NY Times: Hillary to Drop Out Friday

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • the right thing to do and (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    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!

    You have to ask yourself who'd do it (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    after watching the witch hunt.

    I wouldn't say (5.00 / 19) (#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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    Shainzona and PsstComere08 (5.00 / 11) (#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.

    Job title or description (5.00 / 5) (#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)


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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??  


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.)

    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!  


    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?

    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.

    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."


    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.

    We won't see that person for a... (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:10:19 PM EST

    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.


    First woman will ;probably be a (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:13:13 PM EST

    Ironic, isn't it?


    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.

    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.

    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!

    Remember That It Took 220 Years (4.50 / 2) (#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.

    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.


    Amen, sister!! (5.00 / 2) (#267)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST
    Eleanor Roosevelt (5.00 / 2) (#284)
    by jackyt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    Abigail Adams. (5.00 / 2) (#301)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:44 PM EST
    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.

    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.


    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 / 11) (#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 / 4) (#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.  

    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..

    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.

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

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

    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

    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.

    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.

    FIVE Stars (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    beating her down was his brief.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    She's a good Democrat (5.00 / 28) (#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 / 6) (#39)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    LOL!  And right on!

    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...


    what does this mean exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.  

    It's been interesting (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.

    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 / 5) (#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.

    I've seen enough (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    KO's probably upset... (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    Fill the void? (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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 / 10) (#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.


    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.


    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.  

    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)


    I know ... (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    Do you think (5.00 / 15) (#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 / 3) (#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.

    Mark Penn's been out of the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    wrong! (1.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    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.  


    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.


    Ya know... (5.00 / 12) (#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.

    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!

    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.


    My question is (5.00 / 4) (#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...


    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.  

    the thought of voting (5.00 / 14) (#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.


    The cruelness never seems to stop (5.00 / 16) (#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.

    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 / 4) (#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.


    I never had any doubts (5.00 / 12) (#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 / 12) (#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 / 2) (#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?

    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.


    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 Defenders office this week, I use to think I would be a prosecutor, but now I am trying to figure out how I can afford it so I can be a Public Defender when I graduate next year

    its quite sad how messed up our legal system is.


    I went to law school at the age of 47... (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    and did an internship at the Bronx Criminal NIGHT Court...the most incredible experience of my life.

    I couldn't do it where I eventually lived (the system was different), but I did end up practicing pro bono asylum (immigration) law...and found it to be the most rewarding (not $$$$-wise) experience of my life.  (Happily I won all of my cases!)

    No matter what you do, practice some pro-bono law.  It is so needed!


    jeralyn, thank you - that is important (5.00 / 9) (#230)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    Cramped as it is here after my former spacious mansion of dailykos, (but now in ruins with thugs trolling the halls for dissent) I truly appreciate that.

    I think there is a real need for group therapy.

    People do not realize this is not just about "your" candidate losing. Its the anger that comes from the astounding injustices that have been perpetrated, not just the misogyny, but the obvious (to us) rigged installation of a puppet.

    It is grieving for democracy itself. September 28th 2007 was one huge 500 year hit to democracy, but May 31 2008 had its own special horror because it removed any belief that Democrats are any better than Republicans. Speaking for me only.


    I'm so glad to hear that. (none / 0) (#286)
    by suki on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    Thanks, Jeralyn. I'm pretty new here and wondered about this.
    You've been very gracious and I appreciate all the work you put in here. It's become my favorite site - wish I'd found it earlier.

    Frankly.. (5.00 / 8) (#212)
    by daria g on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:58:50 PM EST
    Before I decided to support Hillary last summer, I was for Edwards.  Obama I ruled out from the start, as I firmly believed he just did not have the experience - he is not qualified to be president - and that his candidacy was only about itself and getting people to come to him, it was not about what he could do for the country.  My views on those things have never changed and I have seen nothing from Obama or his supporters to change my mind, even when I was open to it, and I was for some time.  

    I really am afraid of electing someone who has so little experience and has made some very serious gaffes (such as stating he'd meet without preconditions) and dug in his heels when he made them, and whose "movement" tolerates little criticism and bullies others in the name of being a Uniter not a divider.  He would be the Democrats' George W Bush IMHO.. I believe in country before party, but I don't see it as an issue here, because I think Obama would be very bad for both.

    I think about how the right wing Republicans have caricatured us, and then I think, we are going to nominate a guy whose close friends/spiritual advisers, of 20 years,  openly preach sermons about damning and hating America in the church he's attended for 20 years??  I mean, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter couldn't cook up a bigger liability that confirms every worst smear of Democrats of the past several decades if they tried.  


    Maybe I went on too long (none / 0) (#229)
    by daria g on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    Jeralyn if that's unhelpful for discussion I understand if you prefer to delete.  But, that's pretty much all I can definitely say I'll do from now until November - state what I think about Obama when and where I'm free to state that.

    I Will Only Vote For Obama If (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by talex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    Clinton is VP.

    Cheney has showed that the VP is an elected office, not an appointed one. The VP has certain powers such as presiding in the Senate and being a tie breaking vote. They have their own budget and staff. That is worth something.

    But even more so is the bully pulpit that the VP has. The right to travel the world and represent us. The right to express their own independent opinions. The right to go on the Sunday shows and sell their views to the world. All without having to get the permission of anyone because the President cannot fire her.

    Now I don't have to vote for Obama in order to vote for Clinton as they are separate votes. But if I want to ensure that my vote for Clinton means something then Obama must win so that is a price I would have to pay to see Clinton as VP.

    But again - No Clinton VP, no vote for Obama. I'll sit it out for the Presidential election for the first time in my life.

    Jeralyn there are a lot of people here who will never join you in endorsing Obama. I hope that all of a sudden if they don't go with your flow that we will not be categorized as Chatterers and banned from the site. That would be the travesty of all travesties to be banned by those who were once kindred. It was bad enough to see the blogosphere and the Party divide as it did due to Obama and his supporters actions. But to be thrown off the bus from those who once embraced the same ideals just because of loyalty to the Party would just be devastating.


    VPs (5.00 / 0) (#317)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    That's really not true. Their only Constitutional authority is to preside over and cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. Absolutely everything else --- the staff, the budget, etc. --- is at the president's discretion.

    I don't see a reason to extend the battle (4.00 / 1) (#114)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    Obama won (or "stole it fair and square" as Nixon might say.)

    I will support the nominee, but I could feel a lot better about the prospect than I do.  Also, my girlfriend is saying she won't vote.  

    It might not matter as we are in New York City, but it concerns me that many seem to find the presumptive nominee unacceptable.

    I'm waiting to see Obama demonstrate some intrapersonal skills.


    And Congress? (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    and all of the others who voted for the war?  Only Clinton comes to mind eh?  ok.......

    Reid... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    ... sucks. He needs to go.

    Well that was odd (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    something just happened... we agreed.  

    That's pathetic - this war belongs to Bush (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    BO was in diapers when the votes were taken and HRC's state wanted her to vote that way - she is not a rogue.  I was and am 100% against the war but this  attempt to pin it on HRC is a total joke, reminds me of why South Park's Cartman can't stand hippies.

    She's suspending her campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by vicsan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    Smart lady because things can happen between now and August.:)

    This makes me sick.

    And I hope that he, too, prays (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    for forgiveness for every vote Sen. Obama made to keep the war ongoing in the Senate (the exact same votes Hillary, Kerry and many others made by the way). Oh and, what would you do if he does get into office and decides he cannot, will not should not or is advised not to stop the war?

    Somersby has a nice (5.00 / 10) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:04 PM EST
    article on how MEN historically haven't been required to instantly drop out of a race.


    It's only the WEE WEE little WOMEN, the pathetic little girls who have the audacity and DEFIANCE to enter a man's world and run for president.

    The nerve of those women, they should know their place.


    Please (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    hate on

    Kerry and

    and all of those welcome Obama supporters who also voted for the war.


    It's Obama's loss (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Redshoes on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:26:29 PM EST
    The reality is that between corporate media, party leaders and his campaign handlers (whom I agree ran a tactically better campaign) the hostility toward HRC is deafening and I doubt (since I'm on record as saying I believe he's tone deaf) that he'll be able to hear what Hillary and, importantly, her supporters want.

    Given that he is not only the presumptive but very likely dem nominee I think the next question is whether you think it takes a village or whether it would be better to burn down the village in order to save it.

    I know and respect folks who take the latter position but I'm not there yet.  

