SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home No Really, You Should Go

POLITICS APRIL 23, 2008

No Really, You Should Go

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Last week, Senator Pat Leahy suggested that Hillary Clinton ought to quit the presidential race. How insensitive! How boorish! Pundits gasped, Clinton took umbrage, and even Barack Obama was forced to concede that Clinton has the right to run for as long as she desires.

The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense. Democrats' reluctance to push Clinton out of the race is the perfect expression of that delicate sensibility.

There is some point at which a candidate's chance of winning becomes so low that her right to continue is outweighed by the party's interest in preparing for the general election. Does Clinton have a chance to become president? Sure. So does Ralph Nader. Clinton's chances are far closer to Nader's than to either Obama's or John McCain's.

Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive.

The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won't matter--like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.

And the supers who haven't endorsed are even less likely to side with Clinton. Numerous reports on uncommitted superdelegates have made clear that they have remained on the sideline out of an exquisite fear of stepping on the results of the voters. As my colleague Noam Scheiber reported, "Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most" ("Slouching Toward Denver," April 9).

Some have gamely insisted that a long campaign actually helps the Democrats, as evidenced by high primary turnout and new voter registration in states like Pennsylvania. But, to believe this argument, you'd have to believe that many of the voters flocking to the primaries would otherwise not have voted in the general election--an absurdity, given that even the high Democratic primary turnout is a fraction of normal general election turnout. You'd have to ignore Obama's foregone opportunities to start organizing nationally and making his general election pitch. And you'd have to explain away the fact that, in recent weeks, Obama has gone from leading McCain in the polls to trailing. (Clinton has trailed McCain for months; now her deficit is growing.)

For the most part, though, Clintonites have presented her continued campaign as a fulfillment of rights. Historian (and TNR alum) David Greenberg recently placed Obama's uplifting style in the tradition of the ineffectual liberals that Arthur Schlesinger derided as "doughfaces" ("Double Negative," April 9). As Greenberg wrote, "A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means." By contrast, he situated Clinton as an heir to "FDR and the New Deal's lieutenants [who] respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put results first."

I think the analogy is apt, but Greenberg has the protagonists backward. It's those defending Clinton's campaign who angrily wave away any practical considerations. In an editorial bolstering Clinton's prerogative to stay in the race, The Washington Post insisted, "No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates--but why is the answer to that less democracy?"

Anyone who tried to talk sense into a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000 probably heard some version of this rationale. Giving the voters more candidates is democracy, man. The decision to run is an act of civic virtue that may not be analyzed for its real-world effects. Nader himself dismissed Leahy's call for Clinton to withdraw as "political bigotry." He urged, "Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run."

A related justification is the "Think of the Puerto Ricans" defense. As a Clinton campaign memo insists, "the citizens in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that fundamental right." Of course, if Clinton suspended her campaign, those states could still vote for her if they wanted. It's true that their vote wouldn't matter, but that's the way it usually works most of the time anyway. A few months ago, everybody expected the race to be decided after New Hampshire. Now we can't bear to face the fact that the race has been decided after merely 80 percent of the states have weighed in.

Then you have the millions of Clinton supporters who have come to see her campaign as the literal embodiment of feminism. "Now Clinton's methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace," writes syndicated columnist Marie Cocco. "She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume."

In the same column, Cocco concedes, "Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination." That's quite a concession! That is, if you consider the presidency an instrument for legislation and policy change, rather than a vehicle for Hillary Clinton's self-actualization and the civic expression of the South Dakota Democratic primary electorate.

Schlesinger once described the doughface tradition thusly: "Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done, but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations." Is there any better description for Clinton's rationale?

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 338 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

338 comments

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-) If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE! You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton.. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-) Best regards jacksmith...

- jacksmith

April 4, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DON'T BE DUPED !!! Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon. But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day). I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now. You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves. Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy. I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses. Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton) Sincerely jacksmith...

- jacksmith

April 4, 2008 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-) If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE! You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton.. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-) Best regards jacksmith...

- jacksmith

April 4, 2008 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DON'T BE DUPED !!! Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon. But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day). I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now. You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves. Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy. I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses. Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton) Sincerely jacksmith...

- jacksmith

April 4, 2008 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My message to Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes WORK. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton, and that phoney Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great service to this Country. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org....All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....

- Sebastian

April 4, 2008 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Anyone who tried to talk sense into a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000 probably heard some version of this rationale" Actually you have it the exact opposite way.It should have been "Anyone who tried to talk sense into a Gore supporter". I am voting for Nader again, as are real progressives.You can continue to vote for war candidates all you want be my guest.

-

April 5, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary's deluded sense of entitlement will hand the election to McCain. But thank the deity that Obama came along and forced off the road the hideous possibility of four or eight more years of Clintonian dysfunction in the White House. Hillary led the assassination squad formed to slime any woman who DARED to expose BubbaJeff's sexual predation. Sisterhood thrown under the bus for the sake of naked, venal political ambition. And yet ... there's that blue-haired white-bred contingent of American women who back her anyway? WHY?

- Chuckamok

April 5, 2008 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not just that you are assuming Democratic Party victory in November is more important than democracy, which of course it isn't. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to convince anyone that it is, but that's not the worst of what you're doing here. You're trying to get candidates to take choices away from voters who clearly want those choices. You say voters in later primaries can still vote for Clinton if she quits now. Well, they can still vote against her if she stays in, too, so why should she quit? Mathematically they control enough delegates to hand her outright victory. They can still decide the race, so let them decide. Why doesn't Obama quit? If he withdraws now, Clinton would win. Obama should know, since that's how he got into the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate - his opponents withdrew or he sued to knock them off the ballot on technicalities. If Obama would quit, she could focus on the general election. But clearly neither should quit. It's entirely up to voters at the moment they vote whether Clinton will win, not you, not her, not superdelegates and not poll respondents. Yet you demand that she join you in trying to usurp their sovereign power to decide. If voters in Texas and Ohio wanted the Democratic Party to focus on the general election last month they would have all voted for Obama, but they didn't. Same with voters in Pennsylvania and North Carolina this month. They with some other states could hand Obama outright majority in pledged votes. If enough vote for Clinton to prevent that, then the voters have spoken - they have chosen not to send her packing yet with their votes. So who are you to tell Clinton to quit when Democrat voters are telling her resoundingly to keep competing? This is precisely what Nader means by political bigotry, people presuming as you do that you have any right to foreclose on voters' range of choices before they step into the voting booth, because you think allowing them broader choice endangers your hopes of gaming the general election in favor of Democrats. And it's paternalistic, which is especially telling to many feminists just what you are up to - you argue that candidates like Clinton or Nader should withdraw to reduce voter choices, because you think reducing those choices is for the voters' own good. So when you go on dates, do you order for your date to prevent them from ordering something they'll regret or something you think it's inappropriate, unhealthy or immoral for them to eat? Seriously, do you?

- jautumn

April 6, 2008 at 2:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, Jonathan, for one of the view rays of sanity in this maddened primary year. Not that the Clintonistas will see it: their faith is predicated on a maddened blindness.

- Miande

April 6, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well put.

- icarusr

April 7, 2008 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking for April 3-5 shows 49% of national Democratic voters saying they are most likely to support Barack Obama for the party's presidential nomination, while 46% prefer Hillary Clinton. She can’t quit. It would be a betrayal of 46% Of Democratic voters to quit now.She just doesn't have this option even if she wanted to quit

-

April 7, 2008 at 1:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

post date april 23?

- perkowitz

April 7, 2008 at 1:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Today I saw a poll reported on TV that showed both Hillary Clinton (by 48 to 43%) and Obama (by 47-42%) leading McCain. These polls are remarkably abundant and varied: it seems that, depending upon which point of view you want to push, you can find one to suit. It is often the Obama supporters (to whom I must believe Chait belongs) who most slyly lie with statistics; and, given our decades-long failing educational system, they can find innumerable poor souls who believe their drivel. True, there is no way Hillary can win the nomination with elected delegates--but there is no way that Barack can do so, either: the closeness of the race, and the absence of both Florida and Michigan, guarantee that. Of course, Hillary WON in Florida (without campaigning, and neither did Barack), and also in Michigan (but Obama's name was not on the ballot). Now, with his increasing name recognition, and swollen campaign coffers, why should Obama fear having a rerun of those primaries? But he does--and his political allies have, apparently, been able to prevent the votes being fairly counted. Truth is, Hillary Clinton trails Obama by about 1% of all votes cast, but MAY make up that difference even without Florida and Michigan, and PROBABLY would, if those two states were allowed to vote. Therefore, comparing her campaign to Nader's is egregiously insulting and misleading; but for all that, it's all been done before, it's all OLD politics, and to those who buy Obama's line about 'the New Politics', I say, 'Poor fools you'.

- JBerkowicz

April 7, 2008 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She has to get out of the race now or democrats will lose to McCain in general, he has been rising in polls as Clinton pulls Obama down with herself. Her mantra has been if not me, no one should win from democrats. There is genuine argument here that Clinton is setting up for 2012 to run again and the only way she can do that is by making sure Obama doesn't win in 2008. All the feminist standing up for Hillary don't really know the real Hillary, she will probably end up the biggest stain on feminism.

- Najam

April 7, 2008 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Therein lies the issue: The Clinton campaign is nothing more, and nothing less, than an exercise in feminist resentment against young black men. It's George Wallace in a pantsuit.

- Abe

April 7, 2008 at 3:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's your problem Chait? If she's weak, she'll lose. So? Aaaah, you don't like that she's trying instead of listening to the press imbeciles. I see. I actually like her for that reason alone. You go and cheer for Chairman Obama of the Soviet Union of America.

- sleepyavl

April 7, 2008 at 3:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shout it from the mountaintops, Jonathan. I began this campaign season as a Hillary booster, and at times, early on, I argued her case. Vigorously. And then she started losing. She can't win pledged delegates, and can get the nomination without shattering the party, and can't keep running without hamstringing Obama. It ain't about the glass ceiling, or race, or any of that other bullshit. It's about winning and losing. The longer she stays in, the more she reinforces the idea that SHE thinks it's all about HER. Quite frankly, I thought she was a better politician than that.

- Sullydog

April 7, 2008 at 4:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is the likelihood that Obama's cruising uncontested to Denver will increase the amount of scrutiny that this mystery man receives from the press? Isn't it more likely that he will blithely sail on, spouting his BS, up until he's sandbagged in the fall as Dukakis was by charges that he could have and would have learned to fend off during the primary hothouse season?

- teplukhin2you

April 7, 2008 at 5:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wednesday, April 23????????????

- mjc203

April 7, 2008 at 6:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I’ll admit to deriving considerable schadenfreude in watching Democrats assume their positions in the circular firing squad that they’ve created for themselves. Obama taking a page out of the Republican’s play book and going for delegates in the red flyover states knowing that he has no hope of carrying those states in the general election. Hillary meanwhile assuming she (and Bill) are inevitable and being too smart by half choose to go after the big blue states and just like the elections in 2000 and 2004 Obama and Hillary find themselves essentially in a tie. Democrats who loudly denounced SCOTUS’s decision favoring Bush in 2000 while demanding that every vote be counted now find themselves with the undemocratic process of having their nominee selected not by the voters but by super-delegates in backrooms theoretically filled with smoke. Meanwhile the voters in Florida and Michigan are wondering what in hell happened.

- Navy Gunner

April 7, 2008 at 6:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What never ceases to amaze me isn't HRC's unbounded ego in spinning the potential of winning, but the money she's been and continues to spend even though she can't win. The media is completely complicit and keeps putting out lines like the ones you quoted, leaving the public thinking that she really does have a chance - somehow more than the proverbial snowball's. I think there's a lot of loss of credibility happening to many major media outlets because of this.

- WaltB

April 7, 2008 at 6:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh come on... Let it play out a little more. I've been an ABHer from Day One, but let her really get beaten, and definitively beaten, and beaten hard, before she withdraws.

- David Smith

April 7, 2008 at 6:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

y6n66lo-bxw55uw-tw6qeefc-0 http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/home-owners-insurance/#1 life insurance [url=http://wholelifeinsurance.browser.to#3]whole life insurance[/url] [url]http://lifeinsurance.webalias.com#4[/url] [http://wholelifeinsurance.fun.to#5 whole life insurance] "home insurance":http://homeinsurance.way.to#6 [LINK http://wholelifeinsurance.webalias.com#7]whole life insurance[/LINK]

- low cost auto insurance

April 7, 2008 at 7:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's precisely because of the super delegates that herself continues to run. What a convoluted system. Just in case the voters don't do what we(powerful people) want, we have "super delegates" to override the will of the people. Talk about your disenfranchisement. It's OK though because we're Democrats, Yea, that works for me!

- ken

April 7, 2008 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is not a word to be added to, or subtracted from, this piece. Now the Democratic electorate should get back to work sinking Hillary in the polls and forcing her out of the race.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2008 at 7:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why have the superdelegates?! They were originally put in place to prevent the party base from repeating the McGovern debacle. Really, what's so thrilling about Obama? One of his assets was that he appeared to be a post-racial politician. But his dreary hypocritical speech justifying Rev. Wright put the lie to that. His economic program is limp and has failed to win John Edwards's endorsement. He thinks a President should just call Ahmadinijad and search for a way to appease clerical-fascist Iran. He may win only because of this insane Clinton-hatred and because John McCain is so reactionary and stupid.

- Amidut

April 7, 2008 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spot on Jonathan.

- Madisonians for Obama

April 7, 2008 at 7:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps it is the last remenants of the lost Democrat Party's soul trying to stop their plunging into and full embrace of Marxism.

- w. Keller

April 7, 2008 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do you know that there are no more skeletons in Obama's closet? What if Clinton had bowed out before the Rev. Wright controversy? Having Clinton stay in the race helps the democrats. It is good insurance. There is more interest in the party, it toughens the presumptive nominee, who is undeniably thin on experience, both as a candidate and in accomplishment. This is good for Obama. The real problem is having the conventions so long after the last primary. The conventions shuld be moved back to June like they once were. Then there would be no need to complain about a long primary season.

- JohnMo

April 7, 2008 at 7:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally! A member of the media has the political courage to use common sense (which the media lacks these days) and say what should have been said weeks if not months ago... That this race for the nomination has been over. Honestly if the Democratic party was smart and use to winning elections(neither statement true) those superdelgates would have moved to Obama after the Wisconsin Primary, where Obama had won 12 in a row and was showing that he could indeed build a coalition that included those "blue collar" whites. But what do these guys do? They let the media build there own narrative for the purpose of ratings and having a story to gush over filled with the issues of race and gender, and actually allow regular people to think this is an actual race. Technically Hilary was one "New Hampshire miracle" from this thing being over in January. Thank You Mr. Chait for your honesty!

- Dillon

April 7, 2008 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait does what all lefties do so well. WHINE. When confronted with reality, he whines some more. What do you expect from people that lack spines? keep on whining JON

- Gene Wiley

April 7, 2008 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, you should hear yourself. I think you would be FAR more comfortable living in a communistic country. Chait, I think it is you who should go! You far underestimate Clinton's popularity amongst Americans. Yes, even college educated ones like myself. CLINTON '08!

- Phoenix Comment

April 7, 2008 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is remarkable that the New Republic continues to seek to substitute its own preferences for the judgment of the voters. This is still a democracy, not a media based plutocracy.

- chiron

April 7, 2008 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very good column. Mr. Chait seems to have a good understanding of who Hillary Clinton really is, why she is in the race, and what she will do (anything it takes!) to win. But he misses one point in this otherwise interesting piece. Hillary Clinton thinks the Presidency is her entitlement, which makes it OK to do anything to win. But the Democrats ARE the party of entitlements. Is it hypocritical to say that no one is "entitled" to the nomination, while everyone is "entitled" to almost everything else (health care insurance, abortions, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and whatever are the other entitlements du jour).

- Interested in Fairfax

April 7, 2008 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very good column. Mr. Chait seems to have a good understanding of who Hillary Clinton really is, why she is in the race, and what she will do (anything it takes!) to win. But he misses one point in this otherwise interesting piece. Hillary Clinton thinks the Presidency is her entitlement, which makes it OK to do anything to win. But the Democrats ARE the party of entitlements. Is it hypocritical to say that no one is "entitled" to the nomination, while everyone is "entitled" to almost everything else (health care insurance, abortions, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and whatever are the other entitlements du jour).

- Interested in Fairfax

April 7, 2008 at 8:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Jonathan, Weren't you also a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. According to your own candidate, you don't have good enough "judgement," like saying that Clinton should get out of the race.

- Rosy

April 7, 2008 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Instead or reading Chait's nonsense, try this essay by Sean Wilencz on how Clinton has better legitimacy as a candidate than does Obama. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/

-

April 7, 2008 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Chait's post doesn't even take into account the impact of the disclosure of the Clintons' tax returns. If all she has left are the feminists (which, if my girlfriend is a guide, she will not lose) and the blue collars, by week's end that leaves the feminists.

- reaylward

April 7, 2008 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[H]er right to continue is outweighed by the party's interest in preparing for the general election." Exactly what kind of "right" is that? She either has a right to run or she doesn't, your equivocations nothwithstanding. Besides, her loyalty to a Democratic party that cannot organize a primary season that yields a clear leader would be misplaced. If the Democrats lose this year, which is looking more and more likely, the blame resides with the Screamer, Howard Dean.

- emd

April 7, 2008 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bottom line - If Clinton "steals" the nomination the blacks will be absolutely furious (and who could blame them) and will finally desert the dems in unprecedented numbers. McCain will win the presidency. Obama has earned the nomination and he's the best candidate. Anything else spells disaster for the dems.

- Joe

April 7, 2008 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democracy, so troublesome.

- Tim BL

April 7, 2008 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democracy, so troublesome.

- Tim BL

April 7, 2008 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo, Mr. Chait. As a lifelong Democrat, I am increasingly frustrated and downright angry at the very qualities you so brilliantly express in your article. It makes me crazy to see how inevitably the Democrats look like sulky, egocentric adolescents, leaving the Republicans to play the role of the responsible grownups!

- Cecelia Cox

April 7, 2008 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Senator Clinton's campaign has been poorly managed, her attacks hypocritical at best, and her exaggerations have crossed the dishonesty threshold. None of this is remotely Presidential.

- Drew

April 7, 2008 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, thank you, thank you

- BL

April 7, 2008 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She has every right to continue as long as she wants. She's not going to win, but she has every right to continue. A lot of the 'I shall not vote for the other candidate' is as absurd as 'I'll move to canada if bush wins again'. There was no exodus to canada. People will change their minds once someone wins the primaries.

- Le Blue Dude

April 7, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article. The "Think of the Puerto Ricans" defense is particularly inane. Voters in future contests will have the same right to vote no matter who the candidates are. Nobody is trying to prevent them from exercising their voting rights as HRC repeatedly insinuates. They are not being deprived of some "right" by not having my name on the ballot. Nor would they be deprived of any "right" if Hillary Clinton were to withdraw. There is no such thing as a "right" to participate in a primary in which Hillary Clinton is an active candidate. This line of reasoning from the HRC camp is an absolutely pathetic attempt to shift the burden of her continuing joke of a campaign from her own selfishness to imagined future HRC supporters. I am completely sick of the HRC campaign. Get out already.

- Davidov

April 7, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems Hillary Clinton believes her rights outweigh her responsibilities. This is not a good trait in a leader.

