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 Slouching Toward Denver

APRIL 9, 2008

Slouching Toward Denver

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

When Democrats contemplate the apocalypse these days, they have visions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton slugging it out à la Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter at the 1980 convention. The campaign's current trajectory is, in fact, alarmingly similar to the one that produced that disastrous affair. Back then, Carter had built up a delegate lead with early wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several Southern states. But, as the primary season dragged on, Kennedy began pocketing big states and gaining momentum. Once all the voting ended and Kennedy came up short, he eyed the New York convention as a kind of Hail Mary.

Any candidate trailing at the convention must employ divisive tactics, almost by definition. For example, much of the bitterness in 1980 arose from the floor votes Kennedy engineered to drive a wedge between Carter and his delegates. At one point, Kennedy forced a vote on whether each state's delegation should be split equally between men and women. Carter counted many feminists among his delegates, but the campaign initially opposed the measure so as to deny Kennedy a victory. "You had women who were with Jimmy Carter who were crying on the floor," recalls Joe Trippi, then a young Kennedy organizer.

The Kennedy strategy worked both too well and not well enough. Kennedy won many of the floor votes thanks to Carter's unwillingness to squeeze conflicted delegates. He captivated the rank and file with his mythic "Dream shall never die" speech--a stark contrast to Carter's ham-handed rhetorical style. (In his own speech, Carter famously confused former vice president Hubert Humphrey with Horatio Hornblower, a fictional character from a British book series.) But, for all the maneuvering, the delegate tally barely budged. Kennedy won the convention's hearts and minds; Carter locked up the nomination.

One of the iconic images from that episode has the two men on a crowded stage in Madison Square Garden. Carter edges toward Kennedy expectantly, hoping for a symbolic show of unity. But Kennedy's back is turned, and he's moving in the opposite direction. Capping four days of intramural mud-wrestling, it perfectly captured the party's rift heading toward the general election. Carter himself later lamented news accounts portraying the scene as "an indication that the split in our ranks had not healed." "This accurate impression was quite damaging to our campaign," he wrote in his memoir, Keeping Faith.

As it happens, it's possible that Kennedy never intended the cold-shoulder treatment. The original idea was for Kennedy and Carter to appear alone together at the podium. But, thanks to some horrific Manhattan traffic, Kennedy didn't show up until legions of Carter supporters had flooded the stage. He may have been disoriented amid all the chaos. "To this day, I don't know that there was deliberate effort by Kennedy to snub Carter. It was just a big confusion," says Bill Carrick, one of Kennedy's floor managers. "The lesson is that, if you go into conventions, you're going to have messes. These are not manageable processes."

With little chance that either candidate this time around can clinch the nomination at the polls, it's not inconceivable that Democrats will re-enact this spectacle in Denver this August. (One direct link: Clinton operative Harold Ickes oversaw Kennedy's convention effort in 1980 and would likely oversee Hillary's.) The sequel could be even more damaging. It's true that the ideological gulf separating Kennedy and Carter doesn't divide Obama and Clinton. But, precisely because the substantive differences are so small, the temptation to court delegates along racial and gender lines would be even greater. And the sense of alienation among the losers would be overwhelming. Says former Al Gore campaign manager (and undecided superdelegate) Donna Brazile: "I don't have the 1980 experience, but that was two white men. This is a woman and a black. What's different about this fight is that, when they attack each other, supporters feel like they're attacking them personally." Remember the recent firestorm over Geraldine Ferraro's comment that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position"? Well, imagine that flap playing out continuously over four days among hundreds of people with no other news to displace it, and you begin to see the problem.

The good news is that an ugly convention fight is highly preventable. The one advantage of a scenario that's both completely hair-raising and utterly foreseeable is that everyone has an incentive to stop it. The bad news is what's not preventable: a contest that rolls into June. Even without a messy convention, the current trajectory of the primary campaign could easily destroy the party's White House prospects.

 

Democrats have never been known for Spock-like rationality, but even they see the logic of avoiding a convention fiasco. "It's in nobody's interest in the Democratic Party for that to happen," says Mike Feldman, another former Gore aide. "There is a mechanism in place--built into the process--to avoid that." That mechanism, such as it is, involves an en masse movement of uncommitted superdelegates to the perceived winner of the primaries. Almost everything you hear from such people suggests this will happen in time. "I think once we have the elected delegate count, things will move fairly quickly, " says Representative Chris Van Hollen, who oversees the party's House campaign committee. Increasingly, there is even agreement on the metric by which a winner would be named. Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most.

Assuming Feldman and Van Hollen are right, that means Democrats won't wait much past June 3--currently the last day on the primary calendar--before crowning a nominee. At the same time, it means there's very little chance of ending the contest sooner. Undecided superdelegates on Capitol Hill, along with party elders like Pelosi, Gore, and Harry Reid, "don't want to be seen as elites coming in and overturning the will of the people," says one senior House aide. A Senate staffer says his boss "thinks this give and take is natural, it will be helpful in the end." "That's a view held by a majority of these guys who have been through the cut and thrust of politics," he adds. Which means early June it is.

The problem is that each day Clinton and Obama spend consumed with the other is a day that moves John McCain closer to the White House. McCain's biggest asset is his political brand, which evokes a straight-talking, party-bucking reformer. Among his biggest liabilities is the suspicion he inspires among conservatives thanks to these same attributes. McCain apparently plans to spend the next few months making nice with his base. But anything he accomplishes on this front clearly diminishes his swing-voter appeal and, therefore, his chances in November.

Ideally, the Democrats would be exploiting this tension like mad. They would highlight the anti-Catholic, anti-gay ravings of John Hagee, the evangelical minister whose endorsement McCain recently accepted. They would ridicule his chumminess with supply-side Neanderthals like Jack Kemp and his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts. They'd dwell on McCain's less-noticed association with crony-capitalists during his tenure as Commerce Committee chairman.

Instead, something close to the opposite is happening. McCain's courtship of the lunatic right and his ties to K Street have largely been hidden from view, while the Democrats' dirty laundry has been aired for swing voters. The upshot for Democrats has not been good. In late February, a Gallup poll showed Obama leading McCain among independents by 15 points. By March 6, a Newsweek poll put McCain up ten points among this group--and that was before Jeremiah Wright weighed in. Hillary went from down five to down 15 among independents during the same time.

A quick look at some recent campaign coverage sheds light on why this is happening. On March 12, Ferraro and the racially polarized Mississippi primary were A-1 news in The Washington Post. It wasn't until page A-6 that you stumbled across a story about McCain's ties to the parent company of Airbus, the Boeing rival to whom the Pentagon recently handed a lucrative contract. The second story could have muddied McCain's reformist credentials, but it barely caused a ripple on cable or the blogosphere.

McCain has no doubt stumbled while trying to consolidate GOP support. He prompted some grumbling with his recent appointment of former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, a moderate Republican with little history of party activism, to head Victory '08, a key campaign committee. But there's evidence that, on balance, he's well ahead of schedule. Since Super Tuesday, three-quarters of Republicans have routinely proclaimed themselves satisfied with McCain as their nominee.

 

If McCain winds up facing Obama, he'll enjoy yet another advantage: a nominee weakened by attacks from a fellow Democrat. "Clinton hit a raw nerve several weeks ago when she said she had thirty-something years of experience, McCain had twenty- to thirty-something years, and Barack Obama had a speech," says Representative Artur Davis, an Obama supporter. The suggestion that Obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief is "unusually corrosive," Davis complains. Indeed, when I asked various Republican and neutral Democratic operatives to name the most damaging twist in the primaries, most cited this same critique. "It's very good messaging--that he's not fit to be commander-in-chief," crowed one Republican strategist. "When you get the Democrats saying it, that's kind of the nuke in the whole thing." One of his Democratic counterparts was even more blunt: "It's one thing for John McCain to say [Obama's] not as muscular. It's another thing to have a girl saying it. It has some influence on swing voters."

Of course, if Obama's the nominee, he's unlikely to win a national security debate against McCain, with or without Hillary's broadsides. Obama's best bet is to focus the discussion specifically on Iraq. On the other hand, debating national security credentials during the primaries invariably alters the general-election landscape. You can now count on seeing another "3 a.m." ad sometime this fall--not to mention a "3 a.m." debate question from Tim Russert, and a shadowy, "3 a.m."-obsessed 527 group. ("Insomniac Prank-Callers For Truth"?) "I do believe the winner of the 3 a.m. ad is John McCain," says Kevin Madden, a former aide to Mitt Romney. "It's like an NCAA bracket. She may get the play-in game [against Obama], but she'd lose that in the championship game."

And there will surely be more body blows to come. Ad hominem attacks are an almost necessary feature of an unusually long campaign in which policy differences are minimal. At a certain point, there's just no other way to get traction against your opponent. That's one reason Pelosi has informally spoken with colleagues about stepping in if the tone abruptly deteriorates. But there's a catch-22 involved here: Party elders won't forcefully intervene unless an attack does serious damage. But, by then, the damage will have already been done.

Worse, any missile that hits its target would also destroy the person who launched it. Given the delegate math, Hillary's only path to the nomination, barring a meltdown by Obama, is to destroy his electability. But harsh attacks on Obama will inevitably discourage African Americans from voting in the fall, and Hillary can't beat McCain without strong black turnout in places like Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Conversely, any attack on Hillary that alienated moderate Republican women could cripple Obama's chances.

 

Opinion journalists have a time-honored technique for dealing with news they don't like: Keep making phone calls. In my case, this yielded a depressingly meager haul. The most optimistic scenario I could plausibly construct didn't end the campaign until the second week in May. To make it happen, Obama would have to overtake Hillary among superdelegates--a key psychological barrier. He'd have to limit his margin of defeat in Pennsylvania to ten points, then hold serve two weeks later in North Carolina and Indiana, a pair of states he's slightly favored to win. At that point, Hillary would face nearly impossible odds of overtaking him in the delegate race.

Unfortunately for anyone who wants the race to end soon, there are several problems with this scenario. For one thing, even if all this comes to pass, Hillary would still have to bow out voluntarily--an unlikely twist in any event, but highly implausible if the limbo states of Florida and Michigan still offer her hope. Meanwhile, any one of the aforementioned steps could easily fall through. Polls currently show Obama trailing by double digits in Pennsylvania; the good Reverend Wright could make that tough to change. And, though Obama now leads in North Carolina and Indiana, his advantage is either small or, in the latter case, based on a single, flimsy poll. As for superdelegates, as of this writing, the last two out of the closet opted for Hillary.

So, to review: The most optimistic scenario we have relies on a highly tenuous assumption; it's unlikely to happen even if that assumption holds; and, regardless, it allows the Democratic contest to drag on for six more brutal weeks. The dream may never die, but it's seen some better days.

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 419 comments

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

419 comments

That photo... My eyes! The burning won't stop!

- Yoyo

March 24, 2008 at 12:34am

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

Obama needs to drop out now before he takes the party down with him. He's unelectable now thanks to Pastorgate. Plus it's inevitable that after every state's voted, Hillary will lead in the popular vote. And god help the party if they try to shut out Florida and Michigan.

- Angela3333

March 24, 2008 at 1:15am

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

McCAIN/CLINTON 08!!!

- sadatae

March 24, 2008 at 1:23am

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

No matter how one looks at it, Obama's support of a someone who thinks that the American Government wanted to commit genocide of the blacks for 20 years is a bar that most americans will not cross when it comes to handing over the white house. It just is not going to happen. If Obama is the nominee, McCain can snooze to the white house. No amount of economic arguments will trump handing the keys over to maybe an america hater.

- Joe

March 24, 2008 at 1:32am

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

I never thought this could occur: I'm rootin for Hillary. Well written piece. The Dems have a pickle...no doubt about it.

-

March 24, 2008 at 1:33am

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

The episode with the Rev. Wright reminds me of the Hindenburg, going down in flames over Lakehurst, with the Democratic Party playing the role of the blimp.

- Typical White Person

March 24, 2008 at 1:51am

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

Pretty good piece, Noam, except that it failed to state why the Dems might be "Slouching Toward Denver": The Dem Party's own myopic rules of engagement (e.g., open primaries and weird delegate allocation formulae) have brought us near this precipice. However, beneath your relatively balanced thesis was the unspoken suggestion that 'for the good of the party', Hillary should just bow out. As I recently argued in another thread, I think that it is time that people stop pushing this increasingly irritating meme. It is ludicrous, if not outright stupid. Recycling and updating: Hillary did not make up the rules of engagement. The party did. The number of pledged delegates required to win the nomination was established by the party, and at this point, neither Hillary nor Obama would reach it. The contest is a virtual tie as out of more than 2k pledged delegates required to win, the two are separated by just over a hundred. With Obama looking weaker after being scrutinized for the first time during the contest, Hillary's chances at winning the lion's share of the remaining states/delegates look very good. In the end, neither would reach the required number of pledged delegates, so that the superdelegates would have to settle the nomination. However, it would be foolish to assume that the superdelegates would just automatically anoint Obama because he has a narrow lead in pledged delegates. If that were the case, they would already have ended this thing by putting Obama over the top, since Hillary cannot mathematically overtake his lead. But things are not that simple, for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that in the end, the superdelegates' primary basis for supporting either Obama or Clinton should be: who can bring home the bacon against McCain? Although I could argue that Hillary would be the stronger candidate against McCain, no one really knows at this point. If electability is the primary metric, then the superdelegates' apparent decision to just "wait and see" and let this thing play itself out to the end plainly reflects their uncertainty about Obama's ability to win in November. That is why the pattern of his wins so far becomes important. He's won mostly in deep red states and a few purple states that he has no chance of winning in November! Someone has suggested that Hillary should have bowed out before the Ohio and Texas contests, but that would have been foolish on her part. Obama had to prove to the superdelgates that he could and can deliver the knock out punch when he has to, but, yet again, he failed to do so, which gave the superdelegates -- who seemed ready at that point to jump in for him -- a pause. After Obama's 20-year old relationship with the hate-filled Reverend Dr. Wright surfaced and raised serious and legitimate questions about his judgment and what he really believes in, you can bet that many superdelegates are now more than ever determined to "wait and see" before they endorse. Are there any more "surprises" in store? Obama looks increasingly vulnerable, and should Hillary finish this contest with the momentum by trouncing him in PA, WV, and carrying a state or two (IN, NC) that Obama is expected to carry, all bets would be off. This thing would go all the way to Denver, as it should UNDER THE PARTY'S OWN RULES. As Richardson's endorsement of Obama just showed, the superdelegates are not bound to support a candidate just because he or she won a given state. If that were the case, then Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would have to support Hillary, since she won MA by 13 points. So what should we expect going forward? Most superdelegates are going to "wait and see", and let this things play itself out, which means that: (1) Obama had better hope that the Wright issue has not damaged him too badly, and that it would soon go away; (2) No other damaging issues would surface to cast more doubt on Obama's ability to win against McCain; (3) Obama would finish strong and have the 'big mo' when it is all said and done; (4) There remains the question of what to do with the FL and MI delegates. Failure to resolve this issue satisfactorily could anger the voters in both states, which would almost certainly cost the Dems the election. Thus, this is also still pretty much a wild card. What won't happen going forward is Hillary dropping out. She won't because (a) this thing is too close for her to give up and (b) she owes it to those who have supported her this far to continue fighting. She did not make the rules of engagement, and if this election has taught us anything at all, it is that she is a fighter. People should get used to that idea and stop pushing the foolishness that Hillary should drop out for the "good of the party." The party made up the ridiculous rules of engagement, which she is just playing by!!! She got into this race to win, and with the contest remaining very very close, Obama looking increasingly vulnerable, and most of the rank and file Dems supporting her, why should Hillary do the unthinkable and drop out now? This is no longer only about what is good for Hillary. It is now about who would be the best Dem nominee to take on McCain in November, which is actually equivalent to finding out what would "good for the party"!...at this point, no one really knows. The superdelegates, by not ending this thing now when they can, seem to want Hillary to continue, and she won't quit, so get used to the idea: We are 'slouching toward Denver.'

-

March 24, 2008 at 2:12am

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

Has anyone else concluded that Hillary Clinton's strategy is to lose the nomination but to so bloody Obama that he loses in November so that in 2012 she can come back and say: "I told you so." And win the nomination and then the election after 4 more years of a shadow Bush administration in a slightly more personally palatable form of McCain? Hasn't it always been about the Clintons and their raw ambition without any regard to any person or institution they harm along the way? But if she thinks the Afro-American vote is coming back, she may have a surprise in store for her. And who knows, it might actually be good for the country in the long run if the Afro-American vote was no longer wedded to the Democratic Party. Might not even the Republican party have to change, if suddenly 20% of their vote came from African-Americans?

- Edna Epstein

March 24, 2008 at 2:18am

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

The present silence of super delegates seems a nod to the Clinton talking points that the nomination race has been a tie, is a tie, or will be a tie, (if she can burn Obama too badly to stand). If the truth is that the race has not been a tie, is not now a tie, and will not be a tie, why throw the nominee and the convention for the sake of Hillary Clinton. It seems a shame, and backwards on principle, rules, process and conduct. Why do the supers remain silent? Hillary seems on setting up a McCain win so she can run in four years? Once more the Clintons are able to make themselves and the party look very bad... again.

- Rita

March 24, 2008 at 2:27am

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

Thanks for the excellent article. One note: it really should be 'Towards', given the reference to Yeats and Didion.

- Andrew Long

March 24, 2008 at 2:32am

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

I agree so fully with this article. Wright has damaged O's chances in NOV. But HRC's suffers from a high unfavorable rating already. How and why did we do this to ourselves again? I pray that we will not self destruct again. But it seems unlikely. African-Americans will be mad if HRC wins. Working class white Americans (especially females) will be mad if O wins. The Repubs nominated a centrist who will attract independents and some of us. The cold calculus is against us and I might just vote for Johnny if we continue down this path. At least he (John Mac) offers some sensible compromises.

- Concerned Dem

March 24, 2008 at 4:42am

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

If the Pelosi argument is persuasive, the superdelegates ought to be moving now--Obama's lead in pledged delegates and popular vote is insurmountable. He will lose fairly convincingly in PA, but after that, Clinton has no large state in which she can conceivably gain ground. Unfortunately, the Clinton forces will continue to argue that large state momentum somehow justifies continuation of a divisive and futile campaign. In the end, a battered and muddied Barack Obama will face off against John McCain, whose support has been growing unchecked as the Democratic party destroys itself.

- Eric

March 24, 2008 at 5:22am

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

Mr. Scheiber wouldn't dare use terms like "supply side neanderthal" or "lunatic right" in a face-to-face conversation because of the risk of finding out that he is a coward.

-

March 24, 2008 at 6:01am

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

OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE IN GENERAL ELECTION Easy to see already see Republican attack ads against Obama. First open with videos of racist wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time" because of her husband's presidential candidacy, next Obama explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people. Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and preaching the U.S. government formulated the HIV AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks. Even though Obama supposedly condemning Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S and White Americans, even last year; Obama was the first to public ally demand Don Imus ouster for making a racially insensitive remark, and Obama continues to support Wrights racism and remains at the church for more than 20 years, he and Michelle obviously feels it’s a good environment to expose his young daughters too. His opinions and issues change with the weather, he is too UNSTABLE and proven he cannot make a decision or stay with one. If that’s not enough, then you start showing his terrible senate voting record, Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists, Obama dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company and the deals he cut behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Obamas record shows he infact did support the war when he got to the senate, voted twice against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater where Texas woman, was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal, if not suspended, keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come, but in his camp stumps touts he wants to bring troops home, but as we have witnessed his recent lies to voters like Canada he cannot be trusted on his word and lastly ALL the corrupt indicted financial backers, like Rezko…Get out of the race Obama you are destroying the democratic party! CNN-Passport exec is Obama adviser, CEO of the company whose employees accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is consultant on foreign policy to the Barack Obama campaign

- OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE

March 24, 2008 at 7:13am

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

If Democrats cannot win this upcoming election, with everything but the kitchen sink going their way then they need to take a hard look at who their base is and why it is so out of touch with most of America.

- Jimbo & Ned

March 24, 2008 at 7:45am

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

An Argument To Complete The Process Our Nation has proudly watched elections in Afghanistan and Irag, both liberated and protected from corruption and suppression, as a result of our costly efforts, fueled by our deep seeded belief that every person should be given voice in every land. Yet in this land, of greatness, strength, and example, we risk failure for our own citizens. Only half of the citizens of this country have been given the opportunity to vote.Yet Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, upon casting his vote and support, has called for an end to the race for the Democratic Partys' Nominee for the office of President of The United States of America . The Audacity of Gov. Richardson or anyone else to believe that they are some how entitled to speak for millions. The Audacity of any individual or party committee, to unfairly disenfranchise voters, with quick decision, and a total lapse of credible judgement. Two states Florida and Michigan unjustly silenced and multiple primaries yet to held, with tens of millions of votes yet to be cast, the contest must continue and there are issues that must be resolved and many questions to be answered. The people of Florida could no more change the actions of a Republican Governor and Congress in their state , than the People of the United states could change the actions of Bush and the Republican Congress.(for 6 years, I remember that frustration and injustice well) . Michigan moved their primary out the desperation of an invisible population, oppressed by neglect ,demanding Voice in a way, that I feel certain the Rev. Martin Luther King Jar. would have championed. Sen. Obama, has so far managed to block,a re-do primary election in Florida and Michigan, with the cleaver rhetoric, spin,and skill of a typical politician. While claiming victory in a Texas Two Step. To disenfranchise, the citizens of these two states or any state, would exemplify "Poor Judgement"on the part of any politician, and cause a great fracture in our democracy. Everyone should ask themselves this question, if Florida and Michigan were both 75% African American, what would Sen. Obama and/or the NAACP be doing to insure those voters had a voice and that each vote would be counted? Sen. Obama said "we need to have a conversation about race", then let us start by being honest and let us make sure everyone gets the chance to speak. It would be of no legitimacy to seat a state delegation if they are not reflective of the votes of the people of that state. It was Sen Obama that said there was a great frustration by Rev .Wright and his followers , that was attributed to their feeling , that they did not have a voice , that no one was listening. So let us not add insult to injury Many leaders have offered Ideas and Solutions, joined by Private citizens who have pledged the money for the re do's because they believe every vote should be counted,and there would be no cost incurred by tax payers, A priceless example of patriotism . We live in the greatest Nation of the world and we can make this happen. Many people have come up with "Good Ideas" for redo's , Sen Obama has said "Washington is where good Ideas go to Die ". I 'Hope' Sen Obama will "Change" his position of "win at any cost", that is the way of politics as usual .I "hope" Sen Obama will join Sen Clinton and say "Yes We Can","we are one People" and We can lead the way for re-do's in these two states. The finale question is, Will Sen. Obama provide transparency in this process?

- Ernie

March 24, 2008 at 7:46am

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

So Hagee is a nut job, Kemp is a neanderthal, and Jeremiah Wright is good. If you can't even get your ad hominem's right, how am I supposed to respect the rest of your spew?

- J. Jordan

March 24, 2008 at 7:54am

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

So let me get this straight. The Democrats candidate "will be" selected by super delegates and not elected by the people. I seriously doubt we'll be hearing about disenfranchisement by the dinosaurs in the media. Typical Democrat Orwellian thought, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. In this case it's the super delegates stupid.

- Ken

March 24, 2008 at 8:19am

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

Really? The super delegates are the only ones who can avert disaster. These are the people who should care as much about the welfare of the party as anyone, and they'll stand by and let this happen? I'd like to think they're not ALL that cowardly. We've seen Richardson step up. I bet more follow. Hopefully they do so before it's too late.

- arimelmed

March 24, 2008 at 8:28am

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

One the whole a very good article except for a few cheap shots at Republicans. Name calling taints an otherwise good analysis of the situation. It is almost wishful thinking on anyone's part to think the nominee could be anyone except Obama. HRC's only hope is if 2 or 3 more Rev. Wrights jump out of the closet before June. Even if the superdelegates believe Obama unelectable they should still nominate him since HRC wouldn't be electable then either. They would alienate black voters for a generation for all offices, and not just the presidency. What is HRC's incentive to get out of the race? Obama may self-destuct (unlikely but people do grasp at straws). If she doesn't win now will she have another chance? McCain is 71 and might be a one term president just due to age. HRC might try to damage Obama enough so McCain wins and then try again in 2112. She also may want to milk her peaceful, early withdrawal for some political plum suh as keynote speaker at the convention, etc. I don't know what goes on in her head but she's come this far and is unlikely to "go gentle into that good night" without something to sooth her wounded pride even if it's only revenge.