    I truly hope that Obama can be the transformational candidate that his supporters profess.  I also believe that as passionate as campaigns become we all have a responsibility to act in good faith (whatever is the opposite of hat tip I give to Donna B because "my momma taught me 2 wrongs don't make a right.")

    janet (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Janet on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:27:33 PM EST
    SORRY WILL NO JUMP ON THE OBAMA EXPRESS. Loved this and Taylors blog. Thanks for giving me a safe place to reflect on politics. I'll be writing in Hillary's name this November. Wether I leave the Deomocratic Party is still a possibility. I got my Board of Election form today. I held my nose and worked for Kerry in 2004 and other Democrats for the last 40 years.This one I'm not interested and may I say not because he is black. I'd vote for Harold Ford Junior in a heartbeat.

    Why the attitude? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by vicsan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    Why should you care who I choose to vote for? Many people happen to believe Obama is the least qualified to be President. We just lived through the repercussions of having a President who is unqualified. That wasn't enough for you? Now we get at least 4 more years of incompetence and scandal if the GOP doesn't destroy him before he makes it to the WH, which they will do EASILY.

    Wonderful, just wonderful. I am so finished with the Democratic Party. You can have it.

    grow up (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    War's are  a part of human nature. She played an ephemral role in it.

    The antiwar crowd can really boil over into psychologically infantile states of mind sometimes.

    I asked myself (5.00 / 9) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    Would I have supported Obama if Hillary had never been in the race?

    And I believe the answer is no.  He is the least qualified candidate to have entered a presidential race in my lifetime and his choices of friends are quite eerie. He's also shown no hesitation to practice "Chicago Politics".

    Hillary won't change my mind, even as his VP.

    So I'm an independent, a bystander, enjoying the show.

    I would (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    have supported Edwards if Hillary hadn't been in the race.  But I'm not sure that I would have developed the antipathy towards the neoDem leadership that I'm feeling right now since the primary would have played out differently.

    He is the least qualified Democratic... (5.00 / 4) (#266)
    by NotThatStupid on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST
    ...candidate since the 19th century.

    And, through the misogynistic machinations of the press, a race-baiting campaign, and the complicity of the party hierarchy, he has defeated the best-qualified Democratic candidate in 40 years.

    I am glad my daughter is an adult now, so I won't have to try to explain this to her.

    I am sick at heart about this.

    Does PUMA accept men?


    If you are not... (1.00 / 4) (#131)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:31:57 PM EST
    ... in a clearly Blue State -- you just endorsed 4 more years of Bush.

    Obama might be doing the same (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    thing if he does not pick Clinton

    McCain (5.00 / 9) (#149)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    is not Bush.  And I live in Washington, which can be a swing state at times.

    I don't trust Obama.  I think he hangs out with some amazingly shady characters.  I think an Obama/Reid/Pelosi trifecta is a BAD thing.  I think Obama is NOT interested in universal healthcare and IS interested in privatizing social security, so I don't want the Pelosi/Reid lemingship to sail with him.  I think that if there's an adversarial relationship between the Congress and the president, maybe nothing too horrible will happen.

    So yeah, I know McCain could win Washington, and I think the Democratic Party needs Obama's loss to right what I think is currently becoming a corrupt and sinking ship.  I think this election is invalid (Fl/MI) and it shouldn't result in a win.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that I've been through one or two more elections than you have and know that a Republican president (with a Democratic Congress) is HARDLY the end of the world. Of course, we'll need new Democratic leadership that actually stands up for their own rights.

    As for Roe v Wade, we already have 5 votes in the court to overturn it.  If they were going to do it, they'd have done it.


    I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    If I can't have UHC, I'll take McCain's $5,000 to go and buy health insurance instead.  Obama's plan is the absolute worst of the plans offered.
    If McCain wins and governs on the platform he ran on in 2000, I will be very content.  Also, the Democrats have the congress and if they cannot do their job, that is not my fault and I will have no reason to support them again.

    And the Randi Rhodes/Rachel Maddow/Kos/Huffington/Marshall/Ameriblog political mafia should just stop this Roe V. Wade blackmail.  It will NOT work this time.  I see this scare tactic being used against female voters downright nasty.  It's right out of the right wing playbook and I do not like it one bit.


    I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#306)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    If I can't have UHC, I'll take McCain's $5,000 to go and buy health insurance instead.  Obama's plan is the absolute worst of the plans offered.
    If McCain wins and governs on the platform he ran on in 2000, I will be very content.  Also, the Democrats have the congress and if they cannot do their job, that is not my fault and I will have no reason to support them again.

    And the Randi Rhodes/Rachel Maddow/Kos/Huffington/Marshall/Ameriblog political mafia should just stop this Roe V. Wade blackmail.  It will NOT work this time.  I see this scare tactic being used against female voters downright nasty.  It's right out of the right wing playbook and I do not like it one bit.


    Obama on Social Security (none / 0) (#310)
    by miked04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    First post here, as I'm an Obama supporter.  Not here to badger anyone to support him (though of course, I hope you all do).  That being, I just wanted to relieve you of your fears regarding Obama and Social Security.  From his website:

    Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

    Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.



    The problem with your reassurance (5.00 / 2) (#324)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    is that I don't trust a single thing Barack Obama says anymore.

    So come Saturday (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:23 PM EST
    If what the NYT says is true, your server issues are going way here at TalkLeft.  Seems like about 1/2 of us will have nothing to contribute. Maybe some of the more rational Obama supporters who have dropped by will stay. They might find they like the higher level of discourse.

    there are other things besides the presidential (5.00 / 7) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:46:09 PM EST
    race such as issues.

    People can stay or not.

    I didn't create this site for Hillary, and I'm not ending if she decides not to be in the race.

    I've appreciated your readership -- but I've also put ten times more hours on a weekly basis into maintaining the site  since readership has grown the past six months.

    It's summertime, I'm looking foward to the convention in Denver since I live here, and I have a  full time career.

    You are all welcome to stay or you can find a site that better suits your interests -- or start your own.


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#185)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    we may leave the Party, but we will not leave you.  You are my number one bookmark.  

    I'm staying (5.00 / 2) (#272)
    by vigkat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    I came here for the intelligent and engaging discussions about this election; I'm staying to enjoy the high level discourse on legal matters.  

    actually they are gloating at the stupidity (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST
    you are displying. You are literally inviting Dems to stroll over into a conservative blog and vote Mccain.  lol

    So did Kerry and other Obama supporters. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by BellinKY on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:30:15 PM EST
    Why don't you pray for those while you're at it. Or is that different in your mind. Give me a break with that babble.

    It's time I did something useful (5.00 / 22) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
    I will join the Green Party and try to create a viable third party.  
    This has been a truly horrific experience.  Honestly, I am not a liberal, I am a lefty and all the pathologies of liberalism have played out like a Grand Opera.  A competent leader, with commitment gets demonized and an empty vessel of platitudes, propped up by the plutocrats is hoisted into the stratosphere, the whole world buys it cause of some narrative created by an advertising company.  

    I read people who have no class consciousness or no historical context creating some idiocy they now call;"Progressive Politics" which is some libertarian feel good meritocrat universe.   A party that is embedded in a patriarchy that was fueled by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Kerry etc, to pass the torch to the next generation of males.  Women who willingly fall for the blather of this construct.  

    Once again the issues of poverty, economic and social justice side swiped for some feel good language.  The academics falling in line along with all the "left" institutions out of some banal fear of being marked a racist.  

    It was great while it lasted but if they don't want to acknowledge Hillary's alliance and if they want to take women for granted, I hand it to them on a platter.  

    So, Pelosi, Reid and company, enjoy yourselves when the Chicago gang comes around to take what the Texans leave behind.  

    Can I give you more than one "5"? (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    A-freakin'-men. You called it exactly, Stelllaa.

    Thanks other (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    we need a real third party, hope Hillary takes it on, if not, I will work to see what the Greens have.  

    good for you! (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by tek on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    Brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by Raven15 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    I'm sending this to my steadfastly socialist sister in law who has always rejected the Democrats, but has been starting to warm up to Hillary lately, or at least to we supporters and the way we are thinking about this.

    Amen Stellaa!! (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    I agree 100%. That is the best post I've seen all day - can I copy it and send it to some friends?

    For me, I don't think I can vote for Obama, mainly because I don't see his nomination as legitimate (and also for every other reason you said above). I won't vote for McCain because I hate republican policies (although, out of sheer frustration at the complicity of the left with all this sexism and racebaiting and dirty machine politics, I did think for a while that I would vote for him as a protest vote).

    I'm with you - green party. It's the only thing my conscience tells me is right. Plus it's something positive to work for.

    As upset as I am right now, I realized today that I learned something valuable during all this - like you, I see liberals very differently now, and not in a favorable way at all. I've always been the most liberal of all my friends and family but you're right - there are a lot of pathologies there, just as there are on the right. One inescapable conclusion from all this is that the vast majority of liberals care just as little about sexism as the republicans.


