This is still a close race. I agree that it would be premature for Hillary to step aside now.

I am excited to have my presidential primary vote counted for the very first time. I'm looking forward to voting on May 20.

Saying "I'm not quitting!" is a sure sign that a campaign is done.

Obama lovers, before quick-sending your “Hillary just drop out” monologues, let me ask the very same question that Andrew S. posted: if most of the party is in favor of Obama, how come they don’t end this tomorrow?

Please don’t put this on Hillary to close. It would be like the 9-1 Oregon Ducks football team asking the 7-3 Beavers to forfeit the Civil War because Oregon’s 10-win season is “best for Oregon sports unity.”

Either cross the finish line or stop crying. Do you think Hillary supporters are demanding she stay in and try to get past the magic number of TOTAL delegates? You bet. Because that’s what Presidents do…fight for their country and never quit.

I hope Blue Oregon keeps us abreast of details for HILLARY Clinton's potential trips to Portland....and I hope she's not just booking a room somewhere for a Q&A. I want to see her speak. I kind of doubt I'll change my mind and vote for her, but so what?

Forgot to ask, where is the Blue Oregon link to the Clinton campaign website? There's commonly a link to stuff at Oregon for Obama, after all.

As an Obama supporter, I think Clinton should not be pressured to drop out of the race. Obama has said the same thing.

But both of them should be attacking McCain, not trying to tear down each other. And Clinton has been more vicious in attacking Obama than vice-verse. It's not whether she stays in the race, but how she stays in the race.

Andrew S. While I’m not going to vote for Senator Obama, your blogs obviously have merit (yes, Hillary supporters like me actual can be respectful to Obama supporters), but allow me to please challenge your point on Obama “winning” (without Michigan or Florida casting delegate-counting votes).

There are no caucuses in the general election. So here is my word problem to counter your assertion that Obama is “winning”

Obama + no caucus = Michael Dukakis

I really, really want Obama to win the general election. Having said that, I don't want Hillary to drop out. I want Democrats who support her to realize it's over. I want Clinton supporters to hold their noses, if they must, and vote for Obama. A Clinton supporter voting for Obama is a vote for party unity and all that entails- i.e. a real healthcare plan, a new direction in economic and foreign policy, among other things.

The problem with Hillary staying in the race isn't that she's a weak candidate. The problem is that she's a strong one in some upcoming states, but she can't win the primary without ruining our chances in November. We as voters need to give her the message that it's time for her to get on board with Obama.

If you are still a Clinton supporter remember- Nader-ites weren't convinced Al Gore was the best person to be president, and we see how that turned out.

but allow me to please challenge your point on Obama “winning” (without Michigan or Florida casting delegate-counting votes).

There are no caucuses in the general election. So here is my word problem to counter your assertion that Obama is “winning”

Obama + no caucus = Michael Dukakis

Oh Viki please...

This sounds so pedestrian. It almost doesn't justify a response. Here goes though. Time and time again Obama has proven to get his supporters out to vote for him. Why do you think he lost the primary in Texas but won the caucus? The answer is because the Republicans showed up to vote for Hillary but decided to stay home when the caucus was going on. My mother told me as much from San Antonio. Hillary won Michigan and Florida on NAME RECOGNITION alone. Why do all the Clinton supporters not seem to understand this? Nobody campaigned in those states. Hillary was the only one of the two on the ballot in Michigan and she barely came in first because people voted for "undeclared" or whatever they called it. Look, Barack closed a huge gap in Texas in very few days and won more delegates in Texas than Clinton. I don't know why she and her supporters are calling it a victory.

On comparing Obama to Michael Dukakis. Are you out of your mind? Do you even remember that campaign? I was 10 and I remember that campaign. How can you even compare Obama to Dukakis with a straight face?

Just get over it all. Clinton is a great candidate. So is Barack Obama. Sure it isn't over...if you're trying to be technical about it. In reality...neither Florida or Michigan can figure out a revote, Hillary nor Obama will come to a compromise because Hillary wants the votes to stand as they are and Obama wants a 50-50 split. This is stupid at this point. Our candidate will be Barack Obama unless he disappears. I'm sick of tearing each other up over this. We need to focus on beating McCain so we don't have another 4 years of watching our civil liberties and civil rights drain away. Hell 4 years of McCain and women may not even be able to run for President.

Chris, I feel like your posts lately have become collections of scattered of Clinton-positive press-clippings. And it points to the futility of your argument that you're trying to spin Chuck Todd's comments as anything more than that Clinton can stay in the race. Todd has been one of the more adept analysts of the campaign; he was one of the first to point out that she has almost no chance of winning the nomination. But that doesn't fit in your narrative, does it?