- Jerry L

March 24, 2008 at 8:34am

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 blaim 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 H

March 24, 2008 at 8:36am

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

This is a long sinuous article that does not seem to conclude anything in the end, other than the race will continue for at least six weeks in the most optimistic scenario! Hardly anything anyone who follows politics could not have told you without any stretch. Actually, barring an amazing surprise in both Indiana and NC on May 6th, this race is going all the way to June 3rd. I wish the article provided something new or some more provocative insights..

- Francois

March 24, 2008 at 8:44am

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

We will see this thing play out all the way until the convention. Senator Clinton will not give up (nor should she) in a race that is not finished. The Wright problem is not going away. As a black Democrat (or is that a Democrat who happens to be black?), that concerns me greatly. Much more than any temporary hope I have that it will help my own preferred candidate (Senator Clinton) in the short run. Oh and I'm not uneducated or downscale, either, so go figure... lol. I suggest two reasons why this issue will linger, and urge us all to re-consider his candidacy in favor of Senator Clinton. One reason the Wright controversy will not go away is that Senator Obama initially (on three networks on the Friday evening during the week the story broke) chose to deny knowing ANYTHING controversial had been said. That did not make sense then, it does not make sense now (in light of his contrary assertions in the self-styled Major Speech On Race and on the campaign trail since), and it will not make sense this fall or this November. What will make sense is that Senator Obama told a lie. Several times. Because it was politically expedient, in his view, to do so. It was a short-term judgment designed to buy him time, until he could huddle with Mr. Axelrod and others to decide who to blame and how to say every critic is a racist. He announced the Major Speech On Race, but he knew about Wright for a LONG time, a year or twenty years, take your pick -- he removed him from the party at his announcement, remember? It is disingenuous to claim that you want to run without talking about race all while pushing your surrogates to label every comment "unfortunate" and every commenter a racist. It is similarly disingenuous to hide one's political dirty laundry behind a big speech and use that to justify an action one should have justified at the outset of one's campaign. But they did not think it through properly. They slapped him into a Holiday Inn Express lobby that Friday night with a cheesy-looking American flag in the background (a precursor of the EIGHT solemn but gigantic American flags guarding him against Anti-Amurrican-Attack during his Major Speech On Race -- this from the guy who could not just admit that he got tired of wearing a flag pin on his lapel and had to invent some condescending "not true patriotism" gibberish to get out of it. Maybe it was just me but the EIGHT flags seemed a bit much, sort of like Caesar wrapping himself in royal red robes. I got the point.) And he lied. And it will come back to haunt him in the fall. A few years ago the country spent five years and $80 million dollars trying to prove that the President had told ANY lie, however inconsequential and irrelevant to the political future of the nation. But somehow Senator Obama intends to get elected despite a lie concerning what he knew about someone saying what are widely (and unfairly) condemned as Anti-Amurrican things. Not buying that one. Here's why. Most people don't vote in primaries. The general election will have four times as many voters, disproportionately centrist with less-than-progressive views on race and other issues. And most people don't vote, period. They have better things to do. But they will vote now, because Pastor Wright got their attention (just for a few seconds, until Good Morning America or Fox went on to something else). In that moment, their opinions crystallized and became "static." Sorry to tell Senator Obama fans. They are in for a heartbreak. So he lied. Point one for why it will not go away. Point two, the so-called "context" issue is dead in the water. That is, Senator Obama and his supporters suggest that the public (and the superdelegates) should examine Pastor Wright's sermons in their entirety. While it may be TRUE that the sermons as a whole differ markedly in tone and message from the sound bites we have all seen, that fact is largely IRRELEVANT. Consider the example of a famous Shakespearian quotation - "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Most everyone has heard it. Many people know that if you read the context, it is clear that Shakespeare was not engaging in the now popular sport of lawyer-bashing. His fictional plotting criminals knew that eliminating the enforcers of justice would be a necessary step toward completing their scheme. But not many people care. Not even those who know the context. And here's why. Because the only people who read the whole play and remember it are nerds. And when they go around trying to correct those people who get a laugh out of the idea that lawyers are a cancer and need to be killed, those people largely disregard the nerds. As an English major who now practices law, I speak from painful experience. Why do they ignore them (aside from intellectual jealousy)? Because lawyer-bashing fits within a narrative they understand and are already inclined to believe. The same with the Wright excerpts. I saw Pat Robertson on Hardball the other refusing to watch the entirety of even one Wright sermon. For Robertson, and many people as far as I can tell, the Wright videos (or careful excerpts of them, to be precise) are powerful because people get something out of them without regard to context (and, critically, they believe NO context is needed to understand). Again, it fits a narrative they understand and are inclined to believe. "Wright is a hate-mongering racist ANGRY BLACK MAN." Is he? I doubt it. But that fits in a headline or you can scroll it across the bottom of Fox "News" (seriously, there are people who consider that tripe "news?"). And to find out definitively would require an attention span and an open mind. We're kind of short on those at the moment in this country. All that said, I continue to support Senator Clinton. Many many reasons for my support, including the problems I have listed so far. Suffice it to say I do not trust Senator Obama's judgment. Nor would I support a "new kind of politics" from a man who shamelessly played the race card by first denying that he thinks our President and Senator are racist, then using four pages of that drivel to push blacks to him in South Carolina, all while openly accusing all who oppose him as being on the wrong side of history. At least Russert called him on it, for once. Nor can I believe he really cares about democracy when he SUED ALL FOUR OF HIS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY OPPONENTS so that he could run unopposed in to win his first elected office in 1997. Google Joan Palmer and Obama. Or just look at this link from the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story So that means Senator Obama has now thrown Ms. Palmer, Gerry Ferraro, AND his grandmother under the bus. If he could find one more for the Women Obama Threw Under the Bus club (WOTUB), they would have enough for a game of bridge. Of course, he is doing his best to add Senator Clinton to the list. Don't worry, no matter how badly our party does, we still can't help but win the WH in November, with all the news we're getting about the war and the economy and Senator McCain going out there and confusing Jews about Halloween and the world about his ability to tell Shiite from Sunni. Still cannot believe Cheney actually said "So?" in response to the notion that 2/3 of us think it is a mistake. A secure undisclosed location somewhere out there is missing its village idiot.

- StephenHNIC

March 24, 2008 at 9:01am

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

I appreciate the historical content of Scheiber's piece. I find such treatments necessary to tamp down current campaign hysteria that evolves from the minute-by-minute analyses. Yet, columns like Scheiber's perpetaute the hysteria in another fundamental way: they substantiate this narrative that if the Democratic nomination is not tied up soon, they party and thos eof us who support it, will be doomed in the Fall's general election. Now, I'm no political analyst, just a fairly literate consumer with her eye on the campaign and heart tied up in it. Maybe the way we should read this thing is that the public simply hasn't made up its mind. The people seem to be very, very supportive of both candidates. To invoke history, past elections may have been decided too early-- based on early primary and caucus states-- that provided momentum and money for a candidate that may not have survived had other states had input. As a Democrat, I take comfort knowing that so many states and people have had a say in this process. By the end of it, we may actually be able to tell who nearly all Democrats and others really want to represent them. To me, that's better then deciding on someone way too early and with too little input, espeically from the big states. And al of this business about super D's representing the will of the people-- the so-called pro-Obama argument. Super D's are already not doing that for both Obama and Clinton. The notion that Obama is taking the high ground here is ridiculous. Kennedy endorsed Obama and his state went for Hillary. Richardson endorsed Obama and his state whent for Hillary. This weekend, convention goers split pledged D's with Obama and Hillary yet reports are that more super D's will go with Obama. Let's stop having conversations about super D's going with the "will of the voters". Both candidates are encouraging them not to and super D's are exercising their right to decide.

- TLA

March 24, 2008 at 9:26am

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

jeez, was that a comment or a thesis?

- ken

March 24, 2008 at 9:46am

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

Do you want a president with deep muslim roots,just like obama seems to favor his black heratige inwich he has the right to do so,,but i have studied islam and it is forbidden for the born children to be anything other then a muslim since the father is a muslim,so if obama has said ,,i'm not sure if he has or not,,that he was never a muslim,,he is lyeing according to sharia law inwich his father probly followed since he was a muslim.since hearing obama's wife say,"for the first time in my adult life i'm proud to be an american"..these are racists views twards anyone who is not black.Is she proud now because she is in some sort of shock that white people are voteing for her husband and in dissbeleife or what.obama is also holding back the rights of the florida and michigan voters right to have there votes count by not wanting a recount and its a dirty shame that the supreme court dosent get off there ......'s to intervene on there own in this matter.so if you want barrack "hussein"obama in the white house good luck,,because it looks like we will have another republican in office instead if he wins the dem nomination.

- steve v

March 24, 2008 at 10:06am

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

I am "dcshungu" and authored and approved message no. 7 above, which is missing a by-line.

- dcshungu

March 24, 2008 at 10:06am

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

Dear sadly delusional Hillary dead enders: Obama is ahead in the gallup poll today by 3%. So much for your paryers supposedly being answered by a wave of racism. He's also ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, with Hillary having no chance of catching up in either (as you are well aware of but chose to ignore) even if she wins every state from here on out (no chance, again). Michigan and Florida chose themselves not to have a revote and chose themselves to break the rules in the first place, no one did anything to them they did it to themselves, made thier own decisions. That part is over, get over it. She has a 51% negative rating that hasn't budged in 15 years. She lies constantly, this last one over Bosnia has made her a laughingstock in case you hadn't noticed. Who should drop out? Hillary, by close of business today. This would require her to think of someone besides herself, something she has shown no inclination for in her entire public life. Hillary is 100% about Hillary.

-

March 24, 2008 at 10:08am

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

Donna Brazile should organize an "independent superdelegate caucus" and bring every uncommitted superdelegate together, or at least 100 or so that can be rounded up, and hold a secret ballot to see how they are leaning. If that count came out even or favored Clinton, it would validate the march towards a convention showdown. If that count heavily favored Obama, it would speed up the end and hopefully push Clinton towards ending this for the good of the party.

- stgla

March 24, 2008 at 10:12am

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

Clinton is now claiming, implausibly, that the Democratic Primary votes in a few states automatically make her a better general election candidate, despite the fact that the general election is two orders of magnitude larger, in terms of voter turnout, than even the record-setting turnout in primaries. Polling data confirms this, with Obama and Clinton having resumed their prior positions (Clinton running lower than Obama) after his speeches on race, foreign policy, and the economy fro last week. Democrats, if Clinton wins, good for her, but let's start booking hotel rooms in Denver to remind the Superdelegates that people voted, and Obama won more states, more popular votes (unless Clinton wins 60% of the remaining votes) and more pledged delegates. In a Democracy, that's what wins elections. Are you ready to stand in Denver and make sure the Clintons hear that? Do you (as Bill Clinton recently slandered) 'love your country' enough to stand up for Democracy?

- Drew

March 24, 2008 at 10:15am

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

If Obama loses the Nomination, too bad for America! Clintons will be blamed and punished for that! If Hillary loses the nomination, Clinton will make sure that Obama does not win in November so that Clintons attempt the same in 2012 but they will lose because the young who were inspired by Obama and Blacks would punishe Clintons in 1012

- Harminder

March 24, 2008 at 10:26am

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

With all arguments duly noted, it is clear that there is only one MATURE adult, in this race....John McCain.

- Phil

March 24, 2008 at 10:31am

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

Please stop using Yeats's "The Second Coming" for political fodder.

- crain

March 24, 2008 at 10:36am

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

The only was this can end is if the number two candidate, Hillary, bows out. It is nonsensical to expect the leading candidate to leave. Anyone who supports Hillary is doing so at the expense of the party.

- L Sokol

March 24, 2008 at 10:43am

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

We are not Electing Obama's Preacher, his wife, his mother, great uncle, or next door neighbor. Be are Electing Obama...and yes, let me say it again...we ARE electing Barack Obama. There is no way, no how, that Clinton will be the nominee. And if she is...Democrats will lose in November. Remember, no matter what comes up now about Obama's friends and reletives, its nothing compared to White Water, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and all the other scandals the Clintons will hope you forgot about. The Republicans haven't forgotten, thats for sure. As one other article put it...."One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency. Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet. "

- Jeff

March 24, 2008 at 10:53am

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

So called Pastorgate is a bust. Check your facts and stop believing the spin before you become dizzy. See the full sermon of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. He was quoting the former US Ambassador to Iraq... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lwhttp://odeo.com/audio/17889043/viewTrinity UCChttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632 andhttp://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon

- OneAmerica

March 24, 2008 at 10:54am

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

Hillary needs to stop the mudslinging and concede the race in all honesty. She has consistently campaigned incredibly negatively and has hurt the party as a whole with her and her husband's divisive nonsense. Her unmitigated lust for power has given McCain new life. I will never ever vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I will vote for McCain in a heartbeat if it's Hilary vs McCain. And if she manages to pull some backroom shenanigans with the super delegates I'll never donate to the Democratic party again. Obama has the lead, look at the math, it's nearly impossible for Hillary to come back unless she wins like 65% majorities from here on out.

- A voter

March 24, 2008 at 10:55am

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

Through all this that is the battle for the Democrat nomination, the true racism of liberals is finally, finally being revealed.

- Mary

March 24, 2008 at 10:59am

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

I don't think the democratic party has a clue. The leadership probably thought by pitting the two high-profile counter-culture candidates, one a strident spurned former 1st lady senator and the other some noob candidate of color and of great speaking voice, thought they could garner and monopolize all the media which they've done. Problem is that it's a pathetic exhibition of pedantry.

- Schratboy

March 24, 2008 at 10:59am

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

Just keep fighting--I love to see the political blood all over the arena. It could not happen to more deserving people.

- A. Hatley

March 24, 2008 at 11:00am

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

The MSM underestimates the intense public dislike toward Hillary Clinton. Her angry uninspired deameanor coupled with her terrible reputation make her an easy defeat for the Republicans. Just say no to Clinton.

- Dahveed

March 24, 2008 at 11:01am

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

"Obama needs to drop out now before he takes the party down with him. He's unelectable now thanks to Pastorgate. Plus it's inevitable that after every state's voted, Hillary will lead in the popular vote. And god help the party if they try to shut out Florida and Michigan." How about Clinton needs to drop out now before she takes the party down with him. She's unelectable now thanks to Bosniagate. Plus it's inevitable that after every state's voted, Obama will lead in pledged delegates. And god help the party if they try to trump the will of the people by overwhelming the popular vote (as expressed through the pledged delegates) with the use of superdelegates.

- Adrian Lesher

March 24, 2008 at 11:01am

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

1980 was distastrous except for the part where Reagan gets elected ! LOL ... you dems are a punchline and always will be. You can't con and honest man and that's why I know all dem voters are not quite on the up and up!

- Fred X

March 24, 2008 at 11:02am

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

Do you really believe the election of 1980 was lost because of the Democratic convention? Maybe in 1968 but in 1980 the ineptitude of the Democrats in general led to the election of Ronald Reagan as Democrats voted for him in droves.

- Tom

March 24, 2008 at 11:02am

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

It must mean something, but what?, that none of the first 24 comments on this article come from any of the names that are seen repeatedly in these blogs.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2008 at 11:05am

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

The long comments by anti-Obama people on this site are annoying as well as unfactual. While there are too many inaccuracies to point out, I would like to to note that when "Obama is Unelectable" states that Obama's advisor is the CEO of the company whose employees raided passport files, he is purposefully distorting the truth. The files were breached three times, by three different people. Two were employed by Stanley, Inc., whose CEO is actually a Clinton donator. One was employed by Analysis, whose CEO is an Obama supporter. Neither "connection" is in any way meaningful as most people in the country are for one of the three remaining primary candidates, so to conclude that the passport breaches were done for political reasons based on who the CEO of the respective contractor personally supports is rather stupid. Second, when StephenHNIC says that "OBAMA SUED ALL FOUR" of his primary competitors in Illinois, he is distorting the truth as well. What he is referring to is that Obama called into question the veracity of the signatures his competitors compiled to get on the ballot. Since the signatures were found to be fraudulent and insufficient, as a matter of election law, their names were taken off the ballot. This was not a "lawsuit" but rather a procedural problem the other candidates failed to remedy. By pointing it out, he ensured that everyone follow election law, as he had, in the primary process.

- Nate

March 24, 2008 at 11:05am

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

Rev Wright is among the mainstream of Progressive ministers. The political majority might not agree with him, but a lot of progressive party activists do.

- Jane Grey

March 24, 2008 at 11:06am

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

NOW THE REST OF AMERICA CAN SEE WHAT KIND OF PARTY YOU ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH...GRACIA...... KEEP EATING EACH OTHER AND LIVING AND PREACHING HATE..

- J.DANIEL THORNTON

March 24, 2008 at 11:06am

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

To: Angela3333 When the dust has cleared the lying wench Hillary will be gone! The American people may be stupid but they are not stupid enough to elect her. She is the problem, she should go away nnow.

- Snoop

March 24, 2008 at 11:06am

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

It's worth one's time to read the long post by StephenHNIC. There's a lot there. By the way, what does HNIC stand for? Should it be obvious to a mere mortal? MK

- MereMortal

March 24, 2008 at 11:10am

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

Obama is like the Afrikaners who sat in their Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa during the aparytheid era and listened to sermons of hate, evey Sunday. Like the late, great Rev. Beyers Naude, who ranks with Mandela and Tutu as a crusader for justice, Obama should have walked out when his pastor spread racist venom. Instead, he sat.

- Ray Heard

March 24, 2008 at 11:10am

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

Hillary is the ruination of the Democrat party. She will be remembered with distain historically. She should step aside and let the man take his rightful place.

- arggie

March 24, 2008 at 11:11am

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

"Lunatic right?" Is someone forgetting about Obama's nutburger pastor? I guess so, the double-standard among libs is part of their programmed talking points.

- Davy Buck

March 24, 2008 at 11:14am

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

Hillary has no chance. She can only continue to bloody Obama so he will lose in November. Either way, she is finished on the national stage. Her slash-and-burn tactics will be remembered. She is pathetic.

- jk

March 24, 2008 at 11:16am

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

Clinton needs to be a statesman and drop out. She cannot win. She is the only one who can stop the blood letting. For sure in the General election she is not electable.

- Patricio

March 24, 2008 at 11:18am

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

I'm a returning college student at age 62. I'm surrounded every day by bright young people who are excited and energized by the candidacy of Barak Obama. It reminds me of 1968 when I at last had a chance to vote for the first time in my life. I was excited by Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. Alas, an assassin's bullet and old-line party regulars deprived me of an opportunity to vote for anyone I really wanted to vote for. I ended up reluctantly voting for old Hubert Humphrey, although I was really just voting against Nixon. Most of my contemporaries didn't even bother in November. We got Nixon. I'm afraid the same thing's going to happen again. I remember the Clinton administration too well to ever vote for another Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton manages to wrest the nomination I'll vote Republican. McCain's not so bad. But I'd rather vote for Obama.

- Michael Smith in Manhattan

March 24, 2008 at 11:19am

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

Anyone out there think that McCain would have had a chance against Biden-Dodd?

- Mickey Weinber

March 24, 2008 at 11:19am

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

Your article states the following falacy "Supply-side Neanderthals like Jack Kemp" It's obvious to any clear thinking person supply-side has been successful. The Neanderthals are those that still believe in Keynesian economics (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946)

- Rick

March 24, 2008 at 11:20am

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

Obama/Farrakhan 08

- Reverend A. Sharpton

March 24, 2008 at 11:21am

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

If Hillary steals the nomination it's over for the democrats. Hillary needs to gracefully step aside - but we all know she won't do that. She'll kick and scream and bloody O to the end. How selfish and vindictive. She's been beat fair and square. The people have spoken but she and Bill refuse to listen. She's no better than George Bush if she continues on this quest. A vote for O does not equate a vote for Rev. Wright. Just as a vote for JFK was not a vote for the Pope. Anyone with half a brain understands that. Rev. W's words are a little hard to swallow. I understand that. But open your eyes my fellow American's. Face the music - look in the mirror - we need fix things around here. Not hide and pretend it isn't out there. Or a vote for McCain will make it all better. We've been ignoring our problems for too long. I'm voting for O in NC. The audacity of the Clintons with the philosophy only BIG states count. They need to take their BIG egos and go home.

- Rose

March 24, 2008 at 11:21am

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

The democratic race is a mess because the party is so lacking in substance that they are dividing over issues that shouldn't be issues at all, i.e. race and gender. The republicans would back Condoleeza or Colin unanimously in a heartbeat because they have a commonality of priciples, namely strong defense, less government intervention in personal lives, etc. These issues trump race and gender and personality. The democrats have been so greedy in their quest for power over the last 50 years that they've included every lunatice idiology in their base and now it's a surprise to them that they're cracking up. It's like the old saying goes, If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

- kathy barnes

March 24, 2008 at 11:24am

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

I have been shouting and shouting. 900 FBI files on Hillary's desk. 900 super deligates. IT'S THE FBI FILES. IT'S THE FBI FILES. IT"S THE FBI FILES.

- Loubou

March 24, 2008 at 11:25am

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

Unfortunately for the Democrat party both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are unelectable in the general election. Mrs. Clinton has a history of extreme corruption and that alone is enough to turn off many voters. (FBI files, Whitewater, Travel Gate, billing records, “sorry I can’t recall,” etc.) Yes, she has excuses for all of those incidents and many Democrats choose to blindly accept her explanations. But few who aren’t blinded by party loyalty do. And Mrs. Clinton is, to put it politely, unlikable. Her general demeanor makes most men cringe. But men aren’t her real problem. Some women love her it’s true. But for every woman who loves her there are three that can’t stand her. Mrs. Clinton does best when she’s just an idea, a figure on a pedestal that no one interacts with. The more people are exposed to her the more they dislike her. And on the other side Mr. Obama has found himself right where he didn’t plan on being, up front. Mrs. Clinton was assumed to have the nomination locked up when the race began. Mr. Obama probably never expected to have a chance. But, by running now he would make his name a household word and then he could potentially run again in eight years when Mrs. Clinton left office. But Mrs. Clinton’s campaign collapsed and Mr. Obama finds himself out front without the experience to even claim to be qualified for the office of President. And White people will happily vote for a Black candidate but they won’t vote for a Black radical. Mr. Obama has gone to great lengths to convince people he’s mainstream and voters flocked to him. But recent comments from his associates plus comments from his book make him look very radical. And then the Republicans somehow manage to nominate John McCain. He’s acceptable to most Democrats but not to the Republican base. This almost guarantees that the Conservative base won’t turn out… unless the Democrats run someone scary enough to make McCain look good to them. Simply put, the Democrats are in trouble in November unless they nominate someone besides Clinton or Obama.

- Eltanin

March 24, 2008 at 11:25am

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

I have difficulty concluding that Sen. Clinton is setting up for Obama to take the nomination and lose, and then run again in 2012. Remember that the Democratic nominee will be running against George W. Bush, regardless of the fact that the Republican candidate's name will be McCain. The opportunity is now, and I think that the contest will be in doubt until Denver.

- TWB

March 24, 2008 at 11:25am

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

I agree that the Pastor issue will hurt Obama. I also think that his ultra liberal record will hurt him, too.

- stone

March 24, 2008 at 11:25am

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

Obviously, some of the poster have never heard of paragraphs.

- TD

March 24, 2008 at 11:25am

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

Clinton is the one who has destroyed the Democrat's hopes for 2008. Her failure to gracefully bow out - since there is absolutely no way by any stretch of the mathematics that she can win the nomination - is incredibly selfish. Just another example of the self-absorbed Clinton ethos.

- De VL

March 24, 2008 at 11:26am

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

A lot of pro-Hillary here. Hmn. I agree with one of the posters that this column doesn't seem to conclude or offer anything new. We all know this is a mess, and will continue so. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's the media who want to keep the slug-fest alive. Very depressing. What good does dwelling on the situation do if you don't offer any serious solutions? Unless, of course, you enjoy watching the Democrats implode. Again. I am sorry this Wright thing has been embraced so joyously by the press. It's only served to divide -- especially since it has been taken out of context, and used as a weapon. Thing is, the Dems are killing themselves. Obama is not his pastor. He attends that church out of support for the African Community he has served so well. He's rejected Wright's hideous commentary, but not the man. Obama (and religious scholars of all ilk - black, WHITE, Christian, Jewish, etc.) know that Wright's style is typical of African American sermons -- especially of the past. (Wright IS retired.) Obama sees what good Wright has done for his community -- and, more importantly, Obama knows Wright's world view is born of experiences during Jim Crow Days -- rooted in slavery. Obama is WHITE. Obama is BLACK. He understands the cultural divide. Unless your life experience is the same, you should not judge. btw - I am white, over 40 and female. I am disgusted by the way this Demcratice mess has been spun out of control. The Dem's eye is waaaay offf the prize: McCain and November. Which, once again, illustrates how poorly the Democrats play presidential politics. They don't seem to know how to play to win. All this distraction is why the Dems deserve to lose in November. And I am one of them.