    Dr. Molly, I see how the GOP made (none / 0) (#312)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:17 PM EST
    the Democrats and Liberals out to be elitists.
    What is still shocking is how openly the "liberals"
    are showing their contempt for the working class.
    I see how Nixon and Reagan crushed their opposition.
    It was bad enough that the Dems were painted with this stripe, but now they are openly embracing it.

    Stellaaa, Stellaaa, Stellaaa (3.00 / 2) (#319)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:44:45 PM EST
    Let's all take a time out and review and revise and rethink where we are going.  You want to go Green.  I've already gone indy.
    But let's not lose sight of the fact that in November of this year, we will have either (1) A Democrat named Barack Obama or (2) a Republican named John McCain.

    Given the choices, I am going to go with the Democrat, imperfect as he may be.  There is no way in bloody hell that we can let John McCain inhabit the White House.

    But I agree with your rant.  I'm so pissed at Pelosi, Reid, the Roolz and Bylaws Outlaws, etc. etc, ....so pissed that I think I will levitate.

    If you were at my house, I'd ask you to join me in a drink.


    Talk about "clinging" (5.00 / 10) (#144)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    Do we really have to rehash this again? Obama makes ONE lousy speech before he's in the Senate, and he's some sort of anti-war icon? Tell me what leadership he exhibited after that? Absolutely none.

    Clinton voted to authorize the use of force if necessary. It was not a blank check for a war. I was against that vote, I marched against the war, but that was not her war. It's George Effin' Bush's war.

    Everybody gets forgiven but Clinton. Kerry supported the war. Daschle supported the war. Nearly all of Obama's backers supported the war. But they're okay, because they have been annointed by Obama.

    I'm starting to feel ashamed to call myself a good lefty.

    Yellow Dog Democrat (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    I'll be voting for Obama but what little money and time I have will be going to Emily's List candidates.  

    I am shocked and appalled by the demeaning attitude of the men especially boomer aged men in the Democratic Party.  

    I'm not going to bite of my nose to spite my face and get McCain elected.  But I won't forget and I certainly will not forgive.  And when the local party needs people to sit at a table or make calls
    too bad.  I'll be doing something else.

    I noticed your comment about Emily's List (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by gabbyone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:59 PM EST
    and just wanted to say I have always supported them but I am afraid Senator McCaskill put a bad taste in my mouth when she praised that group when running for the Senate.  She talked about how women need to stand together and then she
    declared for Obama right out of the box. How did you feel about that?

    I loved Emily's List, but look at the women (5.00 / 3) (#265)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    that they have elected.  Tons of them did nothing to help Hillary.  We had a great AA woman (Donna Edwards)win a primary fight against Al Wynn of Md.  She got tons of money from Emily's List and Hillary supporting women.  She was told that the money would dry up if she supported Obama over Hillary.  So she waited until she got all the money and help she needed and the night before the election endorsed Obama.  If I had given her money I would have felt violated.  I guess she will be better that Wynn, but should I as a woman feel like I need to support woman that see no value in supporting other women?

    Demeaning not so sure? (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:55 PM EST
    But shouldn't your blame be aimed more at these men than at Obama? I mean he seems - to me - to have said some good things about Hillary that I would consider complimentary to all women. Also, do you mean the actual Democratic party members? Or voters? I have witnessed sexism in the media for sure - but not so much from the Democratic party members.

    BUNK (5.00 / 6) (#195)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:57 PM EST
    he benefited and never stood up.  

    Laughable (5.00 / 3) (#273)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    The democratic blogs and the entire media have been steeped in a vile outpouring of sexism for months now. On this issue, there is no longer any credible difference between the left and the right.

    This is so disingenuous... (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    You know that Obama hasn't exactly led the opposition to the war ever since he arrived in the Senate, right?

    Since you asked, Jeralyn (5.00 / 12) (#163)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    I haven't yet decided how I'll vote in the fall, but I was thinking about some of the things I'd like to hear coming from the Obama campaign:

    • I'd like backer Bob Casey to explain how Obama will protect reproductive rights.

    • I'd like backer Donny McLurkin to explain how Obama will promote and protect civil rights for GLBT Americans.

    • I'd like backer John Kerry to provide me with the case against voting for McCain, his former no. 1 v.p. pick.

    • I'd like backer Richard Daley to explain just how Obama's government will be a new kind of politics, free from corruption.

    • I'd like advisor Jim Cooper to explain how Obama will effectively reform healthcare, and bring about the UHC Obama's promised.

    I can't vote (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by BellinKY on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    I am not a citizen, so I can't vote. I never had a horse in this race, but watched closely. Coming from Germany and having family that had to endure Hitler and WWII I am astonished by the herd mentality that is going on with Obama.

    "Just words" followed blindly can lead to disaster. Voting without thinking, following partylines without thinking can do more harm than good.
    I was always impressed with Biden and Clinton, because of their knowledge and straightforwardness. I would have loved to see Mrs.Clinton as president, but Obama scares me.
    I will one prediction: Obama will not offer the VP post to Mrs. Clinton, his ego will not let him. However he will offer VP to another female to appease a lot of women and a lot of people that now are saying never to vote for him will fall in line and vote straight down partylines.
    Just like the germans did 1933.

    Bellin exactly (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:22 PM EST
    my German husband had the same thoughts, particularly after seeing how competent Hillary is.  



    Well (3.66 / 3) (#191)
    by BellinKY on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    His supportes certainly remind some Germans of the Brownshirts and the Hitleryouth. I hate to say it, but how often does history repeat itself, even if people think it could never ever happen in their country?

    Anything called a "movement" (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:47 PM EST
    scares me.  The repetition of the arguments, the desire to crush opposition and the iconization makes me afraid.  

    So (1.00 / 2) (#244)
    by Claw on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:32 PM EST
    This first AA (GE) candidate is a Nazi?  Or just his supporters?  This a little beyond the pale, and if anything remotely as insulting was said about Clinton supporters the commenter would be rightly banned.

    Well (3.66 / 3) (#294)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    The comparison is obviously offensive and over the top.

    Your attempt to bring race into it, sadly, is no better.


    Excellent post (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    I wish more people could hear you.

    Should Hillary not gain the nomination come August (I'm still living on the hope that can happen), I will concentrate on the downticket elections and hope to give McCain a much bigger majority democrats in both House and Senate to stop him from doing any more damage than the past 2 administrations have done.


    Jeralyn I respect you (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    and the purpose of this site, but I am too angry now to support Obama. I hope he reaches out to us. November is a long time. We'll see.

    Obama was literally handed the nomination (5.00 / 9) (#187)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:50:40 PM EST
    by the same media that sold us Bush in 2000 and the Iraq War.
    You support the candidate backed by the Washington and media Establishment. Ouch!
    Enjoy your beer with Obama.

    Obama supported the WAR (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    On Meet the Press last November Tim Russert called him on his own comments in 2004 that he supported the war and that Bush was actually handling it quite well. He made up excuses for why he lied about it, but his votes to fund don't substantiate his claims.

    From the AP: (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    An adviser said Clinton and her lieutenants had discussed various ways a presidential candidacy can end, including suspending the campaign to retain control of her convention delegates and sustain her visibility in an effort to promote her signature issue of health care.

    The other options include freeing her delegates to back Obama and ending her candidacy unconditionally. The official stressed that neither Clinton nor her inner circle had decided specifically what course to take other than to recognize that the active state of her bid to become the nation's first female president had ended.

    The vultures still have these two bones to pick for their last three days of duty.

    Hillary has no choice but to endorse (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Bornagaindem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:56:58 PM EST
    How does Hillary have any choice but to say she endorses Obama. That does not mean that you have to believe it. Why should any democrat vote for him. He ran on a platform that stated the problems in Washington are the fault of both parties. Well I don't belive that. If you think triangualation was bad you ain't seen nothing yet. Obama is not a progressive.

    However I have nothing to worry about. Obama will lose in November if he does not choose Hillary as hia VEEP. I can only pray his huge ego won't let him do that because then I would have to vote for her.

    Meanwhile I can start now for Hillary 2012 by eliminating the allocation of delegates by caucus in Texas.

    hey--where's Kathy? (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by NJDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST

    wondering the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#321)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    for days

    Candy Crolli saying on Larry King (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    that on Saturday, Hillary will suspend her campaign to be able to keep her delegates.

    Suspend is fine (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM EST
    I say that because a lot can happen. Edwards suspended his campaign also. I will still be interested in what happens here and think that this site will still be very busy. I hope so. I really started to wish today that he would put her on the VP spot because she would be such an asset. I understand that she would overshadow him and besides, they don't want Clintons. But it would be a mistake not to. It would give so many a reason to vote for the ticket. What he does will show what kind of leader he would be.