- gc

April 7, 2008 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know how you count, but I tried to count this and I end up with a 1450 pledged to Clinton and 1237 to Obama. You have 20 more for Obama and another few hundred for Clinton, so I assume you count Michigan and Florida, but that can't be considered fair at the moment. Sometimes counting is tricky, and even if it is fair to give Texas to Clinton, Obama technically did win that state. Then Obama would have the lead in a winner takes it all-system. Basically the system is the system. It may not be great, but that is how the rules are. And I can not see a reason for why it is undemocratic to count proportionally. Obama's win in Missouri was insignificant and I lean towards the same conclusion about Clinton's win in California. It does not hold to claim that if he can't win it in the primaries, he can't win it in November. It's a logical fallacy to draw the conclusion that "If C is better than B, C must be better than M".

- Jan

April 7, 2008 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No really, you should ignore reality... Clearly a significant and sizable numbers of Democrats support Senator Clinton's campaign and continue to do so -- even in states yet to have their primary/caucus. These amounts ridicule any comparison to a Nader campaign and indeed, ridicule any "wretched rationalization" that Senator Clinton must go. You commentators/pundits are all ignoring this relentless obviousness of humble math: at least +40%, if not more in the big states, Democratic party members have serious reservations about the viability of an Obama candidacy. The party itself, the rank and file, the demographic cohorts which show up to vote in November -- millions and millions -- neither believe in nor support Obama. This math is highly suggestive. Additionally, nationally, the polling is roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, McCain, Obama and Clinton. This data is even more suggestive. No really, almost half of the party is telling her she needs to stay -- and head-to-head, so is the country. You need to wretchedly rationalize that if you and Obama supporters want to win in November, as bad as all of us Democrats do, then you need to start articulating a position to bring the Party together: an Obama & Clinton ticket. No really...nearly 100% of the Democratic party, all of the delegates, 2/3 vs. 1/3 wins...you should let go of your notion that Hillary should go.

- dcrolg

April 7, 2008 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait proves again that language does matter. Immensely. Obama's lead in pledged delegates is in fact virtually insurmountable. That's not a "small" lead, as the Clinton spin woulde have us believe, that's a huge one by any stretch. In other words, she can't win. Her only option is to keep on until the last dog dies, which is what she is doing. (Note to self: the Penn dog just died.) Politics in some ways is a battle to own the language that shapes the discussion of how we perceive events and outcomes. The Rovian wing of the Republican party understood this completely, while the Dems stuck to their policy knitting. "If we just exPLAIN how our policies are better, they'll vote for us," was the line of thinking. Sorry. ComPASSIONATE conservatism won the day. Bloody brilliant, with a big tip of the cap to Mr. Rove, or whoever thought up these linguistic clothes that initially covered up the Bush incompetences. The Patriot Act, in which our civil liberties shrink, the War on Terror, in which we invade and occupy a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. These are all wonderful, if hypocritical and very costly uses of language which have turned the political tables on the opposition in inexorable ways. The battle for a country's hearts and minds starts and stops with language. As voters we would do well to make our own judgments, based on the facts. But the actual facts are often misconstrued by a pliable and needy press, who are desperate to get the story, have access, and be part of the process. Since 9/11, they have failed us miserably, with very, very few exceptions. Where is Howard Cosell when we need him? Someone who will really "tell it like it is."

- Adirondax

April 7, 2008 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Using the feminist's own analogy this is more like Clinton as the manager who has been promoted above her ability and a younger employee who can get the job done is getting the job!

- Matt

April 7, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can I just say that if she expects us to let her win this because of how "hard she works", she had better go somewhere. I know 95% of Americans work harder, some with intensive labor. However, they make 15 million a year and still Bill collects retirement money from Arkansas. Thats sounds to me like feeding off American people, now working for them.

- Brian, Ohio

April 7, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when Obama tanks in November, it will be Hillary Clinton's fault, despite The One's glaring weaknesses as a general-election candidate. Thanks for clearing that up.

- Palomino

April 7, 2008 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures" Earth to Mr. Chait..........it's YOUR PARTIES RULES! She's still alive because of THE RULES OF YOUR PARTY. Those rules and "procedures" indicate that she is still in the race, in lieu of a situation over the next few months that makes it more difficult for the person leading to win in the fall. Hence the Superdelegates. It's simply folly and fraud to claim otherwise.

- Aaron

April 7, 2008 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent observations but the real reason the people have tuned away from her is the Clintonian attitude and mind set that tells the American people "I did not have sex..." "I was under sniper fire...corkscrew landing...". Enough with the lies!!

- NM Dave

April 7, 2008 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fight on Hillary, fight on! You are doing your country a great service. "President McCain" has a nice ring to it.

- bostonbornandbred

April 7, 2008 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'"Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done, but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations." Is there any better description for Clinton's rationale?' Is there any better description of the Democratic Party?

- robr

April 7, 2008 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Big" and "Insurmountable" are not necessarily one in the same. If Obama lead by 1 delegate after the last primary his "pledged delegate" lead would be insurmountable and hardly big. While his lead in pledged delegates is insurmountable, his lead in votes is not. Further, he has done a magnificent job of using the rules to his advantage (especially stupid ones like those that stripped two likely strong Hillary states of their delegates). Since super delegates, by rule, can vote however they want, why shouldn't Hillary take advantage of that rule? As a resident of Pennsylvania, I guess my question would be, "what kind of race should a late primary state be allowed to decide?" A race with two really well funded candidates splitting things damn near hte middle isn't enough? Perhaps we need to wait for that year when there will be three well funded candiates splitting things into roughly equal thirds? If Hillary ends her campaign before all the races play out, you can expect to see every state move their primaries and caucuses up to January 2nd so they don't get left out of the selection process. I'm not sure the candidate chosen from such a system would necessarily serve the party well in future elections.

- Rich

April 7, 2008 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Touche!

- Janet

April 7, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait ignores the most fundamental reason for Senator Clinton to remain in the race...the additional time it provides Democrats to vet Senator Obama, and, to back away from a candidate that Senator Clinton correctly argues is unelectable. Whatever else Mr Chait argues, he cannot deny that just about half of the Democratic Primary electorate are against Senator Obama...not one-quarter, not one-third, but HALF. This within the left-of-center parameters of the Democratic primary process, an arena tailor-made for Senator Obama. In the general election, even among Democratic leaning Independents, and moderate and conservative Democrats, Senator Obama will not have enough support from the political "center" to win the wider contest. And believe it Mr Chait, mainstream American voters will be seeking the political "center" in November.

- H-Dog

April 7, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether or not Hillary still has a chance depends on one factor - how many cards she can call in. In Klartext, how many people can she blackmail. Remember those FBI files?

- redmanrt

April 7, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-) If you think Hillary Clinton really has 35 years experience

- Skynet

April 7, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

adirondax, Quite right. See, George Orwell. Rich, sorry, but Pennsylvania is not going to decide anything, much as you might find that appealing. The race is already won, by Obama. We are simply waiting for the fat lady to sing. The super delegates are going for Obama because that is the wish expressed by the majority of Democrats, by their votes and in the polls. The only reason they have not yet done so is that they do not want to offend you all in Pennsylvania by making it explicit that it is too late in the game for you to have a deciding voice. Shortly after your primary is over -- very shortly if it is close, otherwise after North Carolina, the supers will declare and Obama will be the victor.

- roi

April 7, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too much cafeeine + too much time = emails like this. President McCain will soothe your jangled nerves.

- bostonbornandbred

April 7, 2008 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not sure how important this is, but I disagree with Chait's statement that a lead cannot be both "small" and "insurmountable". To use a sports analogy, I would argue that a football team with a 14-13 lead taking knees against a team with no times out left has a lead which is both "small" and "insurmountable". The inability to overcome a lead does not automatically to transform an otherwise-small lead to "not small".

- K

April 7, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great choices you have.... 1) "past the dishonesty barrier"....she's a pathological lier.....snipers, Rose Law Firm, recent hospital story......she doesn't have 35 years experience...she has a couple of years in the Senate...and done nothing 2) BHO is a lier as well, still too early to call him a "pathological" lier, but he is well on his way, and he is racist bigot to boot....no experience either...none what-so-ever...political hack comes to mind...had to get his "cred"....please.... How any sane person could vote for either of these two is beyond comprehension.

- John

April 7, 2008 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear mr jackass..sorry, Jacksmith. YOU might be an idiot, if you don´t see the power senator Obama radiates. He´s calm, he´s confident and he´s the kind of politician you might get a chance to experience in a lifetime. If you are lucky. The new world deserves a new kind of leader. And Mr Jacksmith, You might be an idiot if you really think senator Clinton has 35 years of experience in governing anything. She is married to someone who has. That´s a difference. We´re not electing Bill Clinton. Do we really want him back in the oval office? Hasn´t he embarrassed the country enough? And his wife?

- roy silver

April 7, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is the candidate Bill or Hillary? Who'd be an idiot? Billary'd rather go.

- Real

April 7, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As the Democratic Party comes apart like an over speed flywheel. And Jack Smith...man you need to relax, I fear for your health!

- Amused...

April 7, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Jacksmith: I might be an idiot. You are an idiot. Slick Willie conquered a nuclear power? The only nuclear power he put his willie to was the U.S.

- fowlowl

April 7, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you believe the jacksmith manifesto. You might be an idiot if you think Hillary has 35 years experience at anything more than breathing. You might be an idiot if you believe Bill Clinton was responsible for the bomming economy of the late 90's. You might be an idiot if you believe you don't pay enough taxes, (unless you pay none).

- The Right

April 7, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world were so cut and dry? It's certainly easier to just assume that those who disagree with you are idiots than to think they may be intelligent, informed people who (gasp) have a different opinion than you. Check it out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ apparently there are a lot of "idiots" out there...

- Smiling

April 7, 2008 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT if you support Obama !" Well, I must be an idiot then - and since I really support Obama a LOT! and I'm White!, I must be an idiot AMONG IDIOTS. Because obviously anyone who likes Obama is like, TOTALLY stupid, cause' like, what reason could they have to vote for someone like that. Now, STFU and go vote Republican. KTHXBAI.

- Abby

April 7, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most intelligent observation in this entire forum came from the dude plugging low cost auto insurance. What is the point arguing that HRC is a more legitimate candidate than Obama because of her experience? Legitimate for whom? Is that really an objective criteria? Yeah, Clinton would be the way more legitimate candidate for me, if I were really happy about 4000 American 20 year-olds now rotting in the ground, and I wanted to award the American public's stupidity and jingoism with yet another millionaire dynasty president (but this time wearing a bra, yay feminism.)

- Chris

April 7, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just a suggestion but when you say "mathematical illiteracy", the correct phrasing be "innumeracy".

- KCG

April 7, 2008 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith, nice comment. May I put a title to that? I think the right one will be "YOU must an idiot"!

- Jack

April 7, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well put, Rich. As a Pennsylvanian, I find the notion that my vote shouldn't be counted in the nomination process pretty ludicrous, particularly given the amount of woo pitched at me in the general. I am also constantly amazed at the ability of the press, and the Obama supporters, to overlook one simple fact: BHO can't win the required number of delegates the old-fashioned way any more than Hillary can. If he had won resounding victories, the race would be over. He didn't, and here we are. Why should my state and my candidate be made silent for the benefit of a prospective nominee who couldn't close the deal?

- lbr

April 7, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama hasn't won, so it doesn't make any sense for Senator Clinton to quit. Obama has failed to win enough pledged delegates to secure the nominiation. Despite your speculation about the motivation of Senator Clinton's supporters, many support her simply because they think she is the better prepared candidate. It makes the most sense for the voters to continue to register their preference so the remaining super delegates can be fully informed by the voters preference.

- snarbagel

April 7, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton Democrats are going to remember the slights from the media and the Democratic establishment and going to vote McCain. It is not an empty threat...I for one will do so. As a result of the attacks on the Clintons' and Obama's likely ascent, I have made a McCain campaign donation (and I am, perhaps was, an ardent Democrat). For some reason,Chait and others want to subvert the Democrat process and end the race prematurely simply to the candidate of their choice does not have to deign continue campaigning. Chait, thanks for helping to destroy the Democratic Party.

- Better1

April 7, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Jacksmith! Give it a rest and get over it. Obama is the nominee. Heehee!

- toritto2000

April 7, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT, a.k.a., jacksmith.

There's no "might be" about it, you must be an idiot if you actually believe all that the pro-Clinton blather you posted this morning. I mean seriously, you must have an intravenous drip line taking in mind-altering drugs directly from the Clinton Campaign hype machine.

Why not try posting a reasoned argument for a change? Oh, I know... You can't get that from the Clinton drip bag.

- SpinDR

April 7, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton supporters are "blind?" This of course coming from a cult member who supports a man who speaks lovely words and says nothing. He says nothing because he has no ideas of his own. Why do you think Obama spent so much time "learning" from Hillary when he entered the Senate? He had to get good ideas from someone. The media acts as if this is the first time the Democratic nominee has not been determined before the Primary. Read you history. Bill Clinton didn't receive the nomination until June...and he went in trailing in the polls. Woodrow Wilson went into the Convention in third place. This is nothing new. It did not destroy the Democratic Party then and it will not now. The only people wanting Hillary to drop out are the Obama supporters. Well, sorry, Barack...this is not Chicago.

- RC

April 7, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith- You must be one of Rush's dittoheads!! Rush has been pushing republicans to vote for Hillary and you sound like one of Rush's mouthpieces. Let's see if you base Obama's experience level on his experience then you probably would have thought the same about Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Kennedy because all of those great presidents had less legislative experience than Obama. Get a grip, your rantng is not going to win any elections for Hillary.

- Charles Phillips

April 7, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it interesting that Clinton supporters, as their desperation grows, are starting to sound more and more like the kind of fanatical cult followers that they accuse Obama supporters of being. They are so totally devoted to their candidate that they are letting themselves be blinded by reality. At this point, it doesn't matter who will or who won't be a better candidate in November; the fact remains that the only way Clinton can now claim victory is if she tears her party apart. If the Democrats want to stand by and let her do it, well, its their party and they can cry if they want to. But they'll have no one to blame but themselves when McCain takes the oath of office next January.

- DeTroyes

April 7, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear jacksmith you might be an idiot

- archie

April 7, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're the fool. Seen Operation Chaos, led by Rush? He's lined up the Repubs for vote for Hillary.

- wisteacher

April 7, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love watching Defeatocrats fight...you guys should sell tickets...pass the popcorn.

- Increase Mather

April 7, 2008 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From inevitable to deadlocked in place, from deadlocked in place, to viciously smearing, from viciously smearing to a whisper campaign of detraction instead of promotion of herself, from whispering fear and doubt to protesting the unfairness of the system she formerly played like a musical instrument, and from there to finding her own campaign poisoned by it's own methodology and contrivance. This is winning at any cost, and it is the disease that exists in the place where she intends to go and lead. This is not the earmarks, behavior, or strategy to win in a way that allows anyone to lead.

- kayjay

April 7, 2008 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you are loosing site that all scientific and empirical evidence suggest that Republicans are voting for Obama primarily for 2 reasons, his stand on civil liberties, and his from-inception disagreement with the Iraq war. High profile Republicans like Chafee and Eisenhower have supported him for this reason. By no means should Hillary step down, but I believe both Obama and Hillary supporters need to maintain an objective look at what's happening. Unlike you who seem to be in-love with Hillary and is probably a hard-core Clinton supporter, there are many Americans who passionately hate the Clintons, and there are athers who despise her being a strong woman, likewise Obama is hated by some because of his racial makeup. Clinton has a baseline national support that can't seem to exceed 44%, whereas Obama's support may be volatile.

- Bwil

April 7, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Jacksmith -- Assuming that those who don't share your views are idiots is a perfect example of why so many of us reject the Clintons and their divisive politics. We're all in this together, my friend. Best wishes.

- scott williams

April 7, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack Smith from above needs to realize, Bill Clinton inherited a bunch of policies that provided an economic surplus. Then he squandered some of it with a bunch of free trade deals that only hurt the American worker. The results of NAFTA were not felt overnight, but as cheaper Mexican labour became trained, people in the USA saw their jobs vanish. This is not to say that Bush helped the situation with a very unnecessary war that has cost billions, but to say Bill Clinton is a star is total bunk. Also Hillary voted FOR the war that has cost so much money. Now she's going to debate John Mccain AGAINST a war that she supported. Hillary's experience (she was involved in NAFTA a whole lot more than her "sniper fire" foreign policy experience) has shown a total lack of judement. Now she's going to fix bad trade deals she helped to get passed and she's going to end a war she helped to start. Seems she's fixing every mistake her bad judgement helped to create. I won't even speak of her and Bill's honesty (he lied under oath, she lied... sorry, I mean "misspoke" about Bosnia),but trust me, a person that has made over 100 million dollars and then turns around and says she is for the common worker(she has taken more lobbyist money than anyone else in congress) seems to definitely favor interests of the privileged few (which she is one of) more than the everyday citizen. Obama seems to be more in favor of putting Americans (ALL AMERICANS) back in charge of their own destiny and seems he will do the will of the people. Maybe Jack Smith owns a big company and is scratching the Clinton's back. Mitch, CANADA

- Mitchell Robinson

April 7, 2008 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

obviously whoever wrote the "You might be an idiot response" is an idiot. They seem to think that b/c Bill and Hillary are married, Hillary has recieved Experience through leading the Economy through Osmosis or something. Yeah, sure Bill didn't lose any lives in the war, but he also didn't have to deal with the problems that Current President Bush had to deal with. It is Nieve to believe that we should pull out of the war in Iraq. Whether you agree with the reasons why we entered or not (which Hillary did happen to agree with), does not give you an excuse to ignore the necessity of refraining from pulling out of Iraq. If we pull out, the country will go crazy and cause us even more problems than before. It is our duty to make sure another dictator does not take over again like Hussein did. We also have to stay in to protect the oil fields, that UNFORTUNATELY we are dependent upon b/c Liberals won't let us drill off the Gulf Coast and Alaskan Coast. Whoever wrote the "You might be an Idiot" article is obviously lacking knowledge, and obviously has been educated through CNN or NBC, a Liberal-Slanting Propogandous Media Industry. You Should Listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh once in a while. Now in Regards to the Article itself: Personally Both Hillary and Barack are as much of a threat to our country as any terrorist. Barack Speaks of Change, yet never really gives details on How he plans on bringing change, where and when he will implement change, and what specifically those changes will be. I personally hope that Hillary wins the primary so that McCain can blow her out in the National Election. We have a better chance of beating her than Obama. In regards to Response by by BostonBornandBred; response number 57... I have to completely agree with ya there.

- Derek

April 7, 2008 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You have nerve talking about the Democrats' "delicate sensibility." Hillary has been accused of Nixonian tactics for the tamest political moves, ones even Obama has used. The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has shivered and shuddered over every slight, no matter how small or unintentional. And the media -- including liberal outlets such as TNR -- has happily played along, fanning every flame and fueling every outrage. Now, when Obama supporters want to push Clinton out of the race -- before it's even over, before he's even won -- you suddenly want the Democrats to grow some balls? Balls, indeed.

- suzyqueue

April 7, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People like JackStmith make you realize why American is on the wrong path. A person who thinks HRC has 35 years of experience is not only an idiot but also dilusional. I just hope this whinning ends soon so we can move on to more important things in life.