- SCJ

March 24, 2008 at 11:26am

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

hey stephen, you complain of the lies from Obama, yet your own candidate has volumes and volumes of lies, deceit, trickery, impeachments, scandals, and is hated by 45% of the country! To paint Obama as unelectable, and not trustworthy is a shallow attempt to get your scheming, meglo-maniacal candidate to the nomination. I agree with Edna's post; Billary is trying to sabotage Obama so badly that he will lose the GE. She can then run as the nominee in 2012, before she's too old. She will "graciously" give up her run for the nomination this summer, take credit for "saving" the party, and thus tee herself up as the anointed one for 2012. in the next four years, Bill Clinton, her primary baggage, will be tied up and gagged. you won't see the man. he will become invisible. At this point, this is all about 2012, and your candidate is the reason that we'll suffer through 4 more years of Republicans. And I won't forget it

- kevinheadhonkyincharge

March 24, 2008 at 11:26am

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

All process, no content. What about the basic problem of the Democrats - the inherent divisiveness of a party defined by racial, ethnic, sex and religious identity politics. This is a fight pitting old white feminists and Mexicans against blacks and younger voters. I'm a european-american male. I say screw them both, and screw McCain, too. The Repuglicans aren't much better when it comes to protecting my interests.

- doctorfixit

March 24, 2008 at 11:27am

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

I find a few things interesting today just kind of strolling around: 1. Peretz today, after waiting for directions to Billary's political funeral says, this: "If Clinton gets nominated and gets elected, we will rue the day we ever met her...and him" clearly therefore allowing for the possibility; ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 2. The premise of the conceivable possibility of Hillary's victory animates this peice; ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 3. And a substantial number of comments, coming virtually by definition, from literate, interested thoughtful people reason thus: Obama; Wright; political doom. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ I thought it was over Hillary. I wonder if we are seeing the beginning of the coalescence of the effects of Wright.

- basman

March 24, 2008 at 11:28am

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

Post Date Wednesday, April 09, 2008 ??????????????

- me

March 24, 2008 at 11:30am

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

Hillary's not bloodying Obama--He's bloodying himself. Hillary didn't tell him to support Wright and his message of hate for 20 years. Hillary didn't send Obama's economic advisor to secretly assure the Canadian's that Obama wasn't "serious" when he talked about renegotiating NAFTA. And Hillary wasn't writing the newspaper articles that analyzed Obama's weak and inconsistent record in the Illinois legislature. Obama, like Congressional republicans, can only explain his own failings by asserting that somehow Hillary is pulling the strings. Get real.

- Kelly

March 24, 2008 at 11:31am

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

I'm hoping that the selection of a delegate is not settled before Denver. The conventions have been so boring in the past. Usually a bunch of the extreme believers making speachs to the same who are attending. This convention, at least at the present, has the possiblities of for once being very interesting and for once worth watching. So I hope that a delecate is not named before hand. Then we can really see how the Democratics would deal with a problem and possible get an idea how they would deal with the problems facing this country.

- S. Lowe

March 24, 2008 at 11:31am

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

Are you all crazy? Republicans, no matter how bad the Democratic nominee may be, cannot win. Oh those issues: Great economy at the brink of Depression? How about that little "popular" war in Iraq that has dragged on for five years? How about the fact that McCain is old enough to be in a nursing home? And Cindy McCain? Nobody seems to recall her battle with Oxycontin addition and her husband's efforts to have the charges of theft dropped against her? And then there's that little matter of John McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 affair? To top it off, there's the simple fact that no party since WWII has been elected three consecutive terms. DOes Bush fatigue ring a bell here?

- Ed P.

March 24, 2008 at 11:32am

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

Actually this entire quagmire can be traced back to the manner that the Democratic Party has segregated everyone into miniscule Special Interest Groups. The democrats have divided everyone by Race (Black, Brown, Asian, etc), Gender (GLBT), origin, sex, religious affiliation, class, etc. Even among the divisions they further divided the groups (Latinos, Latinos of Mexican descent, Blacks of caribean descent, etc). This served the party well, as long as the Candidate of choice was a rich white guy who could pander to the various groups for support; feal their pain. The various Special interest groups could then rally around the anointed Candidate, coming together for the victory, regardless of the fact that the people they have elected have not actually done anything to resolve the issues they kep proclaiming as their mandate to lead. However now, as would eventually happen, we have 2 very strong and viable (despite what the pndits from each side keep proclaiming) Candidates from the 2 strongest Special Interest Groups. Hillary is the culmination of the Femminist Movement, while Barak is the heir to Kings dream. So now the Democratic Party is in a quandry. Which Special Interest Group is more "Special"? Which of the Democratic Partys most vocal of supporters gets the nod as the new spokesman for the Party? Which agenda of Equal Rights; Race or Sex; will rein supreme? If only Edwards had won, then we could have another rich white guy that all could rally around and push on to victory. Regardless that nothing would get accomplished to address the issues each of the Democratic Special Interests holds.

- KellyJ

March 24, 2008 at 11:32am

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

So twenty percent of the Dems aren't going to vote democratic if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. I think they will vote for Nader rather than McCain. And there may be twenty percent of the Repubs that won't vote for McCain, and they may vote for Nader. Wouldn't it be nice if Nader got 40% of the vote, and America got rid of the two corrupt parties? Now that's real change! Think about it, both parties are responsible for the $9.5 trillion national debt and the $60 billion per month trade debt. If you want more of that, vote for a Dem or a Repub.

- R.J.

March 24, 2008 at 11:32am

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

Divide the country...accomplish NOTHING !!!

- Videojam

March 24, 2008 at 11:33am

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

Actually, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. Obama may be able to supress the delegates from Florida nd Michigan that voted for Hillary, but you can't ignore the fact that they voted for her when discussing the popular vote. And wait until she leads the popular vote in big-state Pennsylvania.

- Kelly

March 24, 2008 at 11:35am

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

Hillary is is only staying in to destroy Obama's chances, not only in this election but any election that he will ever run in. She does not want the possibility of running against him again in 2012. Anyone that thinks Hillary cares about anything other than Hillary is smoking crack. Destruction of the Democrat Party does not matter to her. Her only concern is to keep a Democrat out of the White House in 2008 so that she can run again in 2012. There will be no peace in the US until the Clintons are out of politics forever.

- John M., Danville, CA

March 24, 2008 at 11:37am

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

If Reverend Wright’s sermons indicate a widespread undercurrent of deep resentment throughout the black-church community - as Barrack Obama asserts based on his argument that disavowing Reverend Wright would be tantamount to disavowing the black community -­ then Obama’s great shame and failure has nothing to do with what he heard or when he heard it, but it has everything to do with him having made no effort to change it. Were Obama truly the man of high ideals and convictions he believes himself to be, he could not have accepted such a bleak and pervasive outlook within his community. It would have been pure anathema. Clearly he acknowledges the condition as part and parcel of the black experience in America, but only now, when his hand has been forced, does he appear willing to the wrestle the bear, and then only through his Presidential ambitions. I say, “No, no, no.” Senator Obama is at least a day late and a sermon short to deserve such an honor. To Senator Obama I say, America would like to believe you’re a man of ideals and conviction, but your record falls short. Dedicate your life to rooting out this hatred - this moral and ethical cancer -­ without precondition of office. Then when you’ve proven you’re good intentions, ask again for our highest confidence.

- Dean F.

March 24, 2008 at 11:37am

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

Again, Clinton is ahead of Obama in popular vote, if that is the relevant criterion; Obama may be able to supress delegates from Florida and Michigan, but people aren't going to forget that 3 million people in those two states turned out to vote in the democratic primaries, giving Hillary huge margins of victory.

- Kelly

March 24, 2008 at 11:38am

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

Rush Limbaugh strategy is working guaranteeing a Landslide victory for McCain.

- XX Ares

March 24, 2008 at 11:40am

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

I deeply respect Senator Obama and I think he is a good person who in no way shares the views of his pastor....but... I don't know if he is electable in a race where he will be running against a Hero Like John McCain who was shot down in Vietmam and spent 6 years hanging in a cage being tortured. Especailly when he was given the option of going home after 2 years because his father was also an ex- Navy Pilot and Congressman. He turned it down and sent other prisoners home in his place and stayed another 4 years. John McCain has also built a career on fighting Republicans on a majority of issues and will be very appealing to Independents and some Democrats because of his Fiecre-big business anti-lobbying, pro global warming stance, anti-torture, and has spent most of his life voting with Democrats on major issues. Obama is going to have a very tough time going up against this with those horrible audio/video tapes haunting him all the way to the election. It's very, very, tragic and sad because I don't think he is a bad person, but he won't win the Independents he needs to beat McCain.

- cupi031

March 24, 2008 at 11:41am

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

April 9, 2008?

- Matt

March 24, 2008 at 11:41am

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

Obama has already brought about so much change. He's done what many others have tried for 20 years. He CHANGED me to a Republican and Fox News appreciative. Somes days, hell does freeze over.

- Lori K.

March 24, 2008 at 11:42am

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

The democrat party was having such a wonderful pep rally! Next thing you know, the two cheer leaders were rolling around the gym floor gouging eyes and pulling hair. Can't imagine how this will end.

- Dudleyt

March 24, 2008 at 11:42am

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

The only thing that whites and blacks need to agree on is to put the past behind us and move on. Each side is right and each side is wrong. One man's perspective is anothers opinion. What Democrats need to understand is the Black Democrat has been used for more than 50 years by those who inherited the Southern Democratic Party. Coming from the South myself and being white I can assure you this system was used to keep the Black man in his 'place'. The most amazing thing is history. And the Republicans were the party of abolition and Abe Lincoln. The south became the bigger 'pro-christian country' during the civil war and Blacks were very very active in religion and the Southern Democrats built on that to build their party. It is time that the Black community make the national democrats put their money where their mouth is. It is amazing how the Republicans move that race forward and the Democrats do everything in their power to keep the black man down on the farm. You only need to look at the divisiveness of the 1860 election of Lincoln to see what is about to happen. With Obama spending 1.5 million dollars a day to offset Hillary. McCain is skating into a comfortable lead.

- Bob Price

March 24, 2008 at 11:42am

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

Hillary has thrown in the entire house and still unable to clinch the nomination...Fact ! Essentially the Primaries are over and you all need to face the fact that Obama will be representing the Democrats in November. The only state Hillary will win will be the state of DENIAL and will be rewarded for her efforts. Stop being lazy and do your own research instead of relying on the sensational news channels such as FOX, MSNBC and CNN for 20 to 30 second sound bytes. Take a minute and logon to the internet, check out youtube and listen to the entire message for yourself. For all you hypocrites, OOOOPS... I meant christians need to do some soul searching and stop being so judgemental. Why don't the Rod Parsley's, Pat Robertson's and other so called religious leaders address the issues and defend the truth.

- wms

March 24, 2008 at 11:43am

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

It's HRC that's unelectable. The Obama Republicans, the Obama Indies, and a fair chunk of the Clinton hating Dems are happy w/ McCain (Mmyself included), but will emphatically not vote for that woman.

- Osakadave

March 24, 2008 at 11:44am

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

Incredible! The race was a done deal...and now all this doubt and anxiety? If our party can't run a primary how the heck are we going to run the country? McCain is traveling the world looking Presidential and we are still mud-wrestling and kissing babies? Pathetic. Maybe we ARE the party of "stupid liberal emotions" that we are accused of being (all along)? Bill Richardson was our most qualified candidate and we just blew him off? At least he had the sense to back someone and try to end this mudslide.

- Lord Humongous

March 24, 2008 at 11:45am

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

Regarding the claim that "Obama is unelectable." Hillary Dearest" has lost the primary. She can't win this contest honestly, which begs the question: if Mrs. Clinton does manage to steal the nomination, why would Obama supporters -- and those who regard her with contempt -- vote for her? It's not going to happen.

- Walter F. Wouk

March 24, 2008 at 11:46am

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

As an Independent, I am amazed at the ineptness of the Democrats. The best thing to happen to the Democrats in the last 50 years was George Bush. He handed you the Congress and the White House. The Democrats could have nominated almost anyone and won. Instead you bring Hillary Clinton, arguably one of the most disliked people in the US, as presumptive nominee and President, and she is blindsided by Obama. Obviously there are quite a few Democrats who don’t buy her story. Now, Obama is hung out to dry because of his racist pastor. The Republicans can justly be accused of having their “special interests”, but at least their “friends” get along. The Democrats have to be really stressed. Their two favorite “victim classes” are battling for power and every shot they take, hurts themselves. I think instead of the Donkey, maybe the new symbol needs to be the Suicide Bomber.

- Ken

March 24, 2008 at 11:46am

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

Oh boy! McCain/LIEberman, another four years of war and economic ruin. Maybe they will change the name to the U.S. of Israel.

- R.J.

March 24, 2008 at 11:47am

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

I am a highly educated, minory female with a combined household income over $100k. In all aspects, I should be an Obama supporter but I'm not. My family and I are fully in support of Hillary. We live in Florida and seeing that the DNC and Obama doesn't care about our vote, we will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee. The DNC can quit sending me fundraising emails because I won't send another penny until Dean takes leadership and count the FL votes as everyone was on the ballot, Obama had just won SC in a blow out and everyone was aware of it AND he ran adds on CNN that was widely and frequently seen. We will right Hillary in but Obama can kiss our votes goodbye. Don't let me start on Rev.Wrong. There is no way that I would support Obama in the White house when I know that he will confer with a bigot and hate spewing minister for advice.

- casa

March 24, 2008 at 11:47am

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

Good News: Huge number of viewers for Democratic National Convention. Bad News: Huge number of viewers for Democratic National Convention.

- MediaMan

March 24, 2008 at 11:48am

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

You can lame the Democrat's rules for the nominating process if you (and they pretty dumb), but the real culprit here is the Democrat's long history of gaining and retaining power by pitting neighbor against neighbor. The Democrats are always "on your side," they always "feel your pain," they always say they're going to "stand up" for you. But who are they standing up against? They tell African-Americans that they will "stand up" to whites for them, they tell women they'll "stand up" to men for them, they tell the poor they'll "stand up" to the rich for them, they tell blue collar workers they'll "stand up" to management for them. They tell everyone that they'll "stand up" to whoever is keeping them down. They pit Americans against Americans, divided along lines of race, gender, economic class, etc. Republicans may demonize foreign nations, sometimes them may do so without justification, but at least that can unify people. But Democrats demonize their follow Americans. They need Americans to dislike, distrust, and yes, even hate, their fellow Americans, or at a certain demographic of their fellow Americans, in order to obtain and maintain power. So they feed that distrust and that hatred, hey feed it, and they nurture it, or only if it grows will they thrive politically. And now, 50 years of divisive politics in the name of seeking power is coming back to haunt them. The Democratic party is not only tearing itself apart, it's tearing this country apart as well.

- EFE

March 24, 2008 at 11:48am

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

Another thing, let the media keep distorting the polls. There are more Hillary voters who are saying more so than Obama supporters that they will either not vote for him, stay home or support McCain. Keep saying that AA will stay home or vote for McCain. That is a lie and not true. AA will sooner stay home or vote for Hillary than cross over. However, Obama can not win with out the help of women, seniors, Latinos(Richardson will not help in this matter,t rust me), blue collor voters/union/catholic voters). These are the Democratic base and they are all of for Hillary. Obama's support is coming from men, Independents, crossover Repubs, AA, liberals, youth. The independents are leaving in droves, thanks to Rev.Wrong, Ic an gurantee that his Repub support will go down as will his men support. The youth vote is notoriously unreliable, ask John Kerry. Rev.WRight's 'God D*am America' will be Obama's chickens coming home to roost. Go Hillary!

- fish

March 24, 2008 at 11:51am

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

Hillary get your fat boney ass out of the race. You and your husband are a cancer on the moral fabric of our society. The faster the Clintons are out of American politics the better off we will be. Once that carpetbagger is out of the race I home the fine people of NY will wake up and get her out of the senate. Lets face in if Obama dosen't win over McCain, Hillary will be too old and stanky to attempt another run. The Clinton "error" will be over. Thank God!

- Joe

March 24, 2008 at 11:51am

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

Hi Noam As a proud card carrying member of the "lunatic" right, I could just barely take enough time off from cleaning and fondling my gun, not to mention interrupting viewing Country Music Television 24/7 in order to decipher your otherwise well-written article about the implosion of the Democrat Party. Maybe it's just me, isn't the problem facing the Democrat party a result of allowing 2 exceptionally weak candidates even participate in the nomination process in the first place? To my very stilted and apparently "lunatic" way of thinking, Obama and Clinton are 2 of the least electable people in the USA, yet the Democrat Party (and Noam) are now suddenly mourning their chances in November ??.... Let's see now.....Clinton - a person with the absolute highest negatives in Politics, hated equally by men & women, wife of an impeached President, and a dismal record as a Senator in NY State, and Obama- nice guy with a dubious past, no experience, an exceptionally Liberal voting record, and a "Reverend" mentor who was exposed in early 2007 as a 60's style Black Panther-style preacher...THESE TWO are the best that the Democrat Party could present? As we say in here in redneck, lunatic right-land....Ya reaps what ya sow..... I am running out of vocabulary just about now, and I need to return to my obsessive perusing of the National Enquirer, as my "lunatic" right type of thinking had just abated long enough for me to notice your article in The New Republic........ Now I will just return to my previously Jack Daniels induced stupor, while I dream about large SUV's and their positive impact on Global Warming as I receive my regular payoff from Mobil Oil in the weekly mail...... LOve and Kumbaya from the Lunatic Right

- Shel

March 24, 2008 at 11:53am

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

Get Back to work !

- Boss

March 24, 2008 at 11:53am

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

I’ve got to call Shenanigans on this whole “the FL GOP thugs stole the FL Democrats vote again” nonsense I keep reading about. Let’s have a quick history lesson: FL Senator Jeremy Ring (D) Margate: http://www.flsenate.gov/Legislators/index.cfm?Members=View+Page&District_Num_Link=032&Submenu=1&Tab=legislators&chamber=Senate&CFID=73466639&CFTOKEN=57124373 sponsored the original SB 1010 moving the primary date up. It was passed in committee 7 to 0: http://www.myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35281&SessionId=54&SessionIndex=-1&BillText=&BillNumber=537&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillTypeIndex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=H&BillSearchIndex=0 It was combined into CS/HB 537 which was passed in the FL House 118 to 0 and the FL Senate 37 to 2: http://www.myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049&SessionId=54&SessionIndex=-1&BillText=&BillNumber=537&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillTypeIndex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=H&BillSearchIndex=0 After it passed into law this is what FL Dem Chair Karen Thurman stated: “There will be no other primary. Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on January 29th. We make this election matter. Not the D.N.C., not the delegates, not the candidates, but Florida Democrats like you and me voting together. We make it count. Don’t let anybody call this vote a “beauty contest” or a “straw poll.” On January 29, 2008, there will be a fair and open election in Florida, which will provide for maximum voter participation. The nation will be paying attention, and Florida Democrats will have a major impact in determining who the next President of the United States of America will be.” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/2008-florida-democrats-stick-to-primary-date/ After the SHTF, the FL Dems started backtracking and shifted the blame to the GOP controlled legislature and chose the “we are victims” tactic: http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/ The bottom-line is that FL Democrats were onboard with the change of primary date and the DNC stripped them of their delegates. The RNC chose a method that penalized the state party without “disenfranchising” its’ voters by taking all of the delagates away.

- Blues Guitar

March 24, 2008 at 12:00pm

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

No way Farakhan/Obama

- Jim

March 24, 2008 at 12:02pm

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

Obama cannot win a General Election after fialing to repudiate Wright and the ati American, anti Israel rhetoric coming from that pulpit. He keeps making ti worse by talking about 'typical whites' and 'typical whites of that generation' , standing silent on a stage while McPeak calls President Clinton, MCCARTHY?? WHAT!? If Obama steals this nomination by keeping MI and FLA from revotes say hello to McCain Democrats, any threatened riots at the convention by BO supporters, which are all over the blog, will just make McCain stronger in the GE Its Hillary or McCain for this lifelong Dem

- ginaswo

March 24, 2008 at 12:03pm

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

The Democrats should have won this election going away. Now we're going to lose mightily because we were bamboozled by a cult of personality and our own hubris by such an "historical" election. We're going to lose and it will be Obama's fault for not waiting his turn. The party's rules are set up precisely so that the candidate who's turn it is to be nominated gets the nomination. Kennedy and Dean have tried to switch that away from Hillary. It's a shame. Once again, Teddy and the loonie left will lose it for us again.

- kenny

March 24, 2008 at 12:04pm

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

You would be very surprised at the scheming behind the scene. Everyone involved is very afraid to back the losing horse. All the voters might hold a grudge the next time any offical goes up for election again.

- figusJa

March 24, 2008 at 12:07pm

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

You democrats make it so easy for us republicans

- Andy

March 24, 2008 at 12:08pm

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

don't give demise to the dp's quite yet.HC will drp out in early may and unite the party,HC will get a seat on the SC in a trade.

- kentj

March 24, 2008 at 12:09pm

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

I thought I was reading an intelligently written article until the gratuitous knee-jerk Repub bashing began. Obviously yet another loony left Neanderthal rant. Stop reading, note author's name, vow to never bother with again. Since the Demo's last messiah has faded a little your new messiah does not approve. Read closely the gospel of Obama. SCJ "Obama is WHITE. Obama is BLACK. He understands the cultural divide. Unless your life experience is the same, you should not judge. btw - I am white, over 40 and female. I am disgusted by .." Just before prohibiting others from "judging" you judge "he understands." What's up with that? Oh yea, you are white, liberal, and know what's good for us all. This whole O vs H / Black vs Female is a bit of the Rooster and Hen coming home to ... peck in the PC crap they've littered the yard with for the last 40 years. Only funnier. Maybe O should be prez if your reasoning abilities are typical of females.

- Bosco

March 24, 2008 at 12:09pm

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

What the extreme latte left doesn't get is that black racism is as unacceptable of white racism. And that Wright's comments have now put Obama's race games in MS & SC in context. Our party must completely reject bigotry wherever it festers. We must be congruent in our beliefs. Just as we heroically expelled the George Wallace wing of the Party at great cost, we must expel the anti-American, moral relativist (the accepting of anti-white racism) wing of the party now. If Obama gets the nomination, I will work for his defeat just as conservatives worked to get Rockefeller & Lindsey defeated. They didn't have room for liberals, we don't have room for those who play race games. http://noratings.blogspot.com/

- Bud White

March 24, 2008 at 12:10pm

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

The problem with the Democrats is that you really don't see that Rev. Wright IS YOUR BASE!!!Socialist America-hating race bating moral relativists do not make up a majority of Americans, but they absolutely nominate the pathetic leftists that thankfully lose election after election. Dems will claim that McCain won because of racism, sexism, or whatever the ism of the moment is, and will never admit that they lost because of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their ideas and party.

- Hexagon38

March 24, 2008 at 12:11pm

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

woot

- wooter

March 24, 2008 at 12:11pm

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

hillary was pampered for years as the next president by her out of work operatives and fawning press but when the people have had a chance to finally speak instead of the professional tongues- SURPRISE! she can't get half the democratic vote, the state delegates, and has to hope on coercion with the superdelegates. maybe she still has important data from those fbi files she kept so long in the white house during her 'first presidency'. step back from the trunk of the trees and see the forest. she can't beat anyone. she is loathed by independents and republicans and many who remember clinton 1 and 2- neither of which had a real majority election. she is, and has ALWAYS been flawed candidate. the empress has no clothes [pantsuits]. if she can't beat obama except with last minute back room smoke and mirrors. she won't beat mccain. I am a registered independent in california and voted for obama. I would consider voting for him again. we need a change from clinton-bush dynasty. we need a change from ugly campaign tactics and policy of win by someone's calculated losing. obama has the 'vision thing' that has been missing in the presidency much of my life. I will risk to put it in play because the cloud over the alternative is too bleak.

