Hillary Clinton --Please Exit, with Dignity, June 4

Check out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up " is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. This is a man who has trampled on his spouse's voice every time, in this campaign, that she's found it.

The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"?

Hillary Clinton started this race last year as the one to beat--she had the money, the machine and the name recognition that assured her of quasi-incumbent status. And, indeed, she ran as a quasi-incumbent, an establishment candidate in a change- year election. Yes, there were the Chris Matthews and the Tucker Carlsons and the Mike Barnicles and the Rush Limbaughs and the women who were working out their Clinton hatred through Hillary's candidacy.

Betsy Reed's superb May 19th cover story, "Race to the Bottom: How Hillary Clinton's Campaign Has Divided the Feminist Movement," documents those sexist remarks--and explains how Clinton's campaign has divided the feminist movement. But Clinton's losses cannot be attributed solely or largely to a sexism that still runs deep in our political culture.

Clinton made the mistake of running a top-down campaign in a rules-changing year, and acceding to a sexism within her campaign that advised her not to apologize for her disastrous vote supporting Bush's war resolution. Yes, she was in charge. She could have rejected the guys' advice. But Clinton appears to have bought into the idea that a Commander-in-Chief has to play by "men's rules"--and be tougher than the toughest. If she'd been smart and right, not strong and wrong, how in her right mind would she not have said, I made a mistake when I accepted the word of a man who, it is now widely accepted (except in FoxLand), lied us into a war that has gravely undermined the US's security? John Edwards managed to issue an apology--and he was dueling with a media that had pegged him as "the Breck Girl." Could it be that macho boys like Mark Penn and Bill Clinton counseled Hillary that if she issued honest regret she wouldn't be macho enough to be treated as a serious Commander-in-Chief?

If Clinton had listened to alternative voices --if there'd be some "woman- commen-sense" over in her campaign--they might have suggested that she reframe what a commander-in-chief for the 21st century means. That what's needed to deal with the challenges of this world is not more militarism amd macho swagger, but a commitment to smart, principled use of non-military tools. After all, how does military might address genocidal conflicts? Or the worst pandemic in world history (AIDS)? Or staggering and destabilizing global ineqality? Or, for that matter, the spread of weapons of mass destruction?

Hillary might even have given a speech about what it would mean to elect the first women President. She might have given a superb gender speech--one that people, generations to come, might be talking about just as they will be talking about Barack Obama's magnificent speech on race. But she chose not to. Instead, Clinton chose a different route. And while, on some level, I like Clinton's "I'm fighting for you" persona, and her fighter instinct, that stance came too late in the campaign and needed an anchor in a larger fight than the fate and future of her campaign.

So, opportunities lost, squandered. So, it is with sadness that one watches these last days of what began as an energizing and historic campaign.

The last 72 hours of this campaign, I believe, have given renewed meaning to the term "move on." Ironically, that's a term that first gripped the national imagination at a very different moment in the Clintons' political history. It was in 1998, as rightwing forces converged on Bill Clinton, salivating about the possibility of impeaching a President for improprieties that, while grotesque, never rose to an impeachable offense, that the rules-changing internet operation MoveOn emerged on our national landscape.

It is now time to move on, again. That is not to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't have every right to campaign through the last primaries on June 3. After all, it's been a long time since millions of citizens were participants-- not simply spectators--in our mess of an election process. And that is exciting--as is the record-breaking turnout, the grassroots mobilization and registration of new and once-alienated voters in this campaign.

But when the polls close on June 3, superdelegates should move, expeditiously, to make their decision so that this campaign can refocus on what is at stake in this defining election. And their decision should follow the will of the people--that is, the pledged delegates who are the backbone of a party that --under Howard Dean has crafted a spirited fifty-state strategy seeking to connect with ordinary Americans in every part of this country. That decision, to follow the will of the pledged delegates is in sync with a party that should see its future linked to throwing off the establishment mantle that is truly elitist. After all, as The Nation's Ari Berman has reminded us in his close reporting on the delegate race this charged season, those supers were created as a firewall to protect the party establishment.

And at the end of the day, while Hillary Clinton has the grit, she ain't got the numbers. And the longer her fight drags on--with outlandish attempts to equate the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations with the fraudulent Zimbabwean elections or with the fraudulent Florida recount of 2000--the greater the disservice to the party, the people and the country.

Bill Clinton liked to say-and let me paraphrase-- we are a country in which people who play by the rules should get ahead.

The rules were the rules when the DNC laid them down to all the campaigns. At the time, the Clinton team, like all the others, agreed to abide by them. The rules are rules. Yet, in these last days, with Bill Clinton out there crying "coverup," it's as if Team Clinton has moved the goalposts so often, they're not even in the ballpark--they're somewhere out in the parking lot.

We have big issues and big differences to thrash out in this election. On June 4, I hope Hillary Clinton exits this historic race, gracefully, with dignity. That exit should win her the respect due her from all those in the Democratic party, whether they are Hillary or Barack supporters. It is an exit that is in the interest of the party and the nation. And she must know that how she exits will define the winner in November 2008.

It is time to for this election to turn to the defining issues.

Comments (311)

1. I hope. Yet, somehow I doubt it very much. Still, I hope.

   Posted by pastorhorace at 05/26/2008 @ 10:28pm

2. The interests of the party, the nation, and The Nation are not what is at stake here for the Clintons. A greatly diminished brand, with attendant plummeting revenues, is the Clintons' concern. An historic loss plus the limelight of Dem party leadership firmly on someone else, someone very attractive, for the next 9 years perhaps, these factors will sideline the Clintons. Now how can they possibly blame themselves for that result? This may be too much to demand.

   The Clintons' tin ear has been deceiving them for a long time in this campaign. They have displayed little evidence that this liability will soon disappear, quite the contrary. Dignified behavior, particularly offstage, may prove impossible, alas. The team Obama is building are no suckers, they appear well aware of this lurking threat.

   Posted by sloper at 05/26/2008 @ 10:47pm

3. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attempted to ascribe her failure to a defeat of Feminism.

   There is no doubt that she was baited with sexist remarks and commentary; but every kid on the playground knows that when you cry in response, the taunting will continue.

   When I was in Basic Training in 1965, one of the blokes kept referring to me with a remark relating to a facial feature.

   One day I had enough. I went over to him, in he barracks in front of all the others, and stuck out my jaw. "Put it right there," I said.

   The other guy backed down.

   Hillary didn't take them on; nor did Hillary ignore them. Hillary cried. Bill cried. The campaign cried.

   Golda Meir would not have cried. Margaret Thatcher would not have cried. Benazir Bhutto would not have cried (and it was she who was assassinated).

   Hillary Clinton's failure is her own. She started at the top, and slid to the bottom; but Feminism, as a force in American politics, is alive and well. It is, in fact, now stronger than ever.

   We will have a female President in our lifetimes--just not Hillary.

   Posted by Logan_of_Ohio at 05/26/2008 @ 11:36pm

4. Sen. Kennedy, this means you need to switch to Clinton!

   Posted by HAPPY3

   happy, you're becoming abundantly obnoxious.

   a while back, you were on the verge of civility,

   but recently, sheesh, it seems as if you've got fibreglass in your briefs.

   Monday, May 26, 2008 11:50:52 PM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/26/2008 @ 11:51pm

5. that's right.

   you can't blame bill.

   she's the boss on this one.

   did anybody blame mrs. kerry?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/26/2008 @ 11:57pm

6. First of all welcome back Zero. :)

   Second, Susan Estrich (who I agree with about 60% of the time but is about the only saving grace on Foxnews.com) suggested that the absence of Ted Kennedy from the Senate may have given Hillary a possible way of saving face by becoming the grand dame of the Senate. This is unfortunate happenstance but also an opportunity for her to take on a greater role in the Democratic leadership. So now that she has somewhere to go maybe she can exit gracefully. Or Clinton ego rules over all and it turns into a bloody mess.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/26/2008 @ 11:58pm

7. OFF TOPIC ALERT!

   uh, oh.........

   'May 25, 2008 Sunday

   AL-SISTANI NOT TO ALLOW US-IRAQ AGREEMENT "AS LONG AS HE IS ALIVE" - AL-ALAM TV

   LENGTH: 271 words

   Text of report by state-run Iranian Arabic-language television news channel Al-Alam on 25 May

   [Presenter] There have been further reactions to the security agreement, which the US occupation and the Iraqi government intend to sign. A source close to the [Shi'i] religious figure Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has said that Al-Sistani told Prime Minister Al-Maliki, during their meeting in the holy city of Al-Najaf, that he totally rejects the agreement.

   He [Al-Sistani] said he would not allow the signing of the agreement as long as he is alive. However, at the same time, he voiced support to the Iraqi government and to efforts by Iraqi officials and people to establish security and stability in the country.

   Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:13:50 AM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:13am

8. Happy, take ONE look at Grandpa, look at his flip-flops, his maverick but sucking up to Bush, the situation in this country, then tell me an American populace is going to say that's better than Obama. And I don't mean through your Rush-colored glasses.

   Face it, conservatism is collapsing under its own hubris. 30 years of demonizing the government and trying to re-make the US into a Randian paradise has turned into abject failure under the gross incompetence of George the lesser. And if he wasn't conservative enough, it is your fault for not holding his feet to the fire and alolowing him to run up ungodly deficits, huge expansions of the federal government, and groos erosions of civil liberties even WITH a Rerpublican Congress for six years. All of this to keep us "safe". Right now what the American public needs to be safe from is neo-con rule.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:18am

9. foxsnooze reaches new low!

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&feature=related&fmt=18&fmt=18

   ' "And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh Obama. Well, both, if we could." She laughed. '

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:18am

10. "Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore."

    John Mccain, February 28, 2000

    <i>so much for predictions........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:26am

11. Is this news or psycho analysis without a theory at its foundation. When was last time that any of the bloggers at the Nation's megazine supported Hillary, no matter what the circumstances. And when was last time, this megazine questioned anything about Obama's candidacy or his qualifications to be President. Although I think it would be great for non-caucasian to be the U.S. but whether it would do anything for race relations in this country is an open questions. It may prove to be a setback for blacks and other non-whites in this country as one can always point to Obama to even deny the existence of racism.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008 @ 12:40am

12. That was the most unclever non-answer I've seen in a long time. I guess that took care of ever taking you seriously Happy. Buh-bye.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:53am

13. hey happy,

    been looking for $320,800,000

    ask this guy:

    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080522103311.pdf

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:56am

14. Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008

    H.T.O.T.D.

    And I'm trying to find your point, honestly. Following Hillary no matter the circumstances is called blind devotion, and I honestly see it more in Hillary supporters than Obama ones. Your so-called point about race is nonsense, nowhere has Obama suggested that we ignore racism. Plus if a half-African-American can't move us beyond the racism of our past, what would?

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:57am

15. Let's get serious. Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/08

    Serious about what? Voting for McCain? Sell your snake oil somewhere else.

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/27/2008 @ 01:18am

16. Hillary had every conceivable advantage in the book going into these primaries. Name recognition, money, establishment backing. All the candidates knew the rules of the Democratic primaries (yes, caucuses count) and could develop their strategies accordingly. Hillary had all the media attention prior to January but it shifted when it turned out that Obama had run a smart, strategic and disciplined campaign that got him more wins and delegates. The media likes winners, that's why they were fawning over Hillary when she was "inevitable" and that's why they're now more charitable to Obama. But to say that there is some sort of inherent bias that cost her the election is simply preposterous. Take a long hard look in the mirror, Hillary. Whatever happened to "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?" I guess that only applies when your opponent is getting peppered with silliness about pastors and bittergate. But for Bill and her to now whine about everything from sexism to undemocratic Florida and Michigan is just the height of chutzpah and proves exactly why no self respecting and forward thinking superdelegate interested in having a real democratic party and not a semi aristocracy will break for her. It's over and we'll all be better off not hearing the name Clinton again on a daily basis. I had forgotten all about Clinton fatigue during these horrific last seven years, but we're all getting a taste of it again, and it tastes bitter, excuse the pun.

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:32am

17. well, but the dems DON'T run their primaries like republicans, and both candidates knew the rules, so you can't use that as an argument because if it were a winner take all primary Obama would have campaigned very differently, putting a lot more resources into states like California. It's like saying field goals count 6 points and touchdowns 3 points AFTER the game has been played. Stop moving the goal posts!

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:46am

18. oh great, blame it on moveon and caucus stampedes. I'd like to see some links to prove that point. How about Rush Limbaugh's chaos troops? Unless you can prove that there was any foul play it's not a valid point, on either side. But you're right, the superdelegates will look at who can win the GE and create the best down ticket momentum, and I think it'll be Obama. Don't take my word for it, let's meet here a week from tomorrow and see who's got the better psychic abilities.

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:56am

19. Frank is a slavish devotee to Her Majesty who most progressives have given up trying to reason with Yell. She can do no wrong and in his eyes is entitled to the nomination no matter what rules bending has to be done to get her there. His reasonsings are inconsitent and often contradictory. It always amazes me to see someone lose themselves into such cult-like delusion over someone they see as a leader.

    I have a suggestion Frank. Going by the fiscal examples given by the two final primary candidates in the Democratic race, who do you think has run the superior campaign?

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 01:59am

20. Thanks yutsano. I guess we'll just have to wait it out for another week before we can "move on."

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:07am

21. I think a successful Obama Presidency would go a long way in easing the taboo of race relations in politics. If he has an unsuccessful Presidency, I think that it will be the last black candidate that would be taken seriously that you'll see on the Presidential level until the next century.

    posted by frankgrits

    So here's my question...what black Presidential candidate COULDN'T you make this same argument about? If your logic holds, any first black President (and indeed, any first female President) would be held under precisely the same microscope. If your logic holds, therefore, it seems that we have good reason to reject any black or female President because of the massive scrutiny that would be brought to bear. Since I don't think either of us actually believes that conclusion, it seems pretty clear that your argumentation (from which that conclusion unambiguously flows) is flawed.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/27/2008 @ 02:14am

22. you make all kinds of foregone conclusions that you cannot back up. How do you know that all Hispanics/Latinos will go for McCain? Do you have a crystal ball? Your whole argument is based on a static electoral map, but this is not 2004. From my perspective there's a whole new generation of voters that doesn't fit into the old red state / blue state mold. Just an opinion, but it's no less valid than yours. In my opinion, both Hillary and Obama would beat McCain, though Obama can compete in a lot more states. New winds are blowing and the ship has already set sail.

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:25am

23. good idea, have a good night Frank. Sweet dreams!

    Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:47am

24. "But to say that there is some sort of inherent bias that cost her the election is simply preposterous."

    As of 6/26 that bias is now officially known as a media "cover-up," according to hubby Bill.

    Thrash, thrash.

    Remember what happens when rats are cornered. Dignity? Shmignity. Watch for behind the curtains action akin to the behavior of the Clintons' self-chosen TV role models, Tony & Carmela Soprano. The Clintons' TV ad (staring both parties) was no accident. Talk about a Freudian slip that was a whopper as big ... say, as assassination, yet another Soprano tactic.

    Alas, there won't be much genuine dignity on display. Clintonian public performance is shaping up more along the lines of their "I regret if anyone ..." denials.

    Posted by sloper at 05/27/2008 @ 03:37am

25. by frankgrits at 05/27/2008

    "--Why would you want to gamble with an inexperienced black canidate? It's suicide.--"

    Oh, my... Frankgrits is back with his 'no holds barred' Hillary shillery...

    Mr. Grits... why would you want to gamble with the wife of a somewhat discredited former president? I mean, sure... compared with Bush's legacy... Bill looks good, and therefore, so does his wife.

    But we can do a lot better... and we will.

    Obama is much more likely to turn this country around than Clinton, and he is WAY more experienced than she is at organizing, working with and listening to others, and leading with integrity and honesty.

    BTW... That slippery slope of Limbaughian alliance... the one that has given Hillary the chance to cling to a steadily diminishing thread of legitimacy in this primary... will not be easily reclimbed. She allowed it, and hoped to win because of it... and she would lose the general election when part of her 'voter base' reregisters as republicans.

    Has she ever mentioned this? Have you, Frank?

    Posted by ttr at 05/27/2008 @ 03:49am

26. Happy3, you don't know if Hillary would be the nominees under different rules like the winner take all Republican Primary. Barack Obama's skillful team probably would have employed a completely different strategy under different rules. If MI and CA voted last in the Primary, which has been the norm and viewed by both Dems and Pubs as fair - Obama would be the likely winner based on today's CA polls. Both sides can play the what if game.

    Obama's campaign went into this primary understanding the rules. It was a delegate game. Obama won because Clinton's team seemed to forget the objective of the contest.

    Hillary Clinton blew off the caucus states. A decision I can only presume was due to bad advice. Bill Clinton would not have won the nomination and the presidency without the Democratic caucus. Like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton was an unknown. Also, it is important to note that the caucus rules were written by Hilary Clinton's top surrogate, Harold Icke. It is disingenuous for Hillary Clinton to disregard the caucus states as undemocratic. Her disrespect for the rules is a tremendous disservice to the process, the Party, and our presumptive nominee.

    Clinton's defiance to accept defeat and her constant reinvented matrix to win misleads her supporters and conveys the wrong message. Winning is not more important than the integrity of the process. She is treading on a dangerous precedent. Tyrants and despots rig elections, not presidential candidates.

    Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 04:23am

27. The SD have been steadily flowing to Obama. He has picked up 17 over the past few days. My guess is the SDs are being respectful of Hillary Clinton and probably afraid of being viewed as a traitor by the Clintons. This contests is as much about controlling the Party as it is about being President.

    There is no way Clinton will win this nomination and she knows it, so I am starting to view her as a spoiler. I am not sure what she wants out of this or why she is misleading her supporters. If Hillary takes this to the convention, it doesn't matter who secures the nomination. S/he will lose to McCain. Three months is not enough time to organize and wage a national campaign. Moreover, I see no signs of Hillary moving her campaign towards the general election. What purpose would Hillary have to assure a Democratic defeat? Her own defeat? Nope, she is too smart. If Hillary does go to the convention, I doubt it will be to actually secure the nomination.

    Staying in the race through the summer will prevent Obama's campaign from accessing DNC funds. What would be her motive for hurting the likely nominee?

    I hope she considers the Party and her country. Hillary should do the right thing not what she believes is her right. Someone close needs to talk to her, not Bill Clinton. He is on a mission to destroy his legacy.

    Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 05:05am

28. Very well stated, KVH!

    Let's Move On!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 05:34am

29. >>>Check out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up " is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. <<<

    Bill Clinton sounds like a VERY desperate man. Is he and his wife so addicted to power that they will say and do absolutely anything to get it?