- Zia

April 7, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To you D's two points: 1. It was Reagan's policies that triggered the greatest economic exapnsion in the history of this country and the R's taking Congress in '94 that will keep it on track. 2. Either Barack or Hillary will give us a universal health care plan that is certainly affordable for the lower middle classes, but at the expense of those of us considered "rich" (ie you have an education and a job where you work your tail off to make a modestly comfortable but not opulent income) who will pay more than 60% of their incomes in taxes and ultimately kill the rest of the economy. Ultimately we will look like France, Germany, Canada and those other countries that are choking on their social welfare costs while providing triaged medical care which the super rich simply avoid by getting superior medical care-HERE!

- bobby d.

April 7, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith might be an idiot...

- Bob

April 7, 2008 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is up ahead of McSame again in most of the polls and the few have him behind are not statistically significant, Obama's on the rise

- Avinash_Tyagi

April 7, 2008 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are absolutely correct, sir. And it won't make any difference at all. I don't really care because I feel either one is going to do whatever they can to destroy the country with more idiotic policy intervention such as they propose for NAFTA, but I say, let them eat cake, crumpets, whatever they want and vote all the want for as long as they want. It's the Liberal way!

- Toby Lindo

April 7, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's over and has been for over a month. The Clinton crowd is just too thickheaded to stop fighting those pesky windmills. And this notion that she would be denying the voters of the party an honest election is hillarious when you take into account that she had zero strategy or organization beyong Super Tuesday. She assumed she would blow it out and the party would push her rivals out of the race. Didn't happen, she lost. Face it, get on board, and stop doing the work of the Republicans. It's over.

-

April 7, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree. This race is a potential trainwreck for Democrats. For the good of the party, Obama should drop out.

- Janie

April 7, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

there is no might about it ... you have to be an idiot if you believe any of the first comment ... most especially about the military prowess of BillyBoy

- Pete

April 7, 2008 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT;-) if you think Hillary is as talented as Bill.

- Bill Williams

April 7, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Jacksmith, Do you believe that being a First Lady without a security clearance is foreign policy experience? Do you believe that failing at health care reform due to her own arrogance is a qualification? Do you believe that our economy was in good shape when Bill left office in 2001? Do you believe her claim that she helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, which one British diplomat called "quite silly!"? Do you believe she was against NAFTA when her own schedule shows her speaking on behalf of its passage? Do you think that running on your husband's coattails to be liberating? Do you believe any word from a Clinton's mouth? If you do, then your label of 'idiot" may very well apply to you.

- PFV

April 7, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apparently this moron author thinks he represents the will of the people like most of his moronic peers....Maybe he is just one of those C average students who does not understand the meaning of democracy. A winner is decided after all votes are counted. Maybe like the other morons at MSNBC, NBC and other main stream media (NY times), yhey left their brains at home when they come to work. So my request is please 'SHUT UP' and let the people vote. No one rea.lly cares about your stupid opinions, since that what you are and not a journalist (do you know what that means). You are just another paid hooker that services the client that paid you...in this case Obama. Go back to selling yourself and let 'WE THE PEOPLE' vote and decide our nominee.

- Bruno

April 7, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Got to agree with you.. She is embarrassing herself.. She is a Senator from New York who had a good run that failed for many reasons including the lack of credibility of the candidate, organization of the campaign and the inclusion in her campaign of her arm twisting husband. Hillary go to the Senate and help Obama get elected and work with him to get us out of this mess that McBush created. Obama needs all the help he can get.. Bill's Hollywood friends included against a republican machine that is just plain evil.. They have practically murdered and entire nation, Iraq for no obvious reason... They will come after Obama like you have never seen... It is time to move on Hillary. Please.

- Rick Buchanan

April 7, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't claim credit for this (I copied it from another blog). Obama’s LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES. 1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. 2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government. 3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had 4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. 5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man. 6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama. 7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book). 9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language. 10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons. 11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies. 12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine. 13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist. 14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist. 15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first. 16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES. 17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote. 18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE. 19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE. 20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it. 21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish. 22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came. 23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within. 24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books. 25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill. 26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part. 27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office. 28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them. 29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel. 30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially. 31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost. 32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t. 33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not. 34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide. 35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time. 36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself. 37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this. 38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you. 39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it. 40.) I don’t Have Lobbyists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting. 41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon. 42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients. 43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words. 44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities. 45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN. 46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it. 47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent. 48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the Anthem. 49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vain of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America. 50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart. 51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records. 52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - LIAR, your wife’s pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%! 53.)I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko’s wife buys the lot beside it that you can’t afford, saving you $625,000. 54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko ($150K) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns. 55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year. 56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama. 57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him. 58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.”

- Kelly

April 7, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't supposed it occurs to Mr. Chait that there are democrats who strongly believe that Senator Obama would not make a good President. His foreign policy advisors are far too naive and he has done nothing in either the Illinois State Legislature or the US Senate to lead me to believe that he is capable of bringing people together to compromise. This is one liberal democrate who is very happy that Senator Clinton has opted to stay in the race.

- Gary Kaplan

April 7, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nobody seems to be making the point that seems most obvious to me. This campaign is keeping the country focused on the Democrats. It is making their names and faces and policies the stuff of daily conversations. It is making the prospect of a woman president or a black president familiar and thinkable to the point almost of tedium, daily sapping the shock value that would otherwise be McCain's secret, silent, insidious partner. P.T. Barnums's dictum that, "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they mention your name," is more true than false and will prove out here. Those Dem/Rep numbers that have transiently tipped toward red don't mean the continued campaign is helping McCain in the long run. The increased familiarity of the Dems after this long fascinating primary will ultimately give them a hefty advantage, and after a few senior moments and temper eruptions, that "lead" the polls show will disappear like the inevitability of Hillary and Rudy. I expect this to be true even if HRC resumes her vicious attacks in public. It's even more true if she continues to get ugly only in private, with superdelegates.

- E. Edward Anderson

April 7, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack Smith. I might be an idiot :-) But you definitely ARE and idiot. Enroll in a couple continuing ed classes and learn how to use a) facts, and b) logic. And of all the inaccurate things you said. What "nuclear power" did Bill Clinton fight in a war? Did he attack Britain during my vacation on the moon?

- dikhead

April 7, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just another article from another Barrry/Barack PR flak posing as a journalist...Read Michael Barone's piece in U.S. News and World Report(3/31)...that's real journalism coming from a real reporter and he writes the numbers are very good that Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote. Why, if you thick Barack is such a great candidate, why are you not calling for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan? Could it be because you know this guy can only win black votes and kiddo votes. Already his numbers are dropping with independents and white males are gone from his camp. You are handing this election over to the Republicans on a silver platter just so you can give the presidency to a guy with no experience and a dubious track record whose wife is ashamed of her country and whose minister blames the government for AIDS and 9/11. It AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! When are you going to realize that this man will NOT be elected president of the Unites States of America.

- m.nolan

April 7, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We often fail to remember past history. Once upoon a time, Will Rogers was asked if he belonged to an organized political party. He responded, "No, I'm a Democrat." The Democrats are organized to snatch defeat from victory --- and at a critical time for our nation. Tragic.

- CLG

April 7, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack Smith you posted the exact same comment on the WaPo comment line yesterday on Anne Kornblute's story about Mark Penn's departure from the Clinton campaign for his support of CAFTA. You are all wet Jack my friend! Billary's days are NUMBERED! Get some new material!

- Gordon

April 7, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If people had "turned away from her" there would be no need to try to push her out of the race. How can it hurt Obama if she loses outright? It can't. The problem is that she is unlikely to lose without some manipulation -- which Obama's supporters in the party leadership would rather not see made explicit. How can it help the party if this historic campaign -- the first woman in our history to win even ONE primary, the first woman to actually go toe to toe, all the way to the finish, with a male candidate in a presidential nominating race (despite having the media and the powerful old Bulls of the Northeastern Liberal and Midwestern Moderate establishment aligned against her) is pushed out by party elders rather than allowed to win or lose based on the votes? Like a lot of women who have supported this party (for obviously way too long), I don't care whether Clinton wins or loses, but I do care HOW she loses. This is a test for the party and its genuine commitment to women and to equal political representation and participation. Those asking her to drop out know that the Super Delegates will hand this to Obama by disenfranchising Michigan and Florida and ignoring the popular vote. They know that such an action will, rightly, be perceived as a betrayal by many of the party's most loyal supporters. And, they know that a continuation of Hillary's campaign can only reveal how weak Obama's support really is -- and how badly his campaign has stalled.

- mary

April 7, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith is an idiot... 35 years of experience doing what? - She has never acted as a manager of anything, not even a McDonalds. - The only real job she has ever held was working as a partner with a lawfirm in Arkansas. - While serving as First Lady, she pushed for a government takeover of the healthcare system similar to the sort that is now being suffered through by the citizens of Canada and Great Britain. If this is what you want for a president, then you tell me who is the idiot?

- Chris

April 7, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it that in every article I read that dares bring up Clinton's real standing in this race the first comment is always a long screed, sprinkled with excess capitalization and exclamation marks, that reads like a religious tract shoved under a window wiper yet as an Obama supporter I'm the one who supposedly belongs to some scary cult of personality?

- whalt

April 7, 2008 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith, you are an idiot. No "might be" about it. I don't want your vote. Sincerely, Hillary.

- Hillary Clinton

April 7, 2008 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hahahahaha! Look at the Hillary supporters getting desperate with their over statements of her resume, chances of nomination, and actual chances to overcome the fact that she has a personality that most find abhorrent and splintering. “You might be an idiot” her supports are just a shrill and degrading as she is, no wonder so many young people have moved towards somebody that speaks of hope and possibilities, instead of the Billary Rove tactics. And, a glaring omission, If she’s done so much why does she feel the obsessive need to overstate her role in diplomatic missions (you might be an idiot if you didn’t know she actually caught Osama with her bare hands, TWICE!!! He got away though cuz he’s sneaky)? I know why, because the Clintons lie as easy as they wash their socks (or maybe that’s not easy enough, since I am sure as a couple that made 109 million dollars they don’t wash their own socks). And, I would content that conservative talk show hosts have not been pushing the voters to Obama, they’ve been pushing voters to Hillary (see, Ohio’s voting patterns), another example of how detached Hillary supporters are that they make-up stuff that sounds good, as much she does, even if it has no grounds in reality. Obama will win the nomination, and he will win the election, because he represents everything America is; middle-class, hard-worker, young, optimistic, culturally diverse. If he can’t win, symbolically America fails at its own great experiment. HE IS THE FUTURE, HE IS AMERICA!!!

- Chris N Cincy

April 7, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yahoo for Hillary. It takes guts to stay in this race and she is doing just that. Johnathin, you suck. You don't proof read your articles and you ramble on trying to make comparisons to historic events. All that historic crap is just that when it comes to an election. During the 4 years leading up to an election there is a lot of scheming to see how to elect someone. Superdelegates? What the hell is that all about? Either you have delegates or you don't. Either you have delegates committed to the paraty or you don't etc etc. Anyway, too much money has been spent by candidates on this election while our country goes down the toilet. THAT IS THE REAL POINT! Our country has been so blinded by the concept of "how much money a business makes each quarater) that it has failed to recognize that it was all paper profits. Don't you love all those business school grads who graduated with high honors and are getting so much money yet failed to see the demise the country is in now?

- Charliemack

April 7, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Congratulations, you have just strengthened your bona fides with your media pals. Hillary Clinton as "wretched...kamikaze" escalates the descriptive word war. But don't sit there, smiling too long at your Rovian creativity-you will be topped soon.

- CLK

April 7, 2008 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let the death march continue. If that's the way they want to go so be it. It's not that Obama is doing it, rather she is killing herself! Looks to me like she is tightening her own noose.

- Bh In Phoenix

April 7, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Jacksmith, you are an idiot! Colbert 08

- Herman

April 7, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary will not be President in 2008. The only way she gets the nomination is to rip the Party apart making the nomination useless in her hands even if by some miracle she got it. Dems cannot win without African Amer. votes and Hillary's only path to the nomination is through Supers overruling pledged delegates and if that happens the Dems won't win the WH for a generation.

- Hat

April 7, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You Might Be An Idiot! If You make the same post multiple times!

- blank_ette

April 7, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you weren't aware that 18 American GI's were killed and countless wounded in the "Blackhawk Down" debacle in Mogadishu, deaths which could have easily been avoided if the Clinton administration hadn't,in their typical handwringing mode, denied the use of Spectre Gunships to support the operation. (What!!?? The Clinton's not supporting the military?!! You're kidding me!) No wonder the Bill and company are loathed by the military, even to this day. And you would definitely be an idiot if you can't ackowledge the deaths of thousands of Bosnians as a result of the Clinton's failure to intervene in the treaty negotiations. Read Chris Kichen's Billery article from last week.

- Geechee

April 7, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you weren't aware that 18 American GI's were killed and countless wounded in the "Blackhawk Down" debacle in Mogadishu, deaths which could have easily been avoided if the Clinton administration hadn't,in their typical handwringing mode, denied the use of Spectre Gunships to support the operation. (What!!?? The Clinton's not supporting the military?!! You're kidding me!) No wonder the Bill and company are loathed by the military, even to this day. And you would definitely be an idiot if you can't ackowledge the deaths of thousands of Bosnians as a result of the Clinton's failure to intervene in the treaty negotiations. Read Chris Kichen's Billery article from last week.

- Geechee

April 7, 2008 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I find it very disheartening that the democratic party is destroying itself. I agree with this article. As for as whoever makes the claim that Bill Clinton lead the economic recovery of the 90's is the TRUE idiot. It was Reagonomics coming into full effect and Bill Clinton stepped into the Oval Office with an already growing economy. Look at the facts!!!!!!! History has judged Reagon, Carter, and history will be the only true judge of Bush. Obama has a chance to heal our countries wounds! Hilary would be horrible. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...Jeb? Our Founding Fathers explicitly decided that our nation would not be a monarchy and for good reason!!! Keep up the good reporting! I know your job has got to be hard!

- Damon

April 7, 2008 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT -- if you think Hillary Clinton is doing anything but pursuing her selfish-mad souless-grab self-interested slog for power. you ARE an idiot -- if you think she is going to be the democratic nominee.

- jelly roll

April 7, 2008 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's piece is just more throwaway blathering but post strings like this is why I'm here. "Schadenfreude" indeed, Navy Gunner! It's all just too damned funny to pass up. I believe we are to see this thing roll into Denver. Or corkscrew into Denver on a wing and an invocation to some politically correct entity.

- dawg

April 7, 2008 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the basis of your comment and the fact that Clinton is winning the least educated and most prejudiced voters in droves, YOU are more likely the idiot...

- SB

April 7, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First off, I've been an Obama supporter since day one of his candidacy. I've known since early March that Hillary's chances of securing the nomination were about the same as my chances of winning the lottery. It's been apparent to me that she'll stop at nothing to win, and her talk of how there's no such thing as "pledged" delegates and how her whole strategy now depends on her creating a persuasive enough argument to pull away enough delegates from WHEREVER she can find them, seems both horribly undemocratic and to paint her as a loose cannon. The biggest fear I have is that about the only way I can envision her making an argument persuasive enough to essentially overturn what has happened would be to completely destroy Obama (politically speaking). That makes me wish for her exit from the race as early as possible. But, having said all that, I know how dedicated Clinton supporters are, beyond any logic or realistic hope, many can't BELIEVE America could be so stupid as to not see what a great choice she is. It's too easy for the jacksmiths of this world to confuse her with her husband and to rant and rave about how you're an idiot if you can't see why she's much better than Obama and how her "experience" outshines Obama's, et. al. And it's EXACTLY because of Clintonistas like jacksmith that she should not drop out of the race. Her people don't WANT her out. And she's done a very good job of making Democrats, people who if Clinton wasn't in the race would probably actually look at Obama and say hey, I like this guy's ideas (because indeed, the Clinton and Obama policies are almost identical), and hey, he does have all this legislative experience in addition to his private sector experience, and hey, he has some great ideas, and he's willing to LISTEN to people, gosh, how refreshing is that, and so on and so forth. My point is, the most hardcore Clinton supporters see Obama as the enemy, and they have demonized him, because Hillary has demonized him. This is a natural outcropping of any campaign...your supporters are bound to become polarized towards you to the exclusion of anyone who you perceive as a threat. To be completely intellectually honest, many of the die hard Clinton supporters would really need to step away from their unwavering support long enough to give Obama a reasonable look. But with Clinton in the race, they have no need to do that, indeed, they can not. So, as long as Clinton is in the race, there will be a huge segment of her most ardent supporters who will go as far as to say they'll vote for McCain before they'll vote for Obama. They will continue to sling mud at Obama, not because of anything substantive Obama has said or done, but because he's not Clinton, and because as they see it, Clinton is the best choice, hands down. And such is the problem with her STAYING in the race. So the argument becomes, if we want the Democratic nominee to win, and we know it's going to be Obama come hell or high water, her staying in is a distraction, it forces Obama to campaign against her instead of against McCain, and her presence in the race might only serve to give her the chance to destroy him with her repeated criticisms...to polarize her supporters to such a degree that it's even possible to imagine that she could keep enough Democrats from supporting him to give the Presidency to McCain, and indeed perhaps that is her goal so she can run in 2012 instead of having to step aside for the incumbent. And indeed, no Democrat really wants to see that, though there are plenty of Democrats who are so hard core for Hillary right now that they honestly believe they would put McCain in office because they've bought the "Obama has no experience" argument hook, line and sinker, and indeed, they'd rather have 4 more years of Bush policies carried out by McCain, followed by 8 years of Hillary, than to see the next 8 years belong to Obama and Hillary's political career come to an end. So, here's the REAL issue that this author doesn't even touch on. If Clinton were to be shouted out of the race and she bowed to the pressure and conceded before the rest of the primaries are run, and before it's decided how Florida and Michigan, her supporters now have the moral authority to shout UNFAIR. They would be able to believe they were justified in their anger over this, and that would foster resentment, which would be directed at the one who defeated her. Her most ardent supporters have instructed her specifically NOT to leave the race, and if she did, they won't feel betrayed by her, they'll feel as if she were forced out prematurely and they'd be angry at those who caused it. This could have a real impact on the race if 20% of her remaining support comes from people who are so imbittered that they'll do ANYTHING to make sure that PHONY Obama isn't elected. In an era of 1 to 3 percent margins in the general election, that's nothing to sneeze at. Conversely however, if you allow this thing to go until Hillary can actually bow out gracefully, and freely admit she was defeated, her supporters would have to admit that they lost fair and square. This might take all the primaries and a stated method for seating Florida and Michigan, as well as a massive show of support by remaining superdelegates. If that happens, no one can cry foul, no one feels cheated, no one calls "disenfranchisement". And then, Hillary will have to throw her unconditional support behind Obama...that's how the game works. Bottom line is, come the day after NC and IN, remaining superdelegates and Clinton herself will see that no matter what happens from there on out, regardless of how Florida and Michigan are seated, there's no path left for her. She'll be able to provide her most ardent supporters with an argument they can accept as to why now is the time. She'll drop out of the race on May 8, and she'll make a nice speech about how we can't afford 4 more years of Bush policies under a different name and it's imperative that we all get behind our party's nominee. That will heal most of this fighting...a few won't buy it, but it will basically turn it from a gaping dismemberment to a mere flesh wound. I could show you the math, but then everyone would say my post was too long and no one would read it. And it COULD still go to June if she refuses to bow out on her own, but by June every contest will be run, and Florida and Michigan will have a solution. Obama will still have a commanding delegate lead and the remaining supers will say that she's been fairly defeated and now is the time to act. This won't go to the convention unless Clinton is willing to take it there even with Obama having more than 2,024 delegates under the premise that the supers and pledged delegates could still change their votes, and so if she thinks she can really show persuasive reasons why the party would be making a mistake by not nominating her, she'd have the right to do that. But, not likely that she would do this, and even less likely that this strategy would succeed.

