTD got me to the point where I would vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket.  I won't vote for him otherwise (and I have known that since this all began)

    [ Parent ]

    Cate....I am totally in agreement with you. (5.00 / 12) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:32:42 PM EST
    Everytime there is a perceived bit of bad news regarding Hillary, the chicken littles start up and the switch-hitters I lovingly call cockroaches swarm in.  Just by some of their actions alone, would give me a good reason to not vote for obama.  To my mind, if Hillary suspends, she is still good to go for the convention, where everything will be decided.  This so-called nominee does NOT have the pledged delegate number he needs to be the "king"; and boy does he have his people bamboozled.  Not to worry, there are many of us who will just wait to see what transpires...don't fret.

    [ Parent ]
    She is not quitting, she is suspending (5.00 / 8) (#180)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:55 PM EST
    and saying nice things about Obama according to CNN. And Time is starting in on Obama. Sort of sideways, though. "The Unretirement of Rev. Wright" is what I think is the one of the opening shots in a very long summer bombardment of interesting "new" things about Obama and his friends. Hillary may be the nominee yet. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Denver (5.00 / 10) (#236)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    Andrea Mitchell now - she will reserve the right to have her name placed in nomination in Denver.

    This is the only right course.  Her own historic candidacy must be celebrated at the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    Me, Too, (5.00 / 15) (#186)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:49:32 PM EST
    Cate and PssttCmere, '08.

    First of all, I will NOT vote for Barack Obama, even IF Clinton is the VP.

    Second, Clinton should NOT be the VP.  She should not be relagated to be Obama's handmaiden, someone she would be expected to "obey" in Tweety's mind.  She is the better candidate, the better PERSON, IMHO, and should not be relegated to second-place status (gee - that sounds familiar).  

    And seriously - after all of the horrible, virulaent, vitriolic sexist, misogynistic, homophobic attacks on Clinton and her supporters this year, why would ANYONE think that is going to magically disappear, even IF she endorses him??  

    [ Parent ]

    I'll second Amy on that! (5.00 / 3) (#269)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    Everything she said - a thousand times.

    [ Parent ]
    You are not alone at all . . . (5.00 / 18) (#175)
    by MojaveWolf on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:02 PM EST
    The number of people giving up can be dispiriting.  Still worse the number of people who seem to not to have learned from 2000 what can happen when someone cares more about being perceived as a good sport than fighting to the last breath when they are clearly the vastly superior candidate, and totally willing to forgive & validate the Obama/DNC primary tactics, can be downright depressing.  

    Worst of all?  The people who don't care that she win the popular vote, and think because the fix is in from the DNC and the media and Obama say he's the nominee, we and she would somehow be doing the country a favor by marching behind the Obama-bus in Republican-like lockstep.  It's like all those "get on the bus now or get left behind" things that started showing up all over the place a week or two ago.  Screw that.    Let me near the friggin bus and at the very least I'll flatten the tires and break out a couple of windows.

    I think being Obama's VP would be both worthless and hideously painful for Hillary.  I've already urged her to carry the fight to the convention, as I won't be voting for a Democrat for the first time since I was 19 if she isn't the nom--the VP slot won't matter, regardless of who he picks.  I vote based on the top of the ticket.  

    [ Parent ]

    If it's "with us or against us"... (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    ..I have to be in the "against" camp. I might vote for Obama if he actually has enough political sense (and courage) to make her VP. But I have grown to truly dislike this man. I cringe every time I see a picture of him with his chin up as if he is posing for a battlefield portrait. Somebody really needs to tell him to stop posing and start being a bit more real.

    [ Parent ]
    I am with you Cate because I (5.00 / 11) (#181)
    by gabbyone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    don't think Hillary has a choice in this, she has to support Obama, but we also have the right to
    follow our own gut feelings on this. Hillary can ask us, but she knows that we, as thinking people
    don't have to blindly follow her suggestion.
    That's what democracy is all about.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#218)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    I'm not giving up. I'm suspending my own campaign.

    I'm not going to rule out voting for Obama, but my vote sure isn't automatic. I want to know what he stands for. I want to know what this "new and improved" Democratic party (that I no longer belong to) stands for before I give him my vote. If it seems to me to stand for not much other than some sort of new, non-working-class "chic" (aka the Mondale-Dukakis coalition) then I may sit this one out.