    FACT CHECK:

    Contrary to Bill's statement, if Hillary wins Puerto Rico and Montana (Obama leads in latest Montana poll 52-35), she STILL trails in the popular vote! Bill's popular vote math FAILS TO INCLUDE all of the caucus states, which is dubious proposition for Camp Clinton that "claims" they want every vote to count. Their math also includes NO POPULAR VOTES for Obama in Michigan where his name was not on the ballot!

    This "cover-up" nonsense is all about EARLY polls that have been historically inaccurate when compared to November results. Why doesn't Bill take all of the May poll numbers from previous presidential contests and compare them with November results? Why is Bill COVERING UP this factual information?

    That plain fact is that his candidate lost! So get over it Bill, and MOVE ON, just like KVH has very eloquently described in this article.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 05:55am

30. "Wouldn't it be wiser to let the convention decide what it will decide..."----Posted by amiiss at 05/27/2008

    Actually the primaries have already decided.

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 06:05am

31. FRANK -

    How on earth can you think it fair or just to seat the delegates from MI of FL after both candidates pledged to honor the decision of the DNC and NOT to campaign there??????

    Would you be so wedded to "count every vote" if it was 60-40 Obama?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 06:08am

32. Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008

    AND have him explain why a "Soviet-style" ballot (with ONLY Hillary's name on it) NOT being counted is...

    "un-democratic"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 06:11am

33. Sorry, Katrina. You are just not giving us the full facts! I know that OBAMYOPIA stops you from seeing that Sen. Obama is not even close to winning this nomination. No superdelegates no. reached, and NO POPULAR VOTE--check out more polls...Then examine your motives.

    Why don't the MEDIA MISOGYNISTs [sorry, Katrina, but you sound like one of them or at the very least you're rather journalistically naif buying uncritically into the Obamania phenomenon] stop insisting that a strong comprehensive vote-getter of a democratic candidate who happens to be female (and, yes, with a bit of history and yes, with some Feminist spunk in her that hasn't been lost nor faded the last couple of decades, like Katrina's!) step "gracefully"--really?!-- down the podium and hand over the pulpit holding the Top Job spot to...The Bro. from Hawaii...You know, like them ignominious "Obama T-shirts" selling like hot cakes thanks to Barack's totally sexist, semi-camouflaged woman-bashing of a Campaign--printed on them:

    'BROS BEFORE HOES' Yup! that's why they want her to step down for The Man of Hope to walk over and grab the top job. Yup, but did you know this same Obama fellow deviously knocked off the ballots in Chicago his benefactor and mentor, AA SENATOR ALICE PALMER, who is still recuperating from the shock of her life when the young Barack, her protege, forced his gang of legal thugs down her throat...to get the nomination and rub her off the Chicago political map?! Yup!

    Sen. Alice Palmer is now supporting...you guessed it girl... Sen. Clinton! Wonder why, Katrina?! Do some fact checkin' there, girl! Before you force the Obamyopic views of yours on the rest of the women of this country who won't be BULLIED or gang-mugged into worshipping this CHANCEY THE GARDENER empty suit(Being There with Pete Sellers was prophetic in the '70s when Barack was still running around in diapers)...

    And, hold it there Katrina, before you have any further crypto-misogynist propagandist assertions to expound, do me a favor and read L.A.Times/watch YouTube's Misogynist Show of the Ages attesting to Barack's huge performing arts talents:

    "OBAMA GIVES F*NGER TO HILLARY"--now that's why women voters should prefer this arrogant, immature frat-boy over Sen. Clinton? Or McCain, even? At least McCain did say to Russert in Baghdad in '05 "I am sure Sen. Clinton will be a great President" It's called RESPECT, Katrina! And your man just doesn't have it in Him!...

    Barack went on stage in N.C. the day after his pathetically inept Debate performance in Pa., and 'flip-offed' Hillary, pausing, SMIRKING and waiting for his followers to wildly conspire with his huge disrespect for his fellow (female)Senator, on stage and in full view of thousands! Watch it, ole gal!! You might learn a thing or two that the OBAMYOPICS ain't lettin' ya see through!...Then you may think twice about offering the top Exec job to a junior high grad....THINK, GIRL, THINK, before you FOLLOW!...

    Now, I ask you Katrina, would you give the keys to your brand new SUV to your hormonally-challenged teenager out on his first date? Well, cause that's what you're asking women voters to do by preferring the anorexic resume of this arrogant neophyte to that of the Woman with the tested years of public service, commitment and wrinkles to prove it....The one who got more votes than Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry and the whole boys' gang...and shone in N.Y. State where her Office is praised as the MOST EFFICIENTLY RUN office at the Senate or anywhere in that godforsaken political hotdog stand...

    Shame, really, Katrina....I expected better from you in this column of yours....But you can always clear your political lenses and see through the clouds of OBAMYOPIA. Start by sending Hillary a small donation and urge her to keep on fighting--for our daughters' sake and for Democracy. And tell her loud and clear:

    "GO, HILLARY, and GIVE THEM HEALTH"!

    Posted by sakel at 05/27/2008 @ 06:17am

34. >>>I see Hillary as taking the fight all the way to Denver. Why should she accept the VP slot when the nomination is within reach.

    Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008<<<

    FRANKGRITS,

    Are you on crack?

    Still win? Under what scenario, besides the "assassination scenario" that Hillary foolishly put out there recently?

    Immediately after June 3rd, at least 50 more supers will put Obama over the top, and MI and FL will not help Hillary, as these delegates will be apportioned equally as a proper penalty for breaking the DNC rules.

    Case closed!

    As for Hillary's voters. Hillary just KILLED her chances of becoming VP with her assassination remark. Can you really imagine Hillary being a "heartbeat" away from being president when she fantasizes out-loud about an Obama assassination? And given the LARGE number of "mysterious deaths" of people associated with the Clintons over the years, including Vince Foster who had the goods on Hillary in the File-gate episode, Obama would have to be stone crazy to put Hillary on his ticket.

    Besides, there are many other talented female VP candidates that don't have all of the Clinton baggage, like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

    WE may not get you, FRANKGRITS, but we will eventually get the vast majority of Clinton's supporters WITHOUT Hillary being on the ticket!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 06:30am

35. Claiming that sexism is the reason that Hillary isn't winning is just another desperate attempt by Clinton supporters to excuse her losing.She would have easily won if it weren't for the fact that Obama has charisma and if he had not run which negates their claim of sexism.Hillary has little experience and has wrinkles because she is getting older and not because of years of public service.Hillary is in service to Hillary and not the public.I would not vote for any of these three,but Clinton supporters need to stop whining and making up lame excuses for her failures.Not everyones candidate wins,but only Hillary supporters whine about it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 06:46am

36. Ms. vanden Heuvel I am breaking my own rule by responding to a headline and a quick skim before I actually read the article with attempted objectivity.

    When did it become the role of journalists to tell a candidate when to leave the race and how to do so?

    Forgive me if I'm mistaken but over the many years I have been involved with elections I seem to remember that journalists reported and perhaps analyzed events rather than make decisions for the voters and the candidates by offering advice and demanding that the advice be taken.

    It seems something is amiss.

    If you Katrina would like to run for office I believe you, being a smart and strong woman would know when the time was right to exit. I'm quite sure you would be taken aback, and rightly so if reporters, rather than reporting demanded you do as they say.

    There is another point to make as well. If Senator Clinton were a male candidate would you make these demands? More importantly: If the situation were reversed would you dare to demand the same of Senator Obama and risk being labeled a racist? While we can of course never know what you would do, only what you say you would do I think we can surmise the answer that the vast majority of Obama supporters (or Hillary Haters) would say.

    Now, I will go back to reading the article and try to maintain a composed objectivity in the hopes I will not find the column as pompous disrespectful and filled with unjustified self righteous conclusions as my initial skim led me to believe.

    Before I do let me make one quick observation on a comment that caught my eye as I was skimming. I don't want to forget this. You mentioned that "women at the nation were the first to deplore" the sexism and misogyny (I added that) that has occurred throughout this campaign? Seriously? I see you didn't cite your protestations and I certainly never noticed them. Perhaps you, as a professional woman if not a Clinton supporter should have been far more vocal in your outrage. Deploring in private or with a carefully crafted column showing how reasonable and well modulated you are about the whole unsightly thing is not the same as being outraged. Sometimes Katrina, loud and vociferous outrage is the only genuine expression.

    Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 @ 07:01am

37. Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008

    It's an op-ed.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:08am

38. Again, I wonder why none of these Hillary supporters (or GOP posers, which I think also likely)....

    can explain how "sexism" forced her to run a shoddy campaign...

    hire a lobbyist for a position she supposedly opposed...

    made her spend like crazy, so much that it drove her into the hole when things go tough... (What happened to "fiscally responsible" Hillary?!??!?)

    forced her to LIE about coming under sniper fire (with a video available to disprove it)...

    and had her not only vote for the war, but uptil it became a political liability in 2007...still support it....

    And why it's somehow "impossible" for a woman to LOSE...without it being about her gender?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 07:11am

39. When did it become the role of journalists to tell a candidate when to leave the race and how to do so?

    Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 |

    What planet do you live on? What right does Clinton have to urge Obama to leave the race because she is more "electable."

    Clinton fan club search software skimming for blog headlines to post their automated responses is irresponsible. KVH is entitled to her opinion.

    May I suggest Hillary Toilet Paper to wipe the feces from your clouded spectacles? Get real.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 07:18am

40. The desparation of the Obamamaniacs to get Hillary out of the race grows lounder and lounder the more primary's she wins and the more Obama loses. Hillary has won, and will end, the primary season with the most popular votes cast, and yet the elitist in the party of "count all the votes" is trying to lock Obama into the nomination by suppressing the votes of MI & FL. Obama, who never saw a nut case dictator trying to get nuclear weapons that he didn't want to chat up! Obama the Elitist who has no respect for working class people.....is a 35 to 50 state disaster in November. Hillary needs to ignore this sexist..get the woman back into the kitchen claptrap..and fight to save the party.....all the way to Denver!!!!!!!!

    Posted by valwayne at 05/27/2008 @ 07:19am

41. Posted by valwayne at 05/27/2008

    Suppress the votes? You mean the votes in the primaries that Clinton at one time agreed to not take part in? The one where she was the only name on the ballot? Please articulate how that would be fair or just. She knew the rules. Now she wants to change them. If Obama had been the only name on the ballot, would you be saying the same thing?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:24am

42. This is insane. The only conceivable way Clinton can "win" is if the MI and FL get unfairly seated in proportion to her "votes" (based on an after-the-fact rewrite of the DNC's decision) or if a landslide of the superdelegate's go against the popular vote?

    Is this really a receipe for bringing the party together? And for winning the general?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:26am

43. Yeah, again with the old posts.... So take my old posts and wipe your sorry ass with them.

    Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    My...my.....Frank.

    Mask is nailing you right and left on your inconsistency and shifting foundation for support for your gal and this is what you come up with? Shame on you.

    Voters are not buying into Clinton's attempt to recreate herself constantly from the closet Republican she is. Her inconsistency on the issues of this campaign and her voting record are big reasons for her demise. You are a splendid example of why not to vote for Clinton.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 07:30am

44. Hopefully this country won't be an Obami-nation after Nov 2008!!!!

    Posted by tomli72 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:31am

45. "Relentless" might be another word for "tenacious," and despite your attempts to make it a negative, it is actually an admirable quality. I would think that writers for the Nation would on principle be for counting all votes, especially in Florida. I would also think that the Nation wouldn't be so pro-delegates. This smacks of paternalism: have daddy come in and save us -- oh, from the frightening woman. The fact is that Hillary and Barack are tied. The other fact is that Hillary represents a huge coalition of supporters. Why should she be asked to bow out gracefully, as it were, precisely when she has been gaining on him and whatever momentum he has had is gone? No, Hillary owes it to her supporters, in Florida and Michigan as well as elsewhere, to stay in. Those who want her to bow out gracefully do not believe in the rough-and-tumble of democracy that has never been a neat and orderly process.

    Posted by benne at 05/27/2008 @ 07:32am

46. "GO, HILLARY, and GIVE THEM HEALTH"! Posted by sakel at 05/27/2008 |

    Right, the way she gave us health the last time the Clintons controlled the White House.

    Spare us, please, that Clinton kind of health has proven so distinctly bad for our health.

    Time to move on, time for change.

    Posted by sloper at 05/27/2008 @ 07:40am

47. Hillary supporters,

    I can understand you all beingupset that the campaign has not gone Mrs. Clinton's way.

    That is no reason to attack Obama or his supporters.

    Better for her and you to become introspective and look for the reasons she lost and what she and you could do better in future (if there are any for her) elections.

    Trying to change the rules after the fact is disingenous and lowers Mrs. Clinton's legacy and your credibility.

    The nomination is about gaining delegates. Senator Obama and his campaign have done it better than Mrs. Clinton and hers.

    Get over it.

    Posted by McKSluggo at 05/27/2008 @ 07:41am

48. Hillary should STAY IN!! The media has created an Opium of the masses with Obama that will cause nothing but regrets in the end we need the experience the comes with Hillary!!!

    Posted by mauijk at 05/27/2008 @ 08:02am

49. No votes have been suppressed in Florida or Michigan and all this nonsense about those two states is getting old.The democrats have ignorant rules when it comes to their primaries,but the rules are what they are and everyone agreed to go by them and that is all there is to that story.Clinton supporters need to blame their queen for accepting the rules rather than blame Obama for the fact that Hillary accepted the rules.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 08:02am

50. I was really annoyed in the 2004 election, that the election was decided before I could vote. I don't particularly care for Clinton, but the voters should get a chance to vote for their choice. I would like to see a national primary or caucus where everyone votes on the same day, with all the candidates who are running for President in their party.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 05/27/2008 @ 08:07am

51. Just as Clinton is not a polarizing person, those who to choose polarization in reaction to her are polarizing and have some responsibility in their choice of a myriad array of reactions and expressions so to is Hillary Clinton's campaign what has divided the feminist movement. The feminists who choose to work out their hatred of her are. Making a choice to phrase it in this manner reveals again the subtle (and not so subtle) way of blaming Clinton for all that happens in this primary.

    Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 @ 08:12am

52. It was clear that it was time for her to go when she tried to hit Obama for having exploted her use of the word "assassination." The fact of the matter is that he gave her a pass, but she latched on to his use of the word "bitter" like a hungry dog with a pork chop. There has been a double standard. It seems that it is fine for her to use Obama's verbal mistakes, while he gets the blame for hers. It is clear that she just misspoke AS FAR AS I KNOW.

    Posted by gls60 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:28am

53. Lots of candidates for H.T.O.T.D. yet they all seem to possess this extreme irrationality. Let me make this clear: SHE LOST!!!!! There is no grandiose comeback scenario, no miracle final backroom maneuver. Florida and Michigan can and should not count as the punishment has been meted out by the DNC. There is no disenfranchisement of voters, no one said you couldn't vote, if you're from FL and MI you KNEW going into that ballot box that your vote would have zero impact on the final outcome. I totally understand why you would vote in Florida, and I could ALMOST allow that to count as a half vote except for on small detail: Hillary herself agreed to not participate in either contest. If she had said publically from Iowa that those votes should be allowed then I'd give her more credit. She's the ultimate political opportunist, and I can't stomach that in a man or a woman.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 08:32am

54. I respectfully disagree with Ms. van den Heuvel. In my opinion, Ms. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign up until the convention if she so desires. She is not my candidate of choice, but that is her right, as it is the right of every other candidate. I think it might be better for everyone if we stopped telling each other what we think they should or shouldn't do, and concentrated on being as ethical ourselves as we can. You can count on nothing but change in this volatile and mobile world - none of us knows what's going to happen in the next 3 minutes, let alone longer. Why don't we stop nitpicking at each other and mind our OWN ps and qs? I suspect each and every one of us has a plateful of those requiring attention. God knows I do.

    Posted by Gail Moore at 05/27/2008 @ 08:37am

55. It is clear that she just misspoke AS FAR AS I KNOW.

    Posted by gls60 at 05/27/2008

    Ah,,,,you need to read a little more. Clinton "misspoke" about the assassination several other times, including her most recent gaffe. Kind of like the Bosnian sniper fire "misspoke" eh?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 08:37am

56. Hillary's about 1% behind and will probably win the popolar vote, but you want her to drop out?

    These repeated calls by Obama supporters and surrogates are just making me hate your side of the party.

    If Obama gets the nomination, I'm voting McCain.

    Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:39am

57. Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008

    Hillary can stand the heat. That's why she'll fight until she wins. ******If she can stand the heat, why is she crying all the time, accusing people of picking on her.

    Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008 @ 08:44am

58. Gotta love these supposed Democrats who would vote against their own self-interest just for spite. There is NO WAY Michigan can count under any reasonable interpretation of democratic rules, so totally dismiss whatever her vote was from the final count period. If it is included then I'm camping out on Frosty's lawn until the revolution.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 08:44am

59. Posted by Gail Moore at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Golly, I thought Clinton promised during the debates to support The Party and to support Obama? She can run till eternity in a straightjacket for we care. Point is....nobody is going to paying attention next month, and she is going to be looking pretty creepy. I think Katrina is trying to save some face for someone she once respected.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 08:45am

60. Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    RQty...Hellary is losing, and she has no chance of catching up. Why are people like you so racist that you can't even phantom a Black person being president of this nation. Blacks are citizens of this great nation also. Is white hate this strong in America? Hellary has run a dirty racist campaign, injected with racism and sexism. ON the othe other hand, Obama has run a clean campaign and kept race an sexism out of it.

    Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008 @ 08:50am

61. HAPPY -

    Nothing "illegal" about it. And nobody was forced to take their names off the ballot. I will give Clinton that much. However, she did sign a pledge that she would not campaign or "participate" in the primary. So, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "participate" is, huh?

    HAPPY - you are not that dense. I say claiming delegates is participating. You don't? And Clinton tried to hedge her bets, relying on the fact that her name recoginition gave her a decided advantage.

    When you have a situation with NO campaigning and, in one state, no other names on the ballot, how on earth can you claim that the "results" should be valid, reliable, indicative?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:56am

62. Funny how all the conservative posters here all of a sudden JUST LOVE Hillary Clinton.

    Five months ago she was the Anti-Christ.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:57am

63. ON the othe other hand, Obama has run a clean campaign and kept race an sexism out of it.

    Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008

    And it is working. Dirty politics is what Clinton knows and is part of the machine politics that was once a part of her support. Voters want to change that. Obama has taken the high road and stuck to it. He could have nailed Clinton on all her baggage but refused. Clinton is a sad charade whose chapter is coming to a close.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 09:01am

64. Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008

    Amen. I used to have a certain amount of respect for her, even if I did not support her candidacy.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:03am

65. Who are you, KvH, to tell her to exit the race?

    I'm a voter too, and I want her to stay in. You're just hiding behind your own sexism, pseudo-intellectualism and need for approval from your mostly white male writers.