- teri

March 24, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

Denver will burn

- Catbird

March 24, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

Hitler made supposedly great speeches too. Anyhow, Obama has no substance, no clear compass. The democratic party never properly vetted Obama, and just can not accept the consequences as it travels to its destruction.

- Adrian

March 24, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

The first commenter is living in a fairy land. Since when should the leader in all counts - with Hillary having no chance of catching up - bow out?

- Danny

March 24, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

Pro-Obama journalists like Noam Scheiber are continually talking about how superdelegates not voting with delegates would be overturning the will of the people. How convenient it is for them to just ignore the popular vote, the mandate that that vote confers, and the rules of the party which were crafted for the very purpose of allowing "super" delegates to overturn the delegate vote. If it was the other way around with Obama losing in delegates but with a chance of winning the popular vote (and superdelegates), they would be signing a completely different tune.

- John Williams

March 24, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

Hitler made supposedly great speeches too. Anyhow, Obama has no substance, no clear compass. The democratic party never properly vetted Obama, and just can not accept the consequences as it travels to its destruction.

- Adrian

March 24, 2008 at 12:15pm

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

The most alarming trend is the recent polling in state after state that shows that in a head-to-head match-up, McCain is leading Obama, while Clinton is, if not ahead, at least making it close. Even though polling now is only a snapshot and the general election is still months away, why is Obama so much weaker than Clinton in Democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and incredibly, even Massachusetts? This is what should be freezing the superdelegates...what if they get it wrong?

- H-Dog

March 24, 2008 at 12:16pm

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

TWO SENATORS - SHOCKING COMPARISON OF PRODUCTIVITY (copied from www.s2smagazine.com and other websites) Senator Clinton, who served just one full term of 6 years and another year campaigning, managed to author and pass into law only 20 twenty pieces of legislation in all of her six years. (These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov) 1 . Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name a courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name a courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name a post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name a post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. HOWEVER…………………. Senator Obama, in his 8 years in the Senate, has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. In fact, in just his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These include **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill Among his many bills are: 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 6 veterans affairs

- RobertMD

March 24, 2008 at 12:17pm

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

see todays Wash Post for an anlysis of how HRC has simply lied about her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia...if there is any doubt she will simply lie to suit her agenda, this article removes it...Hillary Rodham Nixon should not be our next President

- andyk

March 24, 2008 at 12:17pm

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

see todays Wash Post for an anlysis of how HRC has simply lied about her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia...if there is any doubt she will simply lie to suit her agenda, this article removes it...Hillary Rodham Nixon should not be our next President

- andyk

March 24, 2008 at 12:18pm

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

Unlike some people here, I am not swayed by deceptive portrayals, hazy connections, or misdirection tactics. Nor do I jump at the one-liners and sound-bites. I research, and take both background and context into consideration. I believe that, in this, I am in the majority, and that is why Obama will win. McCain will ride slogan-shouting, smear-loving republicans, but he has only a hair more integrity than Hillary. And that is what decides it for me... candidates can promise you the world (and do), but who can you trust to deliver on that promise, integrity intact? (If you respond "Reverend Wright said..." re-read sentence one before you claim to be brain-dead. Not only were his comments taken completely out of context, but Obama disavows the ideology they represent. And yes, it is possible to be friends with someone you have disagreements with, perhaps even love such people, unless of course you're a hate-mongering bigot.)

- a j

March 24, 2008 at 12:18pm

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

It is over for Hillary. She has lost. Let's all get behind Obama to try to fix and heal all the things that W has broken. Clinton has been far too negative to become veep. Who's a good choice?

- Michael in Bangkok

March 24, 2008 at 12:18pm

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

First of all, to suggest that the leader drop out of the race is just insane!!! Secondly, if you heard the entire message that day from Reverend Wright, you would realize that it was taken WAY out of context from what he actually said!!! Let me preface my explanation by saying that, "I am a WHITE woman!! You people have to admit that there is discrimiation daily on both sides of the fence and to deny that is crazy!! Reverend Wright's comments were definitely controversial, but until you have heard the entire statement, not just a clip, it is impossible to argue with only half of the information!!! Reverend Wright was referring to the fact that America thinks that it is queen of the world and stomps on other people's toes and that America will be punished similar to the way that God punished Israel!!! Was there a better way to state that without using GD... definitely!!! Is that fact true, quite possibly!! Either way, does every member of every church agree with 100% of what their minister has to say, I would say definitely NOT!!! Judge Obama on his policies, his ideas, his plans!!! Lisa

- Lisa

March 24, 2008 at 12:18pm

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

Many of you are talking about the unelectability of Obama but you are forgetting that Hillary is also unelectable. The Repub's will have a field day with the baggage she brings to the fray. Obama is still an unknown and a possible refreshing change. She is not a change candidate at all. Keep in mind that the states she is winning will go Dem no matter what even though she is trying to make us all think that they will vote Repub if it's Obama running. Yea sure, Hillary, the same as I will vote for you. Ha! Ha! It looks like the Dem's lose no matter what. Thanks to their stupidity and arrogance.

- MikeinOhio

March 24, 2008 at 12:20pm

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

2012 is out for Hillary. She'll look like a wilted prune by then, need more money than the Clintons can collect and surgery connected eyes, ears, nose and throat with Botox will be obvious. No, It's John McCain now and for the next four years.

- Lelande

March 24, 2008 at 12:20pm

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

Bill Clinton: "2 people who love their country" Well it ain't your Hillary Slick Willy, she is ruining party Unity and destroying any chance of the Dems taking the White house. Remmeber the mother in King Solomon's cas? She loved the child. If the child is the country Hillary is about Hillary and raw power. Somehow Obama should drop out when he is beating her in every aspect is ludicrous. DROP OUT HILLARY. But of course we know, they will drag you out of the convention kicking and screaming.

- Steven

March 24, 2008 at 12:22pm

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

Of course Hillary is determined to keep Obama out of the WH at all cost. She can then run against Sleepy in 2012. She is convinced it is for the good of the country because she isn't sane. I have gone from defending her and dreaming of the day she would replace Bush to a realization that she is the most dangerous politician in the U. S. Anyone who wants power this bad is exactly the type of person that should never be allowed to hold it. I am committed to stopping as many people from voting as possible in Nov. if she stills the nomination. Not hold your nose and vote for McCain--just don't vote!

- John

March 24, 2008 at 12:22pm

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

People who post that Obama is stealing the election by keeping FL and MI out of the vote are obviously not competent enough they should be voting. I say this because besides the obvious fact that many candidates took their names off of the ballots in those states as a show of good faith (Hillary left her name on the ballots), the states that held early votes were breaking the rules. Their opinions are thus null since they did not wait for their time to vote. By saying their votes magically count would 1 be inaccurate and the ballots didn't have all of the candidates and 2 have implications in the future with states voting as early as they would like.

- Kyle

March 24, 2008 at 12:24pm

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

Of course Hillary is determined to keep Obama out of the WH at all cost. She can then run against Sleepy in 2012. She is convinced it is for the good of the country because she isn't sane. I have gone from defending her and dreaming of the day she would replace Bush to a realization that she is the most dangerous politician in the U. S. Anyone who wants power this bad is exactly the type of person that should never be allowed to hold it. I am committed to stopping as many people from voting as possible in Nov. if she stills the nomination. Not hold your nose and vote for McCain--just don't vote!

- John

March 24, 2008 at 12:24pm

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

The superdelegates should move fast to end this now. Hilary can't win and will destroy the Democratic party. It seems Hillary is looking towards 2012. Reminder: Hillary is very much like Bill in the sense that her coat strings don't go far. We lost both houses and majority Governorships as a result of Bill's triangualtion and selfish behavior.

- abe7chgo

March 24, 2008 at 12:26pm

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

What is most fascinating is watching how many Democrats are now saying the things about the Clintons that the Conservatives (Republicans) have been saying since Bill was fisrt elected (by 43% of the vote BTW). All through the 90s the Clinton's scandals and foibles were dismissed as nothing but dirty tricks and lies by the Republicans. Now we see these same Democrats coming out and reminding the HRC supporters of the very same scandals and how they make Hillary unfit for Office. The Inconvinient Truth being that the democrats are now, in a round about way, admitting that the Republicans were right all along.

- KellyJ

March 24, 2008 at 12:27pm

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

Obama is totally unelectable, and is where he is based on a deceptive misrepresentation of his views and the radical left wing economic policies that he will promote. He is a typical champagne socialist. The de facto endorsement of his radical church and it's teachings for 20 years (his entire adult lifetime) by his support and presence and very public endorsement of Reverend Wright's (especially to his church's membership) radical rants are is impossible to deny. He's gotten a free ride from the Democratic media up until recently. Furthermore, Obama's voting record (albeit slim) reveals a typical left wing and very partisan politician who is happy to get into bed with the corrupt business people who are willing to pay him and provide favors to buy his help and influence. He is a good speaker reading off a teleprompter in front of the cameras, but he has come this far based on false advertising, deception and a misleading campaign with a powerful dominant Democratic media who have abnegated all journalistic responsibility and have been simply acting as cheerleaders for the Obama campaign. I believe that if America had known about Obama's real views and record he would not be enjoying the popular support that he now has.

- steve s

March 24, 2008 at 12:27pm

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

Sounds like you would vote for the leader of the Tan Klan?

- The Grand Wizard

March 24, 2008 at 12:27pm

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

Of course the democratic nominee will be decided by the superdelegates. Its the liberal tradition, back to Wilson and FDR, to believe the enlightened few have the right to force their will on the rest of the country (especially if the majority disagrees) . Is it any wonder that elite, urban liberals are voting for Obama given their track record on social engineering? Obama is the product of a century of progessive ideology which tells us what is good for us even it we are repulsed by it at first. That's when the propaganda starts.

- andy tokyo

March 24, 2008 at 12:29pm

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

i say we never let florida hold another election! You can't get it right! The DNC RULES (RULES DESIGNED TO PROMOTE FAIR CONTESTS AND PROCESS) forbade Florida and Michigan from jumping ahead in the process. This is a necessary ruling, as the DNC cannot let states do this every election. the first primary would be two years ahead of the election! The DNC could always rotate the first primary from state to state, but that's for 2012. With ample warnings, and ample threats, the Democratic elected leadership CHOSE to ignore the rules and therefore invalidate the votes of their constituents. Don't hate Obama or Edwards, hate the idiots who misrepresented you and vote them out!

- you florida people

March 24, 2008 at 12:35pm

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

Hillary is unelectable. Isn't it odd that none of the former candidates have endorsed her. When up close they must see something wrong with her.

- alan

March 24, 2008 at 12:35pm

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

Well, first the notion that Donna Brazile is an "uncommitted superdelegate" would have to be a credible notion, and it just isn't.

- Palomino

March 24, 2008 at 12:36pm

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

My progressive neighbor opined that McCain will win in a landslide and had only the Dems come up with better candidates, the election was their for the taking. However, if Biden-Dodd are the best of the alternatives, then there is no one palatable to the American voters who tend to be against nanny-state socialism as espoused by all major Dem candidates.

- ettubloge

March 24, 2008 at 12:36pm

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

When will the Democratic Party tell BILL that it's over? Hillary has no chance to win the nomination. The Democrats don't want another Clinton term. It's time to shut the thing down so the campaign against McCain can begin.

- Lilly

March 24, 2008 at 12:38pm

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

I really wish that some of the people that posted up the garbage on this page would actually know something about the election process BEFORE they let their fingers do the talking. FL knew that they would be penalized for upping their primary date and they still did it. Here are the RULES.... Do not BREAK the RULES. They broke the RULES and now they need to do their time. Winning the popular vote doesn't win you the nomination. They have delegates in place so the smaller less populated states of the union have a say in this country that they are part of. Thank god for the Electoral College. If not for this style of election process, states like California and New York would be making the rules for the rest of us. Do your homework and get some education before you rant.

- Brendon

March 24, 2008 at 12:39pm

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

With experienced, serious people like Richardson and Biden available, Democratic primary voters have left us with two stunningly unqualified candidates. The idea of either one really getting a 3AM phone call in some national emergency is frightening. What in god's name is wrong with Democrats? Picking a first lady who never even held a security clearance and who went around the world having polite teas, and a smooth-talking "charismatic" politician with absolutely zero accomplishments of any kind. I wish good health to President McCain.

- Penny

March 24, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

There's absolutely no reason Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. In fact she will save the Party a great deal of heart-ache if she stays in. America is ready to elect an African American for president, but we aren't ready to elect a man who has spent 20 years being a member of an anti-american, anti-semitic, and racist church. All the earlier votes didn't know this information about Sen. Obama and the whole reason for the convention is to correct any problems such as this. Primaries are end-games they are steps in a process...let's see if public opinion is changing. From what I see, it already has. People really admire and respect Sen. Hillary Clinton despite Sen. Obama's attempts to discredit her with lies and attacks on her character.

- ann

March 24, 2008 at 12:41pm

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

Interesting analysis. I keep coming back to the continuing cardinal sin the Democratic party keeps making in recent presidential elections. Be they man, woman, black, white or whatever the mix the fact is that the Democratic party is hostage to its far left and it has been detrimental to their ability to win elections. Both candidates are far lefties and defeat is in the air once again. This fact and the ravaging their primary battle is inflicting only underscores the choice of McCain as the sensical candidate. This conclusion is getting rather easy to make for even the casual voter.

- Tim

March 24, 2008 at 12:44pm

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

This is more fun to watch than two hot chicks mud wrestling! Please don't stop!!!

- Republican

March 24, 2008 at 12:44pm

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

No wonder their party symbol is a "Jackass"

- Jeff

March 24, 2008 at 12:46pm

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

OBAMA is UNELECTABLE. He's losing the Reagan Democrats, he's losing the Independent and Republicans who (sincerely) crossed-over and voted for him - all because of REV WRIGHT. He's lost the Jewish vote when most find out about Rev Wright publishing a Hamas treatise in a church bulletin (and how will Israel react to this - another great foreign policy gaffe brought to you by Barack Obama's judgment). For the good of the party, he needs to step down.

- bbln

March 24, 2008 at 12:49pm

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

Good comment.

- goodone

March 24, 2008 at 12:50pm

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

Ed P. said: "To top it off, there's the simple fact that no party since WWII has been elected three consecutive terms." Ergo, Ed P. is stupid (Reagan,Reagan,Bush ring a bell?)

- jeremyemilio

March 24, 2008 at 12:50pm

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

A few months ago, the questions was "Is Obama black enough?" Now, after the facts of the rabid hate-monger "pastor" with whom Obama was associated for 20 years emerged, the question is "Is Obama American enough?" Obama and his classless affirmative ingrate wife may make a good president and first lady for blacks, but can never be president for all Americans. He and his wife are too racist and narrow in their world view to include the interests of all Americans in their governance.

- RationalGeezer

March 24, 2008 at 12:50pm

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

The next president of the USA will be chosen by the electoral college. If dems chose their delegates like the electoral college, then Hillary would be way ahead. She's the one that can win the big states, not Obama. Dems will loose with Obama.

- minniebelle

March 24, 2008 at 12:50pm

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

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a real need for a legitimate 3rd party?

- Jeff

March 24, 2008 at 12:52pm

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

Did you forget Reagan had 2 terms followed by Bush the elder. Let me add this up 1 Reagan mmm then 2 Reagan ok thats 2. The Bush the elder Wow 1 2 3 Or was WW II during the 80's.

- Bill

March 24, 2008 at 12:54pm

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

Hillary is a racist, Obama a sexist. Vote McCain/Condi in '08

- Bubba

March 24, 2008 at 12:55pm

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

IMAGINE WHAT THE CAMPAIGN WOULD BE LIKE IF BILL CLINTON,ED RENDELL,FERRARO AND OTHER CLINTON STAFFERS DIDN'T ENTER THE RACE CARD.....OUT OF DESPERATION.

- SAMMIE

March 24, 2008 at 12:55pm

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

I also live in Florida and sent a similar message to the RNC because they are not for me. I have concluded neither party is for me or any of us. It is all about power and the people be damned. Do you want to start a new party with me lol If only I could

- Bill

March 24, 2008 at 12:58pm

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

Truth be told... As a lifetime democrat and, Hillary supporter, I will vote for McCain if the voices of the Florida and Michigan voters are not counted. Certainly "Pastorgate" is another important reason for my decision too! Sha New York City

- Sha

March 24, 2008 at 12:58pm

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

As one who susports the War, & voted for Bush twice. This past Dec I gave to Obamas. I truely felt it was time for Change, and help elect the 1st black to the highest office we have in America. Then came his Rev. Wrights tapes, & Obamas speach that tho nice, only showed me the difference between the 60's & Now, the same came accross, just spoken more hidden in the education Obama has. The rich, white, evil peoples of America are to blame for the lack of aid to our fellow countrymens treatment, or lack of. I'm to blame, and his change is to Tax me to death to pay for more of the same that hasn't worked, since Johnsons Great Society was put forth to change those evils, that fall on a Nation of dependents, instead of a Nation of Equals, left to make their own way out of proverty thru hard work & determation. Please help us elect a Nation of Free Willed Leaders, to free us of this sad past.

- BillW

March 24, 2008 at 12:58pm

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

I am curious as to why Senator Obama would drop out. By all the current measures that we select our party's nominee he is ahead. It would seem somewhat non-sensical for him to abandon his efforts when he is currently in a stronger position. If a candidate cannot rally their base, and the additional needed support to win the nomination, then how are they going to pull off a general election win?

- Rough Air

March 24, 2008 at 1:03pm

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

Those of you asking Hillary Clinton to step aside are delusional. This is a political process that takes TIME! The fact that a few of you are demanding that a candidate step aside is downright scary. Nodody should every be asked to step aside. As of yesterday, I was an independent voter in the state of Pennsylvania. Today, I registered as a democrat to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. I will vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, for I feel she is far more qualified to the President of the United States than Barack Obama. I have also concluded that if Hillary Clinton is NOT the candidate for the democratic party I will be voting for John McCain, for he is more qualified than Barack Obama to be President of the United States. There are millions of voters like me read this link: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html The stakes are very high. Of course we all want change from eight years of Bush. But, the change we need must come from those who are most qualified for the position of President of the United States. The only candidates qualified are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. BB

- Betty Burgh

March 24, 2008 at 1:05pm

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

Noam Scheiber is engaging in some wishful thinking here, as are many of the reader comments. The most glaring miscalculation is comparing the Hillary/Obama feud to Carter/Kennedy in 1980. In that race, Carter was the unpopular incumbent with historically low approval numbers and Democrats were held accountable for his errors. Ronald Reagan would have beaten him easily that year even if he had not been opposed for the nomination. This year it is the Republicans who will suffer the wrath of voters for political malpractice. The second bit of wishful thinking is the belief John McCain is somehow a super-candidate who can overcome the misdeeds of the current White House occupant. The problem for McCain is he doesn't disagree with Bush on enough issues to get any separation, particularly on the war in Iraq. Finally, Obama and Clinton are both excellent candidates and either will make a good president. And when one gets the nomination they will turn all that fund raising power and voter anger on McCain and make him look like the old, past-his-prime candidate that he is. He will be joined at the hip to Bush, and that photo of them kissing on stage will be replayed everyday until the election.

- mikatollah

March 24, 2008 at 1:05pm

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

Things are getting ugly here. All what I see is "this and that". Lets shut our mouth and keep our heads up. Its our time now and whoever says no is the one to loose. We are the new generation which has full of changes, hopes, dreams,ready at day one and my dera friends . Whoever our candidate is from John, Hill to Barry we will still be the United States of America. Lets stop this shot cheap politics of writing something in "blogs" literarily unseen and in-darkness of saying what we think and feal thats ok and blame others who have come openly in churches and senate halls saying loudly what we -here write in darkness. Lets be who we are, Americans. My advice, Do something for your country and stop spending time writing your own dividing old politics, racial,gender words. If you like Barry, Hill or John, whoever elected at the end we will be the next president of USA and not of republicans, or just of democrats, or for blacks, or only for women.

- Holmes

March 24, 2008 at 1:08pm

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

Well, this thread perfectly illustrates the HRC campaign strategy: Obama is unelectable. Except he has won more states, will still have the popular vote, the delegate count and polls better against McCain than Hillary. Don't let the facts get in the way of truth. Just keep saying it over and over and hope it comes true, "Obama will never win, Obama will never win." But in the interest of effciency, do the Republicans a favor and just send your checks to the RNC, that's who you're working for.

- Pat Hendrix

March 24, 2008 at 1:09pm

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

So McCain it is! And forget about 2012 for either of these dems. This is their only shot at the office. The only thing Americans remember about losers is why they lost.

- Craigo

March 24, 2008 at 1:10pm

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

Get a grip people, As a proud Democrat, the only scenario that i see at this point is that McCain will win the White House--because the simple fact is that neither Clinton or Obama will win the general election due to the bitterness between their respective bases and that McCain will ease into the WH. What a mess of our own making!!

- M Wilson

March 24, 2008 at 1:10pm

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

lol, Obama drop out? I would never cast my vote for anyone, regardless of race, gender, or any other preference, that breaks down "under the stress of campaigning". Our country cannot afford a leader who is prone to emotional breakdown when under pressure. Obama has proven he can maintain his composure and his style; this is something that may well help get this country back on track and restore some of the respect around the world we have lost. Hillary Clinton does a great were she is at now and should stay there. Hillary's best chance to instigate the changes she espouses are to stay right were she is, she may well lose some of her effectiveness in the office of President. Do the right thing and do NOT vote her out of the office she is already in and best suited for.

- michael

March 24, 2008 at 1:10pm

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

At first I thought Hillary was a shoe in, but thanks to Obama it's looking like that is not going to happen thank God. I will not pretend to be a democrat, I am a conservative that don't like any of these candidates. In saying that I much rather McCain than any of those 2 libs. Here is why both will not win, which is funny because they are running against freaking McCain. Why Hillary will not win.. If Hillary is the nominee, Blacks will stay at home and Hillary's mere presence on the ticket will bring out droves of opposition on the conservative side. Why Obama will not win.. Ok lets get real, dude is winning states like Miss., S. Carolina, and Wyoming. Do any of you honestly think this dude can possibly win those states in the general election. The other reason will be experience, McCain will eat him alive. Last by not least, more dirt will come about this minister. It's shaping up to be a Obama/Richardson vs McCain/Lieberman lol this country is gone down the tubes. Where is Zell Miller when you clearly need him

- Black with Sense

March 24, 2008 at 1:10pm

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

Why doesn't the author offer the best solution? It is time party elders pressured Clinton to concede as she has no mathematical chance of prevailing. Any other candidate in her position would have been eased out long ago or faced a constant drum-beat from the media. Hopefully Richardson's decision will begin affecting other superdelegates. There is no reason to wait until June when the writing is already on the wall.

- Marc V

March 24, 2008 at 1:10pm

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

I Think your article had some good points. What I don't see nor hear is the fact that the RNC is drooling at the thought of embarrassing the Clintons in a general election.The same experience she claims as her advantage against Obama will be used against her in a general election. 1. She has only held an elected office for 7 plus years 2. She has a hand in so much dirt that has not been exposed in the primaries but rest assured will come to light in Nov.(See Current fraud Lawsuit in California) 3. Her motives are self serving to the point that she would give Mcclain a backhand endorsement over a member of her own party. She does not respect the DNC voters. Florida and Michigan only became important now that she is behind(See previous comments made in regards to the DNC's decision about those delegates prior to failing to secure the nomination on the first Super Tuesday)The final thought for all of you that think Obama is not electable. Ask yourselves a few of questions. 1. Why would you trust someone willing to sell her own party out if she can't have the prize? 2.Why are the comments of a Pastor who grew up not being able to enjoy the freedoms we all now take for granted so important when he is not running for an office?(also ask yourself what part of his sermon was a LIE)

- Nathan

March 24, 2008 at 1:11pm

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

Why should Hillary bow out? Why doesn't Obama? For the first time he's under scrutiny and looks vulnerable. Clinton on the other hand has The Big Mo. Lot's of hand wringing that McCain is in a strong position, and can concentrate on the general election. McCain's in that postion because HE WON ENOUGH DELEGATES to secure the nomination. Obama hasn't achieved that and probably won't. As much argument for him to drop out as for Clinton.

- dubyadoubter

March 24, 2008 at 1:11pm

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

From our point of view the best outcome would be if The Clintons stole the nomination from Obama through a variety of sneaky, too-cute-by-half, deceptive, divisive measures. The item from Evan Bayh today is a perfect example - he applies the Electoral College math to the Democratic primaries. Looks like both sides have been dangling that VP slot. The Obamites to Richardson and The Clintons to Bayh. If Hillary and Bill rob Obama and then he's craven enough to take the VP slot................BONANZA!!