    Obama will have to work his butt off to get my vote. Soaring rhetoric ain't gonna do it. I want detailed, Clintonian policies and a candidate who knows the fine print well enough to talk knowledgeably--and with genuine interest--about his own proposals for health care, education, energy independence, foreign affairs, etc. I haven't seen that guy show up yet.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm (4.00 / 1) (#303)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    You realize Mondale and Dukakis were very, very different. (There are lots of ways to get shellacked. Incidentally, Dukakis should have won; Mondale might have won 10 states if he'd run perfectly, Reagan was unbeatable in 84.)

    [ Parent ]
    i wont be voting for obama (5.00 / 8) (#254)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:22:01 PM EST
    After discovering who the key players behind pushing the primary date in Florida was?  I was shocked to discover Obama's 1st campaign mgr was the one intially to introduce the bill to move the date up knowingly would violate DNC Rules
    Wayne Barrett wrote:"Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. "

    And another key player to beneift Obama was Wexler:

    When Governor Crist signed the bill at a ceremony in West Palm Beach, the man at his side was Bob Wexler, the chair of Obama's Florida campaign

    With Michigan the same crap, Obama's supporters took advantage knowing he would lose MI as well.

    Similarly, all three of the House Democrats who endorsed Obama - Coleman Young II, Bert Johnson, and Aldo Vagnozzi - voted in favor of the bill to push the Michigan date forward. When Obama later took his name off the Michigan ballot, Young and Johnson became sponsors of the bill to cancel the election they had just voted to authorize.

    Now, if you can tell me Obama wasn't behind all these actions from elected officials playing the same theme song as the Republicans did in Florida in 2000 election, then I'll vote for Obama.  Right now, I'm turning my back on the Democratic party for allowing to selective chose a candidate over what the people want.  She had the popular vote.  She had more odds against her with lies from the media and character assasination and look she still came out on top with most of the votes.  
    Now, I know NAACP is having a massive voter registration campaign for November.  I think I'm going to organize one so that rural folks who are not register can come out and vote for McCAin.  I surely will not allow another candidate in the white house to cheat as I believe Obama has.  If you can convince otherwise, go ahead and try.  I think someone said something earlier in regards to a monster being awoken.  I believe it!  

    [ Parent ]

    Let's see (1.00 / 2) (#311)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    You're suggesting Obama orchestrated the timing of the FL/MI primaries bc a couple Obama supporters co-sponsored the bills? A) How's that Zapruder film analysis coming? B) How do you feel about Harold Ickes voting to strip FL/MI delegates?

    [ Parent ]
    Count me in too Cate (5.00 / 10) (#203)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM EST
    Hillary has to do what she has to do for the good of the Party, and I have to do what I have to do for the good of my conscience.

    [ Parent ]
    We're still with you Cate. (5.00 / 11) (#207)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:18 PM EST
    Just remember - it's your vote.  DO NOT be threatened by "the blood of the nation on your hands..."

    Here is a response that I give when challenged with the old "blood on my hands" BS:

    "We're not buying it. YOU all have a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate.  But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.

    So if there's any blood on anyone's hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.

    I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney's BTW...but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day...again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again.  AND IT'S NOT BARACK OBAMA.

    You still have a choice and a chance.  Take it.  Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009."

    [ Parent ]

    I'm with you Cate. (5.00 / 5) (#283)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:37 PM EST
    I will NOT be with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    We won't see that person for a... (5.00 / 12) (#34)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    generation.

    I'm 43, I doubt I'll see a woman president in my lifetime. Maybe my daughters (10 and 4) will see one in theirs.


    [ Parent ]

    First woman will ;probably be a (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:13:13 PM EST
    Republican.

    Ironic, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    hang in there (5.00 / 16) (#49)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    you'll probably see President Hillary Clinton when you're 47 after she beats the Incumbent President McCain by a landslide in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you... (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:22:50 PM EST
    You made me smile. I hope so.

    [ Parent ]
    might be right (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    I hope there is someone we don't know yet. I mean who knew Obama until 2004 or 05?  We can hope!

    [ Parent ]
    Remember That It Took 220 Years (4.66 / 3) (#123)
    by bob h on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    to produce a woman candidate fully up to the job of President.  I doubt that there will be another one in my lifetime or even in the remaining lifetime of the US.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, bob, I think you mean well (5.00 / 10) (#227)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    but it most assuredly did not take 220 years for a woman to be ready for the job.  It took 220 years for folks to get their heads together enough to consider a woman for the job.

    I suspect strongly there were just as many qualified founding mothers of this country as fathers.  It's just that we as women haven't always been properly listened to and respected as well as the menfolk.