    All of the candidates have had embarrassing moments. You're not willing to dismiss what you see as as dirty campaigning, and I'm not willing to dismiss Obama's very telling use of "sweety" in addressing adult women. Not a big deal to you, maybe because you were swooning for him like the rest of the media, but unmistakable to me. Slick and flirtatious is hardly substance. By the way, any "dirty politics" HRC has engaged in is unremarkable and laughable compared to Republicans.

    Why can't Obama get a landslide, despite the media love affair? Maybe some voters see through him.

    Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008 @ 09:05am

66. Five months ago she was the Anti-Christ.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    The longer that they can keep the energizer bunny going the better it is for McCain. Clinton is damaging the Party and she will pay heavily for her conduct through loss of her senate seat. There will be no leadership roles for Clinton. She and Bill in their twilight years can write more fiction about their political careers and admire the White House furnishings they made off with at taxpayer expense at the end of Bill Clinton's sexcapade in the Whilte House.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 09:08am

67. It is sheer nonsense for Hillary and Bill to conflate disqualification of Florida's and Michigan's delegates as "disenfranchising" voters in those states. The Democratic Party is a private corporation, and it sets its own rules for nominating presidential candidates. It is under no obligation to make sure that voters are "represented" in states that don't follow those rules.

    Both Hillary and Bill suffer from the delusion that she is "entitled" to be president. Barack Obama upset their apple cart. If he wins the general election in '08, Hillary will be 69 years old in November 2016 -- almost as old as John McSame is now. You can bet that she and Bill will do everything in their power to ensure that Democratic nominee Obama doesn't make it to the White House in 2009.

    Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008 @ 09:09am

68. Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008

    Well, quack quack quackity quack

    sorry Ibble.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:12am

69. "Well, quack quack quackity quack."

    Is this your idea of an intelligent response?

    Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008 @ 09:19am

70. Rednecks in swing states like Ohio, Penn, Indy, Virginia are not Obama's problem. They're America's problem.

    They tilted the scales in 2000 and 2004.

    They're a huge swath of the bell curve. Guns, God, Gays... just simply echos of their upbringing, itself an echo of Jim Crow, slavery, and that huge shadow of pain.

    Most don't so much as hate blacks as they lack life experience.

    They haven't had a true black friend or significant other, haven't had a true Muslim friend or significant other, haven't known or been inspired by an articulate, smart non-white, etc.

    A problem for America = an opportunity for Hillary

    Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 09:19am

71. Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008

    I knew after he showed up yesterday, FG would HAVE to make an appearance on this thread.

    BTW, next time he or any of the Hillary cultists blame "the Media" or "the Obama camp" or (as I've seen on other threads) "Dean and the DNC" for Hillary having her Precious stolen from her...

    ask them this...

    Which of them "made" Hillary vote for the war?

    Which of them "forced" her to hire Mark Penn?

    Which of them "strong-armed" her into lying about "Bosnian sniper fire"?

    Which of them got her campaign staff to spend like drunken sailors so that she went into the hole and had to loan herself money....TWICE?

    And was it "the Media", "the Obama camp", or "Howard Dean" who made Hillary and her bunch so over-confident that they had NO PLAN WHATSOEVER past Super Tuesday if they didn't have it wrapped up???

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 09:20am

72. Did you hear that?

    That's the media's silence on America's giant rouge problem.

    West Virginia's everywhere.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 09:24am

73. Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008

    More intelligent than your stating the painfully obvious.

    tshirttt's post of feigned offense at the most trivial level deserves a response of equal stupidity.

    Your need to have it explained reveals your depth as well.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:34am

74. Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008

    I'd say Hillary got plenty of media love. What other candidate could lose 11 or so primaries in a row, yet not have to have the talking heads write her off? What other candidate could get fewer delegates in a state (TX) and still be declared the big winner? Remember John Edwards, the guy who lost the first three? What did the media think of his chances back in February? They wrote him off. At least the media let Clinton hang around as long as she has.

    Clinton got all the media help she needed back in January, February, and March. And she still could not win it when she needed to.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:34am

75. Excuse me? I can't believe what I am reading!

    Clinton also won "redneck states" like New York and California.

    If Obama were white, would 92% of black voters be supporting him? Hell, no. Racism cuts both ways. Is it worse for white voters to support a white candidate than it is for black voters to support a black candidate?

    winyahn, do you think that it is a problem that inner city African American populations, who say in exit polls that race played an important factor in their decision, are being just as racist as some of the "rednecks" that you cited in determining their vote?

    Ironically, Obama has depended on the racism of African American voters to put him over the top in many of the states that he's won. I know this isn't politically correct, but it's the truth.

    A lot of progressives, like myself, have never been inspired by Obama. We don't like his advisers and are scared by the idea of them working in the White House. And, quite frankly, since Obama does not support making my vote count in the primary (I live in Florida) he will NEVER get it in the general.

    I am a loyal Democrat who will be working to elect Democrats this fall. But I do not want Obama to be president. I love my country more than I love my party, and I cannot in good conscience support Obama. He has not demonstrated the type of experience I think a president should have, and his past judgment does not give me hope that he is anything that I would want in a president.

    Obama will never win the general election. He will never win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. This nomination should not be about the math, it should be about the electoral map.

    Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:43am

76. Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008

    As a "progressive," which Clinton advisors are you so eager to see in the White House?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:46am

77. >>>This nomination should not be about the math, it should be about the electoral map.<<<

    Not Bill Clinton's "Voodoo Math" that EXCLUDES the popular vote in all caucus states, and FAILS TO COUNT any popular votes in Michigan where Obama's name was not on the ballot!

    And not YESTERDAY'S electoral map that was all about swing states in Ohio and Florida. Obama is REDEFINING the electoral map, putting states like Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa in play for the Democrats for the very first time.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 09:50am

78. >>>HEY VAN DUMB EVIL,

    WHEN IS YOUR NEXT MARXIST CRUISE WITH ITS MASSIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT?????

    Posted by libzsuck at 05/27/2008<<<

    Hey LIBZ,

    I hear Shanghai, China is MUCH MORE CAPITALIST than the USA!

    Maybe you should check into immigrating there after Obama WINS in November!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 09:57am

79. Obama will never win the general election. He will never win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

    Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008

    Not sure how you can say that. The polls are all over the place - especially in Ohio, Michigan and Pennslyvania. One the Clinton supporters get over their anger, and once the voters get to see more of Obama vs. McCain, those numbers will shift even more.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:58am

80. Ms. vanden Heuvel, after watching your appearances on TV during this primary, it is obvious to me that you support Senator Obama. Consequently, I never should have bothered to read this article as I knew in advance what angle you would take.

    You wrote, " So, it is with sadness that one watches these last days of what began as an energizing and historic campaign." Please, spare me your false sadness - I imagine you writing with gleefulness.

    Posted by PNolan at 05/27/2008 @ 09:59am

81. Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008

    When is Hillary going to stop listening to her pollsters and Karl Rovian strategists and GET REAL!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:01am

82. Pledged delegates reflect the will of the people? Are you kidding? Let me tell you about pledged delegates. I stood for Hillary at my Carson City caucus site for 3 hours with 65 other Hillary supporters. Across the hall were 90 Obama supporters -- party activists with T-shirts and posters and balloons and buttons galore, several with their children on their shoulders so they could no doubt "witness history." The children were counted, too, and at the end of it, Barack got 4 delegates and Hillary got only 2. I went home to discover Hillary won the statewide popular vote by 6 points -- 51% to 46% -- but the delegate "math" awarded Obama with 25% more delegates anyway.

    Obama netted 13 "pledged delegates" with his 13,000 vote margin in Idaho, which has 4 Electoral College votes he won't get in November. But Hillary netted only 13 "pledged delegates" with her 200,000 vote margin in PENNSYLVANIA, which has 21 Electoral College votes she might get and Obama probably won't in November.

    Obama's claim to the nomination by "pledged delegates reflecting the will of the people" doesn't hold any water with me.

    One of the many reasons superdelegates were created in the first place was to balance out all these party activists. It's no surprise the party activists want to negate them. Should Kennedy reflect the will of Massachusetts? Should Casey reflect the will of Pennsylvania?

    This party is absurd on its face. It's addicted to losing.

    And this article is nothing but a plea to ignore the process rules that hurt your case.

    The popular vote should count for something; it's the metric I trust the most.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:05am

83. Yes, Hillary will always be polarizing to some people, because she symbolizes the powerful woman who steps out of traditional roles, as Doris Kearns Goodwin has pointed out.

    Barack & Michelle exploit this factor to their own advantage by both trying to don the "uniter not divider" cloak while dividing when they see political advantage.

    Michelle: "I'd have to examine her tone and approach" before deciding to support her as the nominee.

    Barack: "I have no doubt I could get her votes, the question is, could she get mine?"

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:09am

84. >>>I'm not saying the media distorted it because of sexism, but they did distort it terribly.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/27/2008<<<

    I don't know if it was that much of a distortion.

    She mentioned the RFK assassination in the context of explaining her rationale for staying in the race, so it is reasonable to assume that "part" of this rationale was her belief in the possibility of an Obama assassination in June....just like RFK.

    It was perhaps her biggest blunder in the campaign, along with her" sniper fire" bold face lie. It portrays her as she really is - a selfish lying destructive force that is addicted to power; and like most addicts, she will say and do anything to get her fix. If she only wants power for power's sake, how could she possibly compare favorably to someone who really wants to move this country forward?

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:11am

85. I see that the Hillary troll with all the ids is still blaming Obama for the fact that Hillary agreed to the rules that covered Florida and Michigan.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 10:14am

86. The Hillary troll sure is busy getting new ids.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 10:15am

87. >>>I went home to discover Hillary won the statewide popular vote by 6 points -- 51% to 46% -- but the delegate "math" awarded Obama with 25% more delegates anyway.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008<<<

    Sorry TAHOE,

    But Hillary LOST Nevada because her stupid over-paid strategists didn't take the time to study the caucus RULES!

    If they had read the rules they would have discovered that Nevada tries to balance out the influence of the populated centers like Vegas by giving more weight to RURAL AREAS in their delegate count. Obama WON these rural areas, which are full of the same BLUE COLLAR voters that Hillary claims Obama can't win!

    The truth is Obama won blue collar voters all over the country, from rural Nevada, to Eastern Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Oregon. He doesn't have a problem with blue collar voters, he only has a problem with RACIST white blue collar voters!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:22am

88. People trust John McCain.

    frankgrits.

    you mean like his first two wives?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 10:28am

89. The trolls are amazing, as is the sheer vitriol coming out of them. I notice a common theme however Nob. NONE of them talk about how good Hillary is (beyond vague cheerleading) but they rip into Obama with dittohead talking points or sheer media distortions. Give me three reasons why Hillary Clinton will be a better presdent than Barack Obama. I've asked for this many times and have YET to get an answer.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 10:29am

90. Metteyya,

    So Obama can win contests in which some people count more than others. Did you have a point besides noting out how well he has gamed the system?

    One reason Hillary will be a better president than Obama, c/o Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter: She gets it.

    And yes, that means Obama doesn't.

    "Iran isn't a serious threat" "Iran is a grave threat" "Maybe I'll just vote present.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:36am

91. The syntax in this headline is the same as that of the sky-written message in The Wizard of Oz:

    Dorothy Go Home.

    Why are those in the party who don't favor Clinton so threatened by her candidacy? Does she, like Dorothy, have power that Obama supporters would like to suppress?

    Posted by tennisgrl at 05/27/2008 @ 10:39am

92. >>> Give me three reasons why Hillary Clinton will be a better presdent than Barack Obama. I've asked for this many times and have YET to get an answer.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 <<<

    The "official line" is that she has (1) more experience (which is actually not true), (2) she would be a better Commander-in-Chief (I think "better" means more warlike), and (3) her healthcare plan covers more people (but does nothing to make it affordable).

    The "unofficial line" is that she is WHITE.

    Both the official and unofficial line are complete garbage, which partially explains why she lost this race. The other part, is that they really don't have a "change" candidate with Hillary in a "change" year, and with all of the fancy high-paid consultants on Hillary's staff, they should have realized this early on and gone with a very different branding strategy with Bill on the sidelines.

    They could have easily run a "Better than Bill" campaign, highlighting how Hillary would be an IMPROVEMENT over Bill Clinton instead of a Clinton third term. This was a fatal strategic error on their part, and they paid the price for it.

    The polling may have shown that Democrats thought well of the Clinton years, but the Clinton polling didn't capture how voters preferred positive change from "those" years, as well as the Bush years, over just more of the same.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:42am

93. "The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"? "

    Glad you restricted your assertion to "women of THE NATION," i.e., women on your staff.

    Why don't you point out to all the women who do hold high places in the Country. How about Pelosi, Feinstein, Rice, etc.? You think they hold their positions without the support of men?

    Clinton is losing not because she is a woman but because she is Hillary Clinton. Sexism is so remote as a cause of her loss that it is not even worthy of mention. Your own article acknowledges this. I understand you must pander to the angry feminists who are a dying breed. They, like Clinton, will soon fade into history thank goodness. They are a product of a by-gone era.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 10:45am

94. Many in the party have been so turned against her because the Obama campaign has exploited her divisive reputation and inflamed anything she says as racist. But he's a uniter. Wright.

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c2 68b304

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:46am

95. >>>"Iran isn't a serious threat" "Iran is a grave threat" "Maybe I'll just vote present.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008<<<

    TRANSLATION:

    "Iran isn't a serious threat" - I can stand up to AIPAC

    "Iran is a grave threat" - AIPAC is more powerful than I thought

    "Maybe I will just vote present (actually skip the Kyl-Lieberman vote)" - AIPAC is indeed powerful, but I can show "some" independence from them and still get elected.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:47am

96. Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:48am

97. Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:49am

98. Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:49am

99. The site told me the page I was looking for "does not exist." I'll take that as a sign to flush Katrina's insincerity. ArrivederLa.

    Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:51am

100. well,

     they sure had (have, i might add) a right to be angry.

     but in clinton's case, it is as you say.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 10:55am

101. Dear Katrina,

     Why are you on a "Negative Campaign" towards Hillary?

     Why are you so intimidated by Hillary continuing in the race?

     Why are you so politically immature that you do not realize that Hillary has every right to stay in this race? Hillary won the "Mega States", the states we will be watching on election night in November. Obama did not win those states, and those who are politically mature know you need to look beyond the surface in this campaign.

     I admire Hillary, and I think she has done a terrific job for America in this campaign. Others are beginning to pattern themselves after her. Last week, Senator Kennedy says he want his wife to take his seat if needed. Two weeks ago, we saw Laura Bush and her daughter, start appearing on television and writing books. Before Hillary launched her campaign, these women sat in the shadows of their husbands.

     In Chicago, Jesse Jackson Jr. has already hinted he wants his wife to run for congress. This list can go on and on, because Hillary paved the way for many WOMEN and MEN to love their dream. I am very inspired by Hillary, and I do not want to hear her constantly put down. Then later, everyone runs and COPIES after her. Hillary is a LEADER and she will be a GOOD PRESIDENT.

     If your choice of Obama is so right for the country, then why are you letting Hillary bother you?

     Can you just "Give us some intelligence" and "Respect" for Hillary. You should not be so negative.

     You never know how things can turn around for Hillary, even though you doubt it.

     If you cannot say something good, do not say anything at all. Stop putting Hillary down

     Posted by politicalWatcher at 05/27/2008 @ 11:02am

102. >>>Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 <<<

     I am just an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer. If you want the "official" Obama line, I suggest you go to the Obama website - although I don't think you will find any "translations" there.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:03am

103. Hillary Clinton hasn't been hurt by sexism. She has survived thanks to a reverse sexism that has allowed her to stay in the race when every other candidate would have been forced to drop out, thanks to media that have given her pass on her tears, her numerous lies (the latest being that her husband was still campaigning in June during her RFK gaffe), fact-challenged spin about her chances and Obama's qualifications, and her campaign's broad hints (aka blackmail) that she wants Obama to pay off her campaign debt and/or be forced to take her on as vice-president despite all the dirty tricks and lying. And now we have to listen to all her supporters mimicking her narcissistic behavior, saying that they are going to take their ball and not play nice in November - that should guarantee a setback for abortion rights but do these REALLY care about poor women's right to choose or are they closer in values to the Republican free choicers who always knew they could afford to go elsewhere if denied that choice at home? Katrina here, too, is way to easy on someone who would be pegged as just a tool of big business -- if not for the fact that she is a woman. Now THAT is the big cover-up going on here.

     Posted by Steve1us at 05/27/2008 @ 11:05am

104. Obama and his supporters need to lose in November to learn how to play fair during a primary.

     If Obama gets the nomination, I'm voting McCain. I will not tolerate voter suppression in my own party. The only way the party is going to fix these problems is if a loss forces it to.

     Hillary in 08! If not Hillary, then McCain.

     Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 @ 11:10am

105. >>>That Obamites mastered the Caucus rules better, both in NV and my TX, where HRC also won the Pop votes, automatically mean he's the better candidate for all 300 million of us Americans. Check!

     Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008 <<<

     What this means is Hillary doesn't bother with people or places "she" deems not important. That is not a very good trait for a person who needs to be president of ALL of America. It also shows that she is not capable of mastering all of the details necessary to reach her goals, and as president this could be disastrous for this country!

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:11am

106. well,

     they sure had (have, i might add) a right to be angry.

     but in clinton's case, it is as you say.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 |

     I'll agree to the 'had' but not to the 'have.'

     Done any small business government contracting lately? Read the affirmative action preferences that still permeate. Love the women contractor's who get the contract because they are women and then hire all men because they prefer to work with men. Feminism today is used more for political gain (the selling of anger) than it is for eliminating sexism. Feminists are Reverend Wrights of gender discrimination. Can't argue with the past, but can with the present (as to degree) and the future (as to where we are heading).

     Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 11:13am

107. Exactly, what does it mean to exit gracefully. She should see it to the end. People who are asking her to exit gracefully never wanted her in the race to begin with. She has come too far to quit. It also makes Obama stronger who has been embraced by the left without any questions.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008 @ 11:14am

108. Posted by Steve1us at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     Great point. Feminists Clinton supporters who support because she is a woman are every bit as guilty of sexism as men who won't vote for her because she is woman. I would say that Clinton has more sexist support by a considerable margin than the reverse.

     Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 11:19am

109. It's funny how so many people blame the media whenever their candidate loses.Hillary supporters want everyone to forget that the media played the Wright clip over and over again and that many in the media want her to stay in because their ratings are up,but it's more fun to blame the media for your candidate losing than to blame the candidate..It is interesting,however,that we have Frankgrits admitting that Hillary supporters are finding Bush/McCain to be an acceptable alternative to Hillary.Didn't Frank refer to the GOP,on numerous occasions,as the fascist party?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 11:19am

110. Happy3 -

     The simple fact of the matter is that Obama and his staff out-organized and out-strategized Hillary and hers. Those are actually attributes you do want in a President.

     Posted by libraridan at 05/27/2008 @ 11:20am

111. >>>That Obamites mastered the Caucus rules better, both in NV and my TX, where HRC also won the Pop votes, automatically mean he's the better candidate for all 300 million of us Americans. Check!

     Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008 <<<

     Actually Happy, let me inform you that Texas violated the "Voting Rights Act" by allowing a double vote. The LAW says you cannot vote twice.

     Secondly, Texas violated the "Voting Rights Act" by DISENFRANCHING many, many voters. The law again says that everyone must be given a chance to vote.

     Texas required that everyone MUST BE PRESENT at the CAUCUS in order to participate. You were not allowed to vote early or anything for the CAUCUS. Many senior citizens, handicapped, and people who work evenings were not able to get to the caucus. Therefore, there should have been provisions to get their second vote cast if there was a second vote.

     Finally, Texas started many caucuses LATE and they FORCED the packages out of the hands of Hillary's voters. You have not heard much on this, but there is talk about the DOJ looking into these violations.

     Posted by politicalWatcher at 05/27/2008 @ 11:21am

112. >>>All of us when faced with multiple problems and a deadline (say tests in college or more fittingly, in the workplace or home), will try to solve as many `easy' problems as we can and then tackle the big, hairy and perhaps, non-solvable problems. FL is a piece of cake, no?

     Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008<<<

     And if the RULE is you get an F if you turn in your A essay late, how is it fair to the other students (i.e., other states) if we give you an A after breaking the rules that everyone else followed?

     The answer is we can't give you an A and have the rules mean anything at all. The most we can do is give you a D, a passing grade, and hope this teaches you a lesson about getting your essay in on time!

     We will have CHAOS next time around if there is no penalty for Florida or Michigan. EVERY state will move up next time if they realize there is no penalty for violating the rules. And penalty means the DNC gets to decide how to seat their delegations, not HRC, and it also means they will get something LESS than the outcome of the flawed election result.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:24am

113. <i>If the undecideds wanted Obama, they'd have made their move by now. Hillary still has the chance to convince the supers that she WILL win the general while Obama only MAY win.</i>

     Ridiculous, you are assuming that they would move en bloc when they have shown no propensity to do so heretofore. The pick-up over the April-May period so far has been 90 SD endorsement for Obama and 24 for Clinton (plus a few who have switched from Clinton to Obama). I would love to hear how you expect that to suddenly reverse itself in Clinton's favor.

     <i>Florida and Michigan will be seated and that will automatically move the required delegates to 2200 something. I see Hillary as taking the fight all the way to Denver.</i>

     If they are seated, it's going to be in a manner that won't give a net advantage to anyone (likely an even split of the delegates). As a reminder, Clinton had NO problem with enforcing the no-delegate sanctions against those two states until she suddenly needed them.

     <i>Hillary's supporters are mad as hell at the media and at the Obama camp. There is nothing that Hillary can say that will get them to vote for Obama. McCain is an acceptable alternative to them.</i>

     You are assuming that they all are as juvenile as you are and will remain that way in November.

     <i>Do they give the nomination to Obama and pray that the Hillary people will forgive them</i>

     They have done nothing that requires forgiveness. Further, Clinton is where she is because of her own mistakes, including assuming that she'd have this wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She is also there because Obama has brought in new voters and new donors. She is also where she is because she assumed, as you obviously do, that she is entitled to the nomination.

     <i>On the other hand, A Hillary Clinton Presidency, with the council of an ex-President always present or a McCain Presidency that leaves nothing to chance would be a safe alternative.</i>

     Absolute nonsense. Continuing the Iraq war and possibly starting things up with Iran is a safe alternative? A do-nothing position on the sub-prime collapse is a safe alternative?

     <i> The Iraq war will go on until success. Neither Hillary nor Obama will want to be known as the President who surrendered to Al Qaeda. McCain will see the war through to it's successful conclusion.</i>

     Well now you've truly become a total hypocrite. You were against the war until your son was out of the army but now you're for it. The idea that pulling out is surrendering to al-Qaida is neo-con nonsense. al-Qaida in Iraq overplayed its hand and provoked a Sunni reaction that's crippling it.

     <i>Halthcare will have a better chance under Hillary than either Obama or McCain</i>

     Right, because she did such a good job with it the last time.

     <i> It goes to the convention where Hillary cleans Obama's clock. Bet on it.</i>

     Let's see; you predicted that she'd put it away on Super Tuesday, you predicted that she'd put it away by winning in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc., etc.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/27/2008 @ 11:25am

114. the republican'ts!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 11:27am

115. Here is what would be new and innovative...if Hillary doesn't drop out of the race and goes up against the party that is acting like a bunch of irresponsible, impulsive kids 'high' on the newest drug, Barack Obama. Hillary has just as many backers as BO, they are supporting her because she is real not a fantasy, seasoned not green, brilliant not Kool and will be able to win the GE, which BO cannot. She gets it; the party and BO don't. How about a politician who isn't thinking about tomorrow, but what's Wright for the party. I's call that EGGS which is true dignity. What you suggest is she walk away with her tail between her legs.

     Halli Casser-Jayne http://thecjpoliticalreport.com

     Posted by PolitiHAL at 05/27/2008 @ 11:30am

116. "So enough with the childish accusations. Let's get serious."

     So, you want to get serious? OK. Let's get serious.

     CLINTON LOST. IN FEBRUARY. GET OVER IT.

     Posted by trippin at 05/27/2008 @ 11:34am

117. Posted by brunowe at 05/27/2008

     FRANK either was never that much of a liberal....or he's honest-to-gosh in a state of "cult-like" (as in Stalin cult of personality) hysteria about Hillary.

     So much so that he's coming up with rationalizations for voting for McCain...when what it's REALLY about is...."revenge against Obama for stealing HER nomination".

     Otherwise I can't see how a guy who once posted...

     What part of this sentence don't you understand?: The war in Iraq is a mistake.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2007 @ 12:10am

     FORGET THE WAR, HOUSE GOP WANTS TO CENSURE MOVEON...Posted by John Nichols at 09/10/2007 @ 11:34pm

     What is the reason for our being in Iraq again? I say we pull out starting right now.

     Any comments, wingnuts?----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:19pm

     McCain hitched his wagon to a losing policy proffered by people who really don't know what they're doing. His shortsightedness in this major blunder shows his courage of his convictions but also his lack of vision for the bigger picture. Someone with his military background should know better.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/10/2007 @ 5:35pm

     MCCAIN FACES EXTINCTION...Posted by Ari Berman at 07/10/2007 @ 12:13pm

     "At least John Kerry and John Edwards had the balls to admit it was a mistake. What the hell is holding someone as intelligent as McCain back. He's the last person who should be selling his soul and condemning more kids to die just because of his political ambitions."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/17/2006 @ 6:31pm

     BLOG | Posted 11/17/2006 @ 4:45pm McCain's Misguided Policy by Ari Berman

     Is now saying what he's saying about the war and McCain!?!???

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 11:34am

118. I hear you, loud and clear Katrina, and you are in the league with rest of the media in promoting Obama's theme that he is the nominee.

     So be it! However Clinton made a commitment to to the voters and the voters wanted to see this through.( as in 64%)

     None of the media, including you, is looking beyond, the delegate lead Obama has, which is so small, less than 9%, that there is hardly a mandate for his nomination, except from the media and Barrack himself.

     So I am with the media, Obama is the nominee, and Clinton should finish her commitment to the voters, and support Obama. After all he is super qualified to be commander in chief, has great judgement, (" a bone headed mistake), knows his foreign relations ,and the states of the union, associates with great people (Ayers, Rezko, Wright, to name a few), has the endorsement of Hamas, and most recently wears the flag pin and puts his hand over his heart.

     And everyone of course knows this guy very well...right?

     We are losing a potential great president in Clinton all because of emotion, and that I find very sad indeed.

     Posted by sailcovershot at 05/27/2008 @ 11:43am

119. >>>What you suggest is she walk away with her tail between her legs.

     Halli Casser-Jayne http://thecjpoliticalreport.com

     Posted by PolitiHAL at 05/27/2008<<<

     No, we are only suggesting that she walk away - what she decides to do with her tail is her own business.

     We prefer a wagging tail, as this will be better for the party than a tucked one, but we are smart enough to be able to beat McCain without Hillary Clinton.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:43am

120. >>>We are losing a potential great president in Clinton all because of emotion, and that I find very sad indeed.

     Posted by sailcovershot at 05/27/2008<<<

     Naw, I ain't the emotional type. This is about moving on and moving forward.

     Hillary represents the tired old politics of the past that was all about who you know or how much money you have. We are turning the page on this special interest politics and trying a "novel" idea of making government actually work for the people so governed.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:48am

121. >>>The popular vote should count for something; it's the metric I trust the most. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 <<<

     Maybe it is the metric Hillary Clinton has adopted and pushed to her supporters as the best way to choose the nominee, but it is a false premise and subversive. In a democracy that thrives under the rule of law, the Clinton's can't make up the rules as they go to win. It delegitimizes the process and starts to reek of a rigged election. When you consider the fact that a number of Clinton's surrogates sit on the rules committee and voted to sanction FL and MI, the reckless rhetoric that Hillary Clinton chose to employ when making her case about the FL and MI delegations last week is even more outrageous and deplorable. She is making a mockery out of our democratic process in the most disingenuous way to mold public opinion.

     Furthermore, the popular vote can't be calculated with a shred of validity. Clinton's claim to the popular vote is with the full inclusion of FL and MI, but not allocating any of the MI vote or delegates to Obama, and excludes the caucus states. The caucus is a crucial part of the process. Excluding the caucus states is undemocratic, not the caucus itself as Hillary Clinton asserts. Some primaries were open and some closed. Should this be a consideration? And don't forget that Hillary's popular vote argument includes Puerto Rico which has not voted yet. The popular vote is not used to select the nominee, an indisputable fact.

     Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 11:55am

122. Katrina vanden Heuvel I love your essays. But I think Hillary CLinton raised the issue of gender. I can't imagine Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, or GOlda Meir campaigning the way Sen. Clinton did. Both she and her husband partake too much in the culture of pop psych and forget the deeper issues that produce political leadership. What has always been surprising to me in this primary is how Hillary CLinton has been portrayed as the savior of blue collar white American males. Where has this come from given her history. Oh well, but it seems to me the gender argument breaks down on that count.

     But still love your essays.

     Posted by jwappe at 05/27/2008 @ 11:56am

123. Ignore her. She is as relevant as Ron Paul. He's still in the race, too, but the media doesn't find him quite so fascinating. As long as everyone keeps showing up at Clinton's press conferences, she will keep denying that she is finished.

     Posted by dcoleski at 05/27/2008 @ 12:12pm

124. There are many great women out there who will soon become great presidents; unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

     Posted by John Mehan at 05/27/2008 @ 12:21pm

125. I made a mistake when I accepted the word of a man who, it is now widely accepted (except in FoxLand), lied us into a war that has gravely undermined the US's security?

     Still keeping this line of crap up? It is "widely accepted" because the liberal media keeps saying it over and over again. Of course to KVH there is no liberal media because she is so far left, the media seems neutral to her.

     P.S. It is also widely accepted that we have a liberal media in this country.

     Posted by abell12ct at 05/27/2008 @ 12:23pm

126. Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008

     IMO, you've got the ability to sound logical without being so. In general, around the world you'll find there are more rednecks in the class / group that has the power. Oppressors oppress, withhold, paint their position as reflecting a natural order, as deserved, etc.

     They paint the oppressed as deserving of its one-down status. Those oppressed have to learn the oppressors rules to survive. They don't have the luxury of claiming to be entitled to their fate because they are suffering, and have to work at improving their lot.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 12:36pm

127. Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008

     Sorry, FRANK, don't fly.

     You, like McCain, wanted "more troops"? NOW, you're a convert?

     And it's just a "coincidence" that this "convesion" comes on the heels of Hillary losing the nomination?

     THIS is from slightly less than a year ago....

     "It's hysterical. They actually think that somehow, they're still relevant. Americans are patiently biding their time until 2008 when they can rid the country of the cancer called the republican party once and for all. Rest assured, the wH and the Congress will be democratic for at least the next generation. There's an awful lot of damage that's been done to this country at the hands of the neocons and wingnuts that needs to be rectified. The job starts in January 2009."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/20/2007 @ 11:04pm

     Now, there's either TWO explanations...

     1. You're so pissed about Her Majesty not getting her rightful throne, that you're throwing out your principles of the last several years, in a childish SNIT to go after her "upstart Usurper"...

     or 2. You NEVER WERE the liberal you claimed and were some Republican poser who "talked a good 'progressive' game"...but was "behind enemy lines" trying to foster discontent when 2008 rolled around.

     I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, so I'll go with # 1.....you're acting like a bratty little kid who didn't get something he wanted.

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 12:39pm

128. Posted by abell12ct at 05/27/2008

     Sorry, abell....new Harris poll-

     Percent who believe Iraq is getting better?

     22%

     But on the up-side all of them (plus a very few others) will support the guy who wants "McMore of the Saim".

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 12:41pm

129. BTW, further postings from FRANK...from just EIGHT MONTHS AGO--

     "Do some homework wingnut. It takes 60 votes to override a Dubya veto. We are stuck with this disaster until Hillary takes the oath of office. There are soldiers sitting in some desolate outpost somewhere in Iraq who will be dead before morning.

     They are doomed because of a ridicuolous silly republican seudo president who deserves to be run out of town on a rail. The only thing wrong with the dems successful takeover in '06 is that they didn't win enough seats. 2008 will correct that problem."-----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2007 @ 11:52pm

     Notice his lack of "conversion" to McCain/Bush'ism, when it was going to be HER taking office in 2009!?!??!?

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 12:48pm

130. Convention and election results are certain only in countries like Syria, Iran and former USSR.

     In October of 1948, Newsweek took a poll of the top 50 political journalist pundits in the United States. Every last one of them predicted that Thomas Dewey would be the next president of the United States.

     Harry Truman looked at the Newsweek poll and remarked that he knew every one of those fellows, and not one of them had enough sense to pound sand into a rat hole.

     It seems like nothing much has changed in 60 years, has it?

     Wouldn't it be wiser to let the convention decide what it will decide, and perhaps to reread some of that 1948 commentary from the "experts?" At least, you could borrow some slick lines.

     Posted by amiiss at 05/27/2008 @ 12:49pm

131. Of course not, they just needed the media industrial complex filling their sails and sinking their opponents.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 12:53pm

132. Clinton's----grace----now there are two words that you don't see in the same sentence very often. As far as KVH blaming the boys for messing up Hillary's chances---what's new. KVH has never met an American White Male that she didn't trash in some way. KVH dreams of a testosteron free society. So I will leave you with the soon to be immortal words of Brad Paisley: These days there's dudes getting facials-----with deep spray on tans and creamy lotiony hands----you can't grip a tackle box----Yeah with all these men lining up to get neutered, it's hip now to be feminized----I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair---Yeah honey, I'm still a guy!

     Posted by Len Mosse at 05/27/2008 @ 12:58pm

133. Letting racist, bigoted rednecks vote is unAmerican because they are unAmerican. They weren't unAmerican a few generations back, when blacks were property. But now that American law has progressed (and yes the Dixiecrats were as redneck as they come) they should be screened and sent back to whatever Euroland hill they rolled off.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 12:59pm

134. She's just a little ahead of time, the next time will mast probably be better. it may be that the Americans are not ready-minded yet to get used to that idea of under control of a woman, like Margaret Thatcher or Merkel... Till 2912, Hillary!!!

     Posted by chowkwanlee at 05/27/2008 @ 1:07pm

135. Letting racist, bigoted rednecks vote is unAmerican because they are unAmerican.---winyahn

     I guess you will be the grand inquisitor to decide who is a racist, bigoted redneck and whose not huh!

     It is people like you that make the term liberal fascist make sense.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 05/27/2008 @ 1:10pm

136. yes, please let HRC disappear so the faux progressive BHO can be outed properly!

     the nation: you should be ashamed of your undemocratic, anti-intellectual role in all of this.

     Posted by KJW at 05/27/2008 @ 1:11pm

137. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/27/2008

     So if we lose 10,000 in Iraq we can't leave because "We can't let them die in vain when victory is at hand."

     And if we lose 50,000 in Iraq we can't leave because "We can't let them die in vain when victory is at hand."

     And if we lose 100,000 in Iraq we can't leave because "We can't let them die in vain when victory is at hand."

     And if we lose a MILLION troops in Iraq, we can't leave because "We can't let them die in vain when victory is at hand."

     Right?

     Now, you either can say "No, at SOME point we would have to leave"....OR....claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE (as in beyond all logical rationality) for "victory" to not be at hand upto sending in one million troops for....however many years.

     Your choice of course.

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 1:18pm

138. BTW, it can't go on much past June 3rd (maybe over by the Rule Committee meeting this Sunday).

     So, MAYBE, in less than a week, she'll be done with.

     And we can enjoy FRANK and possibly two other Hillary cultists...and ALL the Republican posers....finally "coming out of the closet" as McCain supporters like they always were....

     and be done with this disengenuous silliness.

     Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 1:20pm

139. Sen. Kennedy challenged Carter at the 1980 Democratic National Convention even though Carter had 2195 delegates and Kennedy only had 1150. Clinton is behind Obama only by 196 delegates. So KvH, where do you get off on telling Clinton she should drop out of the race? You should first take a refresher course on American election history before you open your mouth the next time.

     Posted by mdo10025 at 05/27/2008 @ 1:21pm

140. What a joke. How all of you can even mention Hillary and Feminism in the same breath is incredible. She is the antithesis of everything a feminist should believe in!! What feminist credentials:

     Absolutely NO accomplishments on her own. None. Zip. Nada. Everything she was GIVEN (notice we did not use the word "earned") was due to Bill's success/position.

     A Senate seat in a state she's never lived in? No problem; after all, we're talking Bill's WIFE here.

     The Dem Presidential nomination? Well why not? After all, she LIVED in the White House. Where among other things she was humiliated in front of the world by dear old Bill getting his "sax" blown by a twit of a girl their daughter's age. Yeah real solid feminist traits there. And who has more viciously attacked other women than Hillary? Anyone remember Monica, Jennifer, Paula, etc? Wow, this is the embodiment of feminism is it? This is what you want your daughter to aspire to? GMAFB!!!

