About Obama's Even Temper... | Following up on Trickle-Down Equanimity
Leslie Savan
Posted 35 minutes ago
Another Woman Senator From New York? | NOW, Feminist Majority endorse Carolyn Maloney to replace Clinton.
John Nichols
Posted at 4:04 PM ET
Realizing the Promise | A people's inauguration
Christopher Hayes
Posted at 3:32 PM ET
Obama's Gaffe on India | He ought to be urging India to talk to Pakistan, not cross the border to "catch" the bad guys.
Robert Dreyfuss
Bread, Bombs, and the Big Stimulus | We need a smart and focused inside-outside strategy to revive our frayed social compact -- now more critical than ever.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Can you help "Nickie"? | Bringing the abortion debate down to earth
Katha Pollitt
DC to Delhi: Only Our Missiles -- Not Yours | What is Rice going to say to India: only DC not Delhi is allowed to bomb Pakistan?
Laura Flanders
World AIDS Day | How to help in the fight against the AIDS pandemic.
Peter Rothberg
Forget GM's Plan -- Where's The Government's Plan? | Create a demand for green cars.
Jane Hamsher
RSS
None of the above make much sense insofar as the choices ignore the SDs & their potential for naming the nominee prior to the convention.
Posted by sloper at 03/5/2008
McCain will have half-a-year at half-speed. Time enough to replace disfunctional body parts, up the botox and steroids, popcorn his way through the coming Democratic wet T-shirt mud-wrestle.
And then, whichever of the two casualties remains on two staggering feet will have a few million more enemies to stay home or vote for the triumph of modern medicine.
Posted by JFHill at 03/5/2008
John McCain is not a threat to the Democratic candidate, whoever it will be. If the two "children" running for the nomination would start taking about issues and stop their pathetic squabbling, the eventual candidate will have so much momentum that they will be a lock for POTUS. The reason I believe this should continue without interference from Dean or the super delegates is because it will truly test this questionable procedure for electing the nominee. The DNC Primary system is a complete joke and needs to be shown for what it actually is, outdated and counter productive to hearing all voices in the mix.
In fact, our entire voting process is a complete joke. As citizens, we are not even able to verify our own votes. More oversight and transparency is needed.
Time to scrap this biased and rigged system.
Posted by JJ in Wis at 03/6/2008
I think that Hillary Clinton should step down since it's highly unlikely she'll get more pledged delegates than Barack Obama, even if she won every remaining primary with a 60-40 margin. If she wins through some "backroom" shenanigans at the convention (superdelegates, seating Michigan/Florida, etc.) then her legitimacy will be severely in question. The process needs to be transparent and reflect the will of the voter, and cannot be decided by the top level of the Democratic party.
I like to also add that the candidates walk a fine line between keeping the campaign going so that Democratic candidates are getting plenty of the news cycle, whereas Mr. McCain will get practically nothing now that he's the presumptive nominee, and tearing each other up so that one might conclude at the end that neither candidate is worthy of being president.
Posted by svihura at 03/6/2008
According to at least one analysis, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton have a reasonable chance of winning the nomination in the primaries, so that a question asking whether Senator Obama should step aside would have been appropriate.
Posted by Samphire at 03/7/2008
The following article explains Senator Clinton's "math problem" and why she should step aside for the good of the party.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
As has been evident for weeks, there is little (if any) way that Clinton can win "cleanly". Texas and Ohio did nothing to change this.
Posted by Be Good at 03/7/2008
The choices seem rather flip to one, such as myself, who supports Obama mostly because of his seemingly stronger and consistent anti-war stance.
I therefore selected the "flip a coin" option, but, believe Billary would be better as VP, presiding over the Senate as now does the, in my opinion, eminently impeachable Dick Cheney.
Posted by lewwelge at 03/7/2008
Hillary is the ultimate "spoiler." If she had any real concern for the party or nation, she would never had run. The party should rally around Obama and persuade him to nominate not just a VP, but a whole cabinet. He should put together a unity coalition.
Posted by lnh at 03/7/2008
Isn't this, the election process and the Democratic rules in place for such a situation such as the Obama and Clinton situation. Why should one candidate step down, neither have enough votes to get the nomination. Who is more "electable" no one really knows and we will never know. Let the political process finish its course, that is why it is called "politics".