    [ Parent ]

    Amen, sister!! (5.00 / 2) (#267)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Eleanor Roosevelt (5.00 / 2) (#284)
    by jackyt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Abigail Adams. (5.00 / 2) (#301)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    luckily, it doesn't work that way (4.00 / 1) (#313)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    Once these barriers get broken the floodgates open up. It won't be 200 years. We'll have a female nominee in one of the next few cycles. The Republicans will also nominate Bobby Jindal sometime soon --- and say what you want about his views, nominating an Indian would be a huge deal.

    [ Parent ]
    Fat chance for her "equal". (none / 0) (#327)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:46 PM EST

    There will be no other Hillary Clinton.  No other woman who's lived through the breathtaking history-making events of the Civil Rights Movement will be able to run for President (besides her).  No other woman who's shaken MLK's hand.  No other woman who fought for the rights Obama enjoys today.

    The Dems screwed the pooch in a really bad way on this one.

    [ Parent ]

    CJR on political obituaries (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST
    this month's issue of Columbia Journalism Review had a piece on how journalists love to write political obituaries.

    They don't mention Hillary or anybody specific.

    Must be fun to write because the people are not dead, like in regular obits.

    Will they finally stop attacking? (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    There will be a giant vacuum, like a black hole within the media and left blogs when they no longer have her to tear apart.   How will John A and Markos make a living?!

    I share that concern (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    As I noted below.  I don't think it will change anything.  They have been feeding off this for so long that it will take awhile before the worst of it settles down.  And I don't believe it will ever truly end.  

    [ Parent ]
    are you vigilant meerkrat? (none / 0) (#102)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:26 PM EST
    (from the big orange cheatopia) - you look similar..

    [ Parent ]
    I am indeed (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:44:42 PM EST
    I was lazy when I registered here and thought it would be fun to shorten my user name  I did expect people would be able to identify me from the shortened version.  Thanks for proving that point.

    [ Parent ]
    good to see you (5.00 / 1) (#277)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    so many refugees...

    [ Parent ]
    And MSNBC (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How will McCain and Obama keep it (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    interesting.  She is so incredible that if she is gone the nation will notice the lack of substance, or they will just watch more 'American Idol'.  I am very sad for America, we lost a great opportunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately UHC also will exit the stage (5.00 / 9) (#193)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    When Hillary leaves, the most pressing issues will leave with her. That's the bad part

    [ Parent ]
    When John Edwards endorsed Obama (5.00 / 4) (#289)
    by hairspray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    on the day Hillary won KY big! I lost respect for him.  He didn't give a damm about UHC since he was so easily swayed to the Obama camp. Forget UHC, Edwards probably got a good deal from the O camp for throwing UHC under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    If I had to guess (2.80 / 5) (#15)
    by s5 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:03:08 PM EST
    I'd say defeating McCain and electing a Democratic president will begin to occupy everyone's time.

    [ Parent ]
    Doubting Thomas here (5.00 / 21) (#36)
    by Nessuno on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM EST
    I'll believe it when I see it.  They could be attacking McCain now.  The Obama campaign has been about removing the Clinton wing from the Democratic Party.  Now that they realize they that they need Clinton Democrats, it's about the submission of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. I don't do submission.  What drew me to the Democrats was Bill Clinton.  Obama has made it clear he is against everything the Clintons stand for. He's attacked both of them time and time again and tried to diminish Bill Clinton's presidency.  Therefore, my simpathies for the Democratic Party die with the Clinton campaign.  If the Clintons are not what the Democratic Party is about, I don't want any part of it.

    [ Parent ]
    FIVE Stars (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    beating her down was his brief.

    [ Parent ]
    We are right to be doubtful (none / 0) (#188)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    CNN has just completed a mini-forensic dissection of the entire Clinton campaign, the bad and the ugly, omitting the good, of course.  It clearly had been prepackaged, sort of like an obitituary.

    [ Parent ]
    Hee hee (none / 0) (#239)
    by tek on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    They'll start attacking him because he isn't a liberal.

    [ Parent ]
    No, they won't stop (none / 0) (#260)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:30:58 PM EST
    The style will just change a little.  She'll just become more if an example they use for all things evil rather than the direct topic.

    [ Parent ]
    She's a good Democrat (5.00 / 29) (#7)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:59:51 PM EST
    and she's doing what's right for the Party.  Never mind that they are totally f*cked in the head.

    Hillary, you are my hero.  Democratic Party, you are dead to me!

    You do have a way with words! (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    LOL!  And right on!