And so you're left with David Sarasohn. Far beit from anyone at Blue Oregon not to adore the Liberal at the Oregonian editorial page, but as the regular "balance" to the foul David Reinhard, Sarasohn is simply ineffectual. No one left of center excels at saying nothing like Sarasohn; he is one of the meekest liberal voices at a major newspaper in the country. In this, he's an ideal Clinton supporter.

I appreciate your reply to my last comment on the Bill in Oregon article. I think there's a point I made that got lost, and so I want to make something clear: Clinton is the most prominent leader of the Democratic Leadership Council, Al From's baby, which is a Republican-lite organization and part of the heart and soul of the Clinton approach. Clinton's top military advisors include Michael O'Hanlon, the loudest Democratic voice for the war; her campaign is run by a union-buster; she won't commit to overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell; and she was a proponent of declaring the Iranian state army a terrorist organization. And because Obama hasn't supported health care mandates, he's somehow to the left of the pro-war DLC?

Since you said you voted for Howard Dean in 03, here's something he said that applies to Clinton. "When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values -- so you keep losing." I hope that's written on the DLC's tombstone. It's also an epitaph for the the top-down style that should die in Democratic politics with the Clinton campaign.

Quick correction: Obama is of course to the left of the DLC. I meant to type "to the right."

And, sadly enough Michael O'Hanlon is not the loudest D voice for the war, but only the loudest remaining D think-tank voice for the war. Unless you drop the "think-tank" requirement and count Mickey Kaus, another anti-Obama Clinton fan who excels at loving war, hating humane immigration reform, and mostly struggles with the thinking bit.

PS Onto the non-noisome set, how about that North Carolina house delegation the WSJ is reporting is going to endorse Obama? I assume it includes Heath Schuler. And then there's Amy Klobuchar!

I would vote for Clinton if she were the only Democrat running against McCain. Fortunately, at the rate Obama is picking up support, it seems that I will be spared from that fate.

The issue isn't whether she stays in. The issue is HOW she stays in. She seems intent on pursuing a "If I can't win no Democrat can win" strategy. By contrast, when Huckabee stayed in, it was clear that he wasn't trying to be a divisive force in his own Party.

Hillary has run a kitchen sink campaign in the past month or so. That, and that alone, is the reason why people are asking for her to quit. Frankly, she should quit, but an even better option would be to somehow turn back the clock, run a classy campaign, and then fight on. That would have been a win-win for the Democrats. Alas. I never have a time machine handy when I need one.

Viki, the reason the supers aren't jumping to Obama en masse is because they don't want to cross Clinton unnecessarily. Like Chuck Todd says in the linked article, they want to be able to claim to Clinton that they never opposed her. It's all politics.

And Mike Gravel is still in it to win it!

I was disappointed with Sarasohn's op-ed. The guy gets an interview with Clinton, and he basically echoes her stump talking points. It's a classic campaign move: give one or two local media types direct access to the candidate, and they'll be so starry-eyed they'll trip over themselves writing a fluff piece. Sarasohn fell right into it. I'm not suggesting he needed to write a hit piece, and if he supports Clinton that's great, but do a little digging on the hard questions and write an op-ed that is persuasive.

To Chris and others: If you knew that Clinton staying in the race now and throwing everything she can at Obama would cost Democrats the presidency in November, would you ask her to step aside? Is your desire to see her stay in based on your belief that that won't happen? Or is it based on your belief that Obama should not be president, and it's Clinton's job to make sure of that?

My fear is that Clinton herself believes that Obama is not qualified to be president. And I worry that deep down, she would actually prefer to see McCain elected than Obama.

Interesting articles here and here about the Florida/Michigan delegate fiasco.

Hillary Clinton has no pathway to the nomination. Even her own supporters say the nominee will be the one who has the most pledged delegates in June. (Maria Cantwell, for one) One insider has classified it as the Tonya Harding strategy.(kneecap the front runner so badly that the super Ds all cut for Hillary. Won't happen! ) I think she has the 2012 strategy. Make sure Obama loses in the fall of 2008 so she has a clear shot in 2012. She and Bill have been making campaign ads for McCain and doing their best for him thus far.

All that said, if she wants to struggle on, have at it! Just pay the bills, including the health care bills she hasn't been paying for the campaign staff.

(One qualifying note: her insistance on Obama's chicanery with regard to Florida and Michigan are a little rich. I would appreciate her taking whatever lumps arise from that debacle. After the Florida '00 and Ohio '04 "irregularities," winning by virtue of stealing these states would be hard for Democrats like me to handle.)

I think the "stealing these states" line is entirely bogus. Blame whomever you wish for the Florida/Michigan FUBAR, but there's no evidence at all of electoral fraud, as far as I know.