- Joe Republican

March 24, 2008 at 1:18pm

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

Don't forget to thank Rush L for perpetuating his operation chaos in support of Hillary. She might not be so close if it weren't for him. This is really fun to watch - dems beating each other up. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

- Greenie

March 24, 2008 at 1:19pm

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

At this point Hillary cannot win the nomination except by cheating. Is the party going to throw away the election by nominating her?

- PJ

March 24, 2008 at 1:19pm

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

Excellent, thoughtful post, thank you!

- Tigony

March 24, 2008 at 1:19pm

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

That's exactly why we want Obama to win the primary! The republicans will have a blast with Obama! He will probably be the easiet presedential candidate to defeat in US history! If we had to compete with Hillary, we might actually have to work.

- Republican for McCain

March 24, 2008 at 1:20pm

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

The Ds are certainly confused, and showing thier true colors. I love it.

- J Olivares

March 24, 2008 at 1:20pm

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

The Democratic primary process has been a complete and utter disgrace: We now have huge majorities of blacks behind Obama, and large blocks of women for Hillary. And as the rich whites go for Obama, the Latinos and blue collar whites move away from Obama. It just goes to show how superficial and identity centered the Democratic voters really are. In New Hampshire, 70% of the women voted for Hillary!!! My gosh, you couldn't get 70% of the women to agree that the sky is blue, but they somehow can agree on who should be President. What a joke.

- Erich.

March 24, 2008 at 1:21pm

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

Does anyone else think this all could be a stage for the convention? Does anyone think maybe, just maybe, this was the Democrats' plan after all? Look at all the money they are fundraising. Look at all the ratings the networks are giving this. Don't you find it odd that: 1) The Wright story came out when it did? 2) Hillary hasn't come out and fully denounced Wright? 3) Certain super delegates have not stepped in yet? This primary season has played out like a horror film for the Dems...but the convention in August will have much more "Gore." And not the kind Republicans will enjoy seeing. Gore-Obama 2008, by a landslide.

- RxNation

March 24, 2008 at 1:21pm

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

Wow, what a lot of comments. The bottom line is that 2008 is a Democratic year. Yes, it is difficult and awkward for the Democrats to be sniping and fighting until the convention, but once the nominee is chosen, the party will unite behind him/her and move on. Where you've had contested nominations in the past, those were Republican years anyway. As one post said, Reagan would have won in 1980 anyway. Mark my words: Obama will be the next president.

- Politicalguy

March 24, 2008 at 1:28pm

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

@#82 Kelly -- Um, no. If you count MI and FL, Obama *still* has a popular vote lead of around 200k.

- Novaseeker

March 24, 2008 at 1:28pm

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

African Americans can handle the backlash: If Hillary succeeds in convincing enough super delegates to deny Obama the nomination, good luck getting African Americans back into the fold. That old dependable group may loose patience with getting leftovers and may very well sit on their hands in the general election. And, oh yes, African Americans can easily handle the backlash. What will the Democrats do? Punish them? LOL. Hillary can’t win! Give it up and quit.

- abe7chgo

March 24, 2008 at 1:28pm

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

Casa - You don't write like a highly educated minority . . . perhaps that "affirmitive action thingy" just didn't work for you. Hm.

- Susan

March 24, 2008 at 1:28pm

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

Oh, the Dims are eating one another.

- Norman Kemmerer

March 24, 2008 at 1:29pm

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

"Towards", yes, and it's only in reference to Yeats and Didion, but to to Bork as well.

- fougasseu

March 24, 2008 at 1:30pm

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

Its normally not the act but lying about it that gets you. Ask Scooter Libby. Obama got caught lying about his knowledge of Wright's comments and his attempt to pave it over (throw Grandma under the bus) was disgusting. If a white person referred to Obama as a typical back person the charges of racism and racial stereotyping would explode. He is a complete disappointment and is no better than any other politician. We are just getting the same old tired message embossed with flowery speech and no substance.

- just a guy from Oregon

March 24, 2008 at 1:30pm

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

The Democratic party is not destroying itself. Obama and his people are destroying it. Most Americans, will not vote for Obama. Obama's unflinching support of his Pastor is hard to comprehend. Give it up, Obama, don't take the Democratic party down with you!

- l-cat

March 24, 2008 at 1:31pm

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

The same can be said of Mccain and his problem with conservatives.

- Juan4Prez

March 24, 2008 at 1:33pm

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

Kelly's comments are every bit as unsupportable as Hillary's candidacy. Lying about Obama's remarks to Canada; lying about Michigan and Florida; lying about Obama somehow being the Man Behind the Green Curtain suppressing votes in Florida and Michigan; calling Obama everything from a Reagan fan to an empty speech to anti-American, if can get your head around that combo. Hillary has done all of those and more. What a joke. Trying to pin HILLARY'S SHAMEFUL GARBAGE TACTICS on Obama is the ultimate in lemming behavior. Any self-respecting citizen of voting age will judge the candidates based on their ability to serve with the judgment of an honest ship's captain and the character of an inspirational leader -- not their ability to make up embarrassing and obvious lies about themselves and others to cover up their own colossal shortcomings. For that reason alone, a reasonable person should seriously question the judgment of anybody whose ethics allow them to stand by Hillary while she tears the party apart -- despite having basically no realistic shot at the White House. Hillary is her own worst enemy. Just look at her list of hilarious lies: creating peace in Ireland by sipping tea; her embarrassing, premeditated, demonstrably ridiculous fantasy about running to the car under sniper fire in Bosnia; pretending she bears no responsibility for NAFTA; pretending her colossal failure of a national health care initiative didn't cause her husband the President some absolutely massive political damage. She can't even get out of her own way as a CANDIDATE. Imagine the damage she would do as PRESIDENT. And if that isn't enough to make you question her fitness to serve, just look at the current state of the race. Hillary is BEHIND in delegates, BEHIND in the popular vote, faces a delegate gap that is insurmountable to any electable candidate -- and all of this comes against a candidate the NOBODY HAD EVER HEARD OF until very recently. Talk about her being a disaster of a candidate. That really tells you all you need to know about her electability. And by and large, she has done it to herself. So call her what she is: a low-value, deliberately divisive, bottom of the barrel candidate running on her husband's coattails and clinging to an impossible dream only by dragging the entire Democratic ship down with her. Her ethics look more and more like George W. Bush's with each passing day. Of course, thanks to George we've already seen that the "number of years other, more qualified members of your family served in the White House" metric is a REALLY TERRIBLE WAY to pick a president. And now some sad minority of the Democratic party, assisted by Republicans who want to face the obviously weaker candidate, are trying to make Hillary the nominee. It's time for those people to wake up, scrape up some maturity (borrow some from an Obama supporter if you have to), and realize that Hillary cannot and will not be nominated. Even if nominated, she cannot and will not win the election. Even if elected, she cannot and will not serve effectively. She is damaged goods, and damaged by her own hand no less. What terrible judgment. What a sad situation. And most importantly: what a shame that so many people seem to have trouble seeing something so obvious.

- Uncle Rico

March 24, 2008 at 1:35pm

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

Pathetic. The Democrats are not destroying themselves. This is the process and all those fake asses who claim otherwise are punks/republicans who know they are going to lose. By the way republicans: isn't it enough for your party to destroy the fabric of our society by electing the the turkey into office twice. Are we better off now??? Look at gas prices and into your wallet. You know the answer... Breath a little. Let there be a space between your thoughts. Relax, take yoga do something constructive with your lives... By the way Obama is going to win the Dem nomination and he's going to wup McCain.

- Todd Downey

March 24, 2008 at 1:37pm

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

If Obama is unelectable, what's the Clinton woman? Even with all the garbage she's thrown against the wall she's still behind in her own party and has no chance of any Republican support, now or ever. Obama is the only candidate this year who has expressed a desire to move forward into the 21st century (even if it's where we've already been for eight - almost - years). bbln claims that the Jewish vote will be "lost" because of some twisted logic about Hamas that has nothing to do with Obama. Jewish voters have shown consistantly far greater intelligence than Mr (or Ms?) bbln. By the way, is bbln Jewish to speak for them so authoritatively. On the other hand bbln talks pretty authoritatively for the Reagan Dems. One them too? Or a Republican? One of those? He (or she) seems to speak for a lot of territory, as a Jewish, Republican, Reaganite Democratic Independant. Or maybe just one of those over 50 female dems, which covers a lot less territory.

- KidRimbaud

March 24, 2008 at 1:39pm

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

I disagree that the prolongation of the Democratic nominating fight is a bad thing for party's chances in the fall, notwithstanding that every pundit maintains it. Obama, who will certainly be the nominee, was going to face these attacks sooner or later. Much better sooner, so that their force in determining the outcome will be less. In any case, the electorate are not fools who will somehow come to see that George Bush was right all along because the two democratic hopefuls are engaged in a tough, increasingly personal struggle. The idea that Mahoning Valley will somehow turn out for McCain or even stay home in November, merely because it went heavily for Hillary, is laughable. The premise of the related "Pastorgate" hysteria appears to be that the majority of Americans are racist bufoons for whom a narrow selection of Wright's most obnoxious fulminations, and Obama's having sometimes listened to them, will trump their real concerns for the economy; for the war in Iraq; or for the actual character of the canditates. Obama is a Black politician from Chicago -- that is all that "Pastorgate" shows. There will be a debate on the issues between June and November, though the Republicans will do their best to try to avoid it. I have sufficient confidence in the electorate to predict that the economy, health care and the war will decide the election, no matter how long the Democratic nomination fight persists and no matter how much acrimony may emerge from Clinton's camp.

- Mark Morss

March 24, 2008 at 1:40pm

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

The best thing the Democrats can do is to support Obama. Everybody knows that the speech he gave on race relations in the country was brilliant, honest, and true. The only way the Wright issue is going to keep Obama out of the White House is if Democrats decide to spin his speech as inadequate, if we waste our breath parroting Limbaugh to help Hillary. I have been waiting my whole life for a leader to tell the truth about race in America. And now, we have a biracial candidate, who loves both his white family and his black family, who can address both of their "issues" with warmth and clarity. But a small faction of the Democratic Party wants to hold hands with Rush Limbaugh and spin Obama as a militant black separatist on the unlikely chance that they might get Hillary a shot at the White House in 2008, or at least, 2012 (provided we still have elections in 2012). America is in trouble. It is time for people to stop acting childish and get behind the Democratic nominee. If we all work together, we can and we will see a Democrat in the White House in 2008. And when that happens we can make reforms on health care, education, foreign policy, workers' rights, etc. Nothing matters more than this.

- BT

March 24, 2008 at 1:40pm

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

Could Hillary Clinton have been at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own. Could Hillary Clinton be at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid. It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory. Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?). This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted. A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years. Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own.

- Gary

March 24, 2008 at 1:40pm

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

Obama unelectable? Please... let's look at Hillary. No, wait! Let's just look at the Republicans. The silence *against* Hillary is deafening. Add to that, the right-wing talk radio's appeal for people to vote for her (because she'll be sooo easy to beat) should make it clear who the Repubs want to go against. 100,000 Repub votes in Texas for HRC guaranteed her continuing (even though she *lost* Texas, as it now turns out). If Hillary's people *steal* the nomination (and that's really the only way it would happen), the Republican machine will open the floodgates and the bad stuff will flow until it drowns everyone. Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica (if she doesn't know her own husband is a philanderer, how can she deal with sleazy world leaders?), Marc Rich, "I did not have sex with that woman", TrooperGate, redacted documents from the Clinton Library, the Clinton Library funding scandal, the IMPEACHMENT... I could go on for ten minutes! And those are the documented things, not to mention the rumors we've all heard for years, which I won't dignify with repeating here -- but suffice it to say they're nasty. McCain and his cohorts are DROOLING for a chance to take on Hillary. Obama is the unelectable one? Puh-leeze. PS: If Wolfson and the others actually succeed in stealing the nomination, a LOT of Obama supporters won't care how good a soldier he is and tries to whip us into line, we'll stay home. Another four years of Republicans and the entire country (if it still exists) will be *begging* Obama to run!

- John

March 24, 2008 at 1:42pm

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

Naom, enjoy your columns. Regarding Clinton's refusal to concede the nomination despite current projections that point to her loss at the national convention. I am convinced that her unwillingness to concede has a deeper reason beyond the points currently being discussed on your blog. May I submit to you, for your consideration, this thought. Conceding the fact that the clintons are very smart people. The clintons face these three questions, perhaps more but, these three are central, and continue to be unanswered. Tax returns since 2002? Peter Paul vs Clinton? Donors to Clinton Library? Are the clintons avoiding these questions, remaining in the nomination, hoping to win the nomination and presidency? And in doing so, gain executive, and political cover? Perhaps access to federal agencies to intimidate accusers? Their past behavior suggests much of the same. Your, and your blogs, thoughts please.

- jcvolcano

March 24, 2008 at 1:42pm

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

I will never get behind Obama. Never. Anybody but Obama. He is a dangerous traitor with a secret agenda.

- susan

March 24, 2008 at 1:43pm

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

J. Olivares writes: "The Ds are thoroughly confused and showing their true colors" Well, if the Ds had started out with a herd of mediocraties like the Rs, they too would have wrapped up our nominating process in 4 weeks. Those who are so gleeful at this seeming disarray , or so envious of the Republicans' unity seem to forget that not a month ago, a certain Talk Radio Blowhard bloviated that McCain's nomination would signal the end of the GOP. I'm waiting. So it's taking a while. So it's chaotic. To quote one of the great philosophers of the 21st century, "Freedom is untidy."

- Dubyadoubter

March 24, 2008 at 1:46pm

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

Destruction of the Democrat party could be at hand. Two candidates from two factions of the big tent party are fighting each other. So, whose turn is it to lead the ticket in the fall; the Feminist who stood by her man or, the Afro-American of fine speeches? Neither did any of the hard work to get the honor but both want the hardest job in the world. The whole world wonders... who will win.

- LCDR

March 24, 2008 at 1:48pm

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

It ain't so, I'm African American and a Hillary Supporter. Blacks are not going to turn away from Hillary...that coming out of the Obama camp so White guilt will cause them to not vote for Obama. Yes there will be some that won't vote for Hillary...like the New Black Panther Party that is endorsing Obama and had an recruitment link on his campaign website.

- say it ain't so

March 24, 2008 at 1:48pm

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

That crack at McCain for the Boeing matter shows either ignorance or willful disingenousness on the pary of the author. McCain intervened to make it a competitive process and the taxpayers got a better deal because of it. If the Dems are dumb enough to really want to argue that issue, they will lose.

- J Downs

March 24, 2008 at 1:53pm

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

Let's face it. Would you like to be lied to by the Clintons again? They've have done it before, who says they are not gonna do it again. The sign are written on the wall. Take the Nafta issue. She went on television crying foul, "Shame on you Obama." We now know from those 11,000 documents released that she was a strong voice canvasing for the passage of the NAFTA treaty. In the course of this campaign, in an attempt to polish her commander in chief credential she claimed that onced on a mission to Bosnia, she was forced to escape as bullets were flying above her and her daughter. But video taken on the scene tells a different story. In that video, Clinton, flanked by her daughter was seen attending to kids and smilling, an evident that shows they were not facing any danger. Judging by the 11,000 documents released, Hillary again did not show the right judgement as her husband was busy having sex in the whitehouse virtually at the same moment she was in the whitehouse. A curious woman must be wondering about the whereabout of her man's long stay in the whitehouse toilet as it takes a long time to ejaculate. "Bill, where are you? Bill are you ok? She overlooked it, having known Bill for years as a porno star. Please please, for God sake Hillary is not prepared to be a commander in chief, because she lacks the right judgement.

- BBking

March 24, 2008 at 1:54pm

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

Now that is a good idea...have the frontrunner drop out. Nver in the history of American politics has that happen. Consider this, if Clinton were ahead in popular vote, delegates, and states won what would Obama be expected to do.

- DeepJ

March 24, 2008 at 1:56pm

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

Hillary's new strategy is to win in 2012. But to do this she must make Obama unelectable in 2008. Unfortunately, the Clinton's have three to four more changes to win the White House. Ugh!!!

- James

March 24, 2008 at 1:57pm

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

It reminds me of the old song "I Keep On Crashing In The Same Car." They had such a golden chance this year with Republican conservatives ready to sit out the election. No more after PastorGate. I don't want Obama within a MILE of the White House now! How do you Dems EVER expect to win back the White House with candidates like Kerry, Edwards, and Hillary, whom voters in Flyover Country detest? The damn shame of it is, I actually bought into Obama's platitudes on change and hope and was considering voting for him. I see Wright through him now. Better luck in 2012, Dems. This one's over. Hail to the Chief, President McCain!

- JohnnyT

March 24, 2008 at 1:59pm

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

The Presidency is at stake and all we talk about are FEELINGS? I am FEELING more like an independent with every headline. This FEELS like a year long high school student council race. Everyone...stop...breathe...and GROW UP! If we keep up this silly divisiveness (The party & the country)then we won't have to worry about the U.S. drilling for oil in the once virgin Alaskan Tundra...because the Chinese will be doing it!!!

- Lord Humongous

March 24, 2008 at 2:00pm

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

i'm troubled with this article's lack of research. two points about mccain's supposed advantages over mccain: 1. mccain's spiritual adviser ALSO thinks america is partaking in a genocide against african americans, though he sees it through aborton 2. mccain doesn't know anything about foreign policy, see his confusing shia and sunni and al qaeda and iran. do ten minutes of research

- riiight

March 24, 2008 at 2:01pm

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

The premise of the article parrots conventional wisdom and practical reality, no argument with it's conclusions. But the contorted logic, breathtaking ignorance, and hyper-focus on conspiracy theories that typify Democrat political analysis never ceases to amaze me. Noam thinks the "apocalypse" of 1980 was due to a Kennedy/Carter rift? Carter was the incumbent, Mr. Genius. "Ham-handed rhetoric?" How about ham-handed policy? I know, you'll never admit that Reagan appealed to millions of intelligent, well-informed Americans. There's a hard-wired circuit in your brain that tells you we were all idiots. But the reality is that Reagan would have trounced Carter even if Kennedy had kissed him on the lips. And such a travesty of the page 6 burying of the McCain/Airbus connection. I mean, what more proof do you need that the media is dominated by those "right wing lunatics?" He must be guilty of corruption, he's got an R behind his name! No doubt the NY Times is burying this story due to psychic vibrations from Rupert Murdoch. But the author does hit one nail on the head, albeit relaying a trusim: "Democrats have never been known for Spock-like rationality." Ya darn skippy.

- RMB

March 24, 2008 at 2:03pm

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

Everybody knows that another 4 years of GOP rule is going to be a disaster. While many of the GOP rank and file have issues with blacks, most white Americans are not knuckle-dragging idiots who can be race-baited into voting against their own interests. No matter how questionable I find Wright's comments to be, I am not going to vote for McCain. 1) McCain believes that Americans should be put out of work so that international billionaires can make more money. 2) McCain wants to spend my tax money on a stupid war. 3) McCain confesses that he doesn't know the first thing about the economy. Voting for another Republican, at this point, is about the same thing burning the flag... while it is wrapped around our citizens.

- BT

March 24, 2008 at 2:05pm

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

It's obvious that HRC (knowing she can't win the nomination) is only staying in the race in order to weaken Obama's chances of winning in November, thereby clearing a path for her to run again in 2012. A weak, desperate and pathetic strategy.

- jason

March 24, 2008 at 2:05pm

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

"Obama needs to drop out now before he takes the party down with him. He's unelectable now thanks to Pastorgate." I don't get that line of thinking. I'm a life-long Republican, but I think Bush is a disaster. I'll vote for Obama over McCain. But I'll vote for McCain over Clinton. I don't know anyone within my demographic (30ish affluent families) that isn't either an Obama or a McCain supporter. I'd say the split among my social circle is Obama 70%, McCain 30%, Clinton 0%. Just my $0.02

- ceejay

March 24, 2008 at 2:07pm

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

Suppose McCain advances Bobby Jindal of Louisiana as VP, while MzBill and Obama deadlock beyond repair. Might not Denver's magical Superdelegates then consider Duval Patrick of Massachusetts to counter Jindal, possibly allied with a suitable female non-Senator such as Minnesota's ultra-left incumbent? McCain is Bob Dole redux. Duval Patrick is a peculating bloviator. But at least, a) Patrick's neither a Senator nor a deca-millionaire tort lawyer, and b) Fusing melanin with estrogen might stick it to the aging, egregious RINO alternative.

- John Blake

March 24, 2008 at 2:11pm

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

But the Republicans have nothing to offer unless Ron Paul gets the nomination. I can't see myself voting for Amnesty McCain.

- Alex

March 24, 2008 at 2:11pm

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

You cant base Hillary being ahead in the popular vote because of the votes in Michigan... Everyone else pulled their names out...

- Tim

March 24, 2008 at 2:13pm

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

I don't see a scenario where things go well for the democrats at this point. It will go to at least June, and even then I doubt that Hillary will accept it if the superdelegates back Obama. I think Hillary will only accept defeat in Denver, and that would only give us nine weeks to unite the party. It's really a bad scenario, any way you look at it. I could never in a billion years vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton -- she's a sleazy, lying, corrupt, conniving guttersnipe. But I do not like geriatric John, either. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will simply write-in Obama at the top of the ticket -- I could never, ever give my vote to her.

- Marie

March 24, 2008 at 2:17pm

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

Obama is not dropping out anymore than Clinton is dropping out. So the democrats need to make up their mind. If we think McCain is what this country needs then vote McCain. And 4 years from now we'll be having the same conversations that we are today. How to get out of Iraq. How to stop the bleeding of the middle class. How to get off of our dependence on foreign oil. Only then we'll probably be paying $5.00 per gallon. Or we can decide not that come hell or high water a Dem is going to be in the POTUS; that either will be better than more of the same. To take this personally; is to be selfish and not looking out for what would be best for the country.

- TheurbanRevolution

March 24, 2008 at 2:22pm

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

Post No. 58 - "Obama/Farrakhan 08". If it happens the Wright fiasco will seem like a walk in the park.

- Ed

March 24, 2008 at 2:23pm

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

I can see the ads now: Patriotism means sentencing our young people to more deaths and injuries. Patriotism means that universal health care = the emergency room. Patriotism means not trying to make our country better but settling for status quo. Patriotism means making sure that the disenfranchised stay that way. on and on and on. DEMOCRATS CAN FRAME TOO - that's an argument with John McCain that I would love to have.

- Lisa

March 24, 2008 at 2:25pm

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

I've lost count of how many Obama supporters there are here compelling us to look at the Rev. Wright's hateful tirades in context, or try to explain them away as reflective of the "black experience" in this country and not unusual for a black church, or to ignore all the good deeds the Rev. Wright has done in his community. For the life of me I can't recall anyone asking for Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" statement to be put in the context of his overall ranting that day, or how that was typical speech for an inflammatory talk show host, or how his charitable contributions and founding of Imus' Camp For Kids was in any way exculpatory. Also, if the Rev. Wright's anti-American and racist ranting is par for the course in black American churches, that is a big part of the problem of race in this country, NOT the solution. I might also point out that blacks aren't the only ones getting the wrong end of the racial stick in this country. Other than the color of their skin, how is what happened to the Scottsboro Six any different from what happened to the Duke lacrosse team? They were both railroaded and judged by racial lynch mobs before the juries were even assembled. And NONE of the worst of the instigators in either case ever had to pay a price, neither the white boys in Scottsboro who started it all or the 88 professors at Duke who signed a Proclamation of Guilt before the press ink on the incident was even dry. BTW Scottsboro was 80 years ago. Duke was last year. Who has more right to be angry today? But being angry about it is a choice I choose not make. Doesn't help the situation, does it? Last word. I am white, but I grew up in the "black experience" in a mixed-race crime ridden drug-infested urban housing project outside Boston. I have plenty of things I could be bitter or resentful about. Nobody ever handed me anything on a silver platter. But I picked myself up and worked my way out of there and moved on with my life. THAT is the American Way, not simmering in grievances of the past and blaming others for your own goddamn shortcomings. Suck it up and get a life.