    [ Parent ]
    I Swear... (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    I am SO glad I wasn't drinking something when I read your post.  And, I wish I could give you a 10!!

    Right there with ya...

    [ Parent ]

    what does this mean exactly? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    her delegates are still hers, right?  Superdelegates could still switch to her if they wanted, no?  Suspension seems like the key word here, suspension with a blessing for BO?

    Anyone? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM EST
    If she suspends but endorses Obama by name that will basically means she's conceding and releasing all her delegates, right?

    God, I hope she just suspends.

    [ Parent ]

    no, she can suspend and endorse (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:38:27 PM EST
    she gets to keep her delegates.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's been interesting (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    I started out uncommitted, then gravitated to Hillary mainly on the basis of experience.

    It seems like, within the narrative of the democratic nominating process, Hillary and her supporters are viewed and treated as republicans.  now I understand why the "elitism" tag is so effective.

    I've always said I would vote for the democratic nominee, but my girlfriend has said she will sit this one out.

    had the same experience: (5.00 / 6) (#189)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    when I tried to draft Gore, I was a heroine.

    Since having to pick between her and the guy who voted at least 4 wrong votes on nuclear, clean coal and oil, and produced a clean energy plan to the right of the average Democrat in congress, now apparently I am racist scum.

    I've had thugs trollrate me and question if I am really Michelle Malkin.

    [ Parent ]

    A movement based on hate (5.00 / 2) (#300)
    by Iris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    not hope.  Hate of George W. Bush, that's all that unites Obama supporters.  Seems like it could be enough, but Bush isn't on the ballot and Obama's supporters have projected that hate onto anyone and everything else.  In the end, an empty movement devoid of ideals or principles.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm reading about it now (5.00 / 18) (#11)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    It's probably better for her in the end, but I doubt that even this will be perceived to be enough to 'appease' Obama's supporters.  It won't change how I feel about Obama, because my take on him has not been driven by Hillary; it has been driven by his conduct and the conduct of his supporters.

    The Exact Headline in the NYT is: (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST
    Clinton Likely to Suspend Bid on Friday

    We just went through this yesterday. The media is trying to create the news. LIKELY is the word. That means the media has nothing solid to base their headline on other than she's having a gathering of supporters on Friday.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    Is reporting that her advisers convinced her that she needed to get out and release her delegates, and that there will be some event on Friday that will include her concession and an endorsement of Obama.  They don't seem all that thrilled about the news.  KO said she needs to get out and get out now, or something to that effect.  I am paraphrasing, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    I've seen enough (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    KO is unwilling to say one single nice thing about this.  He is still filled with Hillary hatred; he probably always will be.  I don't think we're going to be able to "unify" KO.

    [ Parent ]
    KO's weirdness (5.00 / 7) (#220)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:02:29 PM EST
    If Clinton singlehandedly invented a way to cure any known form of cancer at a total cost of $1 per patient, KO would criticize her for not doing it sooner and saving even more live.

    [ Parent ]
    It's more than weirdness (5.00 / 5) (#252)
    by suki on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    it's a sickness - one that says nothing about Hillary and everything about Keith Olberman.
    The man is a disgrace and has become, frankly, creepy.

    [ Parent ]
    KO's probably upset... (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
    ...that if she drops out, he's lost material for a year's worth of indignant Special Comments.

    If there's a upside to her concession, it'll be watching the MSM trying to fill the void left by their former target.

    [ Parent ]

    Fill the void? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    Now who do you think they will go after next?  Here a 527, there a 527.

    [ Parent ]
    bashing Hillary is so much more edifying (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    to media pundits than actually explaining Obama's positions on the issues to the electorate.


    [ Parent ]
    BO will be their target. (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    And KO is a toon.

    [ Parent ]
    you have no idea (5.00 / 17) (#22)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    what you are talking about, precisely because you did not support her.  She did what she did for her supporters.  

    Right on... (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    Obama supporters don't seem to understand how much damage they are doing to his chances in the fall. Maybe because so many of them are young and lack political context.

    Me, I would never vote for McCain. I might vote for Obama. But he's got a lot of work to do before I will commit to that. I need to see some real evidence that he takes women's issues seriously and has some backbone. Even if he isn't a misogynist, he did nothing to stop the misogynist behavior amongst so many of his supporters and media enablers.

    In any case, I'm not that attached any more. I'll support Democrats running for Congress, and I'll support issues I care about. What happens in the fall will happen, with or without me.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's not throw everyone in the same bucket (3.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Knocienz on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
    I'm currently an Obama supporter and cringed when I saw that top comment.