One of the opinion pieces that I linked to above argued that Obama could in fact make a magnaminous gesture that would be to his advantage by agreeing to seat the Florida/Michigan delegations.

I believe it scary that Hillery, a self-appointed Democratic "leader" consistently displays poor judgement. It is obvious to the entire Democratic Party that she has lost the race, and yet, unlike Albert Gore in 2000 or John Edwards most recently, she continues to believe in some sort of impending political miracle. This aversion to the reality of the situation smacks of the type of illogical methodology that Junior uses to justify his position on everything from the Iraqi War to public education. Unfortunately for Hillary, the writing is on the wall for her political future; hence the cultivation of the "fighter" image. New York State sees itself as some sort of arrogant ubër political/cultural/business bell weather society. Becausr of this Empire Starte voters simply won't tolerate a loser (other than the dead-in-the-water Yankees or hapless Mets). Hillery was blinded by New York ambition and now she will see the results by having her Senate seat taken from her by a Republican in four years.

We're all going to get swept away by the Gravelanche!!!

Warning: Snark Alert Below:

Wow.

Errr...

She can stay in as long as she wants. It isn't destroying our democracy, and it makes for GREAT headlines. Its a bit sad that folks are forgetting basic mathematics, but hey, its great to see folks excited about something again.

Is it bad that she stays in? Nah...She still has a great position to shape the debate. Sure, its more expensive than a lunch with the candidate to be, but what the hell! Its only money.

Heck, isn't Nader running again? So are Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, I think Kubby the pot-guy is running for the Libertarians, and Gene Amondson is running on behalf of the Prohibition Party.

Oh, and Hillary isn't the ONLY woman in the race either: Cynthia McKinney is running on the Green Party ticket. I space on her VP's name...but I believe that she was also a woman (from Texas, no less.)

Oh, to be fair: Barack's campaign could implode, or he could be assassinated (As has been theorized in private by a few of my fellow Dems -- they seem to believe that "whitey won't let any black man into a position of power") but in the unlikely event of either, people would turn to her whether or not she stayed in the race till the bitter end. Further, sticking around, waiting in the wings for such an event is coming across as pretty dang ghoulish.

If folks want to believe she still has a chance to win, minus the implosion or assasination scenarios outlined above, feel free to.

But don't get upset when we look at you, campaigning your precious hearts out, empty wallets flapping in the breeze, and shake our heads in a kindly, but disbelieving fashion.

It kinda smacks of the 18 year old declaring undying belief in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, but if you wanna put on the footy pajamas and leave milk and cookies for me, I'll eat 'em.

Don't forget the carrots, tho. Rudolph would be upset.

Chris:

How can you say (type) that Clinton conceding now makes it a "cakewalk" for Obama to the nomination? He's fought a pretty hard campaign, doing all the right things, allowing him to gain lots of national attention -- exactly what we want to happen in a primary. If she can't win, she should lose, i.e. stick a fork in her, she's done.

(BTW, while I don't know the origin of this, I am told there are historical reasons why the term "cakewalk" is viewed as being racially inappropriate ... my childrens' elementary school changed the name of the cakewalk for that reason).

Wikipedia is your friend:

"Cakewalk is a traditional African American form of music and dance which originated among slaves in the Southern United States. The form was originally known as the chalk line walk; it takes its name from competitions slaveholders sometimes held, in which they offered slices of hoecake as prizes for the best dancers.[1] It has since evolved from a parody of ballroom dancing to a "fun fair" like dance where participants dance in a circle in the hopes of winning a free cake."

Jack Roberts: " I would think Democrats would be trying to figure out a legitimate way to end this battle so that whoever loses can credibly say he or she lost fair and square and is now wholeheartedly supporting (perhaps even joining) the ticket in November. I don't see an obvious way for that to happen."

<hr/>

Legitimacy for most means following the rules of election. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, and others say that legitimacy is following the rules that were set up by the party, and that the super-Ds will ratify the choice of voters who has the most pledged delegates. I don't think either candidate wants to be VP, but an arrangement where the runner up in pledged delegates takes the second spot might be one way to have a unity ticket, and thereby include the supporting constituencies. There might be some pressure applied for that kind of an arrangement. There is talk of Hillary being offered a concession prize of a clear shot at the NY Gov. spot as well.

The party leaders have made it clear that the winner of this contest will be annointed by June if not before. And it will be the winner of the pledged delegates. An article in Politico today reaffirms that. One scenario, that is not atypical in primaries, is that the loser runs out of money. The Clintons are running low and not paying their bills at present, so unless they want to spend the family fortune on a losing campaign, which I doubt, that may determine the date of concession. Hillary's assertion that she is in until the end is for the sake of donors and supporters. So sayeth also Mitt Romney, John Edwards and other fallen soldiers.