- Dale Petrie

April 7, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear jacksmith; On the basis of your comment and the fact that Clinton is winning the least educated and most prejudiced voters in droves, YOU are more likely the idiot...

- SB

April 7, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since so much seems to turn on "experience" and ability to manage, shouldn't the ability to manage one's campaign serve as evidence? One year ago, Hillary Clinton was told, "You're the nominee. Just don't screw it up." That's exactly what's she's done. Her Giuliani-esque (mis)management of her own campaign (of which the Mark Penn incident is only the most recent example--good god, how, at this late stage, can you possibly not know about blatant conflicts of interest about your own chief political strategist?) might tell you everything you need to know about how her administration would function.

- sportdoc62

April 7, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really have to stop reading comments.

- Glenn Friedman

April 7, 2008 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, don't even try to influence her, as if you could from an article. Sadly, with two good candidates for president, the party could end up hurting itself. But you're never going to convince her, or her supporters, or even Obama's supporters for that matter, that quitting is the best thing to do. Really, though, does it make sense? What good does it do to have someone selected by going around the rules. The rules state that the primaries end in June with Puerto Rico. The rules state that Florida and Michigan don't count because they tried to change the rules. This is what we should follow. If it hurts us, then next time we do it differently.

- anonevent

April 7, 2008 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The comments here aren't what they used to be. Or should I ball up my fists and mash my keyboard in ALL-CAPS?

- Mike

April 7, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a ridiculous bunch of crap. If the roles were reversed, what would the Hillary fans be telling Obama? This angst all comes from no one seeing Obama coming. I think that Hillary's staying in the race is possibly her attempt to set herself up for the next election. Knowing that she can not get the nomination now, she positions herself as the "would have been best" candidate...hoping that if "one-term only because he's old" McCain wins...she will be better positioned for the next race. I hope I'm wrong; because this country does not need more of the same.

- Ward

April 7, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to jacksmith, you may be an idiot:) to think that 35 experience in Washington and A former president as a husband, make you more qualified to be president. An Hillary presidency, would be run by Bill Clinton. An idiot would think this to be good for the USA.

- nieddu

April 7, 2008 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article makes complete sense in every respect. The low standard of numeracy demonstrated consistently indicates substantial educational deficiency with catastrophic implications as evident in the sub-prime saga and the cost of the Iraq war. May I suggest a return to ballot papers as electronic voting presents no substantial evidence. At least in the primary, the magic number of delegates can fit into one large room. A couple of thousand, and after North Carolina, regardless of Florida and Michigan, Obama will be there.

- Leo Regan, Sligo Ireland

April 7, 2008 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You been drinking too much of the Clinton Kool-Aid.If you look at how the Clinton campaign and how it has been run it is a pretty good indication of what to expect of a Clinton presidency. Chaos, infighting "the problem are the rules, so lt's keep re-writing them. Out of money. Poor strategy and the wrong themes. Lie and deceive (landed in Bosnia under sniper fire). Lies about NAFTA. If you can't run a campaign that was certain of victory, you cannot get elected or run the country unless you believe that we are all idiots.

- George

April 7, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait has made a reasonable argument for his case and expressed that entitlements and people's rights have to be approached with thought and reasonableness. Mr Jack Smith who is obviously a Hillary dupe or dope, I am not sure has left a rather bad taste in my mouth and numbness in my brain. His rantings have made me even more determined to support Mr. Obama in the coming election process, because his anti-approach is too Bush like which I abhor and thus associate his rudeness to his candidate..Name calling (indirectly of course) and citing conclusions without any backup logic was called Glittering Generalities in my college sociology class when discussing propaganda, which Mr Smith is good at but not close to the equal of the Bush conspirators. I was so angry reading you blatant propaganda statements I had to write, and I hope other Democratic leaning Independents like myself won't judge the party by his ravings which are so destructive. DO YOU WORK FOR KARL ROVE, I think you do!!

- FrankisinCA

April 7, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone who dares to call for her to exit is an unreformed sexist. Misogynist. Je vous accuse, Chait. She will not be denied her throne.

- ryanmacd

April 7, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I’m just waiting to see how the Democratic Party will manage to shoot itself in the foot once more this year. It’s already off to a good start with the Michigan and Florida fiascoes. Can’t it even keep its own house in order? Then it chooses a method (a kind of proportional representation) that makes it very difficult to produce a clear-cut winner. Hence, the internecine warfare we’re now seeing. Then it will go on to nominate a candidate with built-in negatives. Race and sex aside, the Obamites “hate” the Clintonites and vice versa. So rather than vote for the other side, they’ll sit this one out. Finally, the Democrats have the perennial problem of trying to define what they stand for. The Republicans have it easy on the fiscal side: less government and lower taxes. But what in a quick phrase do the Democrats stand for? This election should be a runaway for the Democrats, but it’s hard to run with a bullet in one foot.

- geejayn

April 7, 2008 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a woman, how can any woman support a wife like Hillary who looked the other way while her husband seduced naive young women and then helped him throw these women under the bus when he was done using them?

- jed

April 7, 2008 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, what is the editor's job on this blog, anyway? Is it to convert several small, coherent paragraphs to one giant run-on paragraph so everyone will skip over it, judging it to be an incoherent rant? I spent a lot of time writing something that was coherent and readable, and I look at it, and just looking at it, I wouldn't stop to read it!

- Dale Petrie

April 7, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since my previous comment had all its paragraph breaks removed, let me summarize what I said succinctly in a few words. If Clinton dropped out now, her die hard supporters would think she was forced out, they would get mad and they'd polarize againts Obama, putting McCain in the White House. If we let this thing play out to the point where Hillary and her supporters have no choice but to accept that she's been fairly beaten, when she throws her unconditional support to Obama and states we can't afford 4 more years of Bush policies under McCain, even those shouting to the rooftops that Obama has no experience and they'll vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nod, will have the ability to re-assess their positions without bitterness or the possibility of losing face, and they'll come around. No other argument as to whether she should or shouldn't stay in the race matters, because her supporters haven't yet accepted her defeat.

- Dale Petrie

April 7, 2008 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith... ever heard of Somalia? YOU must be an idiot if you think no US soldiers died on Clinton's watch.

- MM

April 7, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A good example of not following a process in the name of efficiency is the entire Bush administration. In this case the process is the Constitution and the efficiency is gained by ignoring it. I hope that most Americans see this as a lesson that process is important.

- Adam Newman

April 7, 2008 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are simply regurgitating the same exact rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign. It is obvious you are a staffer for them, based on your tone and detachment from reality. You are precisely the reason why Obama must win this election - your type must be marginalized from our political process.

- j browne

April 7, 2008 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A well-reasoned piece. I fear that blind ambition will treat us all to several more weeks of a Clinton psycho-drama that can only continue to benefit the Republicans. Too bad, since 2008 should be an historic opportunity to move America in a progressive direction.

- TC

April 7, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, well, the usual polarized list of comments, with a few rational arguments. But then, the article was as biased and partisan as one could wish, so I suppose the proper response is polemical. A couple of quick points -- 1. Obama did not win Texas; he won more delegates than Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote by 100,000 or so, out of 2.8 million -- unless, of course, you are going to use Chicago arithmetic and count the votes cast in the caucuses, which would be to double-count the votes of those who were able to attend them (fewer than a third of those who voted in the actual primary). 2. About 400,000 of Obama's "popular" lead comes from caucus states, but, as we all know, caucuses are not really all that democratic. If they were, why not use them to decide the election in November? 3. Obama is not the candidate of the 'little guy' nor is he particularly charismatic. Clinton has roughly half the votes cast overall and most of the votes in the 'big' states; Obama's fund-raising profile is similar to that of Edwards -- he drew about two-fifths of his funds from those who gave under $200, but 43 percent from those who gave more than $1,000 (so much for all those $10 and $20 donations fuelling his campaign); and he would be only a fraction of a percentage point ahead in the popular vote if Florida and Michigan were counted (and perhaps behind after the next ten contests). 4. Clinton's 'base' consists of workers (the ultimate 'little guy'), women, whites (shocking, that someone would vote on the basis of race), Hispanics (are they voting for her because she is Hispanic?), the less affluent (families with incomes under $100,000), and the less educated. Obama's consists of professionals, the well-heeled (families with incomes of more than $100,000), liberal white men, blacks (shocking, that someone would vote on the basis of race), the better educated (esp. those with advanced degrees). 5. Given their bases and the states they have won through a popular vote (aka, primary, not caucus), Clinton would be the more viable candidate in November. 6. If you do not believe that the GOP will use the Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Alice Power, and the other folks in Obama's closet, then what can I say? Obama will win in a landslide in November? 7. And so on. . . .

- Jim

April 7, 2008 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think all we need to know about the Clintons has been expressed pretty clearly by David Geffen. They lie.

- Jim Summers

April 7, 2008 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To jacksmith, I was planning to continue to support Clinton until your post made me realize how toxic her campaign has become. You have convinced me it's time to make a change. I'm voting for Obama in NC.

- JimB

April 7, 2008 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have always believed the exposure from this extended primary is great for Democrats, and couldn't understand all the hand-wringing -- or "delicate sensibilities" -- about letting it go on. But I hadn't thought about how it will make these two ground-breaking candidacies more familiar and even ho-hum to people in the general election. Great point, E.E. Anderson.

- suzyqueue

April 7, 2008 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith, you ARE an idiot.

- mcadodd

April 7, 2008 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary has lost all her credibility in these last few weeks, the campaign run on personal attacks was just the start but now her continued use of embellishing The Truth! Perhaps it is okay for Hillary to go on TV Chat shows and laugh about sniping in Bosnia, but then when you use a story as in the last few weeks in rallies when putting forward Health Care Plans and it is not The Truth, this becomes a serious concern. Hillary stated a 35 year old lady and her unborn child died as she had no health care insurance and could not afford the $100 requested upfront - what pain has this caused the Bereaved Family when both facts stated clearly by Hillary are not the truth, yes it has been deleted from her rallies. but all a Clinton spokesman would say is "we tried to check out as much as the STORY as possible, but we couldn't clarify all the details" should a possible presidential candidate go with such a serious story not knowing the Real Truth? - NO! Shame on You Hillary! it is time to stand aside and for once in your life but others first, The Democratic Party that you are seriously damaging but all the American People that you are misleading! all for selfish interests.

- John B Sheffield

April 7, 2008 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I said before, time for you fellow democracts to think about NOT voting for the Presidential position...just pull the lever for the other democratic positions in order to TRY to maintain a democratic majority in the House and Senate and STOP McCain, who will end up as the President from making stupid policy and keeping the war going. Then, change to Indenpendent and kiss the democratic party goodbye. After 40 years of being a devoted voting democrat...I will no longer be one. I am over 50, Hispanic, female, highly educated and REFUSE to vote for Obama.

- Syl

April 7, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hear, hear!

- dawg

April 7, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hear, hear! (just in case you missed me the first time)

- dawg

April 7, 2008 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, thank you. I agree with Chuckamok. The Monster's deranged not only from a sense of personal entitlement but from (losing) the fix the Clintons thought they had. Too bad the cojones weren't there in 2004 to rid our nation of the borrower-in-chief.

- DeclineToState

April 7, 2008 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well written article. Ah, and answer to Jacksmith.. I am proud to be an idiot!

- Mario

April 7, 2008 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am weary of these calls for Hilary to quit the race - not because she shouldn't, but because it is pointless. And maybe because the Democratic party isn't worth saving. She's not going to quit, not even if she pulls down the Democratic party in the process - and the odds of a serious schism in the party seem inevitable no matter who gets the nomination. That is a process The New Republic should be leading, not resisting. A large number of Democrats (46% at the latest count), including elected officials, do not seem to care if Hilary's candidacy brings down the Democratic party. Hilary's supporters have made it clear that if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, they'll walk away from the election. Let's pray that she stays in and that the party bosses figure out a way to hand her the nomination. The irony would be perfect. Let Hilary define the Democratic party she really represents - the party of entitlement, victimhood, and self-interest above all else. Obama will survive, regardless of whether he gets the nomination. His supporters and his message will still be there. The millions of young Americans he has energized will still be there as well - they just won't be Democrats. Obama would be better off if freed from the grip Hilary and her minions have on the soul of the Democratic party as it exists today. Rather than trying to "save" the Democratic party from itself, The New Republic would be better served - and would better serve the American people - by attempting to coalesce the elements of the American public - Democrats and Independents - that support Obama around a new party affliation. Since Hilary and her supporters have no loyalty to the Democratic party, I'm not sure why The New Republic should.

- Jefferson Jackson

April 7, 2008 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Mr. Chait or anyone else (including me) who is offering an opinion on the possibility of Senator Clinton getting the nomination were really as smart as we think we are, then we could all go to the political betting sites and make a living. But politics is unpredictable, and unexpected things happen, so we're often wrong. To be specific, and this is completely hypothetical, there might be something about Senator Obama we don't know about which, if known, might damage him politically so much that super-delegates wouldn't vote for him. I voted for Hillary (in Flori-duhh) but I truly hope that Senator Obama is nominated. I don't want anything unexpected to happen. But it could. Hillary should stay in the race, if only for that reason. There is no such thing as an 'insurmountable lead' in an election until the voters vote. Here's something I never expected: that Obama could beat Clinton. His ability to do so is impressive, even more so as time goes on and the politics gets less genteel. What we have here is politics, which really is a disgusting process; there's nothing exalted about it and expecting such a thing is awfully immature. I think it doesn't hurt Obama to fight through everything that's being thrown around, and win the nomination at the end of the process. A win is a win, and will impress voters who aren't Democrats. If Hillary drops out, Obama's win turns into a dull thud. Which is better for Obama's chances in November? I really, truly don't think anyone is smart enough to get that one right. Advising Hillary to quit is overreaching one's intellect.

- Douglas Kahn

April 7, 2008 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you didn't notice how many time the author mentioned Bill Clinton. A vote for Hillary is not going to get Bill 4 more years as the chief executive.

- Apolitical

April 7, 2008 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, REALLY, Jonathan, YOU should go. To journalism school, perhaps.

- Maggie

April 7, 2008 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack Smith you are annoying at the very top of this post...don't you know how to make your misguided point succinctly?

- Noah

April 7, 2008 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith = jackass . The only idiot here is you if you believe Hil-liar-y's fanatsy of "35 years of experience". What a farce. If being married to a President qualifies you to be one, let's nominate Barbara Bush - wife of VP for 8 years and wife of Pres for 4.

- GlamRokker

April 7, 2008 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Summary of this article: 1. I support Obama, 2. Hillary is a bad person (Since I support Obama), 3. My preferred candidate cannot win (beacause Hillary is a bad person), 4. Therefore, Clinton should go away, so my favourite candidate can win by virtue of having no opponent, 5. This is beacause I am good, Obama is the Messiah, and Hillary is really nasty.

- Ramon

April 7, 2008 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn .... Clinton was over weeks ago... yawn...

- onomar

April 7, 2008 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You will be the biggest idiot, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN CAN MANAGE THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD. How many final decisions are made by a lady in your family? If not Obama than better be McCain. America needs a President who can put America back on the economic map within accordance with the foreign countries. American reputation has been tarnished by Bush by unreasonably attacking countries. We want someone who can be in Harmony with the world.

- AKS

April 7, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You will be the biggest idiot, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN CAN MANAGE THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD. How many final decisions are made by a lady in your family? If not Obama than better be McCain. America needs a President who can put America back on the economic map within accordance with the foreign countries. American reputation has been tarnished by Bush by unreasonably attacking countries. We want someone who can be in Harmony with the world.

- AKS

April 7, 2008 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackshit: You ARE an idiot. 35 years of hubris, dysfunction, denial of wrongdoing, failed health care, votes for war and cluster bombs,lying as SOP, incredible national embarassment -- isn't enough for you? As for dropping out, it's up to her. I couldn't care less one way or another. The thing is, failure to cut her losses now will result in a devastating nightmare for her which will be her own doing. She will not deserve any sympathy then.

- Richy

April 7, 2008 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes Jacksmith, YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT.

- SmacK

April 7, 2008 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you don't realize that "Jack Smith" (among others here) are paid professional posters. (You are definitely naive if you didn't know there was such an animal.) Wander around the political websites and you will see the same tediously long posts word for word. (They get paid by word times number of posts.) DON'T BE DUPED by gratitous use of capitals. This is not a citizen bloger. This is a paid arm of a political machine.

- P J Hussein

April 7, 2008 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All your claims are things that her husband's administration accomplished. Nothing she accomplished on her own. I find it very interesting that Queen Hillary uses her affiliation with her husband's administration when something worked and completely disassociates herself with things that didn't. If she can't figure out what her chief strategist is doing right under her own nose, how in the hell is she going to run the country? She more than likely did know and figured that if it came out she'd lie about that too. Let's see in the last few weeks we have her lying about Bosnian sniper fire, dead babies, and probably what she knew about Penn's involvement in Columbia. Just what we need another person in the White House that's going to lie every chance they get.

- Biff

April 7, 2008 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Puerto Rican's vote in the numbers they typically do (a reasonable assumption) and if they vote even somewhat close to the way other Hispanics and particularly Puerto Ricans have voted in previous primaries (another reasonable assumption) then HRC is likely to overtake BO in actual votes before the nomination. If you include Florida where both were on the ballot and it was completely fair, this is almost a certainty. Another practical issue- white voters have been known to tell pollsters they will vote for a black when they will actually vote for the white candidate. We have not seen a lot of that with BO but that was before the Wright fiasco. Expect the polls to be wrong by several points in BO's favor. BO wants her out now for good reason; his chance of losing if she stays in is much higher than the media wants to say.

- CommonSense

April 7, 2008 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'Are you going to believe me or what you see in front of your face?' -- old joke No matter what the delegate count is. No matter what the number of primary votes may be. No matter what the number of states is. One cannot rid oneself of the nagging feeling that somehow the Clintons will pull it off. We have become so accustomed to hanky-panky on the part of the Clintons that we can't accept the fact that Mrs. Clinton may actually lose the nomination. It just doesn't seem possible. Even if it is.

- Ed Gerson

April 7, 2008 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everyone keeps touting her husbands experience not hers. The reality of it she does not have 35 years of experience. Her husband didn't and don't have 35 years of experience. For that matter niether does John McCain. I can tell you this. Look at all three campaigns and the amount of money that has come in and look who is in a surplus position. Between the two democrats look who has managed their campaigns almost flawlessly. If you can't run a campaign then how in the hell will you run a country. The reality is they will have a qualified staff around them. McCain can't garner enough support to raise money. Clinton has more pledged money than actual money and the money she did have she has not managed well. Now let's look at the so called inexperienced candidate. He has probably taught the record companies how to use the internet for their advantage. He has a surplus of cash and is continually inspiring and banning people together to change the way things are done in Washington. The reason Hilary is having so many problems is because she is getting so much money from major corporations. And they have not delivered and he is already starting off not owing anybody anything. Don't fool yourself into believing that these corporations are giving from their hearts. I do believe that one candidate has shown why he should be President. This man has been written off from the moment he announced his campaign and he remained strong and said I can show you better than I can tell you. BARAK 2008

- bridgette

April 7, 2008 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DeclineToState, you need to step back and take a deep breath. Hillary's continued presence in the race is entirely acceptable & indeed necessary. If (as I fully expect) she defeats Barack by a 70- in PA, and a 60-35 in Indiana, that will be proof positive that Barack can not win big states. Yeah, Vermont, Connecticut, Montana, are all very lovely, but they have very little electoral clout - and these boutique states will vote for the Dems, regardless. We need to win the swing states to win the election. And Hillary has proven that she can win the Michigans, the Floridas, the Ohios, the New Yorks, the Pennsylvanias etc. Besides, she has far more experience. Barack is bambi HRC in 2008!