     Your cover is blown (bad choice of words when dealing with the Clintons I know)!! As long as it's a Dem in the election you feminists have shown you have NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER!!!

     Hillary?? You go girl. Just watch out for those mean boys. LMAO.

     Posted by liberaldrivel at 05/27/2008 @ 1:31pm

141. Posted by mdo10025 at 05/27/2008

     Irrelevant. Obama is ahead by every ruled metric by this point, and there is zero sleight of hand she could pull that would force Obama to concede. If the nominating process were identical to 1980 you'd have a point. As it isn't (and that will be discussed by poly sci majors for decades now) we go with the mishegas we have.

     And I STILL don't have my three reasons!!!

     Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 1:33pm

142. The people will decide the nomination process -- NOT THE MEDIA.

     We're electing a President, not anointing a Savior. Deal with it.

     Posted by Area504 at 05/27/2008 @ 1:34pm

143. And I'm trying to find your point, honestly. Following Hillary no matter the circumstances is called blind devotion, and I honestly see it more in Hillary supporters than Obama ones. Your so-called point about race is nonsense, nowhere has Obama suggested that we ignore racism. Plus if a half-African-American can't move us beyond the racism of our past, what would?

     Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     yursano, I am not in favor of blind devotion. If there is any blind devotion here, it is on Obama's supporters side who have supported him without asking the tough questions. They have also engaged in hate mongering.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008 @ 1:39pm

144. Hatemongering. Right. Obama has just screamed to the high heavens about how much he hates whitey. Think before you type man. Obama has a myriad of Clinton history he could have used against her that he has chosen not to exploit. Why do you suppose that is?

     Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 1:46pm

145. when victory is at hand.

     Posted by frankgrits

     of course it is.

     just around the corner after the turning point of the benchmark.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 1:52pm

146. Sure seem to be a lot of mean-minded folks on this site - is that going to help anyone?

     Posted by Gail Moore at 05/27/2008 @ 1:58pm

147. Here is what I cannot fathom. The people who vehemently supported Hillary Clinton have stated they will vote against both their own self-interests and their stated principles and vote for Grandpa. Why is this a rational decision when the actual policy differences between Obama and Clinton are about a micron apart?

     Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 2:03pm

148. We are trying to win in Nov. and as has been the case since the first time I was able to vote (1972), the Democratic Party has a bad habit of rallying around a candidate who is not a contender in the general election.

     What's added fuel to the fire this time is that the primary race is so darn close -- and so we can see exposed all the problems with a nominating process that allows someone who loses the popular vote in a state to come out with more delegates (which will not happen in the general) and that blurs the distinctions between pledged delegates and popular will.

     Furthermore, I can tell you that while all the youngsters and hipsters think they are doing something new in supporting Obama, they are actually repeating a very old story -- for in the history of our country whenever we have expanded the electorate and imagined new faces in the inner circles of political power, we have ALWAYS found new men to include and only belatedly and begrudgingly have we admitted women.

     So all of you self-congratulatory "liberals" patting yourselves on the back, think about how old and tired you look to us over here, in a majority, contemplating the emerging reality that to effect real change we may well have to move on -- to a national women's party.

     Posted by MA4HRC at 05/27/2008 @ 3:05pm

149. HAPPY -

     Given Florida was two weeks after Michigan, Obama saw that Clinton was not going to remove her name. My understanding is that under Florida law, Obama could not have removed himself from the ballot unless he withdrew his candidacy, so it is somewhat of a moot point.

     Whether they were on the ballot together or not - neither campaigned there. You cannot consider an "election" where nobody even campaigned to have a tremendous amount of legitimacy, can you? It was a beauty contest and nothing more.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 3:12pm

150. >>Whether they were on the ballot together or not - neither campaigned there. You cannot consider an "election" where nobody even campaigned to have a tremendous amount of legitimacy, can you? It was a beauty contest and nothing more.<<

     Are you seriously trying to say that news from the other state campaigns didn't reach FL and MI and so the choices were not informed? What century are you living in?

     Posted by MA4HRC at 05/27/2008 @ 3:18pm

151. Give it up METT. TAHOE thinks Obama is "gaming the system" yet thinks a vote in PA should count more than a vote in Iowa or Nevada.

     Imagine, all this time and the Clintons could not figure out "the system" - political novices I guess. Just poor simple folk tricked by the crafty political machine of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, the underdog. My how things have turned.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 3:19pm

152. Posted by MA4HRC at 05/27/2008

     This century. Read about why Clinton won so decidedly in West Virginia. Because she campaigned there and Obama did not. Many voters were quoted as saying that Clinton actually came and spoke. They heard her. The flip side happened in Iowa Obama. Not every voter makes their decision on TV coverage. How many people sat at home thinking their vote would not matter. You cannot recreate election results after-the-fact simply because you want a certain outcome. If Clinton wanted the delegates sat, she should have said so beforehand. But, of course she did not. She did not want to upset those in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina or Nevada, right?

     Clinton pledged she would not participate. But that was before she found out that she could not seal things up on Super Tuesday and after the early states had voted. Only when she needed it did she go back on that pledge. Explain that for me. And while you are at it, dig up the Clinton quotes prior to that where she came out against the DNC's decision prior to those earlier states.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 3:32pm

153. The bottom line is after June 3rd, Democrats need to unite like hell and get ready for a long 5 month battle with John McCain and the GOP machine. Divided we fail, united we stand, is freak'n trite but true. The best way to address sexism and racism in this country is by putting a Democrat in the oval office in November!!! Dems need to be on the offensive for the next 5 months and knock McCain, all Bushies, and Karl Rove back on their heels through October. It's going to get nasty real soon and we better not play into Karl Rove's playbook with a divided party. Buck up Democrats - there's real work to be done!!! KvH is right . . . "It is time to for this election to turn to the defining issues."

     Posted by Suibulp at 05/27/2008 @ 3:40pm

154. Posted by Len Mosse at 05/27/2008

     Good point on liberal fascist. Actually, I wouldn't oppose some form of citizenship test in concept, but it's impossible to avoid the same basic problem you raise.

     This would all work itself out a little faster if there were actually a free market across the media space. I can live with you rednecks, just can't stand how capitalism is constrained by the multinationals especially the likes of Bush/Romney insider, private equity group owned Clear Channel and Lockheed/NBC. Totally unAmerican. No I don't claim to have any right to be the 'inquisitor'. As Obama has said, and Roosevelt before him as well, these fascist corporations will be tried in a court of law.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 3:40pm

155. From Hillary's website:

     "The promise of America was very real as Hillary was growing up. She learned that no matter who you are or where you're from, if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could provide a good life for your family."

     It is her inability to play by the rules (that she agreed to!) that has doomed her and the campaign.

     Much better to leave with honor than to leave the Democratic Party in tatters

     Posted by ohio_pediatrician at 05/27/2008 @ 3:46pm

156. Err... by citizenship test I mean a mechanism for making sure voters have some rudimentary grasp of "America"... Same for parenthood, wish there were some way to make sure more pregnancies were a little more planned, realistic, healthy, etc. A top-down license / illegalization sort of idea is obviously a nonstarter. Way too much potential for governmental oppression.

     But I'd be all for private funding of 'responsible citizenship' courses, for ex., aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies in teens. Deliverable in-vivo or interactive websites... Congress could set some real simple guidelines, and set out some limits so there's no crossing of the church/state line. Nonprofits could come up 'best practices' products and compete for approval. Funding could all or mostly private, with some sort of tax incentive for donors.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 3:53pm

157. It is just so funny reading Democrats insisting that people follow the rules.

     And still obsessing about FL in 2000. NewsFlash: FL had rules in place for chads, demos violated them, SCOFLA violated them, SCOTUS precluded SCOFLA (a fitting name) from so violating them. Dems also violated the voting rights (rules) of thousands of overseas Servicemen and women.

     And, oh by the way, four major national and international press organizations did perform complete recounts of FL - and Bush won by more votes each and every time.

     Geez - get a grip on history, read a bit, get over your ideology and understand the rules. BEFORE you complain about people not following them.

     Democrats follow the rules? Like when the people of CA just had their millions of votes overturned by four judges? Those rules? Majority rules? Democracy in action? We talking about the same kind of rules here?

     Your column is really a joke, right? Am I on Candid Camera?

     Posted by ThinkAboutIt at 05/27/2008 @ 3:58pm

158. Well, well Bush fondler lovebirdie McClellan pens:

     "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"

     Nice all around. The Rush-hated, neocon-hated 911 Commission's "failure of imagination" is echoed here as

     "lack of inquisitiveness"

     A lack alive and well as demonstrated by our very own neo's here.

     Though they've quietly toned down the 8 year dittohead mantra-rant that "liberals are unAmerican", they've slipped into a new form of what W-polyp sucking ultra insider McClellan calls a "permanent campaign": it's a "permanent ANTIcampaign": not really for anything, just against all day and night. It's not too sophisticated, pretty much = Obama-is-bad!!

     And boy are the rednecks in Penn, Indy 'n West Virginy responding. Nothing like a simple hate message to keep them goose stepping to Ol' Glory.

     Worked in 2000 and even more remarkably in 2004.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 4:07pm

159. HAPPY3

     clichémachine

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 4:37pm

160. I basically agree with KvH as I see that what was most detrimental for HRC was her "strong and fit to be President from day one" strategy, which was the same old elitist "I know better than anyone because I've been around D.C. for a while". While people don't like Bush, they don't either D.C. politicians talking and not doing anything as well.

     At start point HRC had every possibility to win and she dumped them one by one by playing politics as usual and even playing Republican like..."when the phone rings at 3 am..." that was plain Rep fearmongering...

     Obama on the contrary played the direct and candor card that appealed so fresh to a lot of people, especially the youth. Until the race and pastor issues came along which were very much exploited by HRC: "Blue collar WHITE workers vote for me..."..."I would have known better to have a pastor like that for 20 years..." creating a divide in the Dem party taking along with her the conservative Dems of Ohio and Pennsylvania

     I don't think there was really those sexist comments. I sense intuitively that KvH feels almost obligated to talk about them because of gender "solidarity". I truly think that Matthews or Olbermann were really biased towards Obama basically by the same reasons I am, i.e. his message is much more convincing while she seems too forced and not authentic aligning herself with "real politics" (or must I say with the forceful positions or the "sensed winners") as when she voted for the Iraq war.

     I believe finally that HRC is at crossroads. On one side she still thinks she has a weigh in this her life time opportunity clinging to her 10% chance; on the other in her intimacy she knows its over, and can't understand why and would like to be dignified through a golden exit. The problem is that her Hamlet type doubts (and previous attacks on Obama) are paying a toll in the party's possibilities in November.

     Posted by Frank42 at 05/27/2008 @ 5:01pm

161. >>>As an American, if your Party can't bring justice to the MILLIONS OF VOTERS in those BIG states, your Party deserve to lose in the first landslide of this century! Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008 | <<<

     It wasn't until fairly recently that all the states participated in the primary. In the 1968 primary, the example Hillary Clinton likes to cite as a long primary, only 13 states participated. The primary is not the general election. In fact, most people don't pay attention to Primaries and even less participate. This has been a Clinton PR spin driven with the help of hyper media. FL and MI would not be an issue if Clinton had not made it one.

     There are rules in the primary for democratic reasons. Smaller states go first to give candidates an even playing field to campaign. Large states with large delegations go last because it gives those voters time to get to know the candidates. If we base elections on name recognition, it wouldn't matter, but we don't because it isn't in the spirit of democracy. Our process promotes democratic values by encouraging lessor known but good people to toss in their hat.

     This was a delegate contest and Obama won following the rules that all the candidates agreed to and fully understood. Now Clinton wants to change the rules to win the nomination. This is undemocratic and an example of the type of elections conducted in totalitarian regimes.

     At this point, I would rather lose with Obama and protect our dangerously weak democracy, than win with a person willing to ignore the rules and displays a flagrant contempt for our democratic process. This is the type of conduct we witnessed these past eight years from the Bush administration and recently Karl Rove. These are people who refuse to comply with the law. It is scary.

     What kind of president will Hillary make if she is not even willing to respect the nomination process? How can we possibly expect her to govern honestly or comply to the rule of law?

     No thank you. I want to salvage our democracy not destroy it.

     Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 5:49pm

162. I find this article to be exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party. Arrogance. As an inspired democrat, I am ashamed that we might lose yet another election because we have become the party of quitters. I have watched,dismayed, at the American media and their not-so-subtle attempts to call this election. Answer me this...what is so wrong with Hillary Clinton. What is wrong with running a tough campaign? What is wrong with wanting to come in first place? What is wrong with "having a plan?" What is wrong with debating? For all the talk of 'Change," Obama has embraces the establishment. But katrina will not report on that. I don't here Katrina, in this the year of "Change," calling for Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Byrd and the rest of the members of congress to step aside. Why is this pattern of Change just directed at the White House? Do you honestly believe, as Katrina would have us, that A new politician will be able to lead and direct the ambitions of Pelosi,Kennedy, Reid and the others? Bill Clinton could not do it in '93 and it cost the democrats control of congress. For all the talk of inspiration of Obama...that might just not be enough. For the record...I am educated. I am not a racist. I love to drink lattes from StarBucks and I don't shop at Wal-mart. Hillary Clinton inspires me. She has inspired me to believe that i can do anything. She has inspired me that my country is ready. She has made me very proud and she is not even my senator. She plays politics. So does everyone else. I met her. I think she is brilliant. I think that the media has chosen to make race an issue...not her. I think the record she has had for 35 years should inspire us all. I appreciate a woman or man who will risk everything in the name of their country. Maybe she has an ego. But anyone that runs for office has an ego. I for one do not believe this hurts the party. Howard Dean created this mess. We have become the party of "everyone gets a gold star just for showing up." That is great in kindergarten. But is not how you run a nation. The will of the people is not in the delegate math. Shame on you Katrina for not doing your job and reporting that fiasco. I live in Texas. Hillary Clinton won my a comfortable margin. Obama left the state with more delegates. Tell me how that is the will of the people. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote...by ALL definitions that is the "will" of the people. If the media wants to shed their bias, when this is all said and done, they should start pulling for a unity ticket. Second, the media, including Katrina, should stop playing the race card. Third, before the last primary, the media should report on how delegates are chosen. They are not based on votes. They are based on how favorable an area is to democrats. That has nothing to do with the "will" of the people. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. But Bush won the electoral college and became President. You won't find one article by the media,including Katrina, that says Bush was elected by the will of the people.

     So in all fairness, let's start reporting the real story. LEt's tell the people that we count all the votes. Let's not tell thepeople of West Virgina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas and Ohio that they are less of Americans but they have not bought into the Obama rhetoric. Let's stop calling Clinton supporters racists. I love my candidate. She is my candidate because she has a specific plan. She tells me how she will pay for it. That is leadership. She has a 35 year record on leadership. Exactly what do you want to change?

     Posted by Gabe32 at 05/27/2008 @ 5:56pm

163. Fellow Hillary supporters, Obama and his surrogates, like this author, can't seem to treat Hillary, or us, with respect. Therefore, I suggest that if Obama manages to steal the nomination, we vote McCain in November. Obama doesn't deserve our support, and then we can elect Hillary in 2012.

     Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 @ 6:12pm

164. There has been much deserved criticism leveled at Senator Clinton, but it is not directed at her supporters. I respect Senator Clinton's supporters and understand they want her to win. The corporate media does a great job fueling division with words like elitism, educated, blue collar, black, white. It's a shame that this primary has disintegrated into hostility and confusion.

     I don't believe this division was an accident. It has placed a cloud over the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. And, I believe this was intentional to keep Obama distracted and tired while casting doubts on his legitimacy as the democratic nominee.

     It is all so heartbreaking. I feel defeated, frustrated, angry, and cynical, instead of excited and hopeful. I thought we had a chance to reverse the culture war that has been waged against liberal ideas and intellectual thought by the right wing propaganda machine. I thought we could restore the values that once made this country great. Who am I kidding?

     We have lost more than a presidency. We have lost our ideals our values. The idea of America is quietly slipping into the memory hole. The corporate power structure is too entrenched to allow democracy. Clinton wins even if she never becomes president.

     Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 6:42pm

165. <i> Obama doesn't deserve our support, and then we can elect Hillary in 2012.

     Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person </i>

     And if Obama supporters return the favor in 2012?

     Posted by brunowe at 05/27/2008 @ 7:00pm

166. As a 2x Bill Supporter and avid Defender of both through out th e'90's I was thrilled when she won her Senate Seat. I was immediately upset with her Iraq vote, then nearly every vote there after which stayed in step w/ this admin.In fact I seemed to notice a marked change after her 'Luncheon ' with W. Had she been Crowned Then- was that her Coranation,had she agreed to' Play Ball' withthe scarecrows? I had thought had she run in '04 I would have still supported her- I'm glad she did not. Her campaign, her tactics , her lies, her drama queen antics have revealed MY misguidance in my support- not just for her, but also my years of loyality to Bill. Her recent statements of "obliterating Iran" sent shivers down my spine- I no longer just disliked her, nor respected her_ I Feared Her. Then came her comments- cold, calculating and UnApologetic regarding RFK. That was not misconstrued by the media, there were far less emotionally charged examples she could have used to illustrate her point ( she failed as ususally to admit RFK only started in March of '68 and this campaign has been going on for a Year) Her lack of insight suggests she doesn't care what the statement would invoke, or she lacks the intellectual and emotional connection to Run this country- Stupid, wishful thinking or...a Request? I ,at this point think the last- She did not even botherr to apologize for how it could have been taken and it's effect on the Obama Family-reconfirming my suspecions. She has caused an undue division in the Dem party, again I think intentionally. The goals of the counterculture of the DLC have Ruined our last few chances at the WH run. This 'secret club' has acted much like the Neo Cons Blue arm- and Real Ol' School Dems can smell the Corp Stench all over them. It is time Hillary not only bow out of the Race- but the DLC come out from the shadows, form their own party.They do not share the basic principles of the Democratic Base. there are No 'Reagan Democrats'-never have been and by getting rid of the DLC NEVER WILL BE.She has been a disgrace to women, to the Dem party and the Nation.After 26 yrs of breing a loyal Dem if she appears on the Nov ballot- in any form, I will Never Vote Democrat Again

     Posted by Purple girl at 05/27/2008 @ 10:05pm

167. Will someone please call Mrs. Clinton a cab? I think she has had enough.

     Posted by Peter Kaufm at 05/27/2008 @ 10:13pm

168. Hillary "gets it"??

     Gets what?

     Hard working white people. Obliteration. Assassination. Media cover-up.

     What will she (& Bill) "get" next?

     One shudders to imagine.

     Fatigued, you say, that's all?