    Today, in 1919, the 19th Amendment passed in the (5.00 / 8) (#222)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    US Senate, with 36 R's and 20 D's voting for passage; 8 R's and 17 D's (!!!) voting against. There was a category of paired votes I didn't understand and some absentees. But, it passed. TN, iirc, was the state whose ratification made it law. Only took 71 years to get the amendment passed from the formal beginning in 1848.

    Suffragists thronged the Senate galleries in anticipation of the final vote, and when the outcome was announced by President Pro Tem. Cummins they broke into deafening applause. For two minutes the demonstration went on, Senator Cummins making no effort to check it.~~~6/5/1919

    I for one am glad Hillary did not concede and drop out or suspend prior to this anniversary. (It's also her mother's b'day, iirc? or was that yesterday? Things are running together....)

    I would prefer she simply suspend, acknowledge his claim, and then wait to see what happens.

    I am stunned by the hysteria among the MCMers and so many in the Democratic Party that this uppity woman MUST drop out RIGHT NOW! If she knows what's good for her...kinda like an abusive relationship, no?

    Next Move for Hillary Supporters (5.00 / 3) (#233)
    by TadNauseam on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    The media and the delegates are in the final stages of shoving Obama down our throats.  Once the throat shoving process is complete, this same group will tell us that it's time to get along and to unite the party.

    My answer to that: I'm no longer one of the party. I'm not going to be railroaded into accepting as my candidate an individual who I feel will continue as Bush the sequal -- "The Incompetent Years (all 7.5 of them thus far)".

    For those who refuse to follow orders and accept Obama, I say let's start an independent party and bring aboard disgruntled Republicans who also feel their party has been hijacked.  Add in a number of independents and there may be a viable third party.

    I'm doing what she's doing. (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    Hillary, that is.

    Voting (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by mkevinf on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:18:28 PM EST
    is an act of conscience, and it is also driven by many factors.  Is it rational to vote against Obama because he, his campaign, many of his supporters, and the "drive by media" (sometimes Rush gets it right) went so far as to accuse Hillary of raising the spectre of Obama's assassination as a reason to stay in the race?  
    No, it's not rational but every study done indicates that voting is never a completely rational act.  There are many incidents, along with the general anti-Hillary media, that reflect on character.  Allowing his campaign to send out KO's lunatic rant against Hillary's never-spoken-never-implied possibility of Barry-O's assassination, even after she gave what I considered to be an unnecessary explanation, goes to the question of Barry-O's character.
    It is fair to consider those kinds of things when  one is deciding how to vote.  
    To paraphrase Martin Luther, I didn't leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left me.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 6) (#261)
    by nell on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:58 PM EST
    I was at the beauty salon this afternoon and the stylist who was cutting my hair (and knew nothing about my political affiliation) asked how I felt about the Democratic primaries. I said that I was sad that Hillary would not be the nominee and that I wouldn't be voting this fall because I don't think Obama is qualified. She responded and told me that she had voted for HRC in the primary and that she really liked her, but she always thought she would vote for Obama too if he got the nomination, despite being bothered by how he had run his campaign. But then she said that when the whole RFK thing happened and when she found out that his campaign was behind it, she was DISGUSTED, and decided right then and there that enough was enough. She said she has no doubt that they would never have gotten away with that particular incident or so many others if Hillary was a man and that she just didn't feel like endorsing that behavior anymore, she had put up with it her whole life, and she was done. Seems like they way overplayed their hand on that one.

    Heartbroken, (5.00 / 3) (#251)
    by nell on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:35 PM EST
    shocked, and slightly surprised (I know that sounds weird) is how I feel. I cannot really feel anything else right now or fathom a way forward. She went from being the candidate I supported because of health care to being my feminist hero and icon. She said NH helped her find her voice, well, she has helped me find mine in so many ways.

    And, bitter, I guess, that the media helped crown a candidate who is just not qualified for this job.

    I will be staying home on election day. And if I hear the kind of gloating phone calls I have had from Obama supporters all day, I might just be driven to cut off my nose this fall.

    My one friend in Texas (5.00 / 4) (#264)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    Sent me an e-mail asking how I was feeling? She said she has been so happy and gloating all day. Probably how I would feel if the shoe on the other foot. I sent her a reply and explained it well. She replied I was the only one who would answer her. Politics do  not break up good friendships. So she is just one of two friends I will not be discussing politics with anymore. Ha.

    Jeralyn: I have a lot of respect for you, but (5.00 / 3) (#257)
    by democrat1 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    I can not understand your comment"he's passed the trust test with respect to his character. He's honest and he has integrity."

    You know Exelon bill. Once he got campaign contribution of $270000 from company officials, he changed the bill to worth less and the bill never passed and he claimed in Iowa that the bill passed.

    In Illinois state,

    A review of senate records from January 2003 to August 2003, shows Obama played a major role as chairman of that committee, in pushing through Senate Bill 1332, that led to the "Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act," which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making the votes much easier to rig. (from Evelyn Pringle)

    There are other examples which I can go into. I believe he is neither honest nor has integrity.  That is why for the first time, I am not going to vote for a democrat for President

    At Huffpo... (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:26:12 PM EST
    let's say Obama fan posters are being their usual classy selves.

    Not amazed by that. Just saying. So gracious in victory. You'd think the CDS signs would start fading and they'd return to the human race.

    new (5.00 / 2) (#274)
    by skimum on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    I have lurked for months since I was shunned from DKos but I had to come out tonight....

    Never in my life have I ever been so inspired and energized by a candidate.  Never in my life have I ever seen such an incredible and qualified candidate vilified and pilloried in the media.  Never in my life have I been so saddened and disillusioned by the inevitable in the primary.  Hillary Clinton has made me BELIEVE in government as both a process and as an agent of change.  She can do this or so I am now led to believe, she could have done this.

    I "came' to Hillary as a very hostile but loyal democrat, believing the worst about her.  I believed the 'caricature' that the media has and continues to portray.  Slowly I evolved.  I read, I absorbed, I instilled the essence of her and her campaign and finally I got it. Now that she is conceding the race I know I can't vote for Obama.  He has done everything to knock both Hillary and Bill Clinton down.  I understand that he had to do this for political reasons.  But by doing this he extricated the soul of the democratic party to which I have always aligned and I can NEVER come back.  

    I am now an independent.

    Welcome (5.00 / 2) (#282)
    by Raven15 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM EST
    I, too, was a Hillary skeptic in January, but then I evolved much like you have. Exhilarating to be so unexpectedly impressed and moved, no?

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#285)
    by skimum on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    and thanks.  I am in tears thinking about what might have been.  I have two sons.  I had wished for them a noble and progressive president.

    I want to take this opportunity (5.00 / 4) (#275)
    by Serene1 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    to thank Jeralyn and BTD for providing this wonderful site.
    Unfortunately however much I try, I just can't accept Obama as the nominee. I hate what Team Obama did during this campaign and I feel supporting him will be equivalent to validating all the sexist attacks that originated from them, all the purge the blogger set indulged in where they behaved worse than fascists, all the caucus frauds and as late as last saturday delegate allotment fraud that was committed and all the talks given by them at various points where they took great trouble to inform us that we don't matter and we don't belong to the new order.
    I will still lurk here but I doubt I will actively participate here once Hillary concedes or looses the nomination.
    Still Thanks a lot Jeralyn!

    This will be the first election cycle I can (5.00 / 7) (#278)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:21 PM EST
    remember where I have no desire to take up the cause of the Democratic party.  Even with Al Gore and John Kerry, nominees I was less than thrilled about, I still was able to focus on the party and Democratic principles and "the big picture."

    Not feelin' it this time.  Finding it impossible to defend the party that made the original Michigan and Florida decisions, and then made it worse when they took delegates away from Hillary.

    There's more on that list, and you all know what is on it.

    The truth is that since I've pretty much stopped watching national news and stopped reading a lot of blogs, I have started reading more - something I love to do - and spending more time in the garden.  Those are things that make me feel good - not shaking with anger and sick to my stomach.  And I realized that I have a choice, and that choice is not to suck it up and start defending the indefensible, or pretend that I like the nominee and all those Democratic "leaders" who showed that what they are made of is nothing I admire or respect.

    The world is going to go on regardless of whether I support Barack Obama or the Democratic party, so I can choose to be happy and calm in my ignorance or angry and upset in my knowledge.

    Life's too short, so I am going to leave the anger for others.

    I agree. I find myself tuning out also. (5.00 / 4) (#287)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    I expect the next president to be McCain. If something happens to change that I'll start to tune back in again. But as of right now....I'm done. I'm gonna catch up on my reading. Gonna catch up on Lost. I'll check in here and there, but that's it. I've completely lost faith in the democratic party, and I just can't pretend I don't feel that way.