-

April 7, 2008 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith: a really good reason to vote for Hillary is that she did such a great job getting universal health care through. My family and I are so grateful that we can enjoy the benefits of her wonderful health care program.

- a.heller

April 7, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clintons campaign has stiffed thousands of small business people across the country. So much for 35 years of helping people.

- Hank

April 7, 2008 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dems are gonna lose again.

- Donny Sisco

April 7, 2008 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait doesn't seem to be able to count. Clinton has elected delegates if she gets the percentages based on the primary votes in Florida and Michigan. Clinton undisputedly still has a majority of superdelegates as of today. No one in a close second-place should quit, unless they don't want to fight anymore--and that's not Hillary. Any one advises so, is no friend and should be scolded. Chait seems especially silly for attributing battle mentality to liberals who scold those advising her to quit. It turns the conservative stereotype of liberals as weak on its head.

- LMiklowitz

April 7, 2008 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is very mild to the reality of the Clintons. They are congenital lier and opportunists. I am sure if a DNA is done on them, it will come out that they are twin. Could be a rare case of study.sylvester

- Sid Lewis

April 7, 2008 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Jacksmith, Presumably you are working for the HC campaign? Fine. But let's at least try and play it honest. You insult my intelligence with you lengthy tirade willfully conflating HC's so-called experience with that of her husband. Let's take a step back. What was HC's only policy task in BC's admin (your other assertions are the common take credit for her husband). It was Healthcare. She basically had a cabinet position allocated to her. What did she do? Was she successful in any way? The answer is, "NO". I work in the industry -- she was actually counterproductive. Why? There are several reasons, not the least of which is that she alienated almost everyone while she moved her planning behind closed doors. She is divisive in tone, style and approach to this day. She is moreover not a competent executive. If you need further evidence, please look at how she has managed her campaign. Seriously. This is a small executive function and she has failed even at that. HC is more suited to legislative aid than President. She know detials, but that is not the same as being an executive. Obama is the opposite in style and approach and has the gift of charisma. He doesn't have perhaps as much overall experience as HC (though the margin is much smaller than your conflation allows). However, he at least has "successful" experience. He also has integrity, which, unfortunately according to polls, is lacking for HC. Finally, can you see HC successfully running against JM in the general. What a disaster. She voted for the war, then opposed it, then opposed funding, then opposed the surge -- all in accord with the prevailing political winds. A leader she is not. Experienced? JM will exploit this by comparing her assertions (the conflations you articulated) against his mammoth experience that includes leadership and sacrifice in war. For the record, I'm an independent voting for Obama. I was a BC supporter. I was a HC supporter through the BC's first term. I've had enough of the Clinton machine and posts like yours. If HC somehow wrests the nomination, I will vote JM as will many of my fellow independents. And no, I'm not an idiot - I'm an avid reader, PhD, etc. I think maybe you should ask the same of yourself.

- jonas

April 7, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot! If you think a Jeff Foxworthy knockoff with poor grammar and bad punctuation will cover up the fact that all of your points are absurd.

- idiot

April 7, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might all be collectivism's "useful idiots".

- JimB

April 7, 2008 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If we are truly supposed to nominate the best candidate with the best chance in November that we should all be voting for Senator Clinton. Instead we have people caught up listening to an empty suit motivational speaker with absolutely no experience or platform.

- Tobias

April 7, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What? Free speech guys can't post an opposing view? Truly, you are all "useful idiots"

- JimB

April 7, 2008 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Jacksmith. You seem to post your "You Might Be An Idiot" speech on every blog and have for, it seems, months. Can't you think of anything else to write? It's getting very, very old and we have lost patience with your candidate who continues to "misspeak" and tell lies. Thanks but no thanks!

- Peggy

April 7, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please don't generalize. I'm a 60 year old woman who never supported her, ever. I am hopeful Obama will be successful, but you might be right, the Dems have shot themselves in the foot once again. It's truly sad.

- Peg

April 7, 2008 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would just like to say that I love Jack Smith. Goooooo Hillary!

- Bridgette

April 7, 2008 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WoW Jacksmith you really did drink the coolaid!!! Why not add something like: You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can make the sun rise everyday better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) fixed the entire universe with his all knowing omnipotent power.

- scoobydo

April 7, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point of this article is that the longer Hillary stays in and continues her "win at all costs", "throw the kitchen sink" strategies at Obama, it hurts the Democrats appeal of many voters and, if Obama has an insurmountable lead, it hurts Obama. Therefore, if Hillary has good judgement, she would quit. She will still be on the ballots for the upcoming primaries but she would not be campaigning and not be bashing Obama and not be weakening the Democrat's chances in November. So the underlying question is: Why is Hillary continuing her campaigning, and in essence, misleading her supporters, when it is doing damage to the Democrat's chances in November?

- AA3

April 7, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are an IDIOT, if you believe HRC has 35 years of experience. Doing what? Existing? Looking the other way while her husband cheats on her? There's as much truth to the 35 years of experience as there is in dodging sniper fire in Tuzila, the pregnant lady who died for lack of insurance in Ohio, and Hillary's opposition to NAFTA.

- booch221

April 7, 2008 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton is history, but not the kind that she wanted to be or make. She is history in the sense of finita. Gone. Out. Adios. Ciao. And, unless a lightening bolt strikes her beforehand, the DNC will make that perfectly clear to her in August. Heavy storms are forecasted in Denver and people are urged to not stand under trees and wear rubber soles. Haven´t you read the weather report? With the lowest popularity rate of any presidential candidate in history, you Clinton supporters honestly can´t blame gender or the Media for your candidate´s personal failure. Gender does not put words in people´s mouths, and the media can only make or break a candidate to a certain point, but ALWAYS working off baseline characteristics that the candidates themselves provide. Hillary was only likeable to a minority, and has only won, but, in any case, never trampled on Obama, in any of he so-called Big States where McCain is going to win anyway come November. Nothing like BHO´s overwhelming victories in sometimes surprising places. She was not particularly well-liked going into these primaries and her attitude and lies during them, and those of her voters, have only confirmed what most suspected intuitively. After 35 years of "presence" in the political arena, you think that she would have done it better. But she didn´t. SHE failed her voters. SHE let them down. SHE went about things the wrong way. So go scream and shout to the Four Winds that she got a raw deal for being a woman. I should be the quintessential Hillary voter -- white, female and 40+ -- I have never, not even once, thought of voting for her. Except MAYBE against McCain in the worst case scenario. Now I guess, I won´t have to hold my nose when I go to the polls in November. Desolée.

-

April 7, 2008 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton is history, but not the kind that she wanted to be or make. She is history in the sense of finita. Gone. Out. Adios. Ciao. And, unless a lightening bolt strikes her beforehand, the DNC will make that perfectly clear to her in August. Heavy storms are forecasted in Denver and people are urged to not stand under trees and wear rubber soles. Haven´t you read the weather report? With the lowest popularity rate of any presidential candidate in history, you Clinton supporters honestly can´t blame gender or the Media for your candidate´s personal failure. Gender does not put words in people´s mouths, and the media can only make or break a candidate to a certain point, but ALWAYS working off baseline characteristics that the candidates themselves provide. Hillary was only likeable to a minority, and has only won, but, in any case, never trampled on Obama, in any of he so-called Big States where McCain is going to win anyway come November. Nothing like BHO´s overwhelming victories in sometimes surprising places. She was not particularly well-liked going into these primaries and her attitude and lies during them, and those of her voters, have only confirmed what most suspected intuitively. After 35 years of "presence" in the political arena, you think that she would have done it better. But she didn´t. SHE failed her voters. SHE let them down. SHE went about things the wrong way. So go scream and shout to the Four Winds that she got a raw deal for being a woman. I should be the quintessential Hillary voter -- white, female and 40+ -- I have never, not even once, thought of voting for her. Except MAYBE against McCain in the worst case scenario. Now I guess, I won´t have to hold my nose when I go to the polls in November. Desolée.

-

April 7, 2008 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In 1996 the Democrats made a Faustian Bargain, and now the bill has come due. They knew, along with the rest of the world, that the Clintons were taking bribes from the People's Liberation Army of China. That's right - bribes from the Red Chinese Army. But instead of casting the Clintons out, the Democrats, like battered wives, declined to confront their abusers because they paid the rent and put food on the table. The Clintons thanked them for their support by seducing the chambermaids and then forcing the Party to publicly justify their wretched behavior. So sad, watching so many intelligent people belittle themselves, facing the cameras and claiming that its okay to lie to Federal Grand Juries, depending on the subject of the question. Again they protected their abusers, to keep the baksheesh flowing. In 1974 the Republicans found themselves in a comparable situation, with Richard Nixon facing impeachment by a Democrat-controlled Congress. But instead of shielding Nixon from the consequences of his inexcusable behavior, a delegation of senior Republicans went to the White House and told Nixon that they would vote to convict him. He could resign or be convicted by the Senate, but one way or another he was leaving. They did this knowing that they would be decimated in 1976 - they were, and the country was rewarded with Jimmy Carter - but they put personal honor ahead of partisan advantage. When the Democrats' turn came in 1996 they put their lust for political power above honor and accountability, and in doing so brought this calamity upon themselves. Through their words and deeds they have convinced the Clintons that their behavior carries no consequences. Step aside for the good of the Party? The time for that was 1996, but when the chips were down the Democrats shirked their duty to the country, now the bill has come due.

- Paul in Colorado

April 7, 2008 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is clear you are supportive of your candidate, but you are skewing the facts to fit your need to have her win. She is a flawed candidate and people are generally tired of her lies. I am hopeful her supporters will get behind Obama in the fall and the Dems will win and the Supreme Court will not longer have super right-winged members. The "big state" argument just doesn't fly. Remember these are primaries, not general elections we're having. Obama will have his problems but I'm afraid Hillary has many, many more. She has a history of divisiveness and polarization going back to her days in Arkansas. She will divide the party if she continues on much longer (if she hasn't already). Your ego or hers isn't worth that sacrifice.

- Peg

April 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, I think you fail to see the point of why Obama and others are supporting Clinton's right to stay in the race. You note that: "The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense. Democrats' reluctance to push Clinton out of the race is the perfect expression of that delicate sensibility." I believe it is, rather, that calls from prominent Democrats for Clinton to step aside have been used successfully as fuel for Clinton fundraising and votes. By stepping clearly out of her way, Clinton is left to self-destruct all by herself with feeble and contradictory arguments about why it is So Important for her to stay in the race. Her first one (remember?) was that Obama had never faced a real competitor and would crumble at the first sight of one. We have Clinton to thank for giving him that experience he lacked, as well as the opportunity to shine in the face of it.

- WomanOver50

April 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, I think you fail to see the point of why Obama and others are supporting Clinton's right to stay in the race. You note that: "The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense. Democrats' reluctance to push Clinton out of the race is the perfect expression of that delicate sensibility." I believe it is, rather, that calls from prominent Democrats for Clinton to step aside have been used successfully as fuel for Clinton fundraising and votes. By stepping clearly out of her way, Clinton is left to self-destruct all by herself with feeble and contradictory arguments about why it is So Important for her to stay in the race. Her first one (remember?) was that Obama had never faced a real competitor and would crumble at the first sight of one. We have Clinton to thank for giving him that experience he lacked, as well as the opportunity to shine in the face of it.

- WomanOver50

April 7, 2008 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HEAR! Hear!

-

April 7, 2008 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are an idiot if: You think sleeping with the president, makes you qualified to be president. If that were true Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones should run for office , clearly they would have one idiots vote.

- Brainsurgery

April 7, 2008 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The more Hillary opens her mouth, the more she reveals her true personality, and the deeper the hole she digs for herself. This lying about the pregnant woman refused treatment in an Ohio hospital, the lying about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, the lying about her brokering the peace in Northern Ireland; the lying about her economic expertise, her finances, her Congressional record (of the 20 bills she managed to get passed in her eight years in the Senate, 16 were non-consequential stuff like naming post offices and courthouses, recognizing individuals and congratulating lacrosse teams); the subjecting her own daughter to stress by dispatching her to stump in college campuses (David Shuster was right about her “pimping” Chelsea); her frequent changes of moods and faces. Then, going back to her earlier life, there’s her flunking of the DC bar exam and keeping it secret for 30 years; the Travelgate, Pardongate, Chinagate, Whitewatergate, Cattle-futuresgate, Fellatiogate scandals; her retaining a private detective to dig up dirt on the women seduced by husband Bill (her de facto running mate); the punitive IRS audits of Clinton critics; the verbal abuse of staff members and betrayal of colleagues; the using of uniformed Marines as waiters; the 50+ violent and sudden deaths during the Clinton reign—All of which is bound to resurface and derail her bid for the presidency. If the woman knew the meaning of the word honor, she would bow out of the presidential race, today. But, as is evident, the word is not in her vocabulary.

- Carlos Navarro

April 7, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith, you seem to have missed the point of the article. The author points out that Obama has continued to lead in delegates. He simply has more support nationally. That is a fact, not an opinion. Although it might be hard to swallow, your personal opinion of who would be the better candidate is less important than that of the American people.

- R.A. Mlinarchik

April 7, 2008 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't mind Jonathan's piece. I think that shortly after May 6th, Hillary will either concede or the media will do it for her like they did for Huckabee.

- Cleduc

April 7, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the "Boogeyman" cant win

- Clinton Lover

April 7, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but jacksmith seems to have missed the point of the article. It is a fact that Obama has won more delegate support. Jacksmith seems to think that his personal opinion about who would make the best candidate is more important than that of the American people.

- Rachel

April 7, 2008 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PJ, I presume you are right about paid posters on this string...the moderator should limit posts to a few lines so that obnoxious retards like "Jack Smith" do not corrupt reasoned discourse...

- Noah

April 7, 2008 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith - you might be an IDIOT if you actually believe that the so-called "boom" during the Clinton years was anything more than smoke and mirrors. You might be an IDIOT if you actually believe that the corrupt, venal and predatory horndog named William Jefferson Clinton was only slight LESS bad a president that James Earl Carter, Jr. You might be an IDIOT if you think that anti-American Barack Hussein Obama and Saul Alinsky-loving Hillary Rodham Clinton can do anything but damage for this country. You might be an IDIOT if you think EITHER Political Party has already or will soon nominate anyone marginally competent for the presidency. I think the great American experiment is in grave danger, both from within and without and nobody seems to give a rip. The Liberals are all too worried about risking their precious, well-preserved butts to defend their nation and the Republican seem to have lost their cojones someplace. I fear for our nation if people like Jacksmith are the majority and I'm quite grateful that I'm in my mid-60s and won't live long enough to see the inevitable collapse!

- Irene's Daughter

April 7, 2008 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but jacksmith, we aren't being asked to vote for bill clinton, we are being asked to vote for hillary clinton. hillary didn't do any of the things you mention, why should she get credit for them. simply enough, many people like me would rather take a chance on barack obama's integrity than we would hilary's "experience". that might be, in part, because it is the experience of folks like the clintons, the mccains and the bushs that have gotten us into our current economic, political and moral morass.

- wch

April 7, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear mr jacksmith! When I first read your "you might be an idiot" comment, I misstook you for a fool. Now I realize that we who responded are the fooled fools. This is just the kind of the reaction you were hoping for, isn´t it?

- roy silver

April 7, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jack smith, who posted about six CANNED replies at the very top: I have seen your work elsewhere on these forums and elsewhere, completely cut-and-pasted everywhere you post, and you are a Hill-Billy tool.

- "jacksmyth" killer

April 7, 2008 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no mathematical literacy required when one risks all using Other Peoples Money and especially when one gets real TV time and you can joke about the porkies you tell and the masses still believe it. They believed WMDs did'nt they? "And they will still vote for me won't they?" I feel desperate for young Democrats who may doubt that there is a future in their hands because of this kind of Russian Roulette. "Russian? Who said Russian?" Time to go rushin' to the poles to end this political psychosis. "Who said Poles?"

- Lionel

April 7, 2008 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack Smith is definitely an idiot! Please shut this crack pot down!

- jeller

April 7, 2008 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'mon this is crap. SDs are going to decide this either way. There is less than 130 difference in delegates out of more than 3,000. Neither can get to the prize without SDs. She is ahead solidly in four of five states that will vote in the next few weeks (PA, WV and KY, IN), the party has to decide to do something about MI and FL and she is ahead with SDs. This race is close. If BO was behind by so few delegates, no one would be asking him to drop out.

- Ann

April 7, 2008 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'mon this is crap. SDs are going to decide this either way. There is less than 130 difference in delegates out of more than 3,000. Neither can get to the prize without SDs. She is ahead solidly in four of five states that will vote in the next few weeks (PA, WV and KY, IN), the party has to decide to do something about MI and FL and she is ahead with SDs. This race is close. If BO was behind by so few delegates, no one would be asking him to drop out.

- Ann

April 7, 2008 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the dems are crazy enough to nominate BO the dems will lose 49 states. Bottom line: the American people are not going to let BO, his America-hating pastor and their cronies anywhere near the White House. That is what is keeping the SDs on the sideline until the next few races.

- Ann

April 7, 2008 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack, are you voting for Hillary or trying to re-elect Bill? I'm a little confused here.

- CapnDad

April 7, 2008 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you might be an idiot! if you think I'm going to read that massive block of crazy

- Bob

April 7, 2008 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is Jack Smith a bot...? Do a Google search on "YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-) If you think Barack Obama..." and you will see the same post on lots under lots of articles. Either he is a bot or a polical spammer... I guess I am an idiot. Steve

- Steve T.

April 7, 2008 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It sounds to me like desperation on the part of Obama supporters this repetitive hype of Hillary quitting. Sure you feel it would serve the party. Sure you try to make a case that there's no chance. Fact is, you're wrong. Even in the State Senate races Obama won by small technicalities that disavowed his opponents. His divisive comments are the real ones tearing the party apart. Clinton's have been strong Democrats for almost more years than Obama's been around. So, enough already and let the process play out. Whatever argument Obamazons make is so self serving and undemocratic it's ridiculous. Why not try to act like a real democrat and count everyone's vote (including Florida and Michigan) and see how things turn out. Afraid? I thought so.

- Marilyn

April 7, 2008 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah those pesky rights and procedures. They seem to crop up everywhere. If only that flaming liberal James Madison had not drafted the Bill of Rights and those bleeding hearts in the first Congress had not approved it. Our government would be so much more efficient. Common sense would prevail, and we probably never would have been bothered at all by having a contest for president between an African American and a woman--for heavens sake. Bush and Cheney have clearly demonstrated how much better off we would be without those liberal niceties of rights and procedures.