     In that case, she clearly can't take the heat & should exit the kitchen.

     Now.

     Since a VP or cabinet slot has been made impossible by the Clintons' behavior, what could she possibly be waiting for?

     A cash pay off? Say, enough to replenish her personal outlay of $11 million plus?

     That would be extortion, a crime very much in character with the TV roles both Clintons chose to play in their ad last fall, Tony & Carmela Soprano.

     The Clintons get it, all right. All the way to the bank.

     Posted by sloper at 05/27/2008 @ 10:28pm

169. There is an interesting piece on the CNN site by Roland Martin http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/roland.martin/index.html. He says Clinton is planning a fight to the finish, without scrupule, and he might just be right. Martin's comments brings back the memory of Cassandra, the Obama advisor who had to resign because she called described Clinton as a "monster". I am being facetious, of course, but her characterization might after all prove to be apt.

     Posted by mikhailovich at 05/27/2008 @ 10:57pm

170. >>Read about why Clinton won so decidedly in West Virginia. Because she campaigned there and Obama did not. <<

     Your own conclusions so far as I can tell. Obama skipped WV because he knew he was going to lose and he likes to distance himself from loss. I think that -- more than appeasement to IA and NH -- led him to remove his name from the MI ballot ... he thought that this was a loss he could skip altogether.

     As for TV being the only recourse ... well, the debates were best on TV -- but there was also plenty to read ... unless you are trying to insinuate the voters in some states don't bother.

     I can't buy the argument that the opinion of voters in a state don't matter because candidates didn't appear in the state. It's a nice argument for Obama supporters, but it doesn't do much for the general election.

     Frankly, I think this nomination process is showing all its cracks and contradictions. It's set up to give all a voice ... and yet when it continues for "too long" people want to shut it down.

     An easy way to shut it down would have been to use the Republican winner-take-all system ... but no one wants to go there because that would have meant that Hillary would have had the nomination secured ages ago.

     Posted by MA4HRC at 05/27/2008 @ 11:02pm

171. She should have dropped out after North Carolina. Frankly, its been obvious since Super Duper Tuesday that Barack Obama was going to be the nominee, and that horrible person wasn't (I can't call her a horrible woman, apparently, for fear of being denounced as pro-rape, or something).

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 05/28/2008 @ 12:01am

172. No one knows which way Hillary Clinton will go. It is a tough decision. She and her husband are steeped in the effort to remain in positions of influence, wealth and power for nearly 30 years. This creates a deep root for better or worse.

     Likewise, all the prejudices we, the members of the public share: racism, sexism, ageism for example, are deeply rooted too.

     That is why I find the Obama campaign so revolutionary in a Velvet Revolution sort of way - nonviolent, reflective rather than reactionary and humanistic.

     It is time.

     We Americans are ready for a transformative change.

     Yes. We. Can.

     Posted by peacelovepossible at 05/28/2008 @ 12:11am

173. "<b>If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote...by ALL definitions that is the "will" of the people</b>"

     I am so tired of this ridiculous cannard. The so-called "popular vote" is just a sum total of all the primary states. Don't the caucus states have any input into determining the "will of the people?" Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton won (barely) the Nevada caucus, while Barack Obama won each and every single other caucus, often by margins of 3-1 and 4-1, even 5-1 in Idaho? When caucus attendees are counted as voters, as they obviously should be, then the so-called "popular vote" shifts dramatically, and it turns out that way, way more people voted for Barack Obama than for Hillary Clinton. If anything, he's been robbed by the process, and should have a substantially bigger pledged delegate lead than he does presently.

     Enough already with the self-serving lies from the Hillarious Rotten Klinton camp. Please just go away.

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 05/28/2008 @ 12:13am

174. People want it shut down because she can't win. She can't win without changing the rules to win or to put it more bluntly, without cheating. This is beyond absurd at this point. The only thing Hillary Clinton has accomplished by drawing out a process that she already lost is to divide the party, undermine Obama's legitimacy, and prevent Obama from focusing on the fight against McCain. She is damaging the party, our presumptive nominee, and our chances to win in November. McCain has had a vacation while Clinton knee caps the party. It makes people wonder whose side she is on.

     Even if Clinton managed to steal this nomination, I don't think she can win in November. I would argue that she has made herself unelectable during this brutal primary. Enough is enough.

     Posted by SandyFeet at 05/28/2008 @ 01:07am

175. Hillary Clinton went for broke and came up snake-eyes!

     She pushed the limit and crossed the line so often that she has completely dashed any hopes of a VP nod. That's over. DONE.

     Any hope of a dignified retreat by the Clintons is long since lost. That's what happens when you decide to put all your eggs in one basket, throw caution to the wind and disregard the consequences.

     She let the chips fall and paid the price. It's that simple. After burning all her bridges it's going to be a long road back, if she can make it at all.

     Hillary Clinton's campaign was not the first to be demolished by reckless ambition and self-conceit, nor will it be the last.

     Oh, well. There's always book deals and the Governorship of New York. ;-)

     Posted by CrushInfamy at 05/28/2008 @ 01:19am

176. If ANYBODY has any doubts that our recent spate of H.T.O.T.D.s on this thread are NOT Republican posers....

     "Therefore, I suggest that if Obama manages to steal the nomination, we vote McCain in November. Obama doesn't deserve our support, and then we can elect Hillary in 2012."-----Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008

     RQ (and whoever ELSE he may be) isn't "another FRANKGRITS".....he/she was NEVER going to vote for anybody but McCain....bet on it.

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 01:25am

177. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

     I've got an even better idea. Stick to what was decided and don't count the delegates at all. You know - "You go with the election you have"! Well, that's what it was and this was the hand dealt. And, you don't have to tinker with polls, math equations, etc.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 01:33am

178. Posted by MA4HRC at 05/27/2008

     Fact is, this is what was decided in advance. Florida and Michigan knew this was threatened and they tried to call the DNC's bluff. None of the candidates complained then. You need to stick by the rules - not change them when you need to. Clinton is the one trying to change the rules. Not Obama.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 01:36am

179. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     Frank, they did nothing wrong, true, but Florida's votes would have counted if their state government had not tried to jump the order. Florida knew what was threatened and did it anyway. If anyone in Florida is mad it should be at their own state government for making such a foolish move.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 01:44am

180. Therefore, I suggest that if Obama manages to steal the nomination, we vote McCain in November. Obama doesn't deserve our support, and then we can elect Hillary in 2012.

     Posted by RQty53

     sure thing, republican't.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:57am

181. Frankgrits-As you know,the peoples votes have been counted so why did you make it up that they haven't been?You sound more like a ditto head than any ditto head on the planet.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 01:57am

182. I no longer just disliked her, nor respected her_ I Feared Her.

     by purple girl.

     as you should.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:58am

183. bet on it.

     Posted by Mask

     that's funny.

     i hadn't seen your post and the exact same thing occurred to me.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 01:59am

184. especially in Florida? I didn't think so.

     Posted by frankgrits

     why "especially"?

     boooooooo.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:01am

185. There's always book deals and the Governorship of New York. ;-)

     Posted by CrushInfamy

     i wonder what kind of insults she has ready for the blind guy.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:02am

186. Who else has access to everyone's old posts?

     by frankgrits.

     i do.

     it's called google. watch:

     •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

     Does anybody beside me agree that it's time to bring the troops home to defend our OWN country? Especially the Guard!

     Posted by frankgrits at 07/7/2005

     How to Fight Terrorism posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 07/07/2005 @ 1:31pm

     •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

     ta da!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:06am

187. Did you forget the hatred the right had of Bill Clinton. All that impeachment nonsense while AQ was plotting to attack us. Oh my God he got a hummer in his office. How many of you Bushies are doing the samr thing every day. Give me a break. Boy we can sure use his statesmanship now. We'll have to wait another three and a half years to get him back in the White House. I hope we still have a country left by then. Wake up and smell the coffee, the drink it.

     Posted by frankgrits at 07/7/2005

     ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

     i think it's going to be a longer wait.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:08am

188. here's a classic:

     No, Vietnam wasn't wrong, only the anti-war protesters, the commies,the media, and Nixon for giving in to them. We weren't losing in 'Nam, we just chose to lose to the commies and the anti-war folks, all whom I have yet to forgive.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/25/2005

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:13am

189. I say let the Iraqi people fight it out amongst themselves. That's what it will come to anyway and would have whether we invaded or not.

     Posted by frankgrits at 10/25/2005

     you seem to have changed your mind.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:14am

190. As for the large number of Hillary haters out there, there are just as many if not more Clinton lovers. We don't have to worry about her being a polarizing figure.

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/9/2005

     are you sure?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:19am

191. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     Yes, FRANK...it's called a "Search engine"...Do you still have "12:00" flashing on your VCR? Matter of act, do you still HAVE a VCR and not a DVR?

     LOL

     As for who's a liar....who here is QUOTED from less than a year ago, saying he opposed the Iraq occupation and less than two years ago saying anybody who opposed pulling out IMMEDIATELY was a "wingnut"...

     but SUDDENLY, upon the demise of Hillary's chance for the Oval, gets "coverted" to becoming a neo-con and supporting John McCain and "four more years"?

     Like I said, FG...it's possible that you were ALWAYS a Republican...but kinda doubt it.

     I think you're just an old man, acting like a six year old, who's decided that "If McCain wins, Hillary can run against him in 2012...but if that Upstart 'mulatto' wins...she's finished, as she'll be too old in 2016 and Obama's Veep will be presumptive nominee...plus he deserves to be punished...

     and the troops be damned, if it means McCain wins!"

     You're worse than a liar, FRANK....you're an UNCARING liar...willing to continue the war, over a female POLITICIAN you idolize.

     THIS guy, never would have...

     "There are soldiers sitting in some desolate outpost somewhere in Iraq who will be dead before morning. They are doomed because of a ridicuolous silly republican seudo president who deserves to be run out of town on a rail."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2007 @ 11:52pm

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 02:39am

192. BTW: that blind NY guv may challenge HRC for her senate seat in '12. She's made herself oh so vulnerable in NY. And Albany can be oh so tedious compared to the Senate club & the DC spotlight & no admin responsibilities.

     Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 03:06am

193. Posted by Gabe32

     I do hope they're paying you well for this flim flam.

     your post has more lies in it than a press conference by McLellan.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 03:24am

194. >>>I believe the media distorted it because they like Obama, not because they are sexist, but they definitely distorted it.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 05/28/2008<<<

     It is not much of a distortion to simply report that Hillary Clinton used RFK's assassination in June as "part" of her rationale for staying in the race.

     Hillary is a professional politician and knows that her words will be scrutinized. Given the wide range of non-RFK examples she could of used, I think it was deliberate, but foolish.

     That assassination comment certainly would take her off the VP shortlist in my humble opinion.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2008 @ 03:39am

195. I always believed that the purpose of the convention was to choose the candidate and solidify the platform. Obviously, in the era of mega-media, that has changed. The Nation is apparently joining Time, Newsweek and the talking heads of ABC and NBC, by declaring they think Clinton's bid is done. From what I see, it isn't. She has won more votes overall (and the larger states as well) and she owes her supporters her best effort with influencing the democratic platform for the general election if not continuing on to fight for victory. The process is called a democratic election and the efforts to derail it here are ironic.

     Posted by Tahoedreamer at 05/28/2008 @ 03:48am

196. Tahoedreamingrepublican-Hillary has not won more votes nor does democracy have anything to do with the way that the democrats run their primaries.Please,get informed.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 12:23pm

197. One of the early soundbytes circulated about Clinton was that she was so smart.

     I never thought she was smart, in fact she is a rather common, unremarkable woman, and those, aside from the DLC hanger-oners are exactly who rally to her in turn.

     She is mediocre at best, shallow, tonedeaf, and coarse at worst.

     Her biggest asset? She knows no shame.

     Posted by Lil at 05/28/2008 @ 12:45pm

198. >>>She has won more votes overall (and the larger states as well) and she owes her supporters her best effort with influencing the democratic platform for the general election if not continuing on to fight for victory. The process is called a democratic election and the efforts to derail it here are ironic.

     Posted by Tahoedreamer at 05/28/2008<<<

     She only wins more overall votes if you DON'T COUNT all of the caucus states! Talk about disenfranchisement!

     She also wants to count her popular votes in Michigan while ignoring Barack's popular vote in this state since his name was not on the ballot.

     Given these shenanigans with Hillary's math, no one in the mainstream press or any thinking person is buying into her popular vote lead claim.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2008 @ 12:54pm

199. Hey, HAPPY, does your embrace of the "will of the people" translate to the electoral college and the 2000 election?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 12:55pm

200. Hillary has not won more total votes overall. That is nonsense. As METT points out, to get to that conclusion you have to really cook the books.

     And using polls now to try to predict the general election is way too premature. The general is months away. Obama has been taking his lumps courtesy of Hillary and the fact that McCain wrapped things up months ago. Hillary's supporters will be given the time to lose their grief and anger, and frankly, wise up. In any event, if you look at polling trends over the past few weeks, Obama has actually overtaken McCain in the "electoral" polls. Once it is Obama vs. McCain, Obama's lead will only increase.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:01pm

201. Wouldn't the SANER elements of the true Hillary supporters be a LITTLE suspicious of all this "help" they're getting from right-wingers like HAPPY!?!?!?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 1:02pm

202. BTW...

     "I always believed that the purpose of the convention was to choose the candidate and solidify the platform."----Posted by Tahoedreamer at 05/28/2008

     Then, why have primaries? and RULES for primaries?

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 1:03pm

203. With each issue, I become more and more disappointed with the Nation and its infatuation with Obama mass movement. Do you really think you're about to be ushered into some chiliastic paradise by this demagogue and his screaming kids??

     Posted by Spengler47 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:08pm

204. HAPPY -

     I am not here to defend the DNC. I think they handled it poorly, but what was decided was decided. Clinton is trying to go back and change the rules. And your defense of her along with every other conservative troll on this board who, in any other situation absolutely hates her guts, is immediately suspect.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:09pm

205. And HAPPY, for a party that had to settle on their third "savior" after Rudy and Fred failed miserably, you shouldn't throw stones at the Democrats.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

206. As for Mask, don't take him too seriously. He's a liar and he deserves no respect. He proven that over and over again. If you weren't such an Obama freak yourself, you'd be able to see things clearly. Thats what happens when you drink the koolade. Off to work.

     Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     Frank...I don't think Mask works for The Nation.....as I recall, he takes on The Nation's journalists quite often, including KVH. KVH is pretty liberal, but I doubt she would pay Mask to denigrate and challenge her opinions. This sounds like more Clinton conspiracy theories! As to lying, well....lofty prose in support of Clinton and her virtues and her progressiveness is now replaced with "I am gonna vote for McCain." I think Mask's point is, that you trully don't give a crap about a progressive agenda...rather you are here to shill for Clinton.....and you would sell out your ideals, or alternatively lie about them, just to spite Obama supporters. Remember...inconsistency is one of the hallmarks of a liar.

     As I recall, I supported Edwards, but alas, that option is not available. So, I chose what I thought to be the second best candidate with a chance...that being Obama. There are certainly things about Obama that I don't like, but I do respect his consistency this campaign, and pretty commendable sticking to the high road. I have no idea of how he will be as President and whether he will make good on his promises and word. His story is inspirational and he and wife are remarkable. Lets give them a try. We know what we are going to get with Clinton....just more of the same.

     I think the ball is in your court Frank to tell us how you went from being a progressive against the war to a conservative in support of the war. We await your answer not your insults.

     Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 1:16pm

207. The Caucuses and superdelegates, etc.....are NOT!

     The Demo Party, in its perpetual chase for PC, dreamed up its own Primary BS......result: Chaos, and not the first time!

     Posted by HAPPY3

     The GOP has caucuses, they have their own version of superdelegates, and the RNC also penalized MI, FL and WY for jumping the gun.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:17pm

208. An excellent column. Please forward to Senator Clinton.

     Posted by David1 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:29pm

209. Katrina, you are wrong. You cannot ignore 8 years of successful presidential experience (yes, I am inclulding Bill) and Hillary's experience in tough New York. You are trading all that experience for an unknown, professorial-speaking (hypotheticals reign), inexperienced, arrogant mouthpiece who has been given financial backing by some rich people with axes to grind, I think-George Soros and Oprah seem to be the most likely. The Republicans want Obama in there because they will beat him soundly. To point out Bush and Cheney's lies is kid's stuff but I appreciate that you were earlier than most. This, however, is more of the same-wishful thinking with an elitist liberal-It will never work and we will lose again. Check out the battleground voting, particularly recent polling. Hillary wins against McCain. You are backing a loser with some very questionable motives, origins, friends, an unknown, in otherwords, with some lofty aspirations, supposedly. I am 64 and have seen this before. You and the dippy college kids and racist blacks have let your emotions rule-It sounds all too familiar-as in Bush being elected 2 terms by evangelicals and one-issue voters, except for one exception, BO will lose the adult, white vote, and we will be looking at military rule again, thanks to you and your dogmatic belief that the general public thinks a lot, which they do not. I used to respect Nation-no more-your arrogance is showing.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 1:31pm

210. If Hillary's vote for war authorization predicated on more weapons inspectors has you indignant and "fearful," I don't see how Obama's betrayal of his "courageous" 2002 anti-war speech with the self-same lock-step war funding votes and "I don't know how I would have voted if I'd had any responsibility, which of course I didn't" spiel wins you over. His war stance is a fairy tale. Instead of owning up to this reality, the BHO campaign cried "foul" and "racist" by taking this criticism and smearing it over their entire campaign. Every criticism is a vicious attack. Every attack is designed to divide us. To counter these attacks, everyone must vote for Barack, cuz he's a uniter. What total B.S.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 1:42pm

211. I've read these posts until my head aches, and being a democrat has never given me a headache - until now. I was a John Edwards supporter ( and still am). Bill Clinton was MY president - no regrets. I was and am proud of Hillary for taking on the "boys" and for being our first female candidate for president. However, I cannot believe that there is one single democrat out there, regardless of who they want to win the nomination, that has the gall or audacity to say, whether or not they really will, they will vote for John McCain if their nominee doesn't win the primary. That is beyond any rational thought I could come up with. For those of you who are thinking this way, get a grip, we can't afford to have another republican in the office and you damn well know it. Being a democrat means you tend not to think like "everyone else", but it doesn't mean you don't THINK! If any of us are reading the country correctly, either democrat can beat the hell out of grandpa McCain, and should have the full support of those of us who call ourselves "the party".

     Posted by AuntBec at 05/28/2008 @ 1:45pm

212. The Republicans want Obama in there because they will beat him soundly.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008

     Untrue. If it were. There would be no need for "Operation Chaos" and Republicans crossing over to vote Clinton. The so-called electability of Clinton is "fools gold" enabled by Republicans who know full-well they are going to have a serious turnout problem.