    My feelings exactly - well said (5.00 / 0) (#295)
    by dwmorris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    Well It is now (5.00 / 2) (#290)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    Time to start up one or the others:

    1- Hillaryis45.org
    2- Obamaisintoodeep.org
    3- Chelseais49.org

    why would she be foolish (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:01 PM EST
    enough to attach herself to the coattails of a loser? doesn't make much sense to me, nor her either, i suspect. nope, better for her to graciously decline, tirelessly campaign for him, watch as he goes down in flames and return to the senate, absent the stench of loss that will trail behind him as he does so as well.

    as it is, she'll have to spend most of her time defending him against all the charges the repub. 527's will be hurling out, that her campaign soft shoed. who needs that?

    he won't win the red caucus states or any southern states. his prospects in the swing states are, at best, iffy, even with clinton boosting him. really, he's managed to alienate a huge swath of people during this primary season, why should they now vote for him in the GE?

    No, Carlosbas.... (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by nclblows on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    You are not correct.  The division is not because of a long protracted election.  It is because his camp has slimed her constantly.

    I cannot vote for Obama, either.   He would not be fantastic for me, he has no $700 million a year detailed autism plan, he does not want to get rid of NCLB (keeping it and reforming it is NOT getting rid of it), and his health care plan is voluntary - which, when all the healthy 20-somethings forgo it, will essentially allow the insurance companies to raise the rates of all sick people.

    I cannot validate the misogyny from his camp, or from the butt-kissing media.   I can't vote for McCain either, so I guess Ralph will get my vote.  Or I won't vote...

    Anyone (none / 0) (#309)
    by Natal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:28:14 PM EST
    who gives up their constitutional right to vote is playing into the hands of the terrorists!

    At the other camp there are those equally (none / 0) (#320)
    by carlosbas on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    impassioned. I post in Daily KOS and I see them. But we need to see the forest beyond the tree. In that forest full of people that never blog, never post in neither Talk Left nor DKos, and who need us.
    I remember in 1980 the battle between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. I was all for Kennedy, I hated Carter! Maybe Ted would have been a better president, I dont care. All I know is how much I admire Jimmy Carter nowadays.

    Cate I'm with you as well (5.00 / 2) (#314)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:33:05 PM EST
    No Obama for me, even with Hillary on the ticket.  Just can't do it.

    Actually.... (5.00 / 2) (#318)
    by nclblows on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    It's my constitutional right NOT to vote, too.  

    But if you are going to be all that upset about it, just think of me as voting for Nader.

    When the shoe was on the other foot... (4.71 / 7) (#205)
    by OHlawyer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:10 PM EST
    Remember six months ago, when Hillary had more SDs and Obama won a couple of primaries?  All the Obama folks and the pundits were screaming that the SDs could not decide this race -- that they had to honor the voters.  Notice how that refrain died out as soon as the roles were reversed.  

    This has been a travesty.  Imagine if Hillary had peaked in Feb., then lost over half the remaining primaries, including ones she was originally favored to win and all swing states, and Obama had surged like this AND come up with the most popular votes in primary history.  Think the pundits and powers that be would be screaming for him to get out?  Nosiree.  They'd be telling HRC to step aside.  

    Now we have a candidate who's never held a full-time job outside of politics who claims to hate politics.  Sheesh.  

    Won't change my plans to vote (4.60 / 20) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    for Anybody But Obama.

    I love her to death.  But this is not about Hillary to me.

    Agreed (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    This is about me, and my judgment that inexperience and historical inability to stay focused does not belong in the WH with all that needs to be fixed right now.

    Among many other very good reasons to not be able to get onboard the Obama train.


    And we are supposed to eat this all up....a NYT (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    article...the ones who have been wrong so many times?  It says she will suspend, not go away.

    Are you a Democrat??? (1.71 / 14) (#12)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    If you are how could you possibly vote for someone who will continue Bush's policies for the next 4 years? Some perceived slight by Obama and his supporters? Don't complain then when Mccain appoints two new justices to the Supreme Court who overturns Roe v. Wade. Don't complain when we are at war with Iran and still mired in Iraq. Don't complain when we are another 4 years away from Universal Health care. Don't complain when more tax cuts go to the rich at the expense of the poor. But hey, at least you'll have the satisfaction of stickin it to Obama.

    Don't worry. We'll be watching, (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:02:43 PM EST
    Not complaining.

    HAHA (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:04:14 PM EST
    Nice response :) Touche!

    built her resume (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    since arriving in the nationa scene in 1992 she's conducted herself with dignity and courage in the face of a hostile press and GOP.  Beat them every time and thrived inspite of the withering attacks. Maybe it was actually her turn this time round. She's pretty much stuck to her policy guns and is a good Democrat with massive political skills.

    Not that I'm a supporter of hers.  but I know what her supporters are thinking.


    dude i know a true Labour (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    platform when I see it.

    kay. No need to patronize.


    this doesn't sound very (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by miguelito on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:04:06 PM EST
    post partisan.  Republicans are good peeps, just like Ronny Reagan, right?  Aren't we supposed to end the bickering and work with the Repubs?  Did you just change your mind?  

    Why the deep hatred of Obama (1.12 / 8) (#29)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    Yea, the primary was heated, Obamas supporters said some mean things, Hillary's supporters said some mean things. Get over it. Look at the issues that really matter on nearly every ISSUE Obama and Clinton are nearly identical. How can you put a devotion to a person over devotion to ones own principles? I preferred Obama, but if Clinton won, in a heartbeat I would have voted for Clinton. Now that I have seen how disastrous a Republican can be there is no other choice.

    If I had a dollar (5.00 / 17) (#40)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    for every time an Obama told me to "get over it," I'd no longer worry about his impulses to privatize Social Security.

    that would be... (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    "An Obama supporter..." Yeesh.

    Just because (none / 0) (#178)
    by sander60tx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:28 PM EST
    you disagree with someone, it's not a reason for giving someone a poor rating.  And just for the record, I did vote for Obama early on but also have donated money to Clinton several times.  I grew to admire her greatly and I'm disappointed that she didn't win.  However, I do not think that we should be doing to Obama supporters what the folks on the Obama blogs have done to many of us, which is shut out divergent opinions.  I totally understand how people are angry and respect everyone's right to vote for the candidate of their choice.  However, I think we need to be tolerant of other people's views.  I think that it is important for a democrat to be president.  I wish that person would be Clinton, but it's not looking like that will happen.

    I don't downrate for disagreement (5.00 / 6) (#238)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    I downrate for disrespect.

    I know it hard... (1.88 / 9) (#71)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    The press anointed Clinton the presumptive nominee last year and all supporters believed it would be cakewalk. Now that the race is over and she lost its very painful. I understand this feeling. Im a Mets fan. I had my tickets to the World Series all set and planned to take off for the victory parade. To watch them fall apart and miss the playoffs altogether was heartbreaking and I was disillusioned for a while. I vowed never to buy another ticket to see the Mets again. Alas, this year I made my way to  Shea and got over. Now the analagy is not perfect, Clinton fell hard till the end, the Mets just gave up. Clinton missed winning by a wisker, the Mets not. But I do know the anger and disbelief, my hopes are you will get over it and cooler heads will prevail.

    Oh please, (5.00 / 7) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    I do not want your fakey sympathy or transparent attempts at empathy.

    But I ask the question once again, when, ever, in the history of the world, has anyone ever been persuaded by being told 'Get over it'?


    NEVER! (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    Im sorry... (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    Im not going to sit here and massage your ego. I understand the disappointment in what has occurred. But I dont understand the hatred of Obama.  

    That's because you're not listening (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    You're too busy telling us to "get over it."

    Another "get over it"! (5.00 / 13) (#128)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST

    Clinton was just about last on my list originally...well, she came in above Mike Gravel. When Edwards dropped out, I looked at Clinton and Obama and realized that Clinton had the more progressive policy positions and that I just plain liked her better.

    She hadn't been the "inevitable" nominee since Iowa, so you can drop that line, okay? She won bigger, bluer and purple states, she got more votes, and if you look at the very detailed reports published by Jeralyn here, in general her delegates represent more voters than Obama's.

    It's precisely because I don't want to see another Republican in the White House that I am a Clinton supporter. I think Obama will be a disaster in November. He peaked in February. He couldn't even win in South Dakota, on the last day of the primaries, a state that he was favored in, when the AP had already proclaimed him the nominee.

    But okay, you have your pony, kids. I refuse to take the blame for what will happen in November.


    the analogy stinks (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:44:16 PM EST
    The Mets did not lose to inferior teams. Nor were the teams that went on to the WS inexperienced and unqualified. They also weren't given a few wins by  Baseball Insiders. And if I recall, the teams in the playoffs played to the end and didn't skip games against teams they thought beat them. And I don't recall premature claims of World Champions either. . . .