- D.Stille

April 7, 2008 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just who the hell do you think you are, Mr. Chait? I'm really sick and tired of you penis-burdened so-called humans telling the only woman ever to have gotten this far in national politics to sit down and shut up, like a good little girl. Below is a list of males who fought on to convention and were never told to quit. "• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise. "• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed. "• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the 'inevitability' of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention... "• Also in 1976, three candidates -- Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church -- ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee. "• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the 'certain' nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor..." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/post_28.html So JUST SHUT UP. Carolyn Kay MakethemAccountable.com

- Carolyn Kay

April 7, 2008 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THIS MAN IS AN IDIOT! He calls Obama's three terms in elected office NO EXPERIENCE.. he calls Obama's collaboration with Republicans to introduce and pass legislation on tough issues NO EXPERIENCE.. and he imputes Bill Clinton's skills as commander in chief to his wife.. something that CANNOT happen even in Siamese twins! Beware of charlatans who make up a "truth" (in this case, no experience) and repeat it ad nauseam.. because they want to hoodwink the majority of the voters. Ignore them, if you care about the truth.

- Gary W

April 7, 2008 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith = clintoon talking points inserted into the redneck joke. how typical of the types now supporting hillary.

- wyatt

April 7, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

700,000 lead in total votes but almost all came from one state, and mostly from the Chicago area. Also Obama does not do well in areas where working class whiteslive in close proximity to the hood.

- dg

April 7, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you might be an idiot if your response was longer than the original article, and ...if your narsisistic, over-inflated ego has convinced you that the Clintons actually did anything for the common man (other than take credit for an economy that WAS the result of Regean's trickle down that finally trickled down), and...if you think 35 years of ceremonial management amounts to anything more than 35 years of of ceremonial management and the gathering of immense wealth.

- ncarrizo

April 7, 2008 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary should be our next President As we await the Pennsylvania primary, the media outlets are using this lull in the campaign to discourage Senator Clinton and their supporters from continuing in the race. A governor from New Mexico has come out in support of Senator Obama, even though in his previous statements he had said the Super delegates should vote the will of the people. New Mexico voted for Hillary. It does not matter that millions of people support her and that she most likely would be ahead in the popular vote if the Obama campaign had not blocked the Florida and Michigan votes. Even Senator Obama has taken a vacation I guess very certain that he has the nomination in his hands. The incident reminds me of President Bush chopping wood and clearing brush at his ranch, during many of the country’s crises. Now the media is playing a misstatement from Senator Clinton about a trip to Bosnia as proof that she cannot be trusted.The NY Times published an article by people that where on that trip that corroborate Senator Clinton's story.Now they claim her hospital story is bogus when it is not. Please, Senator Clinton is the only Democrat that is electable in November. Senator Clinton has a health plan that will cover all and has proposed changes to the real estate market that would alleviate foreclosures. She has been a champion for children, women, families, the elderly and the middle class. And as proven by her First daily diaries and entries, she is a hard worker and has contacted and met with people all over the world. She has been attacked by the republicans for years and has been able to come out intact. All the fabricated issues about Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc, turned out nothing more then innuendos and cheap shots. On the other hand, Senator Obama has a thin resume. His recent lies about the Nafta Canadian contacts and his true feelings about pulling out of Iraq. He lied about his close relationship with Tony Rezko and the amount of contributions he received. He lied about his relationship with Pastor Wright and his acceptance in church of the anti-American slogans preached by Pastor Wright. In his follow up speech, he stood by his Pastor even though he said he did not agree with the statements. However, his speech blamed white America for the hateful feelings pastor Wright and other blacks continue to have. He basically said that whites are racist, just as his grandmother said things that would make him cringe. I guess the hateful things that Pastor Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson say ,don not make him cringe. He claimed he was a Law Professor when he was not. He has claimed his work as a lawyer to be exclusively as an activist when it was not. He believes his daughters would be "punsihed" with a child. For goodness sake, he even lies about whether he has quit smoking or not. I want as President, someone who is mature and has worked every day to make people’s life better. I don’t want the author of the Audacity of Hope which is based on ideals that may be the results of hate or resentment. I don’t want Hope based on nebulous ideas about getting along without concrete plans or grasp on how to solve daily problems. Instead, I want the author of It Takes a Village, in which everyone pitches in; the government helps but is not intrusive. I want the author that has dreamt of a village that is thankful for what we have. A village that has hope for the future and has ideas based on experience and not in hate or hidden resentments. Let the rest of the states complete the primaries without interfering with the process. In the end, it will be obvious the only choice for President is Hillary Clinton.

- A. Madrid

April 7, 2008 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anybody considere that Jack Smith might be working for Obama? Or McCain?

- Just curious

April 7, 2008 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No need to vote Nader: Obama was anti-war in 2002 and remains so today...

- N8Ma

April 7, 2008 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith (any one of you four), you don't know jack shit. we are not duped (by you), and *you* are the idiot if you think we buy into that tripe.

- r b-j

April 7, 2008 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be a idiot if you write a post on a blog that takes more than 5 mins to read.

- Shawn

April 7, 2008 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you believe everything you just said. The only thing I want to address however is your blurb on experience. I get tired of hearing the experience argument, because the reality is that Clinton is not that experienced. She was the First Lady, not the President. And she claims to have played a major role in several policy decisions, but I've done a lot of research on that and know that a lot of those claims are false. Then she's been a junior senator since 2001 I believe. Obama has been a junior senator since 2005, so there is only a four year gap in their Congress experience. And for the critics of his legislative record that, the fact of the matter is that as a first term junior senator, it is much more difficult for him to author and pass a bill than it would be for a senator who is more "experienced" regardless of the merit of the bill. Clinton was able to bypass that to an extent because she was Bill Clinton's wife. As a matter of fact, the reason Hillary Clinton is where she is right now isn't because of her record or experience. It is because she is Bill Clinton's wife. I am actually willing to extend that argument to Obama as well. I agree with Ferraro in that Obama would not be where he is today if he wasn’t black, as well as if Kerry didn’t introduce him to the nation during the 2004 Democratic Convention. The fact is, blacks loved the Clintons and would vote Clinton not Obama if Obama was anything but black. I however have no sympathy for Ferraro because while all of us knew that in the back of our minds, to know it and to say it on the national spotlight are two completely different things. Getting back to experience though, the reality is, if one really wanted to vote experience, he/she should have voted for Bill Richardson, who is far more experienced than either Clinton or Obama. Want proof that Clinton lies about her experience. Just take a look at how she got caught in the lie about her trip to Bosnia. Then when she gets caught red handed, she wants to try lie to get out of a lie by saying "I made a mistake, I'm human, which you know, is a revelation to some people." or something to that measure. Give me a break, you can't make a mistake about thinking you landed under sniper fire and had to be rushed to a car ducking. It was a blatant lie, just like her so called experience.

- Fark Tari

April 7, 2008 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html **al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq** OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT! Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald Obama gets 4 Pinocchio’s for 100 Years War-Wondered why the national media won’t call out Obama for his serial distortions on McCain’s Iraq comments, the Globe tried to help Obama rationalize it. Michael Dobbs scolded Obama in today’s Fact Checker MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role. The WashigntonPost Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960. Judicial Watch: By Klaus Marre-Obama ‘intended to leave no paper trail’ OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO! Politico reports, “During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama’s answers he never saw questioaire? NBC- Aswini Anburajan OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it. Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

- OBAMA LIES AGAIN, MEDIA HIDES

April 7, 2008 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In addition, if you actually do the research, you will find that Clinton has received far more Republican votes than Obama, because the majority of Republicans actually believe that she will be the easier target. Thanks, have a nice day.

- Fark

April 7, 2008 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's cabinet would have a significant participation by Clinton appointees, thus Obama has just as much access to this knowledge and experience as Sen. Clinton. Maybe more if you count the people like Bill Richardson who won't work for the Clintons anymore.

- John Barr

April 7, 2008 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think that being the wife of a president is deserving of being called experience. She is qualified and no one doubts that. I'm sure being in the White House gave her insight into the inner workings of the highest level of power. Why in our pluralist democracy should there exists a pattern of "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton". That concept is antithetical to American democracy.

- borednclass

April 7, 2008 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would like to point to one factor playing strongly in the Obama/Clinton rece: The pro-Israel lobby. The lobby is in panic regarding the possibility that Obama might win the Democratic nomination. A race between Obama and McCain will focus on the Iraq issue: Why are we there? What lobby pushed us to war? What country is behind this lobby? Who fed us forged intelligence (e.g.-the Niger papers)? Attention will be called to the behind thescene roles of individuals like Perle, Wolfowitz Feith,Pollack, Abrams and others. (Some of whom are connected to the intelligence service of a foreign country. Attention will be called to the fact that the above foreign country is the recepient of the highest foreign aid in Americam history. People might ask questios, anger might be expressed. A certain Golden Age might come to an end, not necessarily by violence. IF AFTER ALL THAT OBAMA WILL INDEED WIN, THEN SOME TRUTHS WILL BECOME APPARENT: 1. You can resist the lobby and still win an election in America. 2. Most Americans do not support Israeli policies. 3. Most Jews, and I am Jewish myself, do not support the Lobby. A new era of peace will come to the Middle East. The Lobby can't have that. Avi

- AVI

April 7, 2008 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree with Cleduc, Hillary will probably concede some time in May. She can't do it before Pennsylvania, which she'll probably win, and she can't do it just after for the same reason. A few more results, once the math starts looking clearer, her and the Obama campaign will reach some agreement that allows her to return to the senate with some face saved and eases the pain for most of her supporters. Hillary knows that the longer she stays in it, the more tarnished the Clinton brand becomes. If she's going to run for senate majority leader after this, she'll need to retain some good will in the party.

- sweaty guy

April 7, 2008 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The longer Hillary stays in, the less likely she will be re-elected Senator in New York. What would you prefer, Hillary, more terrms in Washington as a respected Senator, or waiting up alone in your Westchester house for Bubba to come home at 3:00am? Hillary, leave now with your head up high, or face the wrath of New York voters next time you run for the Senate.

- Mitchell Wolfe

April 7, 2008 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Top 20 search motor key terms for Hillary Clinton: Delusional Divisive Sense of Entitlement Tuzla Sniper Misstatements Lies Failed Health Care Plan 3 a.m. NAFTA The Fellowship Iraq War Authorization Peter Paul Monica Levinsky Gennifer Flowers blue dress Impeachment 109 million dollars Campaign + Bill + unpaid Campaign + Bill + husband

- Kris from California

April 7, 2008 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT! If you take your talking points directly from HRC's website. You might be an idiot! If you use Bill Clinton's accomplishments as a reason to support Hillary. You might be an idiot! If you think being married to someone makes you qualified for their job. :) :) :) :) :) :) So, jacksmith, would you also be willing to get a heart transplant from someone who's married to a former surgeon?

- deegen08

April 7, 2008 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is an idiot now, Jacksmith? The United States suffered more than 13,000 military casualties during the two terms of the Clinton Administration which resulted in the 9/11 attacks. This Administration has lost 10,000 service men and women while fighting a real war. Obama and HRC should learn to be as tough on our enemies as they are on our nation.

- peter

April 7, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These scare tactic politics of fear and scarcity are bad for America. We need HRC in the race, and we need her to win. The remarks here only serve to make that crystal clear.

- yael

April 7, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All this fighting about who is a stronger candidate between Obama and Clinton is silly. To paraphrase a line from an earlier poster....you might be an idiot if you are a Democrat. Once again the Democrats seem to be doing whatever they can to lose when they should be winning easily. How many times do you have to get your a*s kicked before you start learning from your mistakes? McGovern, Mondale (won only his home state and DC), Dukakis, and let's not forget in 2004 with the most vulnerable incumbent in more than half a century, the Democrats actually found a candidate weak enough to lose to Bush. Although a quicker and tougher response to the Swift Boat Vets might have saved Kerry. So this year the Dems give us a choice between a liberal woman and a liberal black man. Being a woman or black is tough enough without being liberals on top of it. Did the Dems forget that they get the butts kicked when they offer the country a liberal? Did the Dems forget that Bill Clinton won running as pro business, smaller government Democrat? If they are going to offer a liberal woman or a liberal black man, the Dems should make sure they are strong candidates, but no, they gave us ones with huge flaws. First, a woman who is the most hated liberal woman polician in America with little experience (being married to someone with experience does not count) or an even less experienced black liberal who has a preacher who is prone to anti American rants and therefore plays into the attacks of the right that the Dems are not patriotic and are the blame America first party. If I was a Republican, I would love the party's chances this fall. Ironically, their candidate is not very well liked by a large part of their party so it should be a very interested year. Based on the fact that given America's history we never pick a liberal over a moderate, I think McCain will most likely be our next President.

- Conrad

April 7, 2008 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you realize that you mention Bill Clinton in almost every sentence you've written? Hillary's the one running for President--not Bill. I might be an idiot if I accepted your premise that Billary alone can change this country for the better. But I disagree. The only idiot is anyone who's willing to put up with more of their divisive crap.

- maw

April 7, 2008 at 7:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has won states that he will not carry in November.Western states that have a caucus process and southern states with large numbers of African-American voters. Clinton is poised to win Indiana and Pennsylvania. She has won Californis, Texas, New York, Ohio, and would win Michigan even if a re-vote would have been done. Axelrod is trying to steal the primary like a boxer out-points a slugger who lands the more convincing blows. Green Party people and Republicans need to stop crossing over and voting for "no experience" Obama. He will be crushed in November if he faces McCain. I'm not a reporter or pundit. I have actually ran campaigns at the state and federal level. Strongest Dem is Clinton. Nuff said.

- Lifelongdem

April 7, 2008 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Educated people vote for Obama-we realize a change is necessary in order to get us out of our USA-warmongering habits and he is the best person to have as a president for the diplomacy required-wars are draining our country (our military can`t get the recruits they need and many who do fight are in their 2nd,3rd, and sometimes 4th trips over-they pay a terrible price) Also at a borrowed 12 billion a month we cannot afford this war. It looks like all those terrible habits of experience are maybe something we don`t need unless we want to be in the toilet like we are now for 4 MORE LONG YEARS.

- johnp

April 7, 2008 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, Jacksmith, you ARE an idiot. If you think the better choice is the person whose spouse spent a lot of time in office rather than the candidate whose judgment is clearly superior, then you are the idiot. If you think the person who has lost 2/3 of the contests so far, and whose path to victory requires the destruction of her party and the loss of the new generation of voters turned out by Obama, then you are the idiot. And if you think a woman who has run perhaps the most inept campaign in history considering the unprecedented advantages she had from the outset is the stronger candidate than the guy who assembled and organized a FAR superior team, then again, you are the idiot. Nice chatting with you, loser.

- Not an Idiot

April 7, 2008 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what 35 years of experience, as first lady of arkansas and the us, as a lawyer, as a congressional staffer. none of these are leadership positions, ditto the us senate. Ms Clinton is a lightweight pretending to be a heavyweight. She has no experience. Neither does Obama but at least he doesnt pretend to

- chet brewer

April 7, 2008 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or you might be an Idiot if you had that logic and your name was jacksmith

- Tom Prioreschi

April 7, 2008 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if you think the US fought a war against a nuclear power during the Clinton administration.

- James

April 7, 2008 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good gracious... how many times does Bill Clinton's years in office keep getting mentioned as a reason to elect Hillary. Outside of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and no doubt assisting Al Gore in inventing the Internet, Hillary didn't even have the awareness or smarts to keep her stupid husband from committing adultery under her own roof many times. And this is the smartest woman in the world?

- paul0

April 7, 2008 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am ok with Hillary staying in until the June 3rd primaries but onces she is still 100+ delegates behind Obama, the SuperDelegates need to do their job and get behind Obama and end this mess so we can beat McCain in November. p.s the YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if...person IS an idiot!

- thecamilopost.com

April 7, 2008 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really love you dum-o-crats and I will miss you when this election is over. The constant bickering in tones generally reserved for republicans is so refreshing. Hillary & OBama are both frauds. Neither has the experience or accomplishments to be president of the United States. They are both creations of the socialist, anti-american media. McCain will sweep into office with an electoral landslide no matter the dum-o-crat candidate, so stop worrying. In the meantime, keep speaking about your candidates as: liars, marxist, incompetent, racist, frauds, greedy, hypocritical, idiots etc. Candor about dum-o-crats is so refreshing, especially when it comes from dum-o-crats themselves.

- Speier

April 7, 2008 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was going to rip on how absurb jacksmith's post was, but deegen08 beat me to it. Well put! Didn't Bill also champion NAFTA? By jack's reasoning isn't that attributed to Hillary as well? Or was she only responsible for the good stuff? Selective memory is awesome!

- disbelief

April 7, 2008 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can we put a stop to this nonsense? Maybe the idiot Sen. Pat Lahey needs to quit and get a life! What has he done in Congress. I am sick of people telling Clinton that she should quit! What does this teach our children? When the going gets tough, quit! Give me a break. Clearly, you are supporting Obama! Is it a good idea to look more into Obama's past? Maybe his involvement with Rev. Wright, the disgraced Tony Rezko? How about his association with the self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist, William C. Ayers? Perhaps, Obama's association with the lover boy Larry Sinclaire? Let's see what happens to Obama within the next 60 days. If I were to bet, I would say that he will be toast! Want to learn more, read about it: http://www.obamaunveiled.com Mmm

- Jim Iraq_Vet

April 7, 2008 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small." This statement is obviously not true. Imagine the pole vaulter who is unable to surmount the bar even though it has been raised by only a few centimeters since his last successful vault.

- Todd Saalman

April 7, 2008 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The 'you might be an idiot' author should campaign to modify the constitution to let Bill Clinton run again. All Hillary's 'experience', in his litany, actually seems to be Bill's.

- Todd Saalman

April 7, 2008 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First of all I just wanted to thank Jack for wasting three huge posts on a rant against Obama that was totally irrelevant in the context of this article. Secondly I want to thank the author of the article for acknowleding the math that most of the media is content to ignore for the sake of ratings (after all if Hillary drops out what will CNN show all afternoon now that Britney isn't hacking off her hair). Finally I wanted to say that I find it hilarious that Hillary keeps saying she is pressing on for democracy. After all she is just trying to narrow the margin enough to justify overturning the popular vote. How is that more democratic? The rules are clear for Hillary, 10 more contests and superdelegates that are unbound by anything but their wisdom (just look at Spitzer). Of course then there are the rules in Michigan and Florida but those rules...well they're undemocratic! I don't care how much you support Clinton, when you get up now and see her on TV talking about all the twists that could be coming, you just have to shake your head and think "let it go."

- Ted

April 7, 2008 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's lead is small, insurmountable, and, most important-- irrelevant. Party rules dictate you need 2,024 delegates to win. Neither candidate can achieve this amount with the remaining primaries. Hillary can't win but neither can Obama! Super delegates were created to exercise independent judgement when and if (a) someone didn't get the minimum amount needed (b) someone got the minimum but did not appear as tho he/she could win. They were not created to simply put the leader over the required amount. They were not created to vote the same as their state did in the primary. They were created to supplement and possibly overrule the final vote if situation (a) or (b) exists. If you want to call this "overriding the will of the people", so be it - but the people who voted in March and April primaries were not in a position to have the same perspective of the strength of each candidate as someone in August. Get over it.