Right now the futures market money is on Obama over Clinton at Intrade 80- 19. My prediction is that Clinton wins Penn. by single digits undershooting expectations of a 20 pt. victory, Obama wins NC and Ind. by double digits and Clinton is more than broke by May 6. Donors stop giving good money on top of bad whether she concedes or not.

Posted by: SDG | Mar 30, 2008 9:57:47 PM

Saying "I'm not quitting!" is a sure sign that a campaign is done.

Hear, hear!

To Jonathan Radmacher and Hawthorne: interesting, I had no idea about the etymology of the term "cakewalk". I just thought it was a musical-chairs-like thing, and as the name of the music software.

To those who say that defying calls to quit means you're done: or, it means that there are a lot of obnoxious voices telling you to quit, and you're saying forget it, I'm going the distance.

And we, Hillary Clinton's supporters, are going the distance. And no, this will not be a kneecap attempt (such as Obama had to resort to a year ago, and over the summer of 2007, and in October, all by repeatedly character-attacking Hillary when he couldn't get traction against her any other way). This will be a continuation of what it is: the passionate and informed belief on the part of millions of Americans that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for President in 2008.

After the votes have all been cast we who count ourselves loyal Democrats will rally around the nominee and promote unity - and Hillary has been crystal clear about this throught the campaign (unlike, say, Michelle Obama for example).

I see no contradiction however in airing my concerns about a candidate like Obama, and supporting him in the general if he gets the nomination. My chief concerns are that I see him as essentially a pop figure fast-tracked by party leaders (first in Chicago and now nationally) without proof of the hardball legislative work ethic or executive gravitas which I believe the office requires; I fear another opportunistic, fragmented executive will not solve problems, and I have much more confidence in Hillary there. Also, I find him personally arrogant to a degree I do not see in any other candidate, and apart from personal aversion feel that this will play extremely badly against McCain (who may be as arrogant, but doesn't -seem- so). I have a few other concerns as well, but to air them is not "kneecapping", if anything it is better to give his ardent supporters practice answering these concerns (as I'm sure you will) now rather than struggle with such issues in the GE in the full onslaught of the Republicans.

The upshot: if you want unity and a good shot at the White House for your candidate, stop telling us to give up. I'll be on board with the nominee, but according to recent polls the number of Clinton supporters who now say they won't vote for Obama in the GE is growing, and exhibiting a smug, divisive, and fundamentally undemocratic (as in "give up, your vote for your candidate doesn't matter") attitude towards these supporters is just going to make that number grow.

To those who say that defying calls to quit means you're done: or,it means that there are a lot of obnoxious voices telling you to quit, and you're saying forget it, I'm going the distance.

Mr. Reason-Logic: "Listen man, I don't think skydiving without a parachute is such a good idea."

Chris: "Forget it, I'm going the distance."

Corbell: This will be a continuation of what it is: the passionate and informed belief on the part of millions of Americans that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for President in 2008.

Dear Mr. Corbell--I have no doubt about the sincerity of this statement, and I am willing to read your criticisms of Barack Obama, not that I necessarily agree with them.

Now a question for you: Why the nonsense of pundits, and of Sen. Clinton and various of her supporters, referring to supporters of Obama as "cult followers" or words to that effect? I've lost track of the number of times I've seen this nonsense in the press and the blogosphere. Just as I accept your sincere belief that Hillary Clinton is the best choice, will you accept my sincere belief that Barack Obama is the best choice? Will you accept that I have made this decision on the basis of thinking through the issues, listening to the candidates, and talking to friends, relatives, co-workers, and so on?

Cuz I've gotta tell you, Mr. Corbell, just as you feel dissed when someone blathers about how Sen. Clinton ought to quit, how she's a DLC hack, and how you're out of touch...well, I too feel dissed when my rational decision-making is described as "drinking the Kool-Aid", and my preferred candidate is described as a cult figure.

For those who want a cult figure, look no farther than Lyndon LaRouche. I know Sen. Obama, Mr. Corbell, and he's no Lyndon LaRouche.

It seems to me that Hillary supporters need a little reality check since the campaign isn't letting them know the truth...Hillary will not be getting Michigan and Florida. Sorry, they broke the rules.

So the delegate count needs to be subtracted by 366. So, 2024-366=1658. This means that Senator Obama needs only 33 more delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the party. Senator Clinton needs 172. This is just not going to happen.

She would have to win every state by 70% in order to win. We all know that that will not happen.

Wake up Clinton fans, she lost.