    Just sayin'.


    pah (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    Nonesense.  I wanted her to lose back in January. And i thought she was vulnerable to be beaten.

    No, no, no... (5.00 / 20) (#51)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    I don't hate him, I just think he's incompetent, has few real accomplishments, and is craven in his quest for power, not stopping at anything.

    Bush without the ranch and with somewhat better policies... we hope, because he doesn't really commit to anything.

    Clinton dropping out will make me sad and angry, but there is pretty much nothing she can say to convince me to vote for someone I beleive to be unable to get us out of this mess. For the record, I don't think McCain can either, our best bet at this point is divided government until we can elect someone competent in 2012.


    They aren't almost identical. Obama is (5.00 / 10) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    more conservative on choice, the courts, healthcare, church/state seperation and gay rights. He's more liberal on taxes and possibly guns.

    and energy: more conservative on energy (5.00 / 2) (#259)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    he is like the kinds of Senators who endorsed him early, all pro dirty energy -  Byrd, Dorgan, Nelson, for coal, Bingaman feeblest energy proposals short of Republicans, Kennedy hates Wind, Daschle is now an ethanol lobbyist...

    Thank God Boxer is holding up to the intense haka that they must all universally endorse now.

    The DNC got him over the line. Thats enough. I want the media to just shut up about the better candidate.

    How is he more liberal on taxes? She had the guts to go on O'Reilly, the belly of the beast and say the 70% top tax rates of the old days were what made America a great country.


    gee - you sound just like a Bushie (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    There is no need for me to hate Obama to realize he's an arrogant unqualified Empty Suit - with characteristics much like the one we've had for 8 years.

    I thought that Fr. Racist told us that it was ok (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM EST
    not to get over things.  We were supposed to yell some curses and demand retribution.  Okey, I will yell and demand that the RBC stop counting exit polls in place of state certified elections, and that the DNC stop using every RNC  play that they can use to disenfranchise voters.  When I vote for president it will be on my terms.  I will vote to honor the millions of women in the world that do not have a voice and I will tell the DNC that I am not going to take their crap.

    That was offensive... (2.33 / 3) (#119)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    But it was ok for Hilary to say she crossed the commander in chief threshold Mccain has crossed that threshold, but shes not sure Obama has? Don't pretend that Hilary ran the cleanest of campaigns. Both sides got a little dirty, even Obama admitted that and told his campaign to pull back, but please don't say Hilary was holier than thou. Its politics things get heated from time to time.

    when you apply for a job don't you try to (5.00 / 0) (#262)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:32:05 PM EST
    convince the prospective employer you are the best choice...or don't you?

    I sure do.


    Stop (1.00 / 2) (#315)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    Stop the crying about below the belt shots. Its not as if Hilary didn't get her hands dirty on many an occasion.  She did not hold back any punches against Obama nor did Bill. From the fairy tale remarks, comparing Obama to Jessie Jackson, the commander in chief threshold, as far as she knows hes not a Muslim, fanning the Wright controversy, her shame on you charade, "change you can xerox", her mocking of the heavens will open, telling Obama supporters to wake up, etc etc. Please point to me something OBAMA has said that was in anyway comparable.

    He's going to destroy McCain (1.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    It won't be even close. Have you even seen that old angry man speak?

    Gabriel, I don't know how old you (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    are, but my guess is pretty young. Why, if you want to make your point about who you support, do you have to resort to name calling. If you live even half the life that Sen. McCain has lived, you will have experienced things most of us hope we never know. He is an american hero. I don't particularly agree with all of his politics, but then, I guess you may not agree with all of Sen. Obama's.

    Hmmmm (2.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    Since when do you care what people say about a GOP candidate? Have you forgotten what this very same McCain said of HRC and Chelsea? McCain is an angry old man, a nasty person as shown in the joke he made about Chelsea, who wants to continue the disaster of the Bush years. Obama will destroy him in November.

    He's an old man (1.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:44:27 PM EST
    that can't even speak well and who wants to continue the disaster in Iraq. Obama will crush him. Come Januaary we will have bigger majorities in Congress and a Dem president. With any luck HRC can be nominated to the Supreme Court.

    Attack the seniors! way to go (5.00 / 7) (#213)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    you think they are not 1000 times more reliable a voting block than the youth?  You think the voters don't take offense at that?  

    You Obama supporters are just dead, f'ing set on a November loss.


    Well (1.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:06:43 PM EST
    I am not the Obama campaign so I doubt any seniors will stop voting for Obama because of what I write here.

    Time to study? (1.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:09:29 PM EST
    haha, study what? McCain is supposed to be the foreign policy expert and doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites! He doesn't even know who runs Iran! Very strange how people that claim to be HRC supporters talk so well of McCain, whose policies go against everything HCR stands for and who said such insulting things about HRC and her daughter.

    I have, and I'm worried (none / 0) (#196)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    Why did Bush ever come within 20 percentage points in 2000 and 2004?  Why is McCain so close to Obama in the polls now?  Simple: A lot of Americans like the brand of foo foo the Republicans sell in elections, and they wind up (yet again) voting against their own (and our) best interests.

    Personally, I would never consider voting for McCain vs. almost any of the original Dem. candidates in the race.  I voted for Clinton in my state's primary because I was convinced she was the best option on the ballot.  That's why I will vote for Obama in November.  But a lot of Americans think his brand of "old guy, experienced, maverick" shtick is just what they want in the WH.


    "I am not bound to win... (5.00 / 17) (#37)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    ....but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."

    Abraham Lincoln

    I was a lifelong Dem and I marched in DC for Pro-Choice before you were probably born.  You can't threaten me with McCain...let Congress grow a spine for once and do its job.


    He's not qualified (5.00 / 20) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    If the Dem party wanted a Dem in the WH, they would have listened when more and more people insisted they would never vote for Obama.

    Some perceived slight - suck it up
    Roe v. Wade - SCOTUS
    war - be afraid
    rich at the expense of the poor - selfish

    I think you hit them all.

    I do not believe Obama has the ability to handle any of these issues.

    Country before party.


    Obama has said over and over how much (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    he liked Reagan. Does that make him less a Democrat?

    Your moniker and your posts do not (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    seem to match. Please look up Sen. Obama's policy plans. For one, his plan, is not universal health. Universal means everyone, his plan only makes kids mandatory assignees. I appreciate your support of the presumed dem nominee, but do your homework (other than his website), then vote your conscience!!

    Obama's support is from (5.00 / 12) (#52)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:14:31 PM EST
    from Naderites and former Dubya voters.... ya know, those folks who gave us Bush in the 1st place.  

    They were wrong in 2000 and 2004 so why in the world would you trust them now?


    It's reasonable (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    Obama is much more like GWB than McCain is.

    So right wing Republicans are supporting.. (5.00 / 1) (#322)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:53:32 PM EST
    Obama!?!  That is strange.

    hey freethinker....see your screen name? (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    Doesn't that mean someone has the freedom to think for themselves and not be strong-armed into what you perceive is correct?  Everyone has a right to vote the way they want.  The democratic party has seen fit to leave 18 million voters behind...there is a price to be paid for ineptness.  You can vote for obama and think what a great democrat you are and go from blog to blog telling everyone what rebels we are.  

    Abosultly right... (1.00 / 5) (#99)
    by freethinker25 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    You can think for yourselves, but reading this blog over the past few months, now I could be wrong, but it seems as though many feel that it was Hilary's time, Hilary deserved the nomination and Obama the young hotshot rookie came in and stole what was rightfully hers. There is an anger here that how dare he do this! It seems as though many are willing to ignore their principles and priorities and sit this election out to somehow teach Obama a lesson and put him in his place. That he cant possibly be "annointed" President and that Hilary needs to come back and show him how its done in 2012. Another 4 horrible years of a Republican will make her accent ion a lock. However, how can you sit back and allow Mccain to appoint 2 radical right wing judges to the supreme court. How can you sit back and allow Mccain to make Bush's tax cuts permanent? How can you sit back and allow Mccain to start a war with Iran? Please someone give me a plausible explanation to this other than feeling slighted by Obama's treatment of Hilary. Please someone explain the major policy difference you have with Obama. Tell me that than I will tell you I am completly wrong in my hypothesis.

    Do you channel (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by suisser on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    Rev.Pfleger often??

    You assume too much re. what McCain will do.. (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    You should spend some time convincing yourself first as to why Obama is the right choice for you. Perhaps then you can post again, and maybe I'll read your post -- if it is positive. Right now -- I see this kind of post as the same "tear the other down politics" that Obama and the rest of his supporters -- trained against Hillary. Sorry. It just won't work with me -- you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with better tactics to argue against McCain.