    So let me try to balance it out a bit and respectfully ask you to support Obama for the many folks (both in the US and around the world) who will be better off with a Democratic president than McCain.


    [ Parent ]

    get in control of the mouthfoamers (4.20 / 5) (#104)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM EST
    that have been unleashed then. This sia small corner of a distant galaxy. Stop demanding stuff from the losing side.  

    [ Parent ]
    Peace (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Knocienz on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    I can't control anybody but myself (certainly not over the internet.)

    I was trying to act as a counter example by respectfully asking (certainly wasn't demanding anything) rather than foaming at the mouth myself.

    I certainly didn't intend to kick anyone while they were down. If it came off that way, I apologize (heck, my first choice didn't even run)


    [ Parent ]

    I know ... (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    It's more than not supporting her, jor can't stand her and has never had one thing nice to say.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think (5.00 / 16) (#30)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    anyone cares whether or not you support Hillary?  

    I hope you can get beyond your hate of Hillary for your own well being but it won't make a bit of difference to me or anyone else.

    the question i have is... (1.00 / 4) (#42)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    ... Why do hillary supporters blindly follow Mark Penn off the edge of a cliff? Mark Penn is the reason Hillary lost the primary. Penn is most likely responsible for last nights speech too. Its amazing, that people weren't louder, earlier, to get him completely kicked off the island.

    [ Parent ]
    Mark Penn's been out of the campaign (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    since what, March?

    And if you're going to insinuate that he's still powerful in the campaign, it seems fair to insinuate that Reverend Wright and Obama are still tight as well.  Both are ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong! (1.00 / 3) (#80)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    Here is the link to
    Penn's invovlement in last night

    [ Parent ]
    Newsday. Nice. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    Until recently, Bill and Chelsea were said to be in the Penn camp, but that may have changed in recent days. And Hillary has kept her own counsel, people close to her say.

    She's going to drop out Friday.  Mark Penn wants her to go onto the convention.  Therefore...wait for it...she's not taking his advice.  He's going down his own cliff.  

    [ Parent ]

    What part of this did you miss? (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    Former top strategist Mark Penn. . . . .

    . . . reportedly includes Penn's replacement

    Lots of people said lots of things last night and today including this FORMER strategist.

    [ Parent ]

    Ya know... (5.00 / 13) (#61)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    It's hard to say she lost the primary when she actually got more votes. It's more like he was given the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    NWHiker? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    Is it THE NWHiker, formerly of Table Talk? You won't recognize my handle over here. Just think of the most stubborn animal on the farm. Think bovine. Good to see ya!

    [ Parent ]
    Yup! (none / 0) (#184)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    That would be me. Left after being horrified at people's reactions to Randi Rhodes'... ummm... nasty comments.

    Rosella is here too, under a different name.

    [ Parent ]

    My question is (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    why do you obsess over all things Clinton?  Now, after all of this time... you bring up Penn!  Ha!  Get a grip. :)

    She's most likely making her announcement on Friday.  Get over it and move on to the GE already.  sheesh...

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not a Penn (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    fan or follower and he was a terrible consultant.  But I am not the one obsessed with hating Hillary, even after Obama is the nominee.  Maybe you might ask yourself some questions about your own issues.  

    [ Parent ]
    the thought of voting (5.00 / 15) (#31)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    for this man literally makes me physically ill.  It's not just who he is, but how he "won".  I won't vote for McCain and I certainly won't put my dollars to McCain (they'll go to downticket Dems to hold the House and Senate), but I will not vote for Obama.

    Neither will any of my friends, my family or my co-workers.  We all -- and it's a fairly substantial group -- are sitting this one out when it comes to the Top of the Ticket.

    Although I haven't yet torn up my Dem registration card and sent it to the DNC like they have.  I'll wait until August to do that, I think.

    Exactly: Dems and Obama have to earn my support (5.00 / 2) (#323)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    I'll wait and see what happens at the convention. Jeralyn and BTD are excellent Dems: if the party had more like them, it would be a no-brainer.

    As it stands, this is a party that has eroded so much, I have to look for a reason to continue supporting it to the extent I have in the past and find nothing.

    They've done nothing in last two admins that leads me to want to support them furher; there are more worthy causes and issues that are begging for support and do more with it.

    The Dem behavior during the campaign was even worse. If Sen Clinton was on the ballot, I'd campaign for her (and Dems).