I see no contradiction however in airing my concerns about a candidate like Obama

Personally, Chris, I agree with many of your criticisms. I worry about Obama's lack of experience, I worry about his arrogance, and I worry that he's riding a wave that he won't be able to control. And yet I've also found myself totally, completely inspired by him, and able to put aside my cynicism and believe that maybe, just maybe there is a different way that we can conduct our public affairs. And when I look at Clinton, all I see is a return to the bitter, partisan fighting that doesn't solve any of our nation's pressing problems. One quote from Obama has stayed with me (this is not verbatim): Our failure to solve the health care crisis doesn't stem from the lack of good reform plans. There are hundreds of plans, many of which would dramatically improve our health care system. Our failure stems from our inability to forge consensus, pick a plan, and move forward."

Chris, I recognize that Clinton has lots of experience; my problem is that I don't think it's the kind of experience that will move the country forward.

You note that the number of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama is going up, and blame that on Obama. But isn't that figure naturally going to go up the longer the campaign continues, and the more entrenched each side becomes? If that's the case, and if Clinton's chances of winning are very low, then doesn't that argue in favor of Clinton dropping out for the good of the party and the country?

That's not an illegitimate question/concern.

Because she can't beat Obama by winning delegates, essentially Hillary's only hope is a cynical strategy to convince the Super-Ds that Obama is not electable because he's black. Voters seem to defy Clinton’s cynical strategy.

Electability- Apparently Ds and Rs think Obama stands better against McCain according to Gallup:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/31/poll-obama-would-be-tougher-candidate-against-mccain/

March 31, 2008 Poll: Obama would be tougher candidate against McCain Posted: 04:10 PM ET A new poll suggests Sen. Obama would be a tougher candidate for John McCain to beat. < "(CNN)— A new poll finds a majority of Republicans and Democrats feel Sen. Barack Obama would be a tougher candidate against the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in a potential fall match-up.

In a Gallup poll released Monday, 59 percent of Democratic voters believe Obama has the best chance at beating John McCain. Thirty percent said Clinton was more likely to win a matchup with the Arizona senator.

Republicans surveyed say Clinton would be the easiest to beat: 64 percent said Clinton would make a weaker fall opponent for McCain, while just 22 percent said Obama.

The survey of 1,005 adults conducted March 24-27 has a sampling error of 4 percent.

The discussion of which Democrat stands the strongest against John McCain has been an ongoing debate since the Republican race narrowed leaving the Arizona Senator as the Republican nominee in waiting."

Rezko,Ayers,Wright.....these were not people that Hillary was dealing with....Obama's judgement....I didn't know, I hadn't heard....these are the reasons people don't trust Obama....he has already shown his "judgement".

Hillary will win the popular vote and that's why the DNC wants her to get out now. Their argument about the "pledged delegates" is not in the RULES. It says the automatic delegates are to vote for the one most electable in November; not how the pledged delegates voted. Automatics are not counted until the Convention; and, they can change their mind right up to the time of the convention vote. The DNC made the "rules", now they must abide by them as well. And, the DNC has a committee to deal with the Florida/Michigan mess; so that won't be handled until Convention time, as well.

I've heard the "rules" from both sides; and, as democrats we want to stand on the right side of being fair ? Don't we ? So, I guess we'll have to let this play out, according to the "rules"; which dictates we are in for a long summer.

Hillary will not win the popular vote.

She will not win pledged delegates.

Simply compare how these two campaigns have been run.

One (Obama) has been expertly managed, well-planned, excellent ground game, rebuilding local Democratic parties, paying bills on time, bringing in young voters and exceeding expectations.

The other (Clinton) has careened from disaster to disaster, is stiffing small businesses for their bills, is in constant crisis mode despite having a former president on the payroll, has not expanded the voter base, has not contributed to building new local parties, did not foresee a primary past Feb. 5, and has had no choice but to go ugly and deceitful, threatening local parties and the DNC with lawsuits and credentials fights. THIS IS HOW HILLARY WILL GOVERN - constant crisis mode, careening from disaster to disaster, lying and manipulating. The primary is a test - THE TEST. And she sucks at it. She was not ready on day one. Her campaign proves it.

Keep in mind that Hillary had Harold Ickes stack the primary schedule to "guarantee" her a win on Feb. 5.

HILLARY HAD NO PROBLEM DISENFRANCHISING ALL STATES VOTING AFTER FEB. 5 - when she thought she had stacked the deck in her favor.

Now she's lying about that - about the entire voter disenfranchisement issue. Hillary is immoral.

...as democrats we want to stand on the right side of being fair ? Don't we ?

As this and related threads indicate the answers are "Not so" and "No," respectively.

Hillary wants to be president.

Barack wants to lead the nation.

@SBG... yes, that is the main difference between the two. The presidency is just another step in Hillary's resume-building. Barack is simply a leader.