- Gordon

April 7, 2008 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot if think having tea with women who have been meeting for years means you are contributing to Northern Ireland peace. You might be an idiot if you think being a marital appendage to your husband's accomplishments make them your own. You might be an idiot if think flying into a secure zone and stopping for a welcome ceremony with your daughter, an 8 y/o girl, a singer, and a comic equals running for safety while sniper bullets fly. You might be an idiot if you think leading the Harvard review to work as a community organizer, practicing & teaching civil rights & constitutional law, serving as a state senator and a United States Senator equals no experience. You might be an idiot if you back someone who has proven a failure at securing universal health coverage by making enemies of your allies is smarter than backing someone with a proven record of making enemies into allies to achieve results. You might be an idiot if you consider Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Somalia, Afganistan, or Sudan (the only countries in which the United States used military force during Bill Clinton's presidency)to be nuclear powers. You might be an idiot if you think voting for someone who hasn't mentioned education assistance and reform is better than supporting someone who has made it a key part of his campaign. You might be an idiot if you give Clinton credit for everything good that happened in the 90s without recognizing that much of this happened despite him, instead of because of him. And finally you might be an idiot if you vote for someone who 'stood by her man' after he got caught getting a blow job while she was in another part of the house after proclaiming in 1992 (New Hampshire) that she wasn't going to be some Tammy Wynette is anything other than a self-serving, hubristic, double-speaking, vacuous strumpet whose major area of legislative accomplishment lay in naming post offices.

- Mikeybackwards

April 7, 2008 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I recall the exit poll results from Texas. Republicans made up 9% of the polled voters. Of these 46% voted for for Clinton 53% for Obama. This was after a concerted campaign by Chaos Meister, Rush Limbaugh, to ask conservatives to vote for Hillary in order to drag out the slugfest. So some of you argue that they cleverly voted for Obama because they hate Hillary, or becasuse they were enchanted by Obama's 'above it all message' of process over substance? Or maybe they heard about the charosmatic Obama Minister who would make Obama seem like a right-winger...

- Jeff in VA

April 7, 2008 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can someone on TNR please stop posting jacksmith's in(s)ane foamings of the mouth? Let's forget the fact that this person/bot/whatever has little grasp of the English language, let's forget that "syntax" is a word with no meaning to him/her/it, let's forget the fact this...er...person...bot...thing...can't even spell...But let's remember this: do the other, actual, human readers of TNR need to read this crap? Posted over and over and over again? You (whatever you are--bot, person, spamming program) do nothing to further any sense of debate here in the last corners of America, jacksmith. So, TNR, PLEASE, STOP POSTING THIS CRAP.

- nycman

April 7, 2008 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OPERATION CHAOS LIVES ON! RUSH RULES!!!!!!!

- poppa matt

April 7, 2008 at 9:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is best to answer the red phone at 3Am. A stable highly intellegent gentleman or a lady with multiple personalities, (1)The voice we could not recognise as the southern black,thats when she actually lost a block of black votes. (2) Its an honor running with you Barack. (3)Lets get it on barack meet me in Ohio. I could go on with at least 14 examples but you get the drift. I need a reliable hand picking up the phone, not this multiple personalities;

- T.Brown

April 7, 2008 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THank you...i did not get the post date 4/23 either!

- rick

April 7, 2008 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

best line of the article, "A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small." HA! Hillary Clinton is DOOMED guys. This fact was obvious from March 4, 2008 primaries. She has run out of map. It really is refreshing to see people start to call the Clintons out on it. As it was writen in another article, "Clinton's path to the nomination isn't narrow. It's BARRICATED." All the rest of this is just the primary season going on ten weeks longer than necessary! Oh, btw, great title!

- rick will

April 7, 2008 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If anything, Hillary is an extremely smart person. She knows that her nomination fight is lost, but she also knows that she must mortally wound Obama before the general election, as it is her only chance to position herself for a Hillary 2012 campaign. She will concede at the end of May or June and will promise the expected support for Obama but will work behind the scenes to undermine him. McCain is old and my guess is that he will not get an opportunity for re-election, or the economy will falter and he will become an easy target for 2012. Either way it makes her a calculated strategist from the Machiavellic point of view.

- mvale

April 7, 2008 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If BO was behind by so few delegates, no one would be asking him to drop out." Quite the reverse. If Obama were today in Hillary's position, they Hillaristas would be screaming for his head for daring to stay in the race and risk damaging the general election prospects of "the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president." The would be accusing him of gratifying his own ego and pounding the electoral math relentlessly. Doesn't matter. The race is done and Obama has won. There are a few people who feel entertained by imagining that there is still a contest, including Hillary, but by the time PA and NC have voted, they will all have to admit the obvious. And the superdelegates will declare and make the obvious a certainty. Game over.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2008 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed, if she goes away now two things stop: more confabulation and a chance to have her be well beaten.

- carlosmd

April 7, 2008 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who do you trust? No this is not a game show. Even Bill Clinton did not trust Hillary and for good reason. Hillary has lied so much in her life that the very idea of honesty and integrity is a myth to her. I would not trust Hillary in any leadership role. Our military has duly noted her lies and lack of integrity. Maybe character does count. If it counts with you, vote for Obama or even McCain if you must. I will be voting for Obama. Good Luck!

- JB from California

April 7, 2008 at 10:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might be an idiot:), but Bill Clinton is not running. The American Public is voting on its Chief Executive, not its first spouse. Obama can bring change without catering to the interests of big business. How can Hillary implement Universal Healthcare when the healthcare industry is pumping money into her campaign? Obama can be a catalyst for reform in Washington. He can be a catalyst for change for America.

- James D

April 7, 2008 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith you might be an IDIOT if you dont believe in math. You've lost get over it and how dare you write off millions of people as idiots just because they dont believe in your insane logic. I bet if you had it your way you and the Clinton campaign would send everyone you disagree with to concentration camps. You are a shining example of whats wrong with Hillary Clinton and the nation as a whole.

- Sean

April 7, 2008 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the Democratic Party disenfranchises Florida and Michigan voters as part of a growing behind-the-scenes effort to nominate a candidate who is clearly NOT the majority choice of Democrats nationwide, then it deserves to lose in November. There is an obvious reason why Sen. Dodd, Sen. Leahy, Gov. Richardson and others - like Obama-infatuated reporters such as Jonathan Chait - are trying to short-circuit the primary season. Because they know that after the last votes are cast on June 3rd - and when Sen. Clinton leads in the overall popular vote - Hillary will be viewed by rank-and-file Democrats as just or even more so as a legitimate choice for the party's presidential nomination as someone who held small lead in pledged delegates. Sen. Obama's small lead in pledged delegates is entirely due to a convoluted pledged delegate allocation system that rewards him for the votes of Republican and independent voters over lifelong Democrats, while disenfranchising Democratic voters in caucus states who were working, care-giving or otherwise could not make it to caucus sites. There's a price to be paid for throwing Hillary and the millions of lifelong Democrats that support her candidacy over the side the way the party is doing and it will be paid for in spades. Many longtime, loyal Democratic voters will rightfully feel betrayed by the DNC and will cross party lines in November to help send John McCain to the White House. Hillary is not only the clear majority choice of +DEMOCRATS+ but the most qualified and best able to win in November.

- SoCalDem

April 7, 2008 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I won't try to comment about all of this post. I will just say that if Hillary and Bill are the "master politicians," why is she losing?

- gmo2

April 7, 2008 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You ARE an idiot if you think Hillary Clinton has any experience whatsoever in running a government or anything else, unless you count her ceremonial role of presiding over White House teas while her husband was president.

- Leslie

April 7, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You ARE an idiot if you think recycling corrupt has-beens from the nineties is the best way to solve the new 21st century challenges. You ARE an idiot if you think what the country needs is another President who puts self interest above honesty. You ARE an idiot if you think that Hilary wresting the nomination from Barack would result in anything other that Bush's third term. You ARE an idiot if you can't see that the more people know Clinton, the less they trust her. You ARE an idiot if you don't see that it is precisely the reverse with Obama. Stop wasting US energy on this ego marathon. Think how much money is being wasted on a lost cause. Think of the good the money could do elsewhere. Enough already! Out, Out... Damn Candle!

- josephwouk

April 8, 2008 at 12:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is false. The Jewish community is split down the middle. The scared suburbanites go for Clinton. Pretty much all the other Jews support Obama. Even the papers in Israel have been saying nice things about him. Don't buy into the Clinton Calumny. You aught to know better

- josephwouk

April 8, 2008 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@JackSmith I think we all no who the idiot is here, don't we. At one point out of your steaming pile of a post you talked about Republican's voting in the Democratic primaries because they think Obama is a weaker opponent. If Hillary were the nominee, you would see the largest voter turnout in history by the Republicans.

- ryan

April 8, 2008 at 12:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Jacksmith, why do have to hijack the top of the board to state your position? Yes Hillary can continue. We all agree on that. Let McCain continue to build his bubble. I remember how far behind Bill was behind in polls before the Democratic convention. McCain's rise in polls is ephemeral as he is being given a free pass while both Hillary and Barack are being hammered by the press and each other surrogates. When this crazy democratic beauty contest is over, McCain will face a different type of scrutiny as housing and the economy continues to slide. The Iraq war will also become even bloodier as a hot summer of discontent sets in. We have no more troops to send there. The democratic candidate will be fine. The second part of the article is however true. Mathematically the Super delegates will never decide. This is just typical ratings generating spin. If no more superdelegates commit before June, Barack needs only one third of the remaining superdelegates. If a half of them commit equally to both, Barack will only need another 17 out of a remaining 170 superdelegates.

- kbasd

April 8, 2008 at 3:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would be an idiot if I believed the assertions of Mr. Jacksmith. Slick Willy one of our greatest presidents? Get real.

- Maxbert

April 8, 2008 at 3:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith, your diatribe of ignorance is getting quite tiresome. You cut and paste the same garbage on every blog in the internet. Have you nothing better to do with your life than to spit out your ignorance? Try taking a walk in the part, maybe the fresh air will clear your sick mind.

- NinaK

April 8, 2008 at 3:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed Tripp Jones (QUOTE) My fellow Clintonites, it's time for Obama FOR SUPPORTERS of Senator Hillary Clinton, like me, it's time to get behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama. Leahy, Dodd join push to end Democratic contest The exposure of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s outrageous and divisive remarks has injected the raw emotions associated with race relations into the presidential campaign. This new dynamic raises the stakes in an already high-stakes race. Our responsibility as progressive-minded voters is to show Americans a positive alternative to the toxic politics of race. Rallying around Obama now increases our chances of doing just that. Obama has run a positive and inspiring campaign, and has attracted a majority of pledged delegates. It is hard to envision a scenario in which Democratic superdelegates override the will of millions of primary voters and caucus participants. Obama will be the nominee. Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding Wright presents Republicans with a polarizing wedge issue to exploit with general election voters. This approach not only risks an Obama loss in November - denying us a fresh, capable leader - but it would set the country back in its racial reconciliation process. Americain 2008 should be better than that. As we have done at many key junctures in our nation's history, Democrats and other progressive-minded voters must lead the way. The current firestorm is an opportunity to move beyond the anger and resentment that have characterized our nation's dialogue on race. By throwing our enthusiastic support behind Obama now, voters of all political stripes can echo the candidate's refrain, "Not this time." There have been many moments in our history when we failed to heed that call. Twenty years ago, as a staffer of Governor Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign, I observed the use of the now-famous "Willie Horton" ad to undermine a good man's character, fan the flames of racial division and distract voters from the most important issues of the time. Not this time. We have an opportunity to show that we have learned from our mistakes. The first step, which Obama took in his recent speech on race, was to condemn Wright's offensive rhetoric. The second step is in our hands: Strengthen Obama as the Democratic nominee by uniting behind him now. Amplify his postpartisan message to American voters. Families in Pennsylvania, like those across America, are feeling insecure about their jobs, healthcare, their children's education, and the safety of the nation. They want leaders to be bold and practical in addressing our most serious challenges, and to work across party lines to achieve results. Obama promises to do that. Those of us who have supported Clinton and continue to believe that she would be an excellent president can play an important part in moving our nation forward by supporting Obama. We can spread the word that he offers the right leadership for these challenging times. Our support would send a powerful message that the United States is headed in a new direction - on race relations, certainly, but perhaps most importantly, on what it means to be an American. (UNQUOTE) Tripp Jones is cofounder of MassINC. © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company."

- NinaK

April 8, 2008 at 3:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JACKSMITH CHANGE YOUR NAME TO JACKASS

- CHANGE

April 8, 2008 at 3:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlos, you should be more worried about revealing your own "true personality" of a sexist tool every time you "open your mouth." Hillary didn't "lie" about the pregnant woman...you're not up-to-date. All the lazy slugs getting paid as "journalists" have had to issue corrections on calling her a liar on that as it's a true story. Hillary was also told that her plane was taking evasive action in Bosnia, and was vindicated on the Northern Ireland peace process as well. But keep pumping out the miniscule "issues" the mainstream media is forced to froth over (besides this mania for her to "get out of the way" despite having the support of half the dem voters). Oh, and your tender concern for Chelsea is so touching. It touches me right in the gut...and sure to form, you begin spewing the usual rightwing bull listing all the "issues" that Bill was hounded with. How the hell is "fellatiogate" an issue of Hillary's in any stretch of the imagination? It's a rightwing obsession, for sure. I've got an idea. How about everyone who regurgitates the latest media meme and rw talking point of how Hillary "lies" and how Hillary should "just drop out" all just stfu? Will you just stfu? Didn't think so. Fine, then, just go on spewing and Hillary will keep on running and we'll let the voters, if they aren't completely drained by all the nonstop Hillary-bashing, VOTE.

- Zee

April 8, 2008 at 4:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here we go again! By now you should've gotten the message, the American public is fed up with disgruntled, pessimistic, biased media and journalists. You can't help but continue to misinform the public. By post an article now that was meant to be officially posted on April 23 in April 08? Talk about an outdated and irrelevant news story..

- Another bunch of misinformation

April 8, 2008 at 4:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds to me like Bill is the one with all of the experience. -_-

- buckaroo

April 8, 2008 at 5:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think both Obama and Hilary are too unfit to run our country. Obama has no experince and Clinton's is a liar! Why would you want a liar for president....she wont be truthful to us, shre lied about sniper shooting in Bosnia, you can't just mistakenly say something to that extremity. Obama is just unfit, if he can sit in a pew for twenty years and listen to his Rev, Wright, rant and rave about racism and prejudice of the "white America" what is it to say he doesnt have the same views as his pastor and friend. You can't stay behind someone for so long and not follow his views as your won...it doesnt work that way, he's just trying to cover up what he didnt want us Americans to know.So Obama and Clinton have something in common, they either like keeping things from us Americans or they like lying to cover their ass and not get caought, when in all reality they will get caought either way. Sincerely, Crazerae

- crazerae

April 8, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think both Obama and Hilary are too unfit to run our country. Obama has no experince and Clinton's is a liar! Why would you want a liar for president....she wont be truthful to us, shre lied about sniper shooting in Bosnia, you can't just mistakenly say something to that extremity. Obama is just unfit, if he can sit in a pew for twenty years and listen to his Rev, Wright, rant and rave about racism and prejudice of the "white America" what is it to say he doesnt have the same views as his pastor and friend. You can't stay behind someone for so long and not follow his views as your won...it doesnt work that way, he's just trying to cover up what he didnt want us Americans to know.So Obama and Clinton have something in common, they either like keeping things from us Americans or they like lying to cover their ass and not get caought, when in all reality they will get caought either way. Sincerely, Crazerae

- crazerae

April 8, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4/8/08: The media has under-reported the Marc Penn/Columbia scandal. Back when Hillary was throwing pipes and such from her sink at Obama, Hillary explicitly asked all of us what we would think if one of her top aids went to another country and made deals regarding free trade. But does anyone see that reported anywhere other than a few blogs? If the tables were reversed now, and Mark Penn was Obama's top adviser, the media would be playing "his" statement about "What would you think..." in an endless loop. Not only that, Clinton hasn't even gotten rid of Mr. Penn. Again, there is barely any coverage.

- Hmmm

April 8, 2008 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You Might Be an Idiot if you forgot Black hawk Down!!

- Bob

April 8, 2008 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I want to ask everyone a question -why does Hillary have to work so hard? Why is she struggling? Why hasn't she been able to acheive a Michigan and Fl revote or better yet why is she behind in delegates? Why hasn't she gained superdelegate support? Why does she have a 6pt lead in the upcoming PA primary when she had a 16+ pt leaad a month ago or less? I think once you all start answering these questions you will come up with the real Answer and when you do post your responses. As you begin to respond for her answer these questions for yourself.

- Why Does Hillary Have to Fight?

April 8, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith's four long comments to start this session demonstrate the arrogance of the points made and, perhaps, of Hillary's campaign tactics. Why are we so confused? She feels a destiny, a long overdue destiny for women, and she is advised by experienced, typical Washington politicos. She has worked incredibly hard and given an enormous amount. She has awesome command of the subject matter. Unfortunately, Hillary's problem is that our times have delivered a leader that successfully inspires a very hungry population in a way that reaches beyond where she takes us. This is all about leadership. Each of these candidates have the potential to be a great leader. After Bush, there is so much opportunity and so much work to be done. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT EITHER OF THESE CANDIDATES MUST BE DEFEATED BECAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION THAT THEY WILL BRING (be it a McCain victory or poor policies, etc), THEN YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF BECAUSE THAT ATTITUDE IS EVER SO MUCH MORE DESTRUCTIVE THEN BOTH OF THEM REMAINING IN THE RACE. Democracy is difficult (and I don't consider Nader's egotistic foolishness to represent anything other than the modern day Lyndon LaRouche).

- Coastman3

April 8, 2008 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'My Husband was Head of Surgery for 8 Years!' As two surgeons are about to start operating on a patient, a Hillary Clinton look-alike barges in wearing surgical clothing and a stethoscope. After a humorous back and forth between the Clinton actress and the two surgeons, Clinton says, "I am ready to operate on day one. Now hand me the sharp pointy thing and the funny scissors." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQh8__dCxeE&eurl=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/04/my_husband_was_head_of_surgery.html

- booch221

April 8, 2008 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, Jack you ar the idiot for even attempting to write such a ridiculous article. Not much writing experience, huh? Obama is every bit as accomplished and experienced as Hilary clinton and at least he makes an attempt at honesty , something the clinton's gave up years ago. Living in the White House under Bill clinton experience does not makein anyones opinion. Grow up and take a long hard look at the real candidates.

- Millie

April 8, 2008 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought jacksmith was serious until he got to this point - "...President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history" - then I knew his whole tirade, like that statement, was a joke!

- Ed Reese

April 8, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dearest jacksmith I won't tell you "you are an idiot". You already told you in a mirror. But you shouldn't talk economics in public, if you didn't catch yet such a basic, we teach 18 years old pupils: "THE GREENSPAN-CLINTON BUBBLE OF THE 90s, is the daughter of the world deflationary economics we are living into, and the mother of the current bubble burst". Policy implication: the US and the world need a new FDRoosevelt, a New Deal. This is the yardstick for evaluating candidates, and the reason why Mc Cain will be defeated by large, when there will be hundred thoudands jobs lost, next October. More in http://enzofabioarcangeli.wordpress.com/

- enzofabioarcangeli

April 8, 2008 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i heart jacksmith

- susan k. (NYC)

April 8, 2008 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are an idiot if you characterize Bill Clinton as one of our greatest presidents, or the Clinton soap opera in their last few years as anything but a grand embarrassment to the party. You would be an idiot not to see that Clinton shenanigans and hatred of the Clinton's helped bring us W! They were arrogant, changed with the seasons to suit the polls, and then as now cared for nothing but to perpetuate their own power! Anyone remeber the contract with America? (thanks Hikkary, you helped get that done). Obama is an unknown quantity in some ways, but only a fool would declare in April that he could not beat old man McCain in Nov. He can if the party unites!