    I'll just go from being a SenClinton booster and be A. Voter again. I'll tune into the convention but otherwise, I'm out.

    If Obama's campaign continues their sleaze, voters like myself are the last of their worries.

    If the Dems or Campaign Obama mistreat Clinton, it'll be a long time before they see any support from me. Obama will flame out on his own to McCain but I don't really care which one gets in.

    Their agendas have no impact on me and I don't need the aggravation.

    [ Parent ]

    The cruelness never seems to stop (5.00 / 17) (#38)
    by janedw420 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    Last week, Sen. Clinton informed her staff to ready their final expense reports for FINAL reimbursements. She then invited them to join her in NY on Tuesday night for a party as soon as the polls close in S Dakota and Montana. Obviously ramping down what most call the most historical primary races in American history, a party was planned for staff and supporters. The disrespect she has suffered throughout this campaign was soon to deliver the next cruel insult.
    With the help of the Pelosi Club, MSM and a obnoxious band from the Obama Camp, they STAGED another humiliating blow. They gathered the support of scores of super delegates to announce their support for Obama to insure they would rain on her parade. Instead of waiting until the election was over and allowing Hillary a graceful evening, they made sure Obama was hoisted across the finish line by thoughtless SD's. Sure, they had both earned their moment, but this was clearly staged as yet another example of their vile disrespectful behavior. And there was not a channel to be found this morning that wasn't complaining how Hillary stepped on Obama's Moment. Even David Gergen on CNN jumped on the bandwagon--blaming Hillary for stealing his thunder. With

    I just heard Hillary is moving quietly to the sidelines with half the voters in the Democratic Party in her purse. I hope she can find a way to stay in. It's still early. Anything can happen in the next few months.


    If she does (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by owenaprhys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    I am no longer a democrat. I sent Hillary a message, my family and many of my friends feel the same about this: no Hillary, no Democracy. We will be leaving the democratic party. If Hillary drops out and endorses BO, I expect a mass voter resignation in the DP. There will be millions of new Independent voters after this.

    You think Obama would have invited her? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    They each deserve their moments.  This was an exhausting primary.  

    In November, do you honestly think people will be saying ZOMG WHY DIDN'T HILLARY DROP OUT TWO DAYS EARLIER EVERYTHING WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER!!!!!

    If you want to unite, you have to figure out how you're going to put the puzzle together.  Give it a little time.

    Sad to see how this primary was determined. (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by my opinion on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    First there was the attempt to convince the voters with propaganda and when that didn't work the party forced their desired results.

    Never fear (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by tek on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    The GE will be determined the same way.  The fix is in.  Obama said today he will not spend any time courting Clinton supporters.  See, he doesn't need anyone to get elected, doesn't need blue collar workers, doesn't need women, doesn't need Hispanics, doesn't need baby boomers, doesn't need senior citizens, doesn't need 18 million Hillary Democrats.  George Soros will get him in the WH like Rupert Murdoch got Dubya in.

    If Americans ever come to their senses and crown Bill and Hillary Clinton benign despots, I'll come back to this country.

    [ Parent ]

    I never had any doubts (5.00 / 13) (#64)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    that Hillary would do what is right for herself and right for the Democratic party.  I have nothing but admiration and respect for her.  

    My vote, my money and my time are my own.  I am not beholden to anyone or any party.  The issues I have with the Democratic party and the media will not be resolved with anything that Hillary chooses to do or requests.    

    Save us the hubris please (5.00 / 13) (#74)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:18:24 PM EST
    The Democrats could have put an end to this war a long time ago.  No one person in Congress is entirely responsible.  The votes to continue to fund the war are just as unacceptable as the vote to authorize the use of military force.  

    I will commit to support the top of the ticket (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    if Hillary is offered VP.  It seems she has indicated she would accept the position.  Otherwise, I reserve the right to take 5 mos. to make up my mind.

    You are all free to agree or disagree (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    here with her decision and mine and to state what your preference will be.

    To be honest, I'm curious to read what you think you will do and your reasons and also see if it changes between now and the convention or now and the election.

    Jeralyn. If we don't support Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    will we still be allowed to post here?  I know you are going with the nominee...if we can't, are we banned?

    [ Parent ]
    of course you can still post here (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:37:50 PM EST
    no one has to agree with me.

    But the site won't turn into an promotion site for  another party's candidate.

    For the issues of primary concern to this blog, those of the rights of those accused of crime, a Republican or Bob Barr would be a disaster.

    [ Parent ]

    OT, but I started interning at the (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    Public Defende