To all people who are thinking of voting for Obama for unity of the party:

Please vote for who you think will be the best president and don't feel pressured to conform for the sake of party unity. This is your chance to vote for YOUR preference for President of the United States. Do not let others, pundits, and the media which I believe has been guiding the race, influence how you vote. Vote for the person you believe will be able to do the hardest job in the country the best.

Obama can not lead a nation as he has no judgment. I am not at all convinced about his excuse for listening to hate for 23 years, and exposing his two young daughters and saying he does not agree with Wright, who is his mentor. I do not buy his nonsense of race divide that even my 20 year-old college son said very clearly,"Mom are people actually buying this cr..? He plagiarizes and he avoids answering the question by talking about a sensitive issue what a fraud!" Words of wisdom for our youth; if a 20 year-old and his friends who are not at all political can see the real thing, I can only "hope" that the rest of America does. But again, we Americans are always repeating history as we never learn from it...In 2000 we wanted change so badly that we allowed the Supreme Court to appoint an inexperience, bumbling idiot, and now we are calling to once again stop democracy in action for the sake of democracy, give me a break. Come on Americans wake up...If votes are important then let everyone vote and you all need to sit, relax, and dream on...

The Obama Campaign would not be planting Obama surrogates to go on national shows and suggest that Hillary Clinton should get out of the race if there was not a lingering fear that the election could turn in her favor.

Bottomline- despite the spin on the "delegate math"- this race is in a statistical dead heat- percentage wise.

NEITHER Candidate has won a majority of pledged delegates- both will need the Superdelegates to get to the 2025 magic #. Let's let the voters in the ten remaining states have their say and let's let the super delegates vote according to the party rules because following the pledged delegate vote causes problems as to how they should do so. Following the national lead of pledged delegates would not be fair to the states and congressional districts the super delegates live in so: Should they follow how their state voted? Should they follow how their district voted?

OMG - what is with all of you? Doesn't anyone care that the repbulicans are the ones who changed the rules in Florida - NOT Hillary or Obaaaama (remember whenever you utter his name to gaze into the air and say it like a prayer). We are talking about democratic voters and two states being eliminated from the entire selection procress. Isn't this what we were outraged over with Gore? Hillary is a great candidate with good experience. Obaaaama will be too in time - just not yet.

Yes, let's have superdelegates vote as their states' have!

If the superdelegates voted as their state went -- akin to what the electoral college is expected to do in the general election -- then Hillary would be ahead in the overall delegate count. This also strengthens Hillary's point that winning in the states where she's won does matter, those that are high in electoral college votes. So yes, I agree with Pelosi that the superdelegates should vote like the people in their respective states. Go Hillary!

"The Obama Campaign would not be planting Obama surrogates to go on national shows and suggest that Hillary Clinton should get out of the race if there was not a lingering fear that the election could turn in her favor."

Oh...I can think of few MILLION reasons why those surrogates might suggest that she leave.

For those who have trouble with math:

2.5 million A DAY. Times 31 days: 77.5 MILLION dollars.

Thats a lot of 1 dollar bills. Thats a lot of 100 dollar bills. More importantly: thats a lot of money that could go towards defeating the Republicans in November.

BTW: This amount of cash spent between the democratic candidates, is more than McCain has raised EN TOTO. In order words, we have emptied our wallets so that we can allow some infighting and allow a candidate to pursue a numerical and statistical dream.

Hmmm...Maybe Obama's folks just wanna focus on the loyal opposition.

And with that comment, I bow out, and let the folks dream their dreams.

4/1/2008

I am glad that Hillary Clinton has continued her campaign so the voters everywhere, but Florida and Michigan have input. Why is Sen. Obama and his supporters so afraid to have Sen. Clinton still in the race and have a redo in Florida and Michigan? While Sen. Clinton is giving a serious talk in PA on the economic and mortgage foreclosure crises, Sen. Obama is out in PA feeding cows and bowling. Sen. Obama said he even had a few beers. Do you remember another Presidential candidate who said he was the kind of President you would want to have a beer with? I hope all of you Oregon voters will see the outstanding abilities of Hillary Clinton who fully understands the issues of universal health care, energy independence including the development of green collar jobs, education reform, and national security. Sen. Clinton will be ready on Day One and has an impressive list of admirals and generals who support her including Reps. Murtha and Sesak of PA. Sen. Vote for Hillary!

Why all this harping about Michigan and Florida??? It was agreed in 2007 that because Michigan and Florida broke the rules and changed the dates for their primaries, that those delegates would not count.

See here

That is from Hillary's own website.

Just like the whole false yarn about Tuzla; when it's convenient for her, the rules or the narrative changes.