- JohnnyT

March 24, 2008 at 2:25pm

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

The public battle between Hillary (not Rodham)Clinton and Barack Obama must stand as proof as to what the Democratic Party is about: Ego. Not the greater good. Ego. Not the future of the United States of America. Ego. Oversized, obscene, and rude ego. A fact all voters must keep in mind come the election. http://theoutlander.blogstream.com

- The Outlander

March 24, 2008 at 2:27pm

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

It's amazing to see supporters of democrats lose sight of what really matters. Unlike those who support republicans, democrats are so trivial that they refuse to back a candidate. Now of course the first step is for a candidate to drop out, say Hilary Clinton considering she is losing and has no hope of over taking Obama. Do you think that the core republicans though Bush would have been better then Mc Cain, of course not, they just liked -W- because he was more personable and charismatic. Either democratic candidate has a good chance at beating Mc Cain when it comes to issues. Hillary is a hawk and has good ideas to stimulate the economy, Mc Cain is old questionable ability to handle emotions and still because his party understands that wht matters is solidarity Romney goes as far as endorsing a candidate the party doesn't even like. Democrats especially Hilary supporters are willing to entrench themselves with deluded ideas instead of zeroing in on the prize. I mean at least its clear Obama is more likeable and capable of garnering a substantially minority vote. Thats important. So if anyone is to blame, its the people who are pig headed enough to lose sight of how loyalty is what helps win elections and the republicans show that. Thats what I used to tell my common law before breaking up with her, loyalty over honesty thats all anyone ever really wants.

- David Bohorquez

March 24, 2008 at 2:30pm

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

You may very well be right. IMHO, Obama is riding a wave of personal charisma and lacks real substance. Nonetheless, Clinton's only shot at the nomination is for Obama to make such a huge mistake or have something so appalling surface from his past that he cannot be the nominee. In spite of Pastorgate, there certainly isn't any way of knowing if that will happen. At 72, McCain may be viewed as a caretaker president. President Bush has been a disaster for the Republican Party. McCain may be viewed as someone who can fix some of what's gone wrong and re-establish some credibility in the Presidency. What are the odds of him getting a second term that would end when he's 80 years old? Hillary Clinton will only be 64.

- Aldyth

March 24, 2008 at 2:35pm

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

Dems took control of the House and Senate and gas has doubled under their control. Just wait until they control the White House too! $10/gal coming at a pump near you!

- Mda

March 24, 2008 at 2:36pm

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

If Clinton wins the nomination she will not win the general election. She is a snake and it appears that the Republicans were right about Bill and Hill 12 years ago. They will do anything to win.

- georgia

March 24, 2008 at 2:36pm

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

To: Posted by KellyJ 133 of 194 I was wondering when someone else was going to notice that very fact. I was on the fence regarding Hillary and Obama, however the Obamabots have pushed (no, shoved) me off the fence with their belligerent behavior in regards to their candidate. I'm in Kentucky and my vote still counts and it will be for Hillary.

- Michelle

March 24, 2008 at 2:38pm

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

The Dems do not have a choice. From the Blacks that I have talked to, if Obama does not get the nomination the least that will happen will be a serious division of the party. I think that such a mistake by the Dems could ignite that second Civil War. Only this time the good guys will win.

- drdave

March 24, 2008 at 2:41pm

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

The entire primary escapade can be attributed to a thourough lack of planning: Senator Clinton thought the trip to the Whitehouse was going to be a Springtime Waltz. Unfortunately, she was a victim to her press clippings and a complete disreguard of the happenings during her first lady Clinton administration. Howard Dean, in a complete disaster as DNC chair, stacked the deck for Sen Clinton and set hard "rules" in the primary that now will bite the DNC in the butt. Now any decision that is made will alienate some group. If Denver decides to put Sen Clinton, a good portion of the democratic base will be disenfranchised. If the decision is for Sen Obama, then another group by the wayside. Wow. let's make sure a democrat gets in office.

- robert.dixon@okstate.edu

March 24, 2008 at 2:43pm

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

Jesse Jackson is a real man; Hussein Obama is the worst candidate to run for president in my lifetime. If the Democratic party is stupid enough to run this slimeball, Hillary needs to bolt the party and run as an Independent--and I think she will.

- zorro

March 24, 2008 at 2:47pm

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

"I don't know anyone within my demographic (30ish affluent families) that isn't either an Obama or a McCain supporter. I'd say the split among my social circle is Obama 70%, McCain 30%, Clinton 0%. Just my $0.02" Why would anyone who is 30-ish and affluent want Obama, unless they don't care about their taxes going ski high and not having an ability to save for the child's education.

- Chris-NYC

March 24, 2008 at 2:48pm

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

McCain has a "shadow relationship" with Scarebus? TOM DASHOLE's wife was on the Boeing PAYROLL when Tommy was Majority Leader...and tried to jam a "leased aircraft" deal down the Air Force's throat. The fact that this issue is still hot goes back to that little dummycrat scandal. Now, when Goron lost the dummycrats said "down with the popular vote" - when John (did you know he was a Vietnam vet?) Kerry LOST he "should have won" EVEN though he was four (4) million DOWN in the popular vote. Which is it, dummycrats, make up your minds, popular vote on not? Whatever is it, I want you to kmnow how much we in the GOP are enjoying this. You can't even run a primary, never mind a country.

- Dick Tuck

March 24, 2008 at 2:58pm

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

It's time for Obama to give it up and stop selfishly destroying the party. Hillary is a candidate of destiny and has about 30 years of experience to his 4.

- colin boudreaux

March 24, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

The DNC devised a system such that, in very close race such as this one, in which no candiate secures enough pledged delegates to secure the momination, the superdelegates get to decide the matter. One can debate the wisdom of this system (and indeed it looks very foolish as we sit here today), but what makes very little sense is to say that the superdelegates should simply support, en masse, whoever has more pledged delegates after the primary season. It does seem that Hillary has the better argument here. The Obama supporters who cry that the only way she can win is to "steal" the nomination just add to the bitterness and resentment, and make a McCain victory more likely in the general.

- Steve

March 24, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

Seems like the 2000 Florida election all over again

- Truth

March 24, 2008 at 3:04pm

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

that photo is gross.

- alien

March 24, 2008 at 3:06pm

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

So you are for Mccain/Hillary ticket? That should actually make sense. Hillary will fit right in. Thanks for being honest.

- akilis

March 24, 2008 at 3:08pm

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

noam should be drug tested

- jj

March 24, 2008 at 3:09pm

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

This constant drumbeat of "Hillary should just drop out now - she's got no chance", which has basically been going on since the close of the Iowa Caucuses in varying levels of intensity, is just silly. Can you name me one other candidate, in any other primary season, in any party (Democrat, Replublican, Whig, Mugwhump - any party at all), at any time in American History, who has dropped out with the race so close and so many states left to vote? And with the absolute certainty that neither candidate will have a MAJORITY of votes once the Primary season is concluded? (You know, for the people that constantly like to preen about "rules are rules", isn't it the rule that the candidate needs to get 50% plus one of the delegates to get the nomination? So the nominating races ISN'T over until somebody actually accomplishes that)?

- buffaloboy

March 24, 2008 at 3:09pm

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

question: does Hillary know she is going to lose so she is beating up on O so he loses to McCain so she can run in '12?

- mark emory

March 24, 2008 at 3:10pm

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

Lisa I see you are focusing on the definition of Patriotism, How about this: Socialism means everybody waits in teh emergenecy room for health care; Socialism means anyone not living at the poverty level should be shamed into giving half their earnings to the government through taxation; Socialism means stiflining intitative, through treaties, economic policies, and regulation, so America looks like the rest of the world; Socialism means having the choice of two mirror-image candidates with the same tax and spend solutions, but retaining the idea of independent voting; Socialism means hodling primary elections and then letting the party elite chose the actual candidate. for 70 years the Soviet Union tried these type of "progressive" solutions, and failed miserably. want to try again?

- Truth

March 24, 2008 at 3:15pm

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

yeah, it's over for the democrats. thanks for ruining our future, clintons.

- Timmy

March 24, 2008 at 3:16pm

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

It is always about the Clintons and no one else. Clintons made sure that Al Gore could not win in 2000. They did not support John Kerry in 2004. Clintons know they can not possibly win the nomination this time but they are just bloodying Obama so they can come back in 2012. I have news for them: Half the democrats hate them passionately. Obama supporters will never vote for a Clinton again even 4 years or 24 years from now.

- Pat: 50 year old white woman

March 24, 2008 at 3:16pm

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

I recently read another blog and wholeheartedly agree. The first minority or woman president will not be a Democrat. Until Democrats come to terms with their sexism and racism, they will never win the Presidency. Republicans have elected several minority/woman to very high positions (Thomas, Powell, Rice, etc..) while Democrats reserve those positions to their elite. The Wright incedent is the first time in ages that racism was brought up in a negative light against a Democrat. Democrats freely use derogatory racial slurs aimed at republicans without a second thought and it is veiwed as "free speech". Until they look deep into their parties past and come to terms with it, they will never be electable.

- tv2112

March 24, 2008 at 3:19pm

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

Hillary Clinton should persevere in her debating. The very fact that she shows herself as a gutter fighter increases the respect she has by her followers and increases her chance of success as is true of every hero.She has put too much time and effort to give up now! As all things are subject to change, Fortune may take a different course tn the near future. the answer lies in Destiny.

- ratdragon

March 24, 2008 at 3:20pm

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

hmmmmm Reagan, Reagan, Bush?

- M. Perry

March 24, 2008 at 3:20pm

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

If Clinton wins the nomination she will not win the general election. She is a snake and it appears that the Republicans were right about Bill and Hill 12 years ago. They will do anything to win.

- georgia

March 24, 2008 at 3:24pm

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

Welcome to the party!

- James

March 24, 2008 at 3:25pm

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

Lisa I see you are focusing on the definition of Patriotism, How about this: Socialism means everybody waits in teh emergenecy room for health care; Socialism means anyone not living at the poverty level should be shamed into giving half their earnings to the government through taxation; Socialism means stiflining intitative, through treaties, economic policies, and regulation, so America looks like the rest of the world; Socialism means having the choice of two mirror-image candidates with the same tax and spend solutions, but retaining the idea of independent voting; Socialism means hodling primary elections and then letting the party elite chose the actual candidate. for 70 years the Soviet Union tried these type of "progressive" solutions, and failed miserably. want to try again?

- Truth

March 24, 2008 at 3:26pm

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

I love this. The cherry on top for me will be when Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawly are marching in front of the DNC chanting "no justice, no vote"....hahaha Go Mcain

- andrew

March 24, 2008 at 3:33pm

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

If it is between Clinton and Obama, there is no question in my mind who I will vote for. Obama has ruined any chance of winning with his connection to Wright and Wright's church and the Rezko thing. With most of the press in bed with Obama, it is no wonder that it took so long for the Wright debacle to come to our attention. There is no way, as a white person, I can vote for a man who goes to a church that would pray to God to Damn American and white people. If the Democrats are stupid enough to put Obama as their nominee then they want to lose to McCain. They have no choice, really, because they have done all they can (via the left-wing press) to ruin Hillary Clinton. What a stupid, stupid party with stupid, stupid people who call themselves Progressive!

- Observer

March 24, 2008 at 3:35pm

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

Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily petulant temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidacy suggests that Slick is very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck

- Greg Neubeck

March 24, 2008 at 3:43pm

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

So, let me get this straight... The superdelegates will vote for Obama because they don't want to alienate the black people, right? Then the Democratic Party is the Black Party now? Wow! Let's all be afraid of pissing off black people. Give me a break! This should be about who can win against McCain and I can tell you that it isn't going to be Obama.

- ylem

March 24, 2008 at 3:45pm

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

Good article except you missed the issue that because there is too much danger of alinating even more states (above Fla and MI) I do not see the super delegates solving this before June. At this point they almost have to let the process play out, even if they have in their mind already decided, until all that will be allowed to vote, vote. If they didn't then RI and NC and others would say Fla/MI you were not the only ones dienfranchised by the democtats. The only one who can end this early is one of the candidates conceeding. HRC - it does not seem likely. BO - hardly a chance that he will.

- Kevin

March 24, 2008 at 3:45pm

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

If Obama doesn't get the nomination and Hillary does we all know that the blacks are going to be pissed off to say the least. So what!? They don't seem to understand why white Americans are so upset. Where are they going to go anyway? To Republicans? Yeah, right. They only have one party which is the Democratic "Black" Party.

- noitall

March 24, 2008 at 3:49pm

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

Don't know why you want Obama in the white House. If he gets in they will change the name to the Mexican house. This man want to legalize the 30 million illegals here plus their familes. The man is not for American is is for illegals.

- Rich

March 24, 2008 at 3:50pm

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

It looks like the Democrats are stuck with Obama just like Obama is stuck with Reverend Wright and his grievances against the US. It would have been hard enough for Obama to win without Wright. Prepare for disaster in November.

- Dr J

March 24, 2008 at 3:50pm

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

Lunatic right? How about democrat pandering to the lunatic left? That is every bit as big of an issue. It has been and will continue to be a major factor in Presidential politics. Democrat contenders must run as far left as possible to get nominated by the cuckoos at the convention, which makes it nigh on impossible to get elected in the general. Howard Dean is a lunatic. Putting him in charge of a political party is asking for disaster, which is what has happened. I am not a republican by choice, I am forced to that end by a democrat party that is totally unacceptable due to their America-hating apologist ways. Their stance on most social issues repulses me. I would love to see a middle of the road democrat step forward, but the party is controlled by the NEA, a truly offensive organization that is largely to blame for the collapse of out educational system. I confess I hadn't considered that HRC would pursue a strategy of damaging Obama so that he would lose the general election so that she could run against a much older McCain in 2012, but that may be exactly what she is doing. At any rate I can't imagine her quitting her campaign short of the convention. The damage done to Obama by HRC and the hate-spewing minister is likely to fatally damage his campaign, despite the valiant efforts of Chris Matthews who is in the orgasmic throes of a man-crush unlike any ever seen before. Obama is playing a zero sum game; his stock cannot rise, only fall. He has been accorded idol status by the press and his followers. The spotlight of a national campaign will expose his lack of depth for all to see. The lofty rhetoric will not withstand the scrutiny of a rigorous campaign.

- Ross

March 24, 2008 at 3:50pm

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

Mda I know some of the visitors to this board like to keep it fact free, but as it relates to gas prices, here are the facts: When W came to office on January 20, 2000, the national average for a gallon of gas was $1.46. Six and a half years later, before the Democrats came to power, it was $2.76 a gallon. That's 89% higher. When Bill Clinton came to office gas was $1.06 and $1.22 six and half years later. A 15% increase. Nice try, but facts are facts. Gasoline prices have soared because of demand, instability in oil markets (wonder why that might be?) and the falling value of the dollar.

- Pat Hendrix

March 24, 2008 at 3:53pm

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

Timmy: You blame the mess the Dems are in on the Clintons! Why not blame Obama also. He is the one who promised a change and gave us $change.

- Iknow

March 24, 2008 at 3:54pm

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

To: TD (post 66) I guess you have a good sense of irony correcting grammar while writing "some of the poster [sic]" - well played sir (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

- bobby

March 24, 2008 at 3:57pm

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

To: TD (post 66) I guess you have a good sense of irony correcting grammar while writing "some of the poster [sic]" - well played sir (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

- bobby

March 24, 2008 at 3:58pm

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

You democrats sure like to eat your own. I am a Regan conservative who wouldn’t vote for McCain if he were the only person on the November ballot yet I despise the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. She couldn’t even face down her own husband so how can I believe she has what it takes to face down other world leaders. As to her so called experience: what is that? She was “first lady”. Billy never even saw fit to make her a cabinet member. She has the same credentials as Laura Bush. In fact even more as I believe they share a more time together. Mr. Obama, in my view, is inspirational. He is a leader and yes, he is inexperienced. So what! I will be voting for him in the fall if he wins or I will write in Ron Paul.

- R Regan conservative

March 24, 2008 at 4:03pm

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

The thing that really concerns me the most is the Obama people are using the same charges the right wing has used against Hillary for the last 16 years. I think that this turn of events does not bode well for the Democrat Party or the nation should Obama be elected. Has obama ever stated that he doesn'r believe these spurious charges to be true? If he has done so, I have neither read it or heard him say so.

- robert trajan

March 24, 2008 at 4:04pm

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

Clinton needs to drop out now before she takes the party down with her. She was never electable due to scandals and ethical lapses too numerous to list here (not to mention her contribution to getting us a GOP Congress thanks to Hillarycare). Plus it's inevitable that after every state's voted, Obama will continue to lead in the popular vote. And god help the party if they try to include Florida and Michigan.

- JohnH

March 24, 2008 at 4:05pm

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

What we have for the next 4 years under a Clinton Presidency: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008. Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down." There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events. The Facts (Updated below) As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996. Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret. According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division. Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss. "There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it." The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.) You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way. See clarification below. According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you." Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me. Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport. UPDATE Friday 6:45 p.m. Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below: I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter. UPDATE Saturday 8:45 a.m. Gen. Nash says that I misquoted him in saying he was unaware of any "security threat" to the First Lady. While he was unaware of any "sniper threat," he now tells me there were a couple of "security concerns" that day, which he found out about after returning to his headquarters after greeting Clinton at the airport. There was a "non-specific report" of a possible truck bomb in the area. The military also had information that "some of the communications associated with the First Lady's visit were being monitored." "In both cases, we took appropriate security action," said Nash, adding that Clinton's visit was not disrupted. Anybody else with first-hand memories of Clinton's Tuzla trip, please send them along. The Pinocchio Test Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

- agmines

March 24, 2008 at 4:05pm

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

I have always viewed the Clintons as just another pair of ambitious self-serving politicians until this primary. But I have come to believe whole-heartedly that they would say anything, and would probably do anything, to get her into the White House. No matter what damage it does to the Democrat Party, no matter what damage it does to other people ( that least of all), and no matter what it does to the country. If she is behind in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote count at the end of the primary, it would be Armegeddon for her to pull off some back-room deal with the super-delegates. McCain would beat her in a landslide when angry black voters defect or merely stay home.

- Chris

March 24, 2008 at 4:06pm

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

Obama let the votes count in Florida! Let all of America have there voice, so we will know for sure who will beat McCain. What are you afraid of?

- Jeannette

March 24, 2008 at 4:08pm

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

This is completely emotional: Since watching the Rev. Wright hate sermons I have a hard time looking black people in the eye. I think its because I now know how strongly they dislike me because of my skin color and that they will always blame white people for slavery in this country -- all white people, with no exceptions. It also made me see how much they hate America. I know this because I see the numbers (percentages) of black people who are voting for Obama. White America has tried very hard to make up for slavery and it doesn't seem to be appreciated that many blacks are very successful because of it. It is sad to realize that racism by blacks toward whites will never go away no matter what white people do. Until black Americans can forgive the white and African people who enslaved them, there will never be a coming together. As long as black people keep using what happened in the past as a leverage to get something in the present, there will never be a coming together.

- Truth

March 24, 2008 at 4:12pm

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

To Todd Downey, We Republicans are constructive everyday of our life. We work. Look at your voter base. Inspiring, no? Popcorn.

- Kansasgirl

March 24, 2008 at 4:14pm

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

Obama would not have the current number of delegates had ALL states' elections adopted the secret voting system instead of allowing caucuses in the smaller states where Obama YOUNG COLLEGE supporters were in the majority. Seniors, like myself, do not like to opt for one or the candidate in public. However, we do vote in greater numbers at the General Election than the younger adults. Furthemore, I also understand that you had to show up at specific times of the day which is also a deterrent for us.

- Charles De Mets

March 24, 2008 at 4:17pm

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

You have to look at the whole picture and its not very appealing in my opinion.We have insane McCain,racist Obama,and hideous Hillary.Not one of them are qualified to be president.None are leaders! So I hope the next time around for president whoever is picked will concentrate on substance and less on sound bites.Also unless he has any physical problems McCain will probably be the next pres.

- digger48

March 24, 2008 at 4:18pm

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

A few points Democrats seem to be forgetting as the fret over the nomination process this year; 1) If the primaries fail to produce a nominee with a majority based upon primary-pledged delegates alone, that means neither candidate has a moral claim upon the Party's nomination, and the "superdelegates" should feel free to vote for the person they believe will be the best nominee, which is why their presence was included in the process in the first place. 2) It is in the interest of neither Florida nor Michigan Democrats to have their delegates pledged to either candidate, either on the basis of the past "illegal" primaries or any proposed "do-over". Their best interests are served by sending a slate of delegates to the Convention pledged to no candidate or to a favorite son candidate, putting themselves in the position of being this year's 'kingmakers' in the presidential nominating process. Isn't this what most states did before presidential primaries became so popular? 3) The point of the nominating process is not the select the candidate supported by the majority of voters motivated to come out and vote in Democrat Party primaries this year. The point is two-fold - first, to nominate the candidate the convention delegates believe, at the time they cast their convention ballots, will be most likely to achieve victory in the Presidential race, and second, to nominate the Presidential candidate they believe will make it easier for their State Party to elect the rest of their candidates this November. The same also holds true for Republicans. The virtue of a Presidential nominating process so dominated by primary results is vastly overrated. We should stop treating primaries as a shibboleth.

- William Dalton

March 24, 2008 at 4:21pm

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

AGMINES: I know you think you have a lot to say but make it short. No one here wants to read all that dribble.

- dianeremarx

March 24, 2008 at 4:22pm

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

Cover photo caption: "Jackson Browne: The Early Years"

- williamyard

March 24, 2008 at 4:23pm

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

The Super Delegates should vote their conscience, their experience and their knowledge of politics for the reasons given in a slightly different context by Edmund Burke. http://www.econlib.org/Library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html 2008 is a winnable election. Despite the name calling and beside the point objections either Hillary or Obama could beat McCain stressing economic issues and the way a democrat administration can cure the wrongs of the immediate past. But the super delegates must exercise their independent judgment in light of the conditions leading up to Denver. To do otherwise is to abdicate responsibility and give the republicans an undeserved four more years. Neither Obama nor Hillary can "steal" an election conducted in conformity with party rules. Meghan

- Meghan

March 24, 2008 at 4:23pm

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

CHRIS: Where are angry blacks going to defect too? They are too stupid to see that the Republicans are the only party that has given blacks high positions of power. In fact, they call those blacks Uncle Toms instead of giving them (like Rice) credit for getting where they have. Black people are so screwed up in their hate that they can't see past it. It is their own undoing.