     If you and other Clinton supporters don't want to lose again, then I hope you will get on board with Obama after he gets the nomination.

     And if you want to rely on polls, look at usaelectionpolls.com. The trend favors Obama (as it has for nearly every poll taken in the run-up to individual primaries) and he is now "ahead" of McCain. What it shows is that Obama closes quite well, and the more that people are exposed to him when it is Obama against McCain, the more his numbers will improve.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:46pm

213. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     When did Obama or his campaign ever cry "racist?"

     You are making things up.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:47pm

214. Read on:

     Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton

     http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c2 68b304

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 1:49pm

215. The BO campaign takes any criticism leveled at it, adds water, mixes in some of its own dirt, stirs it around, then spreads it all over their faces and says, "Look at what they are doing to me!" So much for honest engagement and a new kind of politics. BO is just another politician with a thinner resume who's always looking for another job.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 1:54pm

216. Yes! The EC was set up from Day 1 and a bedrock of the uniquely American political system.

     Posted by HAPPY3

     and so obviously functioning well.....

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:55pm

217. "I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." -- Barack Obama, November 2004

     http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/02/obamas_hearing/

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 1:57pm

218. Bill Clinton was MY president - no regrets.

     AuntBec

     that's a subprime assessment.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:58pm

219. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     Please. You will have to do better than that. The Clintons injected race into the equation. Obama responded. So it is ok for Clinton to allude to race, dance around it, and in many cases directly comment on it, but Obama cannot even discuss it or he is calling everyone "racist?"

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:59pm

220. Exactly wrong. The BHO strategy is to hypersensitize race, so that any opponent who mentions its existence can be attacked, and any and all discussion of issues can be shut down.

     http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch4.html

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 2:03pm

221. Nothing wrong with Clinton crying "sexist" though, huh?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:07pm

222. When debate moderators single her out to ask her such relevant questions as, "Why aren't you more likeable?" -- no.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 2:08pm

223. Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008

     FRANK latched onto that "MASK works for 'The Nation'" thing and won't let it go. His theory being that "NOBODY but somebody on the payroll at 'TN' could possibly have started keeping track of his posts"....

     again, think it's as simple as ...he's an older fellow and not familiar with some of the "newfangled technology of the old Internets" (think Bush and "the Google").

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:13pm

224. BTW, let's clear up this little lie too...

     Newest Zogby....Obama beats McCain by TEN POINTS (including CRAB's guy Ralph and Bob Barr in the mix).

     Hillary and McCain would be virtually TIED!

     Explain that HRC Cultists and Repub allies?

     http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1511

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:17pm

225. Newest Gallup -- Clinton over McCain by 4 points; McCain over Obama by 1 point.

     http://www.gallup.com/poll/107548/Gallup-Daily-McCain-46-Obama-45.aspx

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 2:20pm

226. Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage

     In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

     http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage. aspx

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 2:23pm

227. ooh,

     battling poll dancers!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:41pm

228. Stay Hillary...give them hell.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 05/28/2008 @ 2:51pm

229. Hman23- I appreciate your civil reply. BO calling himself a Democrat does not impress me. I am not a knee-jerk Democrat any longer. To be honest, in the shape this country is in, I would rather vote for someone with about 10 times the experience that BO has (not that I am necessarily voting for McCain), plus the fact I do not trust him. I think he is a black Tony Robbins who does well lecturing groups but not so well in debates. The 9-1 black vote bothers me a lot, as they are voting on the color of one's skin. And college kids? I really think the majority of them don't know what the H is going on. Without these votes, he would not be where he is. 9-1 voting has nothing to do with critical thinking. I appreciate your loyalty to the Democrats and there is a chance BO is an OK guy. But that does not mean he can deal effectively with congress, international leaders, oil Cos., Corporations, M-I complex, the economy, etc. etc. I live in Reno and I am a gambler and I would bet against it. That poll you cited sounds pretty one-sided. Check out Real Clear Politics and I will check out the one you are citing. Thanks.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 3:06pm

230. And college kids? I really think the majority of them don't know what the H is going on.

     wlgator

     and how many "adults" do?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:27pm

231. Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008

     But don't you think America is tired of these guilt-by-association attacks that don't lower the price of gas or food, provide affordable healthcare regardless of one's health condition, or restore this country's standing in the world?

     We have done the Karl Rove divisive thing for several election cycles. I think America is ready to be united for a change from Washington politics as usual that is all about special interests and their influence rather than doing the public's business.

     McCain was part of the Keating 5 for a reason, and I think EVERYONE is going to learn what this reason is during this campaign and why John McCain is a relic of the past rather than what America needs to move forward.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2008 @ 3:30pm

232. Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 |

     Yep...the old and familiar is just fine with Frank (likely the basis of his wanting to bring back the Clinton years, howver jaded). Golly, imagine someone could keep track of his posts with just a copy and paste. Or how about that archive search function. Those doggone Internets....they can be dangerous!

     Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 3:40pm

233. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     And not my point, TAHOE (not really, FROSTY)...

     My point was this lie that "ONLY Hillary beats McCain, Obama CAN'T"...is easily disproven with atleast Zogby (if not others).

     Sure it's possible that McCain can beat him....but it's also possible (aka the Zogby poll) that McCain can beat Hillary.

     But it's not a "given", that "Obama CAN NOT beat McCain" and there's polling that "proves" it.

     BTW....Newsweek 46-46 McCain vs. Obama.

     Investors Business...48-37 Obama over McCain

     Geo. Washington Univ...Obama wins "if you must choose", McCain wins in "leaning to".

     Quinnipiac (my fave)...Obama wins 47-40

     ABC/Wash Post....51-44 Obama

     LA Times/Bloomberg...46-40 Obama

     CBS News/NY Times....51-40 Obama

     USA Today/Gallup....48-47 McCain

     Fair sampling, Tahoe???

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 3:43pm

234. McCain was part of the Keating 5 for a reason, and I think EVERYONE is going to learn what this reason is during this campaign and why John McCain is a relic of the past rather than what America needs to move forward.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     Isn't our war hero just amazing! The Savings and Loan Crisis cost taxpayers billions upon billions, and beneficiaries of the government bailout are sitting in their tax havens in the Carribean sipping on gin and tonics, watching their portfolios, and laughing at us. Now McCain is at it again. When are we going to tack back our Government. We are getting screwed while these bastards are getting rich. What a frickin national disgrace.

     Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 3:45pm

235. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     FRANK, now fully onboard the Republican/neo-con train with his "Look at Obama's Memorial Day speech" line.

     Already saw this GOP talking point over on some other blogs with OTHER McCain supporters (actually just Obama opponents...quite few actually talk up McCain).

     BTW, FRANK, how many troops will you sacrifice for your Dark Queen under a McCain Presidency if....just hypothetically...he doesn't "win" the war in Iraq in the next 4 years?

     Or is it the day AFTER McCain wins, you revert back to OLD FRANK and start talking about ending the war and....tah-dah....GUESS WHO will be running in 2012 to "end it"?!!?!?!??!

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 3:48pm

236. Posted by libzsuck at 05/28/2008

     Well then by god Mask keep up the good work. Glad somebody is paying attention and trying to keep em honest.

     Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 3:50pm

237. Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008

     I looked at Real Politics and saw the same thing - a trend in Obama's favor, with most of the recent polls (except Gallup and Rasmussen) having him ahead. As I said, this lead will widen once the shine comes off Mr. McCain, whatevr shine he enjoys.

     And why does his high degree of sucess with blacks bother you so much any more so than Clinton's high numbers with white women? Obama has proven very popular across many demographics - winning majority white states, amongst older and younger voters, and along political ideologies. Of course he is going to have higher numbers amongst some demographics - if he didn't, he wouldn't be leading. If you took away any candidate's strongest demographic, it would likely put them out of the lead. And the fact that blacks are voting for him in such high numbers does not necessarily mean they are doing so solely because he is black. If that were the case, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have done much better than they did.

     Look, Obama was not my first choice from the beginning (as many here know, I was a little suspect and quite critical of him and his worshippers to begin with). But, in the end I think he is shaping up to be a fine candidate - certainly the strongest one I have seen in my time. My biggest obstacle with Clitnon is something you cite - the ability to deal effectively with others. Republicans are having a tactical love-fest with her now, but if she is the nominee she is simply too polarizing to win. And if she wins, we are looking at 4 more years of Clinto-hunting. It is time to move on.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 3:56pm

238. libzsuck: Don't forget Kerry

     wlgator is right. Obama pandered to the conservative Reno Gazette-Journal by talking about how great guns are and how the Republican Party was "the party of ideas" during the Clinton years. Never mind what he says during those closed-door San Francisco fundraisers.

     The Clinton Years, The Bush Years, they're all the same, we need to "turn the page" on it all because this fool thinks he's The Answer To It All.

     Give us just a small break. We don't need a false redeemer who doesn't know what's going on in the world. We need a president. Don't you find it silly and offensive with all these Dems slobbering all over Obama with "he's a once-in-a-generation leader" B.S.? Are we that lost and desperate? If BO had a brain hemorrhage, we'd have no one left to lead us? Graveyards are full of indispensable men.

     "I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need." -- John McCain

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 3:57pm

239. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     Didn't say I got ALL your stuff off Google, FRANK...

     You DO realize that it's possible to "Cut & Paste" stuff right after you post it....such as..

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008

     Ok Dillweed, proove that you got ALL of my old post off of Google. ALL of them. Put up or shut up. You know you're a liar and so does everyone else here who isn't up Obama's ass.----Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     And that I've been posting here for over two years so it IS possible for me to save some of your previous utterances on a thing called a "hard drive" using a Notepad or Wordpad "program", and saving them in a "folder" called "My Documents".

     Your insane paranoia that I'm "on the staff" (easily refuted by the snotty rebuke Katrina vanden Heuvel laid on me with this...

     BLOG | Posted 11/12/2007 @ 11:53pm Jonathan Demme on The Other Politician He'd Like to Film by Katrina vanden Heuvel

     Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 11/13/2007 @ 11:32am)

     No, what really bugs the hell out of you is that I re-post YOUR OWN WORDS, in direct contradiction to your now present neo-conservatism and support of John McCain....

     and you thought maybe you could "get away with it" otherwise.

     But you're a liar or a spoiled brat or a slavish cultist to the idolization of a POLITICIAN!

     Yes, Hillary is just another politician....and not worth the LIVES OF GIs, which a vet and father of a vet should have more concern about....and used to.....i.e. your previous posts!)

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 3:57pm

240. My problem with the 9-1 black vote = Michelle "Black America Will Wake Up (and realize they should vote on skin color)" Obama.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:00pm

241. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     FRANK - you never answered my simple question of how it is fair and just to "count" FL and MI, when the prior decision of the DNC was to strip those states from their delegates. And not a single candidate objected at the time. You cannot deny that if the delegates are sat, this is a reversion of the DNC's prior decision. Pointing out to METT that he would (hypothetically) be complaining if the vote totals were reversed is immaterial. METT would be just as wrong if that were the case. As you are now.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

242. Stephanie Tubbs Jones has turned out to be one of my heroes this election season.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

243. FrankGrits is,now,spending all of his time contradicting all of his previous views about both the war and McCain and is trying to be slick about it.Don't know if we are now getting his real views that he has always had or if he is just pouting because Hillary won't likely be the nominee and it doesn't really matter which.I just googled it and ol' Frank always called the GOP the fascist party and that includes,of course,McCain,but now,all of a sudden,McCain is a giant of service and bravery and is not wingnut despite Franks view that McCain is a fascist.Frank described the Bush administration as a Nazi regime,but now is supporting McCain who supports everything Bush has done.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:04pm

244. Hman23, tell me how "fair and just" (not to mention completely retarded) it is to put elite party leadership squabbles above the will of the people? Sometimes I think the Dems in power conspire to lose so they never have to be responsible for anything. I can't wait to see Pelosi & Reid booted.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:05pm

245. Worth checking out:

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obamas-path-to-victory-in_b _103880.html

     46 delegates to go and then we can move forward.

     Posted by Be Good at 05/28/2008 @ 4:05pm

246. Are you in contact with any officers on the ground in Iraq? I didn't think so.

     Posted by frankgrits

     I say let the Iraqi people fight it out amongst themselves. That's what it will come to anyway and would have whether we invaded or not.

     Posted by frankgrits at 10/25/2005

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:10pm

247. You are a liar.

     Posted by frankgrits

     WILL, ya know, now that you mentioned it, quagmire just about covers everything republican.

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2006

     We are a long long way from ending the dialogue about this war. The investigations haven't even begun yet. What does Dubya think? Just because he told a bunch of conservative hack journalists that he weeps with the familys that that makes all of his lies ok? If it were my son he were weeping over I'd punch him right in the mouth. Then I'd spit on him and through him the hell out.

     Posted by frankgrits at 10/27/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:14pm

248. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     Why do you care, FRANK? You CLAIM they don't contradict anything?

     BTW, here's another pre-Pout FG post-

     "At least John Kerry and John Edwards had the balls to admit it was a mistake. What the hell is holding someone as intelligent as McCain back. He's the last person who should be selling his soul and condemning more kids to die just because of his political ambitions."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/17/2006 @ 6:31pm

     BLOG | Posted 11/17/2006 @ 4:45pm McCain's Misguided Policy by Ari Berman

     Can't BOLD yet...so let me repeat that line

     "condemning more kids to die just because of his political ambitions"

     He's speaking THEN of the guy he's NOW going to vote for!

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:14pm

249. HEY MASK,

     YOU MISSED THIS ONE, THE COUP DE GRACE:

     john McCain?

     Hell, Rush Limbaugh said he's got an uncontrollable temper and he partly deranged from his confinement in the Hanoi Hilton

     plus he had a black baby.

     Shall we go to the tapes.

     Hell this man isn't fit to be president,

     Limbaugh pounded that home day after day for months during the 2000 primary.

     Is McCain all of a sudden cured?

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/24/2006

     Democrats for McCain posted by ARI BERMAN on 08/24/2006 @ 3:12pm

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=115856

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:16pm

250. TAHOE -

     The decision to punish FL and MI was not an elite party leadership squabble - it was an effort by the DNC to try to maintain some sort of order in the primary season, and not have it turn into a battel to push the first primaries into November and December. And it was a decsion not a single candidate took issue with at the time.

     "Will of the people?" Hillary only wants to count the voters in large states or is it voters in primaries or is it voters in primaries including Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot.

     What is the "formula" again? Cause everywhere I have read, more people have voted for Obama.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:16pm

251. Hell this man isn't fit to be president,

     Hell this man isn't fit to be president,

     Hell this man isn't fit to be president,

     Hell this man isn't fit to be president,

     Is McCain all of a sudden cured?

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/24/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:17pm

252. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

     Hey, FROS....John Nichols just paged us, Staff Meeting in twelve minutes....better hurry or Peter Rothberg will eat all the doughnuts agains!

     (heheh)

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:17pm

253. FrankGtrits-The real reason that you are leaving is because it's so easy to point out how you are spending all your time contradicting yourself and not because of Obama supporters.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:18pm

254. If McCain were miraculously elected president, he would be 73 on inauguration day. That would make him the oldest president ever. Even older that old scatterbrain Rayguns who was 69.

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:18pm

255. McCain appeals to ALL of Hillary's supporters????

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:18pm

256. to be fair:

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/25/2006 @ 12:44am

     Oh come on FRANK....if George McGovern were running in '08 at the age of 86 versus 40ish Ralph Reed, don't think you'd bring age into it.

     And if Dems do, they risk a backlash from seniors in the early 70s who wonder why LIBERALS are saying they're all "old scatterbrains".

     Posted by Mask at 08/25/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:19pm

257. "An empty suit with little or no experience actually having a chance to win the hardest job in the world. "

     Bush did it. Twice.

     Posted by Balrog at 05/28/2008 @ 4:20pm

258. Quite a shell game you are trying to play FRANK.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:20pm

259. As for me, I'm leaving again. The Obama people here make a flawed argument. IT's not worth my time. See ya.

     Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     What is this like the NINTH time, FRANK has threatened to "leave"....and six weeks later he's back as soon as there's a good juicy Hillary thread?

     (also right about the time, he's proven wrong again)

     See ya soon, Francis...uh, I mean "Psycho"! ("Stripes")

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:21pm

260. frankgrits-No worm has turned.You made that up so you could shift support to the guy you refer to as a fascist-McCain.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:21pm

261. JORCHEIM, Dancall disappeared right around the time Mask appeared, thus the name mask. dancall was pretty much run out of here after posting solid nonsense day in and day out, all day, kinda like Mask.

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/7/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:21pm

262. Pledges delegates don't represent the will of the people. They represent the will of the party activists who are privileged enough to cover themselves in buttons and balloons and stand around for 3 hours talking about how great Barry makes them feel.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:22pm

263. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

     And I still agree with that. Going after McCain on age is a non-starter.

     Go after him on promising "a 3rd Bush term"!

     BTW, I wonder how FRANK explains why "one Nation staffer" (you) would use posts from the past against "another Nation staffer" (me)?!?!?!?!!

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

264. It is time that we face reality. Beyond the tough rhetoric and the cyclical nature of politics, the facts suggest that today's Republican Party cannot be trusted on national security issues."

     This is plain talk that everybody should be able to understand.

     Posted by frankgrits at 08/21/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:27pm

265. don't hog the doughnuts, dan.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

266. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     Except when Hillary wins one...then it IS the "will of the people"....right?

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

267. I don't fall for negative campiagns. I have a thought process.

     Posted by frankgrits at 10/30/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:29pm

268. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 |

     What's amazing is...you're actually working harder than I EVER did to find FRANK's old posts.

     Most of the ones I had...I copied when he made them. A few Googled (with a nick like FRANKGRITS pretty easy to find).

     The trick is...put them in order against his NEWER posts...a la his stance on the war...one fully against it, now a "We can win it with McCain" neo-con sounding like Rush Limbaugh...who FRANK also USED to hate and warn people not to listen to (while listening every day to "monitor Rush").

     Hey....maybe THAT's it. FG once warned us that "listening to Limbaugh you'll get brainwashed"....maybe it was true...and he was!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:31pm

269. When delegates are selected through primaries -- 1 person, 1 vote -- then they much more accurately reflect the will of the people.

     How can I respect the pledged delegate count when Hillary's 6-point vote win in Nevada netted Obama more delegates? Contests where some people count more than others are not valid. I'd love to hear Barry defend the 3/5 of a person formula.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:33pm

270. Better ask me quickly. Gotta run in a few.

     Posted by frankgrits at 11/17/2006

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:34pm

271. In Nov, do you think Bill & Hill & Chelsea will vote for McCain?

     And the rest of the GOP ticket in NYS?