Why all this harping about Michigan and Florida??? It was agreed in 2007 that because Michigan and Florida broke the rules and changed the dates for their primaries, that those delegates would not count.

See here

That is from Hillary's own website.

Just like the whole false yarn about Tuzla; when it's convenient for her, the rules or the narrative changes.

Oh, good grief Carl. Is this like Obama saying he's the result of his parents meeting in Selma? Then we find out it was four years after he was born. At least with Tuzla, there was uncertainty about the situation. It was a country in chaos. And how many countries has Obama actually visited?

Just a few thought: If things were switched and Sen Clinton was in front with delegate #'s etc, can you imagine any Democrat or pundit saying the 1st viable african american candiate for president should drop out for a woman?. 2nd Sen Clinton will win Pennsylvania and by a bigger margin than will be expected. All the drop out talk is starting to piss off people. A big win could well trigger an Edwards endorsement. That would set up a double win with Indiana and Nor. Carolina. That would be followed by double wins in West Vir and Kentucky. The momentum factor carries Clinton to a tie or win in Oregon.

Third: All that raises doubt in party leaders minds. Sen Obama is not winning key/big states and has had 3 chances to knock out Hillary and was not able to close the deal.

1. Who can take on and win over McCain and Karl Rove-Swift boat wing nuts?

2. SEN HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!!!!

Bonita,

Oh come on... uncertainty about the situation? The only uncertainty about Tuzla was that we never know what kind of spin she'll put on the bald-faced lies that were repeatedly stated over multiple speeches again and again. This is what she uses to burnish her "experience".

Come on, there's footage from CBS News of that little girl at the airport going up to Hillary. For crying out loud, Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were there as well. And if it were so dangerous, what kind of mother would allow a teenage daughter to show up with her in a warzone with snipers???

I've been to 5 continents, probably over 30 countries. Does that make me presidential candidate material too?

Hillary Clinton is a great leader and magnificent person. If she dropped out of the race, it would be a huge loss to America and the world.

Chris -

There is nothing slanderous about the information I posted, and there have been no charges or suits to that effect either. There is much more to the story than people are being told, which is why I suggested your readers google the information themselves.

Rich reading. Especially the research done on the "bogus polygraph and supposed experts". But as for "SLANDER" .... I believe your remarks calling it/me slanderous are themselves slanderous...... or perhaps more appropriately CENSORSHIP since there was no profanity or false presenting of facts.

That is your administrative perogative to protect your political bias.... but it does nonetheless smack and smell of "Big Brother".

I feel sure this post won't make it to your board either. Right? I've been a Democrat all 55 years of my life. But I may not be much longer as McCain is looking far preferable to OBAMA CARTER, if he even makes it that far when the right wing hits the air with what is becoming a rather formidable arsenal of information.

Or did I misunderstand you and you were really objecting to it being incinuated that he may also be gay? I'm gay. Got a problem with incinuating I am a second class citizen?

Locked out of the website too?

You are a brown shirt equivalent in blue, girl.

HILLARY is leading two to one in WV AND KENTUCKY.WHY would she drop out until JUNE 7,2007///BECAUSE she will not have to.

700000 votes is nothing to overcome with big wins in PEN/KENTUCKY AND WV.When all is said is done hillary will of won the states she needed to and be ahead in the popular vote.Sorry folks....this is going to the convention,So set back and enjoy the ride.

Hillary is poised to win in some states she is expected to loose.REMEMBER NH/CAL/TEAXAS.Never count a CLINTON OUT.Her support is the little man/woman who has met every money goal she has ever set.and after PENN the money will be pouring in again.Obama should be happy to have a great competor as HILLARY.I think she go more negative....THE REPUBLICANS SURELY WILL.

Hillary didn't win Texas. She didn't win Nevada either. Last time I checked when a candidate leaves the state with more delegates it's a victory. Hillary didn't win more delegates in Texas or Nevada.

After complained that this primary is like a good movie that become half an hour too long, Obama made a u-turn and said Clinton can run as long as she wants. He obviously changed his stand after the call the for to drop out backfire and cause a lot of HRC supporters to harden their stand that they will never vote for Obama.

Now his supporters are claiming that Obama never called for Hillary to quit. You may let him fool you. But I won't. I knew exactly what he mean. And I won't forget.

Hillary will stay in the race. We have told her since February that we will take her all the way to the finish line. She won't quit because we told her so.

This bit about wanting Clinton to step down now for the good of the party is a line of BS. It reminds me of watching a really good football game. A game where one team is not clearly dominating the other. It's a great game to watch. Often times you will hear the fans say the other team should just leave the feild the moment their team takes even the slimest of leads. They want the other team to accept defeat before the game has ended. To quit trying to win. It's a rediculous thought for a football game and it is equally rediculous in a Presidential race.