    Your first paragraph is right out of Father Phleger's playbook. I'm really sorry that you believe that. It would seem that your candidate's "hope and change" message hasn't rubbed off on you. Pity.


    Start Reading (5.00 / 2) (#270)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    IF you have been reading here for several months, you already know the answer.  You just don't like the answers and don't accept free thinkers.

    Here's your first exchange here was an attack on BTD.

    The best part is where you slipped and piped in with your other name 'thinking fella'  Ha!

    You really expect people to take you seriously. Come on.


    Because if the blogs and MSM (3.00 / 2) (#208)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    keep getting away with slandering honorable candidates then it will continue in the future. I happened in 2000, '04 and again this year. Hillary's only fault was being a woman

    Rev. Wright - is that you? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    I'm an American (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:12 PM EST
    I owe allegiance to no party and my vote answers only to my conscience. Republicans turned to the emotional blackmail of "party first" to get moderates to vote for Dubya. I'll be dam*ed if I will allow that sort of cr*p to be used by Dems.

    As I have said before, I will not vote for Obama. Better the devil that I know...


    Therein lies the problem, Romberry. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    We really don't know Sen. Obama. You know only what he tells you and how we are going to change. Other than that, what do you really know about him? But, if you are a dem. first and will support the dems. only this year, then that is what this country is about...one person, one vote, your choice.

    Are you writing a book? (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    You could call it "How Not To Be Persuasive."

    Wow. You guys will never stop. (4.52 / 17) (#45)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    She could've give O a BJ on the stage in Minnesota and you guys
    would still be shrieking hateful inanities.
    Could you have one nano second of giving Hillary and her supporters some respect? Maybe she really DID want a reality check from her advisors. Maybe she really DOES CARE about the party and country. God you all depress the hell out of me. According to the ROOLZ that you all cling to when it's useful, she can take it to Denver. Looks like she's not going to. Seems like you'd give her a pat on the back for that. Nope. Kick her in the teeth again. always always O team's reaction.
    You guys just keep making it harder and harder to forgive and move in. You're thugs. Bullies. Hypocrites. Sexists. And downright scarey.

    the above should be deleted by moderators (1.00 / 4) (#73)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    ditto (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:35:57 PM EST
    Yuck...not a wonderful visual. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:26:47 PM EST
    In fact, that thought makes me sick.

    You are wrong (4.44 / 9) (#63)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    and I am an Obama supporter.  I don't presume to know why she didn't "condede" yesterday.  But she was very gracious in her remarks about Obama, as she was today in her speech at AIPAC.  It isn't like she continued campaigning.

    I do agree with you that nothing changed between yesterday and today.  So Obama isn't hurt by her waiting a few days to concede, the party isn't hurt by those few days either.  

    However, the way Obama supporters treat Hillary supporters CAN harm the party.  So remember that.

    And, I've lost my cool once or twice on this site too so I'm reminding myself as well.

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:22:54 PM EST
    Maybe some of these people are too obsessed with the fact that she hasn't conceded yet to pay attention to her AIPAC remarks.  But they said it all:

    "And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."

    That's classy.  She's already healing his demographic wounds.  People should just STFU and let her end a campaign that has inspired millions of women with the dignity it deserves.  I hope she spends the next 48 hours writing a speech and thinking about the process so that we can really hear what she thinks.  She accomplished a lot in this campaign.


    Yup, SENATOR Obama will be a (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    good friend.  Fortunately he won't be PRESIDENT Obama.

    Touche, Hillary!


    Voting for Obama will be easy... (4.40 / 5) (#25)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    as it would have been for Clinton, who I did not support either.

    Reconciling with many of the hopemongers will be less easy, especially after the vile they threw while acting in the name of hope.  They only offer a hand as an illusion, not because they believe it is the right thing to do.


    Agreed (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    I'll tell you one thing, I am not going back to Daily Kos.

    With you there (5.00 / 12) (#35)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    I'm done with dkos and talkingpointsmemo, et. al.

    I go there, but an fully cognizant... (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:19:30 PM EST
    of the type of people who will befriend you so long as you agree with them.

    I also, at times, like to call them out for the disconnect between their rhetoric and conduct.

    Most of the time, I just shake my head and wonder where this new age of the blogosphere is taking us, not toward hope but the gutter.


    Me neither (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    Big waste of time. Glad that's done.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    I will not be returning to Daily Kos, nor will I suddenly evince an interest in listening to Keith Olbermann.  But I will certainly vote for the Democratic nominee.

    I went to Eschaton tonight.. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    I shouldn't have.

    What the heck is the matter with people?  A lot of them are not religious.

    I guess they needed some kind of god.

    So disappointing.


    I just left a comment there... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:10 PM EST

    It's important to speak out about what is right.


    If I were still a Democrat (3.66 / 3) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    I would do the same.

    As a freshly-issued member of the "Decline To State" party, I am announcing that I am going to vote for the Democratic nominee because I am going to vote against John McCain.

    Dear Michael Gale, (none / 0) (#298)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    If I read your troll-rating correctly, I assume you disagree with my decision to vote for Obama?

    I have no doubt (3.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    that she can pull this off in a way that makes sense and helps to heal the party.

    Power and Respect (5.00 / 24) (#24)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    To the chagrin and disdain of Obamaworld, she now controls an alternative power source in the Democratic party.  She got stronger over time - he faded.

    I predict Obama will not pick her - he will be defiant about her power, and will rebel, as have his supporters.

    In fact, her power makes them angry, not respectful.

    She owes him nothing.

    She needs to remain at the helm of her movement - and for now, suspension while the summer plays out and Obama is further revealed.  Let's see how Obama fares when Hillary is not available to kick around anymore.


    Absolutely! (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    When BO falls under the wheels of his own bus, HRC will be poised to rescue the Party - sadly saving the same people who have trashed her and Bill these past 8 months.

    Not if she ends her campaign on Friday (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    My Hope Is (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by talex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST
    that she takes her delegates to the convention and uses them as leverage to influence Obama's platform.

    Imagine half the house beaming with Clinton signs and buttons!

    Then and only then, when Obama succumbs to her demands for his platform should she release her delegates.

    Now that would be Power Baby!!!


    Did you read the post that says she is (none / 0) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:36:53 PM EST

    Not yet (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:37:52 PM EST
    Please tell me she isn't quitting

    I agree (5.00 / 11) (#75)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:18:44 PM EST
    The more power she has gained, the angrier that's it made the new Dem leadership. I take them at their word (because the message has been delivered over and over by various surrogates) that they don't want her. The only other thing I consider is that they will only offer it if they can humiliate her first so that it looks like a 'pity offer' -- along the lines of 'well, she has so many negatives & we entirely disapprove of how she's conducted herself but we'll take pity on her and offer it anyway if she agrees to be a good little girl in the future'.  It's all about weakening her power.

    Presidential vote (5.00 / 1) (#307)
    by mcintyre on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:54 PM EST
    I totally agree with what you have written.  I have sent emails to both the Obama campaign and the DNC. I am writing here for first time because I am not mad anymore but very very sad. When this primary season began I felt excited and hopeful.  All the Democratic candidates were smart and successful. Now, I feel betrayed and sad. People I listened and watched both on the TV and radio,who I trusted  became so partisan for one candidate and filled with spite and hateful rhetoric for the other. The truth no longer matter or did fairness, only winning. The blogs I used to read for information were filled with the same type of ugliness. I remember in the beginning as this war began how Obama supporters rant everywhere ( that the super delegates better not decide the primary, it was the peoples vote that counted) but they now seem to think its quite o.k.  that Obama has won because of the super delegates. I could go on and on about the bad things that happened or were said but it is what is happening right now that bothers me the most.  Obama has won the nomination.  So, why are these people stilling yelling and screaming everywhere about Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is absolutely disgusting. The Democrats are berating their President who had a 70% approval rating when he left office while Republicans hold up Ronald Reagan as an Idol. Anyone see a problem? They are berating a woman Presidential candidate that recieved almost 1/2 of all votes cast this primary season. There is also this idea that Hillary supporters will just fall in line and vote for Obama or they don't matter and neither does their opinions. What is wrong with Obama and the Democrats that are acting this way. This kind of conduct cannot be rewarded.  The answer for me is if Hillary is on the ticket or I see her and her supporters get the respect they deserve from Obama and his supporters I will consider voting for him, if not I will vote for McCain and then a straight Democratic ticket.  I would rather be angry and fighting a Republican President and his policies, especially if there is a Democratic Congress. I can do this because I don't trust how the Democrats and Obama handle power.  They haven't been very good at so far. I also feel if they can throw Hillary, former President Clinton and nearly 18 million voters under the bus I can do the same to the Presidential Candidate.  The ball is in their court. I should add that I am from Illinois, the Chicago area and I did vote for Obama in 2004. I really did want to believe in him and that he had the experience and temperament for the job. I just felt that Hillary was the stronger candidate.