Posted by fiv99 at 03/7/2008
Responding in kind to a letter to the editors (published 3/17/08 issue) from Theron Snell. I agree totally. Hillary and Barack are not acceptable. But will vote for Barack as a default. Of course, McCain is a nut case suffering "bucket list", but I think if Hilary is nominated, many, many people will just stay home. Like myself. Why? For the last twenty years we've had nothing but Clintons and Bush/Bush. No no more for me or mine. It would be great to see a truly great progressive leader, but there is none. And as a sidebar most of the Democrats in Congress do not deserve the offices they hold and should go home.
Posted by manyearss at 03/7/2008
Hillary Clinton is BY FAR the better person to be our next president. When Mr. Obama learns to wipe his own nose, he might, might be a good option. Until then, Hillary is the one who has the balls to make the necessary changes and reverse the downhil course inherited by the Republicans.
Posted by secadal at 03/8/2008
Until then, Hillary is the one who has the balls to make the necessary changes and reverse the downhil course inherited by the Republicans. Posted by SECADAL 03/08/2008 @ 12:36pm
"Inherited by the Republicans" .. that would mean left to them by the Clintons. Anyway, that's what it would mean in English.
Posted by sloper at 03/8/2008
Sure, Hillary is a monster. But so is Humanitarian interventionist Samantha Powers--another one of those who fault the Iraq War for its execution but gives two thumbs up for regime change. Such a Tom Friedmanesque figure I can do without. Ditto for Goolsbee, Obama's free market economist from that Hotbed of right wing--pro Nafta, Anti-Medicare, anti-Social Security--conservatism, the University of Chicago Econ Dept.
It's time for Obama to Go Populist!
Hillary's lineup is worse with Berger, Albright, etc. McCain, forget about it...
All in all it's a miserable lineup. So who would Marx vote for?
Give me Obama or Nader or give me the death sentence with Clinton/McCain.
Posted by hkaplan at 03/9/2008
Clinton and Obama should slug it out, go into the convention almost tied, watch two roll call votes where neither gets the nod and then be witness to a Gore draft motion that nominates the one man that everyone can probably get behind. There's one overriding reason why neither Clinton nor Obama can get the nomination outright. She is there because she is a woman; he is there because he is black. Neither has the experience, the gravitas or the backing of the whole party to win the day.
She has Bill on her back and who is going to want to be the VP when in reality he will be her VEEP. Obama doesn't have the balls or the judgement to resign from a church where the pastor is an avowed anti-semite. If a Rabbi ever uttered an anti-black statement to his congregation he would be gone the next day; or if he was still there, 99% of the congregation would resign. Can you imagine a politician belonging to a country club that didn't admit blacks to their membership? So how can Obama belong to a church that denigrates Jews?
Posted by bean22 at 03/9/2008
One problem I see with an Obama/HRC ticket, with either combination, is her. If Obama is on ticket, I can see her trying to undermind him at every turn and if she were to be on top, I can see her putting him in belittling positions and ignoring his suggestions and opinions. This is not a good idea, no matter which way it is sliced. HRC needs to bow out and let the games begin.
p.s. SLOPER - she has fooled you, that is for sure, she has NO balls.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 03/10/2008
Posted by LVDRAGONLADY 03/10/2008 @ 1:15pm
Pay attention: that was a quote from SEDECAL.
The talk about a combined ticket is a wasted effort, a distraction, a Billary ploy. HRC brings nothing to an Obama candidacy that he can't get on his own. Richardson, oth, is invaluable to either.
Posted by sloper at 03/10/2008
At least get my name right. Hillary has the balls and the scars to prove she can go far.
Posted by secadal at 03/10/2008
As kennedy was to the post war boom of the sixties obama is to the easily triple the risk new millenium. Merry Charisma is ill effective at this point and iresponsible. As we in massachusetts are experiencing the lovley poetry of govenor patrick's campaign equates to that of obama's "little train that could" story except to follow george bush's "what me worry" with flowery fantasy will screw us collectivley in disfuntion as it is in DC. A magic wand to bring the aisles together? Ha! OR A ptsd senator maclaim vs clinton who has the slippery capabilty to work enough magic that could keep us from some bad straight to dvd movie future. Write me in and I will fight to lend morgages at 1 to 2 percent then an extra $600 a month will actualy help the economy, not a one time just enough to piss you off. History has us paying for our homes two or three times, that must change, this is a start.
Posted by xamama at 03/10/2008