- Trust

March 24, 2008 at 4:26pm

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

What I do not understand how can you hold Sen. Obama responsible for something his preacher said? How many people have heard an older uncle, grandmother, friend say something about another race at thanksgiving dinner? Did anyone challenge that relative/friend or walked out of thanksgiving dinner? I do not think so. You just ignored it. I have to admit when I sit in church I am not paying attention half the time. I am praying or thinking about other issues. There are times I have not always heard the sermon in totality even if I am sitting there. I do not agree with everything my pastor says. It goes through one ear and out the other. I look to him for spiritual comfort. The sad part is that the critics and readers did not hear the entire sermon or the context. Rev Wright is a man of his times. You have to remember Rev Wright grew up in 40s, 50s and 60s. There were killings, lynchings, cross burnings, poor education and segregation. Include poverty and the history of slavery as a backdrop. Many blacks were afraid to stand up for their rights. You could not even register to vote in many places with out being killed. People like Rev. Wright stood up and fought for equal rights. He was a warrior that was needed at that time to fight against the unequal treatment of blacks. He showed the example of leadership that was needed at the time. You cannot hold someone accountable for remarks said by another person. Sen Obama respects older individuals. Just like the rest of us. When they go on their rants about various issues. We understand they lived through those terrible times. Rev. Wright and many others are still reliving those times in their minds. Even if we are moving slowly forward as a society. We did not walk in Rev. Wright's shoes or experienced the terrible things he and others African Americans have witnessed. The question is how did he come to have those viewpoints? It had to be based on past injustices he experienced? There was the Tuskegee experiment where the government agency studied syphilis in black men from 1932 to 1972. The syphilis was left untreated and the men were not told of the diagnosis. The Public Health agency wanted to study the effects of syphilis on a group of Black uneducated sharecroppers. They were not told the true nature of the experiment. They did not give treatment for syphilis or in many cases prevented treatment. They wanted to see how the diseases affect the human body over a period of time. Out of 399 men in the experiment 130 died, 40 of their wives infected and 19 children born with the disease. See link to read the full story. You many have to cut and paste in google to go to the link. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html President Clinton did apologize for this incident. That is why Rev. Wright and other African Americans say the government created aids. Everyone said these types of experiments would not happen in the United States of America. It would only happen in Nazi Germany. The Tuskegee experiment is an example of why Rev. Wright and other African Americans feel the government is behind aids. It ended in 1972, which is not that long ago. Every government official knew about it right up to the various surgeon generals of the agency. When it was finally exposed everyone involved said they were only following orders from above. Sounds familiar? When he said, "White men" he was not refering to the regular people. He is talking about the people in charge or (in power) who historically abused African americans. African Americans know that this term does not refer to all white people. It means people like the police, mayors, goverment/state officials, FBI, CIA, business leaders and various individuals, etc that supported and enforced discrimination against African Americans. It is a term that came down from slavery times, through Jim Crow. Example: It was only in 2000 that interracial marriage was legalized in the State of Alabama. Only seven years ago. I know all the readers assume the laws were changed back in the 60s. You have to understand the context and the history before you say it was racist. (How Sen. Obama can be connected to these comments by Rev. Wright?) I know you say things are different now. I would agree it has improved but we have a long way to go. A lot of prejudice and discrimination has gone underground. It is not open like it uses to be. I understand why Sen. Obama did not leave the church. He looked at all the good Rev. Wright did for the community. Soup kitchens, helping the poor, getting people off drugs, homeless shelters, free meals for the poor etc,etc. You have to look at the man in totality and not a 20 second video clip taken out of context. I have heard similiar comments. I do understand the history and the context of the comments. Like many Americans I have friends with varing viewpoints. I do not agree with them but we are still friends. I will not drop a friend because I disagree with his or her viewpoints. I do understand the times that Rev. Wright grew up in. Sen Obama should not drop Rev. Wright because he disagrees with his comments. Nor should he be held accountable for those comments. I would understand if Sen. Obama said those words. However, it came from a pastor, mentor and a friend. He is older person who Sen Obama respects. He did not want to disrespect an older person or get into arguments. (I have done the same thing with older people.) He understands why he said those things even if he does not agree with the comments. I do agree that Sen Obama is there for the spiritual comfort. I am the same way and ignor things I do not agree with. You cannot hold him responsible for someone's comments. Just like the readers of this blog cannot be held responsible for their friends or religious leaders comments. Does everyone agree with the comments from the pope or other religious leaders? Probally not. Does these leaders represent your viewpoints? Have you left the church, temple, or synagogue because you disagreed with you religious leader's comments? Have you disputed your religious leader's comments with that individual? Again, probally not. This is about "Much ado about nothing". We should be discussing the issues of the campaign. Not about what another person has said and the comments did not come from Sen. Obama. I finally have to mention when he said G.D. America and 9/11. He is remembering everything he and others have personally experienced. Rev. Wright goes back in time and remembers the four little girls killed in the Church Bombings. (They did not convict anyone until recently). The lynchings, many unsolved civil right killings, burnings, riding the back of the bus and discrimination. He remembers being humiliated on a daily basis. It was the law of the land at the time for many years. He equates this with the government. Rev. Wright and other African Americans are still angry about those times. By the way discrimination and abuse still exist today. Many of us are still experiencing discrimination today despite the progress. It is now underground versus the law of the land. An example is that some concentration survivors and families do not like Germans or anything related to Germany. Not all Germans of that period or born after the war was responsible the crimes. Many governments including the US stood by while they were tortured and killed. Many today are still angry about their experiences. Many African Americans experienced or witnesses many terrible things. They are still angry and bitter. They have just cause to be. It is easy to say " they should just get over it" if you never suffered those experiences. We all have to come together and understand why those feeling are still around. Deal with it as a country so we can move forward. That is what Sen. Obama was saying in his speech. Imagine if you were a kid and someone told your mother to give up her seat and get to back of the bus. Your mother would have to comply and or be arrested. A family member was lynched because they did not give the proper respect to a"white man." You would have a lifetime of anger and your family/friends were treated in a similiar manner. Even if you are 50, 60 or 90 the anger still stays with you. The key is to deal with the anger and turn it into something positive.

-

March 24, 2008 at 4:28pm

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

Reagan in 1980, Reagan in 1984, Bush in 1988....hmmm that's 3 in a row!

- tim

March 24, 2008 at 4:28pm

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

In the end you need to ask yourself one question: Should the party that created this mess in a year when they appeared to have the upper hand be allowed to run the country? I don't think so!

- Scott

March 24, 2008 at 4:32pm

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

Both parties are ridiculous. Isn't it obvious by now that politicians in both parties only serve one master... power. They will sell their souls (and their votes) to the highest bidder. The Deomocrats have too many separate special interests to form a cohesive strategy. Republican ties to big business prevent them from caring about us except when they need our votes to get in office. It's not wonder there's so much voter apathy. Maybe someday a party will emerge in the middle that represents the majority of this great country, not just those with the biggest campaign contributions...

- Newly independent

March 24, 2008 at 4:41pm

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

Kansasgirl, Would like to provide some evidence that Republicans "work everyday" and Democrats don't? Or is this just part of the familiar and lame Republican mantra that you love your country and work for a living and Democrats are fifth columnists living on welfare? And by evidence, I don't mean that's what your daddy says. There is a reason the Republican Party is the minority party. I would suggest some of the posters on this board might want to consider the state of their own affairs before lecturing others. Afterall, by most accounts, the Democratic Party will expand its lead in the House and Senate. Think about that, a party you call unpatriotic and corrupt will expand its lead after a brusing primary. It's astounding, but true. Kind of puts things in perspective.

- Pat Hendrix

March 24, 2008 at 4:46pm

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

"Obama needs to drop out now before he takes the party down with him....." Yes, it's common practice that the current leader in polls, popular vote, delegates and states won bows out....your logic borders in insanity. Most are in agreement that it is HILLARY that should be bowing out in order to reduce the expanding schism in the party.

- KarenH

March 24, 2008 at 4:53pm

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

One wonders at the ability of Democrates in general, and the Democratic Party Leadership in particular, to think strategically. Yes, they are political streetfighters, knowing all the "local tactics" to win small fights (hence their advantage in winning the house). But really, any political novice could forsee the potential chaos that a) "proportional" rather than "winner-take-all" primaries, b) 20% unelected "super"delegates, and c) not letting the states run their own primaries when then want, would cause. Hastily "taking a position" rather than understanding how things really work gets the dems in trouble time and time again (Remember Reid's "War is Lost" comment when the control of the war was still with the administration). Really shortsigted! No wonder when Independents look at who is "mature" versus "childish"; "near-term" versus "long-term"; "local" versus "national"; and "talking about the problem" versus "doing something about the problem" (even if wrong) - they put Dems in congress and Repubicans in the White House. The people know that "Congress Talks" and the "President Acts".

- BikerBill

March 24, 2008 at 4:55pm

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

Why does everyone who supports Obama say that is nomination is the will of the majority of people: EXCEPT FOR MICHIGAN and FLORIDA... Because they don't count. Florida's republican governor moved the primaries up, and the democrats punished their own. Does OBAMA have the majority vote if we count Florida and Michigan? NO. Do loud-mouthed, pushy people who happen to have the 1-hour off to make it a caucus reflect the will of the masses? NO. Is OBAMA electable? NO. He just stole a play from Bush's "One-Liners will win you the election" play book. Furthermore, when is this country going to just make all the VOTES count. What's up with these Caucuses? And why doesn't everyone just vote on the same day - instead of drawing this nightmare out?

- Bobby

March 24, 2008 at 5:00pm

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

Hey BikerBill - OUCH - that's a little too close to the truth!

- Dr Z

March 24, 2008 at 5:03pm

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

Superdelegates Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson don't give a rip about who their constituents backed. Both of their states voted for Sen. Clinton yet they back Sen. Obama. I don't want to hear double talk from the Obama campaign about this. The Dems need to assess who can win the Electoral College and nominate that candidate, period. Polling last week showed that former President Clinton would beat Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Polling also showed Senator McCain beating both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. I want to see polling on former Vice President Gore. If he can beat Sen. McCain, I suggest thanking Senators Clinton and Obama for their efforts and nominating Mr. Gore.

- Donna1000

March 24, 2008 at 5:04pm

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

I want to hear Speaker Pelosi explain Sen. Kennedy's and Gov. Richardson's support of Sen. Obama. Sen. Clinton won Massachusetts and New Mexico. I want to see her take these guys to task publicly or find some new talking points.

- Donna1000

March 24, 2008 at 5:07pm

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

1980 was a Kennedy challenge to a sitting president. Hardly a strong comparison to 2008 and what many would say is a healthy competition for the Party's soul. Once Clinton's campaign moves out of its miracle mode and Obama's campaign can give her enough room to exit in a dignified manner, we can focus on where the ountry is already united -- against Bush and against the war.

- Linda Nabokov

March 24, 2008 at 5:09pm

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

And then she will launch Gore 2008 which is fine by me if he can win the Electoral College and neither Sen. Clinton or Obama can. I want to see polling on former VP Gore versus Sen. McCain.

- donna1000

March 24, 2008 at 5:10pm

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

Thank you.

- Donna1000

March 24, 2008 at 5:14pm

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

>>> The problem is that each day Clinton and Obama spend consumed with the other is a day that moves John McCain closer to the White House This is only a problem if you write for a leftist publication. For the two-thirds of the American population that wouldn't mind seeing McCain in the Whiet House, no problem. Yeah. No political bias at the New Republic. Nosirreebob.

- John

March 24, 2008 at 5:14pm

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

Hmmm. Wonder if the political parties know that most people still aren't paying close attention to the election yet. We're too busy trying to work enough hours to pay our ever increasing food bills, gas bills, mortgages, medical bills and local tax increases. The record amount of money that has been poured into this primary process makes me more than a bit queasy. Obama or Hillary are both quite wealthy ivy-leage educated Senators. The disconnect between the upper levels of the Democratic party and the people has never been wider. I wish that I felt confident if either one gets to be president that would change.

- CathyD

March 24, 2008 at 5:15pm

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

What this recalls to me, is McGovern in 1972: packing caucuses with radicals and getting a nominee whom the November voters will not accept. Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham volunteered for McGovern in 1972; McGovern endorsed Hillary this fall. Maybe they all learned a lesson from 1972.

- F. Steele

March 24, 2008 at 5:21pm

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

What did Obama promise Bill(Richardson)Lopez for his support--only thing that makes sense is he could carry Baracks bedpan or other menial work. Who does this jerk think he is anyway. With as few votes he got stumbling through a presidential bid, he shows no promise or benefit to anyone. Hillary, the all American girl, is lucky not to have this fat fake in her midst. Carville was right-now let Bill (Richardson)Lopez wander in the desert for the next 40 years.

- Cart

March 24, 2008 at 5:27pm

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

Perfect scenario: Hillary gets the nomination after a blowout dragout on the convention floor that devides the Democrat party. The blacks go crazy! They refuse to either a) show up and vote or b) vote for McCain both good choices. McCain will win either way. Go Hillary 08 for Democratic Nomination. But really Go McCain 08!

- ModernConservatice

March 24, 2008 at 5:31pm

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

Very sensible. Obama cannot win against McCain. Both Dems are bloodied now, but the only hope is to nominate the Dem who still has a chance against McCain, namely Hillary. A point not often enough mentioned, is that the voters of MI and FL are seeing Hillary fighting to get their votes counted (or give them a re-vote) -- and Obama fighting against their enfranchisement. If Hillary is the nominee, she may persuade them to vote for her in November in spite of their anger at the DNC.

- F. Steele

March 24, 2008 at 5:32pm

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

Is it ok for McCain to ACCEPT an endorsement from a fanatic like Hagee? Meanwhile Obama REJECTING a fanatic like Wright is considered "pastorgate". Unfortunately people have become so media illiterate that they make their decisions based on the soundbites that are fed to them. No matter what, Obama is the most American/decent candidate there has been in this election cycle. I would love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.

- Logical1

March 24, 2008 at 5:34pm

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

Actually it is the 20% bank of Superdelegates that makes it possible for the Dems to be so flexible on the other issues you mention. The Supers, being free to vote their own judgement at the last minute, can correct for bizarre gaming of the caucuses/crossovers etc -- and for late-breaking scandals.

- F. Steele

March 24, 2008 at 5:36pm

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

Obama is a carpetbagger who was elected to the Senate after a Democrat judge released his incumbent opponent's divorce documents which revealed allegations of sex antics. Obama is the same old Chi Town bull stuff, it's just a different day.

- BelenGadfly

March 24, 2008 at 5:37pm

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

The biggest factor in my decision that I could never vote/support Obama ... the simple fact the displays absolutely NO JUDGMENT! How could I, or you believe he would be able to make GOOD DECISIONS, for you and the American people! Allowing his little girls to be exposed to such anti-American hate speech tells me he has absolutely NO COMMON SENSE. If he doesn't value his own daughters, I really doubt he would value any Americans, let alone white Americans best interests. Obama ... go back to what you do best ... being just another crooked, Chicago politician.

- 02Z06Vette

March 24, 2008 at 5:38pm

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

Just read your article, Noam - and liked it enough to read the first 100 comments generated by it (not all by 'Kelly', by any stretch!). Clinton supporters win the word count, of course; O-supporters think they've won already - and only one post remembered those FBI files. Not sure what that says about your readership - only 1% aware of what's happening (and about to happen) here! (And, it stands for "Hockey Night in Canada", 'MereMortal'. It must be Stephen's clever commentary on the process.)

- terryalongwayoff

March 24, 2008 at 5:50pm

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

Works for me.

- chuffman1

March 24, 2008 at 5:55pm

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

Why is the Democratic party nominating a guy whose wife is antiAmerican and whose pastor preaches "____ damn America"? Why is the Democratic party nominating a woman whose name brings memories of corruption, Chinese spies, and bodies in Washington D.C. parks? The Democratic Party is letting us down. The Democratic Party is acting like the sober "designated drunk", coming out of the bar and being stopped at the first road block; so all the real drunks can get away.

- whatadeal

March 24, 2008 at 6:12pm

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

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

- Kramer

March 24, 2008 at 6:12pm

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

Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton are entitled to nothing.

- HillaryClintonQuitsdotcom

March 24, 2008 at 6:16pm

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

282 responses and only 3 oblique references to Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos". Perhap your readership is just too elitist to see reality.

- Cracker Bob

March 24, 2008 at 6:20pm

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

Let's be honest here. ONE: continuing this divisive race will hurt Democrats in the fall, there is no question. It's in the party's best interest to rally around a single candidate as soon as possible. While Hillary and Obama continue racing for the Democratic nomination, McCain is visiting with foreign leaders, setting himself up to look "presidential". TWO: Obama leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, and states won. Yes, Hillary won the majority of larger states, but the fact is, if the party rallies around Obama, there is no reason he shouldn't win those states as well. He and Hillary really don't differ on the issues enough for people to have a problem with them there. THREE: the only thing Republicans can go after Obama for are the words of his former pastor, but that's all they have. Once people get over the initial high-and-mighty shock that "gasp! Obama KNOWS someone who said these things?!?", they'll realize that what actually matters is what Obama himself has said and done, not what people he knows have said and done. And Obama has been clear that he doesn't agree with Wright on the issues in question. So case closed. Meanwhile, it's quickly being revealed that every single bit of the foreign policy experience Hillary claims to have is a lie. She claimed to have been instrumental in Northern Ireland peace talks, yet the recently released White House papers and everyone who was actually involved say that's not true, including a Nobel Peace Prize winner, David Trimble, who was there. Or Kosovo, where Clinton claims she was instrumental in opening their borders during her visit there....despite the fact that we know the borders were opened before she ever even arrived in the country. And then there's her claim of fighting hard for women's rights in China....yet the only record of her doing anything there was making a single speech about it...something she's continually and unabashadly criticized Obama about. And then there's the report today about her claims of braving sniper fire and running, head down, to the vehicles that could whisk her to safety as she arrived in Bosnia, yet there is actual film footage of her arrival where she was calmly and warmly greeted by a group of Bosnian and American officials along with an eight year old girl who read Clinton a little speech. Not a shot fired at any point. These lies among many other easily verfied examples will be pounced upon by Republicans far more effectively than criticizing Obama for what some other guy said seven years ago. So if the Democratic party is smart, and they want to win the White House back from the Republicans, they'll rally around their front-runner starting now, as Bill Richardson has done, to start an effective campaign against McCain.

- Sean

March 24, 2008 at 6:20pm

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

If Hillary steals the election in conspiracy with the superdelegates, not only blacks will be enraged and disengaged...so will all Democrats with a remaining appetite for democracy.

- KingKong

March 24, 2008 at 6:25pm

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

Wow - you are a complete Whackadoo. Even when there's a kernel of truth to your comments, you make a complete turn and reveal yourself as a racist nut-job. While you're correct - some Blacks (some!) incorrectly look down on Condi, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, etc. as sellouts. But you lay that charge on all of us (yes, I'm Black), and use the pejorative "stupid", to boot. In another post, you said you had trouble looking Black people in the eye because of Rev. Wright, and now realize that we hate all White people for the legacy of slavery. Would you include the aforementioned Black conservatives in your lazy stereotyping? Whatever you're smoking is obviously higher quality than anything Barack got his hands on, in his teen years.

- cpo snarky

March 24, 2008 at 6:26pm

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

Gallup isn't the only poll. Why do you think major news networks like CNN, MSNBC and FOX are now doing utilizing "the poll of polls." It simply is not accurate to use one poll to measure this sort of thing.

- Yves

March 24, 2008 at 6:28pm

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

Slick Barry is losing steam. Independents are seeing his liberal voting record (not bringing the parties together). White Dems are hearing his spiritual influences of the past 20 years from irReverent Wright. He's already unelectable, don't string the party out because you feel good about voting for a mixed-race man.

- Figueroa Slim

March 24, 2008 at 6:28pm

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

At my extended family gathering yesterday, my relatives, mostly Republicans and Independents, were almost unanimous that Obama is much more objectionable than Hillary, whom they consider the Anti-Christ. They kept talking about "God damn America", which astonished them, as did the fact that Obama didn't beat the fool preacher up. Expect a big turnout if we nominate the "anti-American" Obama.

- Joe T.

March 24, 2008 at 6:29pm

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

You racist have finally accepted the fact that Obama is half-white. So, noe appeal to that side, since that side gives you more comfort.

- Sylvia

March 24, 2008 at 6:30pm

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

Destruction of the Democratic Party???? I LOVE IT!!!

- Lady Dee

March 24, 2008 at 6:33pm

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

nice photo morph, but it's already been done, and better, too: http://www.verkstad.com/photo/BarackOClinton.jpg

- memyself

March 24, 2008 at 6:35pm

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

WAAAAAAH !!!! I WANT MY MOMMIE !!!! BUNCH OF CRYBABIES!!!

- VINCE

March 24, 2008 at 6:51pm

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

In what frame of mind would someone think that Obama with his lead in delegates, states won, and popular vote should drop out now?? Clearly it's Hillary's time to drop out - she's the one who's so eager and willing to do ANYTHING to win - including destroy the democratic party and let McCain win. Use your brain please.

- can you think?

March 24, 2008 at 6:52pm

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

In general, a good article, but calling Kemp a "Neanderthal" was some serious guttersniping. Kemp believed, and there was serious evidence to suggest he was right, that supply-side economics would help the poor; especially the poor in inner cities, who don't have access to capital and get regulated out of existence by petty and crooked bureaucrats. Kemp was by no means a great candidate but he was hardly an imbecile as you imply. As I recall from the mid '90s, TNR was pro-Kemp (and pro-Gramm and pro-Kasich; although you did castigate Armey for a homophobic remark, and Gingrich for a lot of good reasons) and TNR was anti-those who figured that urban blacks were just too dumb to figure out capitalism. You owe Kemp an apology.

- David Ross

March 24, 2008 at 6:59pm

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

1. The astounding thing to me is that core Democrat constituencies have never called Hillary Clinton to task for her record. For example, she has never been subjected to serious challenge for here service on the Walmart Board of Directors. Clearly, Walmart is one of the most antiunion corporations in America, yet there is no evidence that she did anything during her board tenure but aid and abet. Yet unions have endorsed her. Clearly, Walmart is one of those corporations that has most abused "part timers" in an effort to avoid eligability for benefits and has a particularly sad history in promoting and rewarding female employees. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton during here tenure on the Board sought change in these abusive employment practices. Yet female and older workers, those most abused by Walmart's employment practices, are here most accepting supporters. And, for those concerned with the negative impact of free trade and "off shoring" on American jobs, there is little doubt that Walmart's vendor management policies are responsible for moving more American manufacturing jobs to China than any other American corporation. Walmart imports more goods from China than most nations! These policies were formulated and undoubtably reviewed at a Board level during here tenure. Yet nobody asks the hard questions. 2. It is interesting to see that Hillary Clinton has beaten Obama in states where the lions share of Democrats are working class of Irish or Italian extraction. And, of course, everyone knows that these are among the least bigoted groups in America! 3. If you want a "dream team", let's have Obama offer the VP slot to Condoleeza Rice. She would shore up Obama's key weaknesses in security and foreign policy and reassure Republicans that Democrats are not going to do something really stupid in Iraq. We do remember that it was Jimmy Carter that handed Iran over to the Ayatolahs. And trust me when I say the Republicans would come to the Obama camp in droves, if for no other reason than to let the world know that you do not find very many bigots in the party of Lincoln.

- Liquidity

March 24, 2008 at 7:03pm

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

Democrats owe a great debt to the superdelegate system...otherwise, Senator Obama would already be the nominee... in spite of CA,TX,OH,NJ,MA,FLA, and(soon),PA...Wake up, Democrats!...

- H-Dog

March 24, 2008 at 7:04pm

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

Obam is electable and if anything HRC can take credit for truly damaging BO and the party in pursuit of her own careerism over her claim that she is in it for the people. If you cant catch up to him in delegates and popular votes than you are their as a spoiler slinging mud and hoping that he falls. Shame on the clintons!!!

- fitz

March 24, 2008 at 7:05pm

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

Yes, Joe T - Obama should have beat Rev. Wright up. The same way Nixon beat up Billy Graham for bashing the Jews. After your family got over its astonishment, did they bother to note that Wright was quoting a White US Ambassador? Doesn't make it right - but gives it some context.

- cpo snarky

March 24, 2008 at 7:08pm

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

I believe Carter's "Horatio Hornblower" gaffe was not at the convention in 1980, but a couple years earlier, at Hubert Humphry's funeral in St. Paul. I could be wrong.

- james

March 24, 2008 at 7:09pm

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

I disagree, if we all say Hillary or obama should droup out our party is in overkill. Let the voters decided and superdelegates, and if either one is the nomination lets all get behind them that's the best bet, if Republicans can do it so can we.

- michael

March 24, 2008 at 7:11pm

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

Who cares, we can't pull out of Iraq, the country is out of money, the illegals are all going south because the legals are going to have take their jobs, universal health care is a myth, and when gas gets to $6.50 a gallon most major industries will collapse..."it's over Johnny"

- b johnson

March 24, 2008 at 7:17pm

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

"He may have been disoriented amid all the chaos". Isn't that what a Kennedy spokesman says every time The Honorable Senator from Massachusetts (sic) gets drunk and falls down?

- Farkwarth

March 24, 2008 at 7:19pm

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

Hillary should suspend her campaingn that is good for the party and the country. Obama will be the heeler, unifier and the best hope that we all need. zigy

- zigy

March 24, 2008 at 7:21pm

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

It's nothing but a hopeless quagmire, draining resources that could be used for other useful purposes, and destroying lives. We must get out. Get us out of the DNC now before it's too late.

- Once Again

March 24, 2008 at 7:27pm

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

John, You don't want Deval Patrick. He's having a hard enough time here in Massachusetts. He's definitely "not ready for prime time".

- misspeach2008

March 24, 2008 at 7:27pm

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

If Hillary is nominated, every major city in the country will experience murder, mayhem, mutilation, destruction, robberies, thefts, frenzied brutality, fires, indiscriminate violence, Jesse Jackson and Pastor Wright. If Obama is nominated, every major city will have older white women marching, slowly. Where do you think the so-called Super Delegates will lean?

- Randy 2

March 24, 2008 at 7:33pm

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

But Hillary has "experience"! Just ask her. She has ducked sniper bullets on the tarmac in Bosnia.