     Posted by sloper at 05/28/2008 @ 4:35pm

272. Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     FRANKGRITS,

     I know you guys are posturing for a VP slot for Hillary, now that she has ZERO chance of winning.

     It AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! There are plenty of qualified women who would make far better VPs than Hillary, like Kathleen Sebelius - right on the Iraq war and without all the Clinton baggage.

     And that RFK assassination comment from Hillary would make ANY president nervous having Hillary a "heartbeat" away from the power she craves and lusts.

     Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2008 @ 4:35pm

273. Yeah, I said that in 2005. Long time ago. Again, the worm has turned. Come into the present. bye now.

     Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008

     actually, that was 2006.

     so sen. mccain has "been cured" in the last two years?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:39pm

274. Metteyya, you're close to joining Keith in blowing your last remaining gasket.

     http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/05/keith_olbermann_blows_last_rem .html

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:40pm

275. Tahoe-The democrats have ignorant rules,but both agreed to go by them so Obama would not have to explain anything anymore than Hillary would.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:41pm

276. Contests where some people count more than others are not valid.----Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     But Tahoe wants to count Michigan as is, 100% to Hillary....and she was the only name on the ballot!?!??!?

     Ya think maybe there's some disengenuousness to these various "standards" the die-hard Hillary'ites are using???

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:42pm

277. Contests where some people count more than others are not valid.----Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     so what is your opinion of the SUPERS!?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:45pm

278. BTW, a question for Tahoe that almost NONE of the "Hillary can still win it" folks seem to want to answer...

     They have regard for her, right? Think highly of her judgement? Believe in her leadership?

     Okay....WHEN she concedes, and asks them to join her in supporting Barack Obama...

     why are they going to disregard her, question her judgement, and oppose where she is leading them?!!?!???

     (BTW, if Tahoe is going to support "whoever the nominee is"...then this is just an academic exercise...but if NOT....I'd like an answer to my question???)

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 4:46pm

279. TAHOE - How do you know the "will of the people" of Nevada when the voter preferences of that state are not even reported? Clinton won by 6 points in the race for LOCAL DELEGATES.

     And the primary math gets fuzzy on all sides. For example, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote in Missouri, yet they split the delegates. Clinton got 57% of the vote in NY yet bagged 60% of the delegates; 56% in MA yet 59% of the delegates; and 51% in CA yet 55% of the delegates.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 4:47pm

280. Hman23, Katrina, Obamanuts all: I just did a complete survey of all listed battleground states according to Hman23's polling site: usaelectionpolls.com - and, since you all like to use the word MATH as the knockout blow to Hillary's chances, check it out: Hman23 must be looking at one of the University polls, which I would not trust, so I looked at the Rasmussen Poll and I do not know their history but for what it is worth, here are the latest results. Out of the 18 states they list as the most important, Hillary bested Obama against McCain in 7 states. Obama bested Hillary against McCain in 5 states, with the rest virtual or actual ties. So I don't see this as a red-hot reason for Hillary to make her graceful exit. Quite the contrary. Hillary leads in FL, OH, PA, TN, NH, NJ, NV. BO's highlights are CO, WA, MN, VA, OR. Do the MATH.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 4:49pm

281. I'd posit "Mask" isn't worth responding to since s/he lives in an alternate universe, saying I want to count Michigan as is when I've said no such thing. Another gasket blown, I'd say.

     But putting aside Mask's idiocy, tell me why Obama is terrified of a revote and resists it at every turn?

     As for "WHEN she concedes, and asks them to join her in supporting Barack Obama..." let's live in the present, not your imagined future.

     Regardless, Barry has nothing to worry about, as he told us himself: "I have no doubt I can get her votes. The question is, can she get mine?"

     What a pompous @ss. What a bullsh1t uniter.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 4:53pm

282. Polls on Obama/McCain and Hillary/McCain fluctuate too much to give them any meaning.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:53pm

283. tahoe-We don't know if Obama is terrified about a revote nor does he resist one.One more time,both agreed to go by the rules.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 4:57pm

284. Obama Campaign Lawyering Is Bad Politics http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-campaign-lawyering-bad-politics

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 5:00pm

285. TAHOE - Nobody ever said the Obama has blown Clinton out of the water here. It has been a close race, and if the polls show anything and can be useful five months out, it shows that both candidates are positioned well against McCain.

     Point is, the nomination process does not boil down to polls and strategy on electoral maps. It is based on votes and rules. Those rules show quite clearly that Clinton cannot win the primary - unless she somehow gets a huge turn in the superdelegates or undertakes some sucessful legal battle to seat MI and FL. It has been very clear that this was the way it was going to run out for some time. A month or two ago, the MATH wa that Clinton needed to win 65% of the remaining votes to overtake Obama. Surprise, surprise, she did not get it. All she did was do damage to Obama in a futile effort to pray his campaign destruct. That is somewhat reflected in the recent poll numbers. Once Clitnon concedes and her supporters have enough time to think things through, Obama will crush McCain.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 5:12pm

286. Sorry, that last one was for WL GATOR.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 5:13pm

287. Keep smokin' it, or drinkin' it, or whatever it is you're consuming ...

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 5:15pm

288. <i>Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008

     Ok Dillweed, proove that you got ALL of my old post off of Google. ALL of them. Put up or shut up. You know you're a liar and so does everyone else here who isn't up Obama's ass.

     Posted by frankgrits at 05/28/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person</i>

     Actually, we know you're a liar. When you say that you actually embrace McCain on the merits instead of out of a hissy fit and a dollop of racism. When you say that you believe the war has turned (despite the lack of any serious political outreach between the factions in Iraq) to cover for your hypocritical flip-flop on the war.

     <i>Suddenly, I remember why I vacated this site. </i>

     Another lie...you vacated because you're acting like a five-year old, and you'll be back.

     <i>. I've done the math for the general election. I see no way that Obama beats John McCain and I don't care what the polls say. Obama's base is blacks, kids and some rich people. McCain appeals to vets, hispanics/latino's, all of Hillary's supporters and most republicans and independents. This may very well be a landslide.</i>

     Well considering that you have regularly predicted that Clinton would pull it off against Obama at various points in this contest, I would say that your track record doesn't inspire confidence.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/28/2008 @ 5:20pm

289. To i'm nobody-On polls fluctuating too much to mean anything: I see why you think that. They have been fluctuating toward Hillary in the states that count, which means that BO will probably lose to McCain. Also, how proud are you of those 30-40% losses in WV and KY? That doesn't mean anything, either? Man, that math is coming back to bite you in the brain.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 5:25pm

290. wlgator-Actually,the polls go back and forth and I don't care about WV or Ky in the slightest.Not an Obama,Clinton,nor McCain supporter.No math is coming back to bite me in the brain since none of the math means anything to me.Polls right now are meaningless when it comes to the GE and will be until the democrats have a nominee.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 5:31pm

291. Hman23-"Everywhere I've read, more people have voted for Obama." The point is that Obama has won in Republican states like Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, South Carolina, North Carolina,Alabama,Louisiana, probably Montana, and the Dakotas, Georgia, Virginia which neither BO nor HC will win in the general election and Democratic states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, DC. which would vote for Hillary, also. OK, so you like to think simplistically, we have established that. You said to look at your polling site. I did, and Hillary was the big winner in the battleground states. BO loses in a landslide to a 70+ year guy on the other side in the general due to gullible primary voters. Think about the big picture, analytically, not emotionally.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 5:45pm

292. Does anyone else think it a little presumptuous of Clinton to visit Mt. Rushmore today along with her adoring press and press corp?

     I am worried that overnight she may have some sculptor change the likeness of one of the former presidents into a likeness of herself. Maybe she figures there is room between Lincoln and Roosevelt? Pretty scary. NPS better post extra guards till this election is over.

     Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

293. wlgator-Clintons and their supporters are the ones thinking emotionally, as is quite obvious,from all the whining,pouting,and irrational thinking.Neither Obama nor Hillary has won a big state or a republican state or any other state in a GE and what they won in a primary has little meaning as do the polls.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 5:54pm

294. Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008

     My quote was to TAHOE who said Clinton has received more total votes, which is not true.

     On your point, you rely on polls five months out and call me simplistic?! What did "the polls" say five months or even one month before the first primaries? Clinton in a landslide is what. The polling site, which I also stressed was premature, shows even at this stage, the majority of polls claim Obama would beat McCain - not a landslide for McCain.

     In any event, all your talk about polls and electoral strategy is meaningless. Under the rules of the primaries, Obama is going to win. Now, you may not agree with the outcome, but who is being emotional?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:13pm

295. i'm nobody-If the primaries mean nothing and only the GE means something, why in the hell are you reading and commenting before the GE? If you do not have a preference for any of the candidates by this time, what are you waiting for? God? What are your criteria,great one? Why are you talking about this? You don't care about WV or KY. HC wins by 30-40% and you don't care? At least Hman23 cares. For whom did you vote in the last election? Afraid to say? Just don't care? You are full of it.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 6:14pm

296. Why have primaries and rules at all??

     Let's just take some polls a month or so before the convention and let the "unemotional and analytic" people like GATOR gaze into their crystal ball and tell us who is electable.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:17pm

297. We will see GATOR. A lot of people on this Board assumed for a very long time the Clinton was the nominee. The general is along time away. If it weren't for the long primary battle, I suspect Obama's numbers against McCain would not have taken the dip that they did in the past month or so (while McCain has faced little or no scrutiny). Obama's numbers in the past two weeks are rising if you look at the trends, and will continue.

     If it WERE Clinton in the general, you can be sure that the GOP would have a lot of ammo saved up. Operation Chaos would be over. Clinton's biggest problem has always been that her negative numbers have been so high that she has almost no room for error. You really think she would fare better three months from now in the heat of the general? The Republicans are facing a turnout problem. You think Clinton as the nominee wouldn't go pretty far to solve it? Eroding those poll numbers even further?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:26pm

298. wlgator-Don't get so emotional.I voted for Kerry in the last GE and I did not say that only the GE mattered.What I said was that what states a candidate wins in a primary has no meaning when it comes to the GE.I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by WV and Ky,but am pleased that you are so elated by those,but you must remember that Hillary said that small states don't matter so I was just going by what she said.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 6:33pm

299. Hman23-You make a good point that BO is probably going to be the candidate, etc., but I think it is a mistake and I think the voting rationales in the primaries are simplistic, as were those in the GE in 2000 and 2004, and we now have, of course, a cluster-. Time will tell but I am on record as thinking that Bill and Hillary and 8-years exp. in the white house and a successful presidency, if you leave out the BJ and the misleading finger pointing, with a balanced budget or something a lot closer than GWB, and no major invasions of countries for no reason, constitute a better bet than your guy. A lot of valuable and successful experience in the Hillary camp as opposed to not much with the possibly empty suit BO camp. I really think even McCain will beat him. Plus-the US voters don't seem to like elitist liberals and your man is one.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 6:42pm

300. i'm nobody-you may not know it, but I do believe you are a sarcastic Obama supporter.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 6:51pm

301. I sincerely hope that the Clinton supporters will join in their support for Obama when this primary is over - and I suspect that most will, once the focus is on Obama and McCain. This is a very important election. We are coming off two terms of perhaps the worst administration in our history. We need to end the war in Iraq. We need some sanity in our foreign policy. We need to restore Constitutional protections. We need improvements in education. We need smart energy policies. We have three Supreme Court justices likely to retire. The list goes on and on.

     There are larger issues than whether or not our favorite candidate got the nomination, people. Obama was not my first choice (truth be told, I favored Joe Biden most way back when; and then Richardson for a spell). Until the battle turned a bit ugly, we had quite a field for a while. If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, I will not be pleased with the means if it is because of MI/FL or a Super flip, but she will be my "third" or maybe "fourth" choice, and I will vote for her without hesitation in November. (HAPPY - ha-ha, I guess you got me there - although I was speaking more about your party as a whole, not you individually!) I hope Clinton's supporters can do the inverse if necessary.

     OK - my spamming is done for the day. Go Celtics!

     p.s. to GATOR - My sarcastic comments aside, it was good conversing with you. Don't worry about McCain. As I told HAPPY, Obama will "crush" him.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:55pm

302. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/28/2008

     Well then, it certainly looks like nominating Obama will prove to be a mistake. You must be happy.

     Let's get back on this topic come October and, more importantly, November.

     I bet you could find something from Gallup's November/December 2007 archives that pretty much had the nomination sewed up for Clinton.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:24pm

303. MBB _ Here you go. I found one. Remember Rudy Guiliani vs. Clinton; and McCain washed up at 13%?

     December 17, 2007 "Fresh off the presses, so to speak -- the latest numbers from the national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken over the weekend. They appear to show that the front-runners are still front-running: Republicans.

     It's Rudy Giuliani still in the lead -- and a quartet of rivals all within striking range. Mike Huckabee's support held firm after surging in the past month.

     • Giuliani: 27%; vs. 25% two weeks ago and 28% two weeks before that. • Huckabee: 16%; unchanged from two weeks ago and up from 10% two weeks before that. • Sen. John McCain: 14%; vs. 15% and 13% in the previous polls. • Fred Thompson: 14%; vs. 15% and 19% in the previous polls. • Mitt Romney: 14%; vs. 12% in both the previous polls. • Rep. Ron Paul: 3%; vs. 4% and 5% in the previous polls. • Alan Keyes: 3%; up from nothing in the previous polls. • No other candidate was above 1% in the latest poll.

     Democrats.

     Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's support rebounded somewhat despite several weeks' worth of less-than-good news from the campaign trail -- but isn't quite to where it was a month ago. Still, she's ahead by 18 percentage points. Sen. Barack Obama's poll number rose slightly.

     • Clinton: 45%; vs. 39% two weeks ago and 48% two weeks before that. • Obama: 27%; vs. 24% and 21% in the previous polls. • John Edwards: 15%; unchanged from two weeks ago and up from 12% before that. • Sen. Joseph Biden: 3%; vs. 4% and 2% in the previous polls. • No other candidate was above 2% in the latest poll."

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:32pm

304. frosty zoom-For the sake of argument, let's say we have your average college kid against your average "adult" in an election for President of the US. You might vote for the college kid, I take it, because the average college kid is about 20-21 and they know so damned much about the world. Some adults certainly don't know squat about politics, but the thrust of my argument is that adults, on average, have more experience in the world, from all standpoints, on average, and, on average, better judgment. So what is your point? You trust kids voting more than you trust adults? BO may win the primary, but not for good reasons, is my point, unless you are insinuating that inexperience is better than experience, 8 successful years of it in the White House. No, I do not like how this primary was run and I do not like the fact that the kids and the 9-1 African Americans, voted for BO so heavily that the biases determined the results.

     Posted by wlgator at 05/28/2008 @ 7:38pm

305. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     1. If you don't count Michigan "as is" and grant her 100% of the delegates...

     she can't win it legitimately.

     2. Answer my question, given all the hypothetical YOU've laid out for "How it should play out to be fair to Hillary"...

     WHEN she concedes and tells her supporters to vote for Obama....why will you disobey her?

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 7:54pm

306. No candidate is there for me to "obey" or "disobey."

     Most Obamabots don't get that.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 9:43pm

307. Katrina vanden Heuvel -- Please write, with sincerity, next time.

     Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008 @ 9:44pm

308. <i>8 successful years of it in the White House</i>

     Well gator, as has been observed, giving Hilary credit for the Clinton administration is like calling Yoko a Beatle. She certainly didn't make the decisions on Kosovo, or the Desert Fox strike in Iraq in 1998. She neither had a security clearance nor attended Cabinet meetings.

     If she had been such an integral part, beyond what any First Lady might claim, then how come she's had to exaggerate her "contributions" to the achievement of the Good Friday agreement in Ireland?

     I would also point to this article put up in Realclearpolitics.com http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/ 2008/May/28/obama_competitive_against _mccain_with_key_voters.html which mentions polls that show that Obama is, in fact, competitive with McCain in those demographics that Clinton did so well with in the nomination fight. Evidently, many Clinton supporters are a little less childish than some of the posters here.

     As to the polls in the various states. Clinton polls better than Obama in Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida but the polls in Ohio have been trending to Obama so he is competitive in that state. He polls better than Clinton in Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado. They both have about the SAME chance to take New Mexico and Michigan.

     Obama is stronger in Virginia and Indiana and he is actually competitive in those states! In Virgina, Rasmussen still has McCain ahead but the latest SurveyUSA poll has Obama ahead. This reflects the "purpling" of Virginia that also saw Webb beat Allen. Of the three polls taken in Indiana in the last ten days of April, Obama was ahead in two of them.

     The point is that both Clinton and Obama have a good chance to beat McCain in 2008.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/28/2008 @ 10:05pm

309. Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/28/2008

     Use whatever verb you like...

     If Hillary (whom you obviously support and trust) asks you to support Obama...

     will you?

     And if not, then aren't you basically saying you DON'T trust her to offer up the BEST idea for advancing the Democratic agenda...i.e. not letting McCain get elected?

     Or would she be lying if she conceded and said she'd support Obama?

     Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 11:13pm

310. >>>>I always believed that the purpose of the convention was to choose the candidate and solidify the platform. Tahoedreamer at 05/28/2008<<<<

     A convention fight guarantees a loss for the Dems in November. There is no way to organize, fund raise, and wage a successful general election campaign in two months. It is impossible. The funds needed for the general election are frozen until a nominee is chosen, so neither candidate can finance the ground organization and support necessary to launch a successful campaign after the convention. It assures a loss for either Obama or Clinton. The longer this nomination is drawn out the greater the handicap for Democrats. This is a fact that Senator Clinton will need to justify for taking this brutal primary past June.

     I refuse to believe the vitriolic smear against Obama is sanctioned by Senator Clinton. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I can't stomach the idea that Senator Clinton would promote hatred and false character smears against a fellow Democrat and the likely nominee of her party. The right wing extremists must be up to no good.

     Also, don't pander the typical right wing tactic of revising history or political theory. Fascism is not the left, which, I am sure, is how you are defining liberal. Fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, to the right of militarism. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme left, is communism. Furthermore, neoliberal ideology, or pure unregulated capitalism, actually promotes social liberalism. It is the greatest irony and inherent contradiction of social conservatives clinging to the party that embraces an ideology that works against their beliefs. Fox News provides a great example. Moralizers by day. Smut peddlers by night.

     Posted by SandyFeet at 05/29/2008 @ 01:09am

311. It is time to leave before you destroy your future chances. It is time to stop making a fool of yourself with this endless attempt to color him as not being able to handle the job. You are beginning to look like you are the one that can not handle the job or even be graceful about dealing with opposition.

     Posted by pleazzer at 06/01/2008 @ 10:35pm