- Ed

April 9, 2008 at 2:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How many of Bills Accomplishments are you listing as if Hillary had anything to do with them? Her single largest contribution was a glowing failure with Healthcare reform setting that cause back 20 years. She lacked security clearance to even be privy to, let alone play an active roll in international diplomacy other than good will ambassador stuff a 3rd grader could handle. You peoplefail to note she cant even win her own parties nomination-let alone the presidency. People are tired of the lies and drama and tired of the weak arguments put forth by Hillary supporters. This race isnt even close, in fact because of the proportional nature of this game....the fact that she CANNOT catch him in pledged delegates means its a BLOWOUT. Try being constructive and start bringing the party together because the worst possible outcome in the fall is a divided party with MCCain winning. If that happens say hello to 8 more years of Bush policy, goodbye to Roe V Wade, healthcare reform, aid to struggling home owners, infrastucture improvements...all the things Clinton supporters claim to hold dear-while in the same breath threaten to support McCain like pouty children who didnt get their way. Absolutely pathetic.

- Idiot I am

April 9, 2008 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton’s “Red Phone” SNL scenarios with panicking and chain smoking Barak Obama-- we think as comedy. But those SNL skits are like the closest we come to discovering the truth about Barak Obama’s real experience. The point is not the fact that Barak was a long time smoker; and we don’t know the consequences he has to face as a result, even if he lives in the White House, but the fact those skits were effective; stated as comedy, when there’s a real prohibition in the media about saying anything positive about Hillary Clinton and anything negative about Barak Obama. Anyway, those skits were convincing and it felt like closest to the truth, while all what we see in the newscasts about Sen. Obama seemed hyped up and made up by the adoring media.

- chandra perera

April 9, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the 'you might be an idiot' guy. There are plenty of reasonable reasons to support Hillary just as there are plenty of reasonable reasons to support Barack. But I disagree with your assertion that Hillary has 35 years of experience to Barack' no experience. The facts simply do not bear that out. You are overstating Hillary's experience and understanding Baracks'. As always, the truth lies in the middle somewhere. You are like the worst of the republicans - if people don't agree with you they 'are idiots'. That is precisely the way to alienate your opposition - in this case your fellow democrats. Tone down the rhetoric and get rid of the self rightiousness. It's not conducive to the kind of adult discourse necessary to run a country where people are people often disagree, but still have to work together.

- why so angry?

April 9, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes you might be an idiot if you think that being married to someone who has experience and skills and a track record means those traits are yours. Really, Hillary Clinton has had a great seat to watch from over the years but has basic and real difficulties in personality, management skills and seeing beyond her own point of view that have and would certainly create serious problems as an chief executive of this country. Her management style, her heavy handed approach and her inflexibility in modifying her approach to fit reality as well as an obvious "for herself and her legacy" attitude can only be compared to Richard Nixon. It is interesting that those who worked so hard to rid this country of President Nixon's administration are pushing so hard to bring about the the administration of the single person with a personality most like his in the past 40 years, except she has weaker management skills and doesn't play well with others. Does anyone really want this country managed the way her campaign has been managed or her complete failure when given the ball on healthcare in 1993 was managed for example? Yes, Bill Clinton was the Calvin Cooliage of our generation and oversaw a fantastic economic surge build upon non-existent fundamentals. What we don't need is someone who seems obsessed more about attaining power and having a place in history at all costs than actually serving the people and this nation. You might be an idiot if you cannot see that Hillary Clinton is a throwback politician to the steamroll the opposition, I don't need input I know what's best for the people, attitudes of a long gone era.

- CRB

April 9, 2008 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People like Jacksmith should never be allowed to post comments on blogs. He is in dire need of medication. Even Hillary will be embarrased.

- Smart

April 9, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope no one seriously believes that Hillary would really embrace Obama as VP. If she get's the nomination, and it is virtually impossible for her to win, Obama will be persona non grata. She is not interested in having him as a running mate, only in making people think she will do that so they will nominate her!

- sjdenny

April 9, 2008 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if you think that Hillary actually has 35 years of experience(she has no more elected experience). You migh tbe an idiot if you believe that you can count Bill Clintons presidency as an example of what Hillary might do. You might be an idiot if you believe that Hillary has any sort of backbone and doesn't float with the wind(such as her initial support in Iraq). You might be an idiot if you claim that the economic growth during the Clinton administration has anything to do with Hillary, or even Bill's Policies. I like Bill, thought he was a great president.. but I'm not sure I want more of the same. We've been doing this insider game for too long. We need to try something else... and new approach.. NOT more of the same. Give Obama a shot.

- Tom T

April 9, 2008 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My message to Ralph, more power to your ideas. Keep working on a genuine electoral strategy. Think through how your candidacy will make use of people's votes -- if they give them to you -- and not just use the campaign as a soapbox. Regardless how important your ideas are, there are more urgent uses for people's votes than to act as packing material for your public relations campaign. In 2000, you stated you were running to get 5% of the vote so that the Green party would get a ballot line. near the end, you should not have been campaigning in contested/battleground states. You would have garnered many more votes if you stuck to uncontested states. Why were you trying to effect the final decision? That approach didn't work out well for us.

- rubbernecking

April 9, 2008 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No Jack, you might be an idiot. Bill Clinton isn't actually running for President. Hillary Clinton is. This is the same Hillary who set Universal Health Coverage back twenty years in 1993 when she devised a plan that favored the insurance companies (does this sound familiar?) This is the same Hillary who fought long and hard for NAFTA. The same one who voted to authorize the war in Iraq. The same Hillary who made it nearly impossible for an American citizen to declare bankruptcy, but made it easy for corporations to steal their employee pensions. She fights like a wolverine for corporate interests. You might be an idiot if you thought she had your best interests in mind; quite the contrary, she has your best interests in her sights. You've been warned. ari

- ari

April 9, 2008 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear jacksmith: YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if you think Barack Obama has "little to no experience." YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if you think we should entrust the leadership of our nation to someone whose campaign can't pay its bills, keeps having to ditch its top advisers, and is subject to such unending melodrama. YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if you think that someone who keeps getting caught in lie after lie after lie would be the best person to put in the Oval Office. YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT if you think the Superdelegates are going to overturn the will of the people, as expressed by a higher popular vote total, more pledged delegates, and much more successful fundraising. The Superdelegates, on the other hand, are clearly NOT idiots, as we can see from the fact that since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained an average of about one Superdelegate endorsement per day against Clinton.

- terrid

April 10, 2008 at 3:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reporting from the South Pacific, the news is that HRC is campaigning to destroy the stronger candidate so she can get her shot at 2012. See better America. A disproportionate sense of entitlement is exactly right. Someone needs to explain why you're tolerating this. Who can afford this nonsense? You guys are getting ripped off in broad daylight and the rabid media coverage only serves as a distraction. Have you considered the broader consequences? Her bullshit is destructive. Plain and simple. Clinton supporters share the anxiety and confusion of the corrupt message she broadcasts. Conversely, Mr. Obama is a strong character. Please elect a capable, intelligent, and moral world leader. This is what Jesus would do, were he an American in the 21st Century of voting age.

- local industry

April 10, 2008 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksmith -- please stop recycling your foaming rants from the washington post blog pages over here -- try engaging in some original thought. It might do you some good. Look, reasonable and rational people all agree that Mrs. Clinton's current campaign "efforts" are counterproductive and totally self-centered. That having been said -- I've come to the position that it's better to just stay quiet and let Mrs. Clinton's campaign run out of steam by itself. Calling for her to quit only enrages her supporters and gives Mrs. Clinton a rallying cry. So have at it -- hopefully as Mark Penn moves from chief strategist to pollster/advisor there's going to be a less sharp edge to Mrs. Clinton's campaign.

- omyobama

April 10, 2008 at 5:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

white people shut up! "A delegate from Chicago talked to her neighbour's children who were climbing in a large tree in their front yard with no parent to be seen. She called to them and asked them to quit playing in the tree like "little monkeys". The children's mother called the police on her. Obama's campaign office called her and demanded her resignation from being a democratic delegate. Why? Because the children were black and she was white. She received a TICKET for disorderly conduct. (see Chicago Sun Times for complete details) Obama, overzealous political correctness and a sign of the future. Be black or keep your mouth shut. if you want race relations to go backward elect Hussein Obama if you want this country on the right track again elect Hillary

- jason

April 10, 2008 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And I have a "right" to divorce my husband, but I'm not going to.

- Arishia

April 10, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My fellow Americans, there are only three requirements to become President of the United States of America. 1. Be born here. 2. Be 35 years of age or older. 3. Win more votes than anyone else. Why are so many of you complicating things with these crazy assertions? Republican or Democrat, those are the two choices. Now it's time for one of you clever keyboard ninjas to try and tell us all there's no difference between the two. Peace

- Willy T Patriot

April 10, 2008 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Jonathan Chait: Your attempt at satire using 'insensitive' 'boorish" as adjectives that paraphrase Ms. Clinton's comments about Mr. Obama is itself childish. To jason: "white people shut up"?? I'm Filipino, certainly not 'white", but ALL Americans of whatever ethnic background are entitled, no, obliged, to voice their considered opinions about the candidates for US President. To Willy T Patriot: I agree completely with you comments with this exception: Al Gore won more votes than anyone else in 2000 but did NOT become President of the USA. I believe he didn't because he GAVE UP, quit, after the Republican weighted Supreme Court intervened to proclaim George W. Bush the president. Ms. Clinton, should NOT "give up" because I think she has enough of the American people's votes AND the pertinacity to NOT QUIT. I urge all Democrats to consider the 1968 and 1972 Presidential elections. Richard Nixon won both when the Democrats couldn't unite over the Viet Nam War and, to a lesser extent, over civil rights.

- Gordon Sabaduquia

April 11, 2008 at 4:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is nothing but dog doodoo. Hillary is on the move and the current gap between her and the Obama is slim. Superdelegates are headed her way thanks to Jeremiah Wright, Rezko, Bill Ayers and Michelle Obama's lack of pride in country

- patri Cost

April 11, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the clinton myth is that she is the candidate of experience. she has no experience. read what the irish say about her experience there with the peace accord. then the bosnia , i was sleepy, excuse now even given by a redfaced mr clinton concerning his wife. the pair are a comedy routine now. she is totally unelectable and obama has a chance against the republicans. i think mccain is a good candidate but he still has to pick a vp that could sink him if he is too conservative. obama can pick richardson, a great ticket, and who would want to be vp with that bill skulking around with his advice. obama has pulled ahead in so many areas and the clintons have been forced into the spin zone too many times that it is beginning to get dizzy here for the rest of us. say goodbye to the lady and her gent and good riddance. isnt that what the dems really want anyway but are too afraid to say or do? we old women have a lot to account for later if she gets the nomination since it is us that are her only army, reminds me of that scene in the producers of the old ladies marching with walkers and canes to support the producer, will it come to that at the convention? pleease god no...

- check

April 11, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the Person with the "YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT COMMENT". this is my take: You are an IDIOT for equating Bill's presidency and experience in the White House as Hillary's experience. Tiger Wood's wife cannt go rounding around calling herself a golf professional bcos her husband is a world champion. Use your head dummy

- Samuel

April 12, 2008 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are an idiot If you believe that Hillary has 35 years experience and co-oped her husband candidancy when it is convienient--NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Monica, yes she has a lot of experience but not the right kind to lead this county.

- Jacksmith is an Idiot

April 12, 2008 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it's such a done deal then why isn't it done? Answer: because it's not a done deal. Stay in.

- Veronica

April 12, 2008 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read through your diatribe and you make it sound like Bill Clinton circa 1993 is running. btw I wouldn't let the current version of Bill Clinton anywhere near the WH. I just have one other question for you. How can you buy into this 35 years of experience that HC continues to tout. That means she's counting everything she has done since 25. That doesn't pass the smell test, especially when so many of those years were spent being the spouse of the governor of Arkansas and the first lady. If she felt so strongly about her experience she would not have lied about Bosnia trying to give herself more war cred. Let's be real. Hillary and Bill Clinton's sense of entitlement is going to blow this thing for the Democrats and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

- Calvincito

April 13, 2008 at 6:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's really smart...cut off your nose to spite your face. Vote for McCain but I don't want to hear your crap four years later!

- Calvincito

April 13, 2008 at 6:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Calling all those voters (the majority so far) that voted for Obama "Idiots"...wow, it that eliteist of what? The truly disrespectful eliteists are the Jacksmiths and Clintons of the world.

- D Pos

April 13, 2008 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JackIf you want people to take your comments seriously reasoned discourse is the way to get there. I would also note that you have to pair Hillary Clinton with former President Clinton to prove that she has the experience and skills to be president. While this is an argument has been accepted by many, it is a falsity. We would be electing Hillary Clinton not her husband. You cannot impute qualifications based on who one has married. How does she stand alone? What has she done on her own. What are her accomplishments?

- dcboales

April 13, 2008 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blah, blah, blah. Who the f--- cares. Thinking of another fours years of a Bush or Clinton in the White House makes me puke.

- arthur

April 13, 2008 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You MUST be and Idiot:( If you think Hillary has 35 years of experience at anything except telling whopper lies or stealing money from the American People.

- Eyes Open

April 13, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh sorry, not an idiot, but pretending to be one. Thank you Republican stooge. Everyone knows the Republicans think Obama will be harder to beat. Duh!

- You are an Idiot

April 13, 2008 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am writing here for the "whatever" faction. These are the people like me, who watch all this, just to see the score, but are not really interested in the final outcome. We have realized long back that politicians can't really change much, other than taxes. In many ways businesses the world over have long disintermediated these jokers. Now, from one spectator to another, this has been more interesting than most soaps and reality TV series. I would classify this under free entertainment, except for the fact that I still have to pay my satellite tv bill every month. A few facts away from the fiction: 1) The US trade deficit and debt are so large that any new government really has only two options - cut spending (really!) and/or raise taxes. 2) Offshoring is not going away. Free markets dictate that if somethng can be done cheaper elsewhere, well it will be done there. So, much as there will always be labor unions parading the latest unemployment and distressed town stories, there will also be corporations trying to increase shareholder value that will try and keep the offshoring thing going. 3) The recession is here. It will stay a while. The world will eventually cycle out of it. No one knows if the US will or not. No politician can influence the economics of greed and fear, or the economics of supply and demand for that matter 4) Universal healthcare is nice, but medical vacations to India are cheaper and are likely to get more streamlined and common in the future. This is the beginning of healthcare offshoring. Nothing any politician can do here either. 5) Our education system is broke, but no politician can fix it. You can, by insisting your children study and learn when they are home. Their education is one thing you should never outsource to the schools. After all, they are your kids! As to politics and presidents - quite frankly, who cares! I will vote, but who will I vote for? Well, that is supposed to be private, isn't it?

- xntrik

April 14, 2008 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do we know there aren't some skeletons in Hillary Clinton's closet?

- Cynthia

April 14, 2008 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are in all likelihood right. The more she is beaten the better.. but the strategy has become to undermine obama in 2008 so she can come back and say "I told you so." in 2012.

- Annabella2

April 14, 2008 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1) Bill Clinton is not running for president his wife is. We can debate the accomplishments of Bill Clinton that you list, but it is immaterial as he is not the candidate. 2) Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York, does not have 35 years of experience. Proximity to decsion making does not make one a decision maker. 3) Hillary Clinton's has run an abysmal campaign, fraught with dissention. History shows us that how a campaign is run is a direct indicator or how the presidency will be run. Obama's campaign has shown great organization, forethought and adaptability. 4) Hillary Clinton has and will do anything to win. While some may find this admirable, I am partial to a leader I can trust ... not one who confuses sniper fire with a child presenting flowers and then tries to blame the false statement on a host of reasons rather than owning up to an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. And no, warnings that an area is dangerous does not qualify as actual sniper fire. When you say you "ran with your head down" to a waiting car when in actuality you strolled down the tarmac smiling there is no conclusion to be drawn other than you fabricated the entire event and weren't even clever enough to realize it could easily be checked. 5) Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a volatile and unpredictable force on the campaign trail. He is accustomed to being able to speak his mind and his ego assures him that he is right. The deterioration of his judgment and the apparent inability to contain him could lead to severe consequences if Hillary were to become president. I am amazed that anyone would profess such strong support for Hillary Clinton. I admit that Obama does not have a wealth of experience, but he appears to be honest, has a good head on his shoulders, and is smart enough to surround himself with the best and the brightest. This has enabled him to surpass Hillary Clinton in both delegates and the popular vote, it has led to the steady movement of superdelegates to his side, it has allowed him to beat her by double digits in the majority of states that he has won ... and yes, it will lead him to be the democratic nominee. After that it will be up to America to show the world if it is ready to put aside racism and attempt to regain the stature we once held. Friends in Europe tell me it is widely held that America's bias will win out in the end. Only time will tell if we are ready to move forward or if we will remain in the past.

- B Jackson

April 14, 2008 at 10:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksmith, YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT! Are you on the Clinton payroll?

- Loraine

April 15, 2008 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

re: "No Really, You Should Go" Jonathan: what does, "(t)he persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense" actually mean? i feel a senior editor ought to be able to make a case for such dross. no, really: i want to know. e-mail to japanhandle@yahoo.ca

- clay mccann

April 16, 2008 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton runs on "misspoken" words and 35 years of experience that do not exist. How does the Clintonians do the math? Granted that Hillary is a senator in her 2nd term but where does the other 20 or so years of experience come from? I never thought her being married to Bill Clinton means that she gets to plaster her name on his resume. And if Hillary really wants to run on her own merits then Hillary should run as Hillary Rodham, not Hillary Clinton. And given her background, Hillary Rodham is an elitist - plain and simple. To say she understands the working class is a bunch of "misspoken" words. Look at her resume, there is nothing humble about her beginning or climb to the stage where she is now. She worked hard for wealth and power. She really is G.W. Bush in sheep's clothing. Sad thing of all, the poor blue collar workers without an education .... opps... without a college education can not tell if she is just blowing smoke. I guess for once ignorance leads not to bliss but to more ignorance.

- M.T.

May 9, 2008 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton runs on "misspoken" words and 35 years of experience that do not exist. How does the Clintonians do the math? Granted that Hillary is a senator in her 2nd term but where does the other 20 or so years of experience come from? I never thought her being married to Bill Clinton means that she gets to plaster her name on his resume. And if Hillary really wants to run on her own merits then Hillary should run as Hillary Rodham, not Hillary Clinton. And given her background, Hillary Rodham is an elitist - plain and simple. To say she understands the working class is a bunch of "misspoken" words. Look at her resume, there is nothing humble about her beginning or climb to the stage where she is now. She worked hard for wealth and power. She really is G.W. Bush in sheep's clothing. Sad thing of all, the poor blue collar workers without an education .... opps... without a college education can not tell if she is just blowing smoke. I guess for once ignorance leads not to bliss but to more ignorance.

- M.T.

May 9, 2008 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All greetings Your site www.tnr.com very helped me in my work Total good :)

- usemnenaids

July 21, 2008 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close