The media and the Democratic Party have made a huge mistake with Obama in this campaign. He has been given a free pass for the most part. He has been treated like a new born baby with no sins. He has not proved he can stand against the attacks that will surely come once the nomination is secured. McCain will chew him up much easier than he would Clinton.

But since Howard Dean decided I couldn't have a voice in the Presidential primay, I will be voting for a Republican President for the first time in my life. At least Republicans don't outlaw votes from their own supporters. I can't bring myself to support leaders that are that stupid. In the mean time I will enjoy watching the game.

In the words, more or less, of Winston Churchill - never, never, never, ever give up.

tah

Why is Obama getting a pass on the outright lies contained in his speech at a black church in Selma, AL back in February? They were much worse than anything that Hillary has said.

All of these ridiculous 'knowing' Obama posters need to do some serious analysis of historical voting trends, and WAKE UP! First of all, pay no attention to Hil or Bar vs McCain polling. The poll in May 1988 was Dukakis 55%, Bush 35%. McCain will be easy to beat for Hillary, but not for Obama for 3 main reasons. Obama's sparse record, his duplicitous rhetoric, and, mainly, the Bradley Effect. The mayor of L.A. Tom Bradley, a solid, progressive black democrat was running against the Republican George Dukmajain (sorry if I misspelled that) for the California governorship in 1982 and was consistently ahead in the polls leading up to the election by a range of 5-15%. But the Republican won by 75,000 votes out of 7,100,000 cast. What happens is this: white voters will tell pollsters they are voting for the black candidate or are undecided and then will vote for the white one. Yes, its racism, but its also tribalism, sectarianism, factionalism. Its a natural human response for human beings to align themselves with whatever makes them feel comfortable. Go to google and search 'Bradley Effect'. Unfortunately, the Republicans are masters of fear/divide propaganda, and so the risk of Obama losing the general election is far greater than for Hillary, and we Democrats MUST win the White House in November. Also, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be presiding over stronger majorities, and we'll need a strong Democratic President to whip them into line. That will Be Hillary, Not Obama.

This is for Andrew Simon, SDG,Devarshi and all others that have said, "Hillary cannot win without the superdelegates'" votes," and "I want Democrats who support her to realize it's over. I want Clinton supporters to hold their noses, if they must, and vote for Obama. A Clinton supporter voting for Obama is a vote for party unity and all that entails- i.e. a real healthcare plan, a new direction in economic and foreign policy, among other things." FIrst and foremost, both candidates need the superdelegates to push them over the 2024 vote mark. Therefore, Obama as well as Clinton need the votes of the superdelegates. Second, underestimating the vote of Clinton supporter is down right ignorant. For you think that we, HRC supporters, will foolishly and absent-mindedly give up our votes for your candidate, who has proven in his campaign, by him, his campaign staffer, volunteers, and surrogates that he is denigrating, misogynist, racist and a liar. He paints himself to be the politician who will transcend race and professes to be the new politician. Wake up fools. He has played the race card from the get go. He has used his race to his advantage. And if you haven't read his books, you will come to find out that he is racist and paranoid. You are all playing into the mainstream media's bias. She will never give up, because there are too many people out there who does not want her to give up. Because they are the true Democrats, blue-collar workers, who feels that this country certainly needs a BETTER CANDIDATE to RUN the WHITE HOUSE. If Obama was the voters' choice, don't you think he would have been voted in LONG AGO! By the way, McGovern was supported by young educated folks who went on to become the Democratic Pres nominee. Obama's campaign was much like that of McGovern. GUess what, he lost by a landslide during the General election. You want better economy, national security and just want status quo (REpublican) out of the Oval Office? Vote Hillary!!! Check her website, she has policies in place unlike Obama. His is all speeches and rhetoric. G B America!!!

The problem with Hillary staying in the race isn't that she's a weak candidate. The problem is that she's a strong one in some upcoming states, but she can't win the primary without ruining our chances in November.

<h2>OOOPS, a typo, the last paragraph was Dervashi's comment. But on that note, she is strong on some upcoming states, because those states represent the swing votes. Which confirms that she is the stronger candidate for the general election. B Hussein Obama's campaign has overplayed the notion that he has won more states. Well, those states had maybe 10k to 20k democratic votes. GEE!!! That's a lot of votes!!! At the same token, he cannot win the primary without ruining the Dems chances in Nov. because he is running negative campaigns again HRC. He has allowed his campaign,and surrogates to go out to the media and blast HRC with negative attacks. He said he will transcend race and politics status quo but yet he has not done that. If he is the better politician, then go out to the media and announce,and be accountable for your words, tell them I will not say nor will my surrogates say anything negative about my opponent.</h2>