    I have to say that Hillary running as an (4.33 / 6) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    independent and flipping the bird to the dem party is looking more and more attractive.

    She's too loyal to do that (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM EST
    That doesn't mean I'm voting for him because I'm not. I'll leave it blank.

    Voting for him would be approving the DNC and media's misconduct in this campaign. If the blogs and MSM keep getting away with slandering Bill, Al Gore and Hillary when will they stop


    I was once sorry to say this, but I now do it with (5.00 / 10) (#169)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    no remorse, I do not care about the Democratic Party any more.

    I can understand the attitude of some here (1.00 / 2) (#291)
    by carlosbas on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    vowing to not vote for Obama. I am an Obama supporter. This division is the product of a very extended battle between two formidable candidates. But let's think for a moment, if our candidate had not existed, perhaps we would be rooting for the other. Barack would be fantastic to you. Hillary would be great for me. Obviously they are both Democrats and their policies are pretty much what we want for this country. A no-vote from a Democrat is a vote for John McCain. Do you want to help John McCain win the election? Again, I understand the feelings, but remember what is at stake here, the future of this country, the well being of millions of American citizens who suffer the consequences of this economy as managed by the Republicans, the suffering that Republicans will infict to other countries through their foreign policies. This is really what is important.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#325)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:23 PM EST
    I don't think you do understand how people here feel.  I'm not hurt - I'm furious and disgusted, both with the DNC and Obama.  My differences with them aren't due to the extended campaign, except that that's what allowed me to see them for what they are.  And I'm perfectly well aware of what's at stake.  That's why I won't be voting for Barack Obama.

    Jeralyn please delete this...... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    ...disgusting post.

    that commenter has been erased (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:15 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    Breaking Event moved to Saturday (none / 0) (#171)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:45:15 PM EST
    in D.C.

    Kudos to you, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#232)
    by bjkeefe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:34 PM EST

    I've watched you make a spirited case for Hillary Clinton on BloggingHeads.tv and I read this blog regularly.

    With that in mind, I want to salute you for the graciousness of this post.

    That's cool (none / 0) (#241)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    We will work together to show the world the corrupt ignorant fraud that the Republicans have decided to nominate -- John McCain.

    Starting on Friday is fine.  Tomorrow is Thursday.  It can wait till Friday.


    Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:04 PM EST
    I'm even less impressed by the democrats.  They shouldhave shown themselves to be an opposition party long before this.

    Now NPR says Saturday (none / 0) (#242)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:14 PM EST
    They just said she will have a rally or something in D.C., not NYC, Saturday, not Friday, and that she will not concede or endorse.  I don't think these news outlets are totally making stuff up which suggests some serious disarray in the Clinton Campaign.  They need to pull it together, figure out what they are doing, and get on message.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by suki on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    No, those media outlets don't make stuff up, especially these past few days. LOL

    Why do you keep saying Mark Penn? (none / 0) (#243)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:19 PM EST
    He quit a while ago. Do you have pictures of him in her closet or something? Just wondering.

    To concede Sat. (none / 0) (#256)
    by airwon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    Ben Smith says that the campaign has released a statement.

    Clinton will "thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity," the campaign said in a statement.

    The campaign initially planned a Friday event, but rescheduled it to Saturday in a second statement, in order "to accomodate more of Senator Clinton's supporters who want to attend."


    That doesn't say concede (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by suki on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    The article does not say concede. I hope she is going to suspend.

    You are right (none / 0) (#297)
    by airwon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    It doesn't say concede but it does sound like it.  Whatever Hillary chooses to do, I will support her decision.

    Wow, this is it. (none / 0) (#280)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:15 PM EST
    God bless her.  

    Viable third party (none / 0) (#268)
    by Oceandweller on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    in the UK
    the Lib Dems are not very successful
    France Centre is NOT successful tio say the least
    Look at Italt, it is a mosaic of parties; the german Greens are looking not geeting at
    third parties are not a success even in countries where there is a long standing tradition of 3rd parties
    not being disrespectful and denying you the right to try a third party; but the realistic odds of success of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and likes are minute
    I dont deny you feel disfranchised but you are free to go I fear nowhere
    more than often I wailedafter a democratic party with more economically sound finances it never came around
    and once you are gone, you may find yourself more lonely than you expected Ihave seen so many people claiming their independance and finally coming to scratch
    besides you want HRC elected, right and how do you plan to get the other side to vote for her in 4ys
    if you boast of having a memory, they can boast the same
    do you plan waiting till 2016!

    Issues (none / 0) (#296)
    by BillyPilgrim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:28 PM EST
    I was originally an Edwards supporter, but he dropped out before my (NJ) primary.  I had a hard time deciding between Clinton and Obama at that point, and pretty much came down for Obama based on the war vote.  That's not to say I didn't respect Senator Clinton or that I would've been upset had she been the nominee.  I guess my concern is that the Democratic party seems to have the misfortune to have two candidates that people were very enthusaistic about.  Originally, I thought that was a benefit to us Democrats, that no matter who emerged, the party would be behind a strong nominee after eight disasterous years of Republican rule.  It strikes me now that both sides have got somewhat caught up in a cult of personality, and we are no longer united on ending Bush policies.  It pains me to see Democrats willing to simply walk away from the process because their first choice is not involved.  I personally still believe Edwards would've been the best choice.  However, my primary concerns are the war, the economy, global warming, torture, illegal spying, women's rights, corporate control of government...and all of those issues will be worse under McCain.  While I would agree that Clinton endured tilted media coverage and did indeed have to contend with sexism, I hope that the bigger picture will win out.  This race, while historic, is bigger than the candidates involved.  I know this has been long winded, and I apologize.  I simply hope that this community can unify around the important issues.  I think that our loved ones in Iraq, the future of our kids' environment, our civil rights, etc deserve our full consideration before allowing McCain to become president.  

    Can someone please (none / 0) (#328)
    by fireback on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:44 PM EST
    explain this to me. I've worked real hard on the Obama campaign.  And I'll admit I've had some real negative feelings about Hillary and how she has run the campaign.  Also, I can see how those who passionately support her might feel similarly as I do.  As far as I'm concerned though, none of those feeling have anything to do with either of their positions.  Pretty much everything they stand for is very similar.  So, I can't understand why Hillary supporters hate Obama so much.  Can anyone explain this to me?

    Okay, so you think Hillary was more experienced.  Okay, I'll give that to you.  So you believe she is the better candidate.  I would understand that in some ways, but the other side of that, coming from an admittedly biased Obama supporter, is that she is also much more divisive, unfair or not, in terms of the larger population.  Surely her supporters see that.  It seems to me that one has to consider that when they look at the term "better candidate."  For me, this was one of the largest factors in my support for Obama.  It seems to me that he has the best chance in uniting this country.  Is this premise wrong?  

    I've also heard that some believe that Obama somehow did something unfair in wanting a different outcome in the seating of Florida and Michigan.  But even that, I find it hard to believe any fair person would think seating either as they were voted would be fair to him.  In Florida, Clinton enjoyed the name-recognition factor while Obama never had a chance to fully introduce himself.  Surely one can't consider that primary fair to him.  And in Michigan, regardless  of his motivations in pulling his name, that primary wasn't supposed to count.  Does anyone think the results as they were would be fair.  Please explain where I am wrong here?

    So, I just don't get it.  This was a hard fought contest.  Things were said on both sides that weren't nice.  But surely anyone who steps back can see the politics in this and the fact that both are fighting for the same things.  Can anyone clarfy this for me?

    No "drooping" about it (none / 0) (#329)
    by writer47408 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:40 AM EST
    Senator Clinton hass not dropped out.  She has, with typical grace and articulation, suspended her campaign.

    I did not used to be a HRC supporter but have grown to respect and admire her immensely.  I am appalled at the spins and undercuts from the media.

    This primary is not her loss -- it is America's loss.  We've throwwn away ehe chance to have a truly top notch President/Commander in Chief for the "feel good" and shine.

    I will not be voting for Obama, nor will any of the other suppoorters of Senator Clinton whom I know.

    By the way, he shoudl be so lucky as to have her as his VP running mate.  My bet is that she won't go that route.

    Support After Saturday (none / 0) (#330)
    by Missy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    For all of us that feel so passionately about Hillary and how the DNC has hand-selected Obama in direct opposition to the voice of the voters, I would recommend this site for future support.  It appears to be on the up and up and endorsed by many of the more prominent and legit blogging websites.  United, we are more powerful!  Don't give up the good fight.