- blane

March 24, 2008 at 7:35pm

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

Wow. If there was ever a way to find out who needs Prozac, reading some of the comment posts this election season will reveal that. Destruction of the Democratic party? Half of these silly posts are by people who are only Democratic when someone like John McBush makes them mad about registering guns, taxes or gay marriage. The Democrats have been around for a long while, and comparing 1980 Kennedy and Carter just tells me you are all living in the past. Its a new age folks. If this election season hasn't proved it to you, then you have been asleep for 28 years. Women and people of color are American! And those crowds that come out to see Obama and Clinton are real! I suggest you get involved if you really want change, and stay here and complain if you don't

- Ed Faunce

March 24, 2008 at 7:36pm

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

the democrats are in this predicament because of senator hillary, ask yourself this if obama was behind after losing many states don't you think that the dem party plus the media would make him quit the race , keep in mind sen. hillary is trailing sen. obama by 150 delagates , and about 800,000 or so votes . my thoughts are unless she cheats she can't win or unless she gets more down and dirty she can't win . so the truth is that sen. hillary should bow out not sen. obama... the republicans will come out of the woodworks against sen. hillary. on that day you will see such a force of voters because many and i mean many people hate the clintons .....

- jose

March 24, 2008 at 7:37pm

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

Angela3333, whatever it is you're smoking is certainly illegal. That or you're just accoustomed to pumping sunshine up your own shorts. You need a dose of actual reality. Hillary Clinton, the most despised political figure of this or any other year since Nixon, should be put away in a nice home somewhere - and you with her.

- Frank Tyrrell

March 24, 2008 at 7:37pm

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

Let's call a spade a spade: An intelligent, eloquent well-intended offspring of white and black parentage is something America could use right now. Given our checkered racial past wouldn't it be comforting to have a guy --- as close to the anti-bush as is imaginable --- a non-war monger who can truly see things from multi-perspectives and at the same time (at least intend to) bring some decency back where it's supoosed to belong? Remember "America"? People should stop all the crap about HRC and Johnny Mac and get behind a guy who wants to bring people together and save as a last resort the blowing of those into small shreds who disagree.

- fx cugatti

March 24, 2008 at 7:44pm

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

First of all, the "party of the people" (allegedly) don't even trust their own voters to make the best decisions for the COUNTRY (the party should never be the first consideration) which is why they came up with the travesty of "superdelegates" which immediately undermines the one man, one vote bedrock principle this country is based upon. Second, not only is the Obama campaign assertion that the superdelegates follow the popular vote, the early defections of Kennedy, Kerry and now Richardson shoot that theory right out of the water, I predict this will be the next fissure in the party's haughty structure. By the way, I found it obvious and hysterical to see Bill Richardson with the new beard and fresh, dark tan to actually LOOK more Hispanic than he ever has in his entire life! coincidence, I think NOT!!! So by using the "logic" of liberal democrats it is actually Obama that needs to drop out for the betterment of the party.

- libsukbad

March 24, 2008 at 7:52pm

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

First of all, the "party of the people" (allegedly) don't even trust their own voters to make the best decisions for the COUNTRY (the party should never be the first consideration) which is why they came up with the travesty of "superdelegates" which immediately undermines the one man, one vote bedrock principle this country is based upon. Second, not only is the Obama campaign assertion that the superdelegates follow the popular vote, the early defections of Kennedy, Kerry and now Richardson shoot that theory right out of the water, I predict this will be the next fissure in the party's haughty structure. By the way, I found it obvious and hysterical to see Bill Richardson with the new beard and fresh, dark tan to actually LOOK more Hispanic than he ever has in his entire life! coincidence, I think NOT!!! So by using the "logic" of liberal democrats it is actually Obama that needs to drop out for the betterment of the party.

- libsukbad

March 24, 2008 at 7:52pm

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

Obama may well win the nomination, but will very likely lose the general election because he will not be able to receive the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the election. The mostly "red" states will go to the Reppublicans. Does anyone really think that states like Idaho, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and the majority of the southern states will vote for Obama in the general election. While large industrial states have more electoral votes, they cannot, as has been proved in the last two presidential elections, overcome the votes of both the southern states and the "heartland". In essence, Obama will win the battle and lose the war.

- Chris

March 24, 2008 at 7:55pm

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

Why is Obama afraid of a revote in Michigan and Florida? Oh and by the way, why can New Hampshire move up its primary date without penalty and not Michigan or Florida? The reason Obama fears a revote is that Hillary would trounce him ---again. Obama, like Bush in 2000, wants to disenfranchise voters for politcal gain. Go Hillary spill some more blood!

- Barry L. Alan

March 24, 2008 at 7:58pm

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

Why would Obama quit now. He is got it won. DNC is stupid enough and the country will likely elect him. The Clintons are evil.

- MITTMYMAN

March 24, 2008 at 7:58pm

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

The problem with Richardson is that he went against the will of the people of New Mexico; Clinton won the majority in the state, though they award delegates based on popular vote (14 to 12). So, with that being the case, who from New Mexico will cover Clinton's 14 delegates. No courage was shown by Richardson; the rules only apply in a way for your candidate to win. What a mess

- Robert

March 24, 2008 at 8:03pm

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

"...the simple fact that no party since WWII has been elected three consecutive terms." Really? Reagan 80, 84 and Bush 88 actually did happen, though you may not want to remember. :))

- JM

March 24, 2008 at 8:10pm

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

in remaining states in order to overtake Obama's pledged delegate count. That is impossible. Why is it that so many liberals have failed math? Clinton's only path to winning is drawing in the superdelegates. And the only way she can succeed in that gamble is destroying Obama, which guarantees a Democrat loss in November.

- Hillary needs 67% of the vote

March 24, 2008 at 8:10pm

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

amazing that anyoen should think taht Democrats are ruined just because the campaign has stretched out. How silly. and if you think this is bad, wait till the Republicans dirty tricks start. I should know, i USED to attend Republican precinct meetings. And the dirty tricks eminating from the National Party Planners just finally made me realize that the party had no ethics and could never win on the issues so they went to these elaborate, nasty dirty tricks. So do not try to tell me that a simple open Democratic Party Primary is so tragic for Democrats. And alas, I think the Democrats are too wise to allow the sorts of criminal behavior go unchecked this time around. And John McCains dittohead run on the horrible Bush years is not going to work either. Even the most jaded regular Republicans are nauseous at the stench in the party and they are leaving in droves. MxcCain, though a bright light in the Republican Party, now has sold his soul to the likes of Hagee and Rush. He has tossed over his straight talk and is not just like the rest.

- Mari

March 24, 2008 at 8:12pm

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

Obama should drop out to save the party, then accept the VP nomination. In four or sight years, he might be ready for the top spot. However, he must change churches immediately. Mainstream Americans don't believe black racism deserves any more respect or tolerance than white racism. Same goes for anti-Americanism and racial paranoia about AIDs and drugs. Obama needs to give people time to forget about his evil, nutty pastor.

-

March 24, 2008 at 8:16pm

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

Obama should drop out to save the party, then accept the VP nomination. In four or sight years, he might be ready for the top spot. However, he must change churches immediately. Mainstream Americans don't believe black racism deserves any more respect or tolerance than white racism. Same goes for anti-Americanism and racial paranoia about AIDs and drugs. Obama needs to give people time to forget about his evil, nutty pastor.

- Ben

March 24, 2008 at 8:16pm

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

I agree Kevin!!! Obama is the only HOPE this country has. And his Minister, no one would have ever heard of it, or cared, if it hadn't been "leaked" to the media. Wonder would have done that??? I wonder!

- Fran

March 24, 2008 at 8:31pm

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

I'm supporting Obama no matter what the race baiting and fear mongering Clintons and FOXNEWS do. Even the Klu Klux Klan TN would rather have Obama than Clinton and that's saying a lot. While the newsmedia is trying to divide and conquer, the I.N.N. Free Speech TV just reported that a US nuclear sub along with other submarines has entered the Persian Gulf in preparation for an attack on Iran. If the US attacks Iran. We will be probably be attacked again. Watch Bush/Cheney declare a state of emergency which would suspend our elections. You following me? Write your congressman and senators and let me them know you want Bush/Cheney impeached if they invade Iran.

- Debbie

March 24, 2008 at 8:34pm

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

Obama is damaged goods, FWIW. His refusal to address the Black Liberation theology directly was bad enough, but to lay it at the feet of white America was a very bad idea---one we will see in the fall from the right-leaning 527s ad-nauseum. The apologists for Wright's virulent anti-Americanism have already (even on this blog today) used two predictable tactics. First, that his good works in the community outweigh his rants at the pulpit. To this argument I would mention that Hitler, too, did wonderful socialist works for many more millions than Wright ever could reach, if you look at the pre-war years. The second thing is to compare Hagee, Falwell and others of the "religious right" to Wright. This view takes a breathtaking detour from reality: Name the repub that sits in those pews listening to the "religious right" fringe elements for twenty years, and I shall lambaste them too. An endorsement is one thing, active support, including 20K donations to Trinity, takes this to a new level. Add the fact that Obama calls this man a mentor---someone who has tremendous influence over your professional and personal character development by our military's definition, and you come to a whole new level of difference in relationships in question. Only a person suffering from a schoolgirl crush would fail to see the deep divisiveness of this issue. But then, this whole Obamamania thing strikes me as a conclusion in search of some friendly facts. That about sums up progressives on many issues, now that I think about it....

- JM

March 24, 2008 at 8:40pm

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

"Of course, if Obama's the nominee, he's unlikely to win a national security debate against McCain, with or without Hillary's broadsides." I would bet on Obama in a national security debate. Does anyone understand how the world's Arabs would perceive our choice of a half black man as leader? It totally confounds their stereotypes of us as a bunch of privileged, out-of-touch white people.

- Matthew

March 24, 2008 at 9:00pm

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

Someone obviously committed a tactical error by allowing a viable candidate who is a female to oppose a viable candidate who is black. One or the other should have waited their turn. Same for disenfranchising the voters of two states instead of letting the state officials suffer from lack of post election patronage. No wonder the columinist called Howard Dean the "screaming castrati".

- James B. Ronan II

March 24, 2008 at 9:03pm

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

Thirty years of experience? She has NOT been in an elected office for 30 years. She has created a "managed" file of experience based on her time as first lady of Arkansas and then the United States. Is anybody trying to propel Rosalyn Carter or Nancy Reagan to run for president based on their time as first ladies? Hillary and her bunch have pulled the wool over your eyes........Enough. She needs to quit. No more Bushes. No more Clintons. The world has seen enough unscrupulous politicians with these "dynasties" to last a lifetime. The time for revenge is over. Let's move on.

- Russ

March 24, 2008 at 9:06pm

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

What you hypocritical democrats fail to realize is that you insatiable love for slick willy was really the beginning of this whole mess your party is in. I find it absolutely hilarious that the anti Hillary dem's are the same ones that supported Willy thru thick and thin, right or wrong. It's pathetic. Some of you probably were for Hillary less than two years ago.

- underthedesk

March 24, 2008 at 9:24pm

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

Interesting, Bill Clinton first bring up race in South Carolina , comparing him to sleazy Jessie Jackson. Then the governor of the great state of Pennsylvania state’s that Obama can’t win Pennsylvania ,why because he’s black. Geraldine Farraro out of her dumb mouth, states that the man wouldn’t be where he is if he was a white man. Yet 89% of the idiot that ‘s posting here , think that Obama should give up because of something his pastor said. Even while he has the lead. Typical !

- Grant

March 24, 2008 at 9:25pm

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

One thing is clear to any outside, independent observer reading these comments. The Clinton supporters are fanatical, suffer from tunnel vision, display astonishing malice and spite towards Obama and his supporters, and utterly lack realism! Maybe thats because the majority are older women, who are dissatisfied with life and marooned in the milieu of the 1990's. The truth is Hillary is done, finished, kaput! With all the advantages of being a Dem idol from the Clinton years, who was gifted a safe senate seat in 2000, and led the polls in 2007 by large majorities, she has been exposed as having feet of clay. Obama's victory march obliterated her in primaries since Super Tuesday. Sure, she won Ohio, but maybe the voters then didn't quite grasp her dedication to NAFTA? That deficiency has how been remedied. In Texas, while volubly claiming victory, she was proved wrong and badly undone when the caucuses eventually gave Obama more delegates! And that was before Richardson's endorsement of Obama. Obama now enjoys a lead of nigh on 150 pledged delegates. He has narrowed the superdelegate lead that Hillary had to virtually nothing. Worse for her, Florida and Michigan's original, illegal primaries won't count. Neither will there be reruns. Instead these delegates will be allocated in proportion to the candidates' totals. This fact finally torpedoed Clinton's ship which is now listing and leaking water heavily. She has only Pennsylvania to look forward to, and, while she might win there, the margin will not be that big. Thereafter, its hard to see her gaining any delegates at all in the remaining primaries. So her campaign has seized on a very trivial, artificial issue, the Pastor Wright rants, in an attempt to hurt Obama. However, that ploy has failed miserably! Obama's brilliant oratory soon dispelled any doubts and sorted that issue out in most sane peoples' minds. Its now done and dusted, disappearing into history. The one and only issue that Clinton could manufacture has failed. And she has nothing as an encore. Very soon, more and more superdelegates will endorse Obama and the writing, already writ large upon the wall, will become inescapable. Obama's brand of idealism, his powerful vision of uniting Americans and creating a new political reality have triumphed over Clinton's sterile divisiveness and cynicism. Thank goodness for that! In the final analysis, Americans belong together, and "Dem" and "GOP" should never eclipse that truth. America will be a better, stronger nation when the influences of extreme left and right, that created these divisions, have been eliminated. Obama can make that happen, Clinton can't, because she's irrevocably bound to that era. However, a prolonged, bitter, acrimonious struggle among Dems right up until June and beyond will derail Obama's chances in November. Already there's talk that 20% of Clinton supporters will never vote for Obama, and other such childish, spiteful tripe. Its time to call it quits for Hillary and for her to work in healing the wounds she caused. In that way, she can demonstrate some loyalty to her party and help Obama. To do otherwise now, merely confirms peoples suspicions that this contest is not about a Dem victory in November in Hillary's mind. Its about her overweening, selfish, unrealistic personal ambition to be president? Down that road lies a GOP victory and a McCain administration.

- Jack

March 24, 2008 at 9:25pm

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

Convention fights have nothing to do with the electablity of a candidate. If what you wrote was true, John Kennedy would be a cipher in history as a mediocre Senator from a small state. Jimmy Carter did not win the White House in 1980 because he appeared incompetent and it looked like he was losing his grip. Remember "I will not leave the White House until the hostages come home." How about the absolutely mortifying rescue atempt that I'm sure keeps him up at night (rightly so) and greatly heartened our enemies. Or my personal favorite, "I asked Amy what she thought of nuclear proliforation". No one thought, except the editor of the Washington Post, that Ted Kennedy would be the nominee. The party kabashed that notion. For gods sake, he killed a woman, wontonly or not and he was a drunk. In the end, it was the measure of Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter. Not even close.

- Happy Voter

March 24, 2008 at 9:27pm

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

I must say I am very happy to see this cat fight unfold. As a conservative traditionalist I know Mc Cain can beat either one. The sad fact is that all three pale in comparison to one who possesses great leadership qualities. That individual does not appear on the American landscape.

- Larry

March 24, 2008 at 9:29pm

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

I think if the race goes to the Convention, Obama's play is to gin up the ANSWER, Code Pink, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam etc. to wreak havoc in Denver and force the issue. Which would be effective, the Superdels will cave. But you'd get a repeat of 1968. Recreate68.org already is gearing up for another circus, and it will destroy Dems not just in the Presidential election but also Blue Dogs. Heath Schuler? Gone. Guys like him? Gone. I suspect that may be the point for pols like Pelosi and Reid. THEY won't be affected, and may prefer answering just to the money men of Soros and Moveon, ANSWER, Code Pink etc. than the tension between Blue Dogs who want reelection in socially conservative places like TN and SF Democrats with SF values. So I would bet one way or another with Obama being the nominee. But he's disaster for Dems outside of safe districts. And will lose. Because the internet, 527's and the like, can exploit Rev. God Damn America and all his anti-White, anti-Semitic, hate-America lunacy. Viral videos will be all over the place. Cheap and easy for anyone including joe average to create. The words and images can't be explained away. That video and pictures of Obama refusing to be respectful during the National Anthem (even Hillary and Richardson act respectful) coupled with Rev. God Damn America's rantings will KILL the average voter. Politics is a skill just like Poker or Billiards. It's not rational to expect a newbie in non-Black politics like Obama to have even the faintest clue about what "Average White People" are like. McCain wouldn't have to spend a dime, and he'd still win by a landslide. Dems always pick horrible, weak, untested candidates except Bill Clinton. I don't like the man but unlike Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, etc. he carried a Republican state against tough Republican opponents in a culturally conservative environment. That's skill. Obama beat Alan Keyes in IL. Bet: Dems hold the Senate but lose the House. President McCain takes at least 42 states.

- Jim Rockford

March 24, 2008 at 9:32pm

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

I agree: With all arguments duly noted, it is clear that there is only one MATURE adult, in this race....John McCain.

- s4200

March 24, 2008 at 9:42pm

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

McCain/Lieberman '08!

- Doug Raymond

March 24, 2008 at 9:47pm

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

The Clintons are to politics what Ptolemy was to astronomy. They drum up theories to justify what the conclusions they desire to be true. As a result, they want us to believe that all the planets are doing these wild orbits just to please them.

- realist

March 24, 2008 at 9:55pm

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

Logical1: If Wright had simply said 'I support Obama' and Obama said 'Thanks', there would be no story. Hagee was not McCain's chosen mentor, spiritual advisor, and first campaign consultant. Big difference, and the media actually got it right.

- Doug Raymond

March 24, 2008 at 9:56pm

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

Hillary hatred is a huge factor in why the damsel finds herself in distress. I would vote for the devil incarnate before pulling the lever for this manipulating pathological liar. Bubba will have to find a venue other than the white house for his second coming. Obama is a saint by comparison.

- MizMackie

March 24, 2008 at 10:05pm

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

I am a registered independent voter and I voted for Bill Clinton both times. I planned to vote for Hillary until she went down this devisive mudslinging road. My mind is made up if it's Clinton vs. McCain, I will not falter but will "pull the lever" for McCain. If its Obama vs. McCain then my vote is still up for grabs. Good luck democrats -- At this point I think it's too late -- your party has already lost the general election. I say this because the vast majority of the independent voters that I know have been so turned off by your ridiculous process that they don't care and plan to vote for McCain no matter what. I may well be in the minority of indepenent voters who will at least be undecided if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

- 7579esq

March 24, 2008 at 10:13pm

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

Hey, Dumbacrates, you don't have a chance in hell to will this election!!! As a Conservative, I just love H & O beating up you guys. I think Bush is great!! I also support the war on terrorism. Yes, Rush is right, vote for Hillary!!! She will be easier to beat. The McCain/Rice ticket will be a shoo-in. If something happens to Mac during his term, Condi will be the first woman/black president. She is experienced, smart and has class. Fat ass, Hillary, has zero class and I wonder if she remembers how to tell the truth. GO McCAIN & RICE IN "08" & "12".

- Vet

March 24, 2008 at 10:14pm

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

God Bless Operation Chaos!!!!!

- Matt

March 24, 2008 at 10:19pm

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

If, as all the Obamanites claim, that O has it wrapped up. Why? Do the Supers not just come out and announce their support for O? This is going all the way to Denver and as an evil Republican, I love it.

- Dan, St. Louis

March 24, 2008 at 10:34pm

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

When do the Democrats intend to set 100 cities on fire, like they always do?

- American

March 24, 2008 at 10:36pm

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

The Collective Mind of the Democrat Party is insane because its leaders are insane.

- bbjr

March 24, 2008 at 10:37pm

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

This is all done with the purpose of getting Mc100year in the oval orifice! He just met with Rothschild. When Obama or Clinton meet with that dude then you can tell me they have a chance. Meanwhile, check out this site. The RP Supporters get their own fighter now. Just when you thought they were out... www.RingsideRevolution.com

- RingRev.

March 24, 2008 at 10:37pm

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

Joe.. It's not a far fetch idea. If you travel to Alabama to a much lesser know town as Tuskegee you may find something that you would rather not know about America. Doctors there experimented with a disease call Syphilis you know that one that reportly killed Al Capone, with a group of African American men. Not genocide but I am sure how one can be a little suspicious. Well maybe you can't. You properly believe that wearing a flag pin makes you patriotic.

- Sandy

March 24, 2008 at 10:40pm

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

Joe, I can tell you've spent no time in African-American churches, where outrageous statements are meant to challenge congregations. As far as genocide, there's been a genocidal subtext to the entire pro-choice movement since its historic Eugenics beginnings. Clinton, not Obama, should pull out. She can't win. Obama could become the first-ever uniter since Roosevelt and he couldn't come at a more appropriate time.

- EK

March 24, 2008 at 10:42pm

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

How could anyone who claims to be a democrat insists that Hillary Clinton should get the nomination? Left aside the "who's more electable question" what is this, a beauty contest? American Idol? Hello!!! Rules are rules, who gets more delegates wins, simple is that. It's not about momentum, large states, popular vote, or superdelegates. It's about ALL the delegates. The pledged delegates represent the voice of the people. There is no rule obliging the superdelegates to follow suit but if Obama is ahead by 130 delegates Clinton's only theoretical chance is that more than two thirds of the undecided superdelegates will vote for her and offset the pledged delegates count. Chances of that happening are zero which begs the question, what is Hillary Clinton still in this race?

- Red

March 24, 2008 at 10:43pm

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

Its Funny how the Headline doesn't read " Dems destroy Liberal party" after all thats what is real. It more or less proves that America does not want a Liberal Government. Now America has to decide if McCain is the Man to lead this Great Nation.... probably not. Oh well after all of the stinging defeats the libs have had since 94 you think they would get smarter... no chance too many ego's in charge not enough patriots sorry if you are offended the truth hurts. It is obviously a ME ME ME campaign on the Dems side and a well he's better than nobody on the reps side. However The Clintons last chance to save the name brand if starting to look like the Hindenburg on final approach only the Hindenburg made out better. I was a big Clinton supporter but I see I was wrong and the Reps were right. They are the worst thing to happen to this country they are killing the dems and have been since the 90s. They are everything the reps have claimed and more. They proved how they feel about the African American people, they look at them with disdain and pity. They don't want to help people they only want the votes those people can cast. Barrack Hussein , Obama is no better. The media built him to what he appears to be sooner or later they will tear him down. In my short life this election has the worst choices for POTUS that there has ever been. 1 Dem won't admit she can't win without playing an end game around the votes of the people,the delegates and the rules. The other wants Change with no other definition other than he is not GWB. On the reps side McCain hates the true conservative opinions and leans way too far left. If there ever was a time for a 3rd party to emerge I think we may see it yet before Nov. I would vote for the first Candidate to stand up for Tax cuts Term limits for ALL , Fair flat tax without rebates and not to even consider any more entitlements until the congress can explain why we should let the GOV run health care when they messed up so bad with SS and Medicare not to mention the prescription drug plan. They can't run anything without it being a disaster!. Find a candidate who has GWB's disregard with polls and media, Barrack Hussein, Obama's public speaking and Hillary's ...... well lets start with the first two since Hillary and McCain are just Vote Sl*t s. If that person emerges he or she will win by a landslide.

- Dave

March 24, 2008 at 10:43pm

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

The simple fact is, the obama vs clinton battle exemplifies the liberal democratic party. And truth hurts.

- cynthia brennemann

March 24, 2008 at 10:46pm

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

You call Jack Kemp a Neanderthal. You talk about "the lunatic right". You show no respect whatsoever for people who have a different view-point from yours. That is a fascist mind-set. You should learn that there are various ways of looking at the universe, not only yours. You are a disgraceful fascist, Sir; having no tolerance for those who disagree with you. /Spit.

- Miguel

March 24, 2008 at 10:47pm

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

Damn set of idiots. Hillary supporters are nothing but a bunch of bra burning feminine tree hugging psychos. Obama's are idol worshipers and McCain's are self-righteous pigs trying to get fat for the state fair(election). Between all of you America is dying slowly. See the news article about 21 countries enjoying a better standard of living than America? Who would have thunk it? Here we are as a nation talking about meaningless issues while our President is doing what every other dictator in history has done, spend their country into defeat. I care not who wins the election. No president can sole this mess without the people's input. But their are a lot of Americans who are intent on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. People like you deserve the hatred of the extremists in the Muslim world. You think that you are being patriotic, but you are not. You are nothing but selfish hate mongers who can't wait to spew hatred about your fellow man. All of you make me sick. The American Government needs an extreme makeover, but the people are in need of a deep cleansing of the mind. Saddle up America. Our days of world leadership has passed. We must now settle for the second tier. God Bless you Presidents Clinton and Bush 43. You have surely been trail blazers in reverse.

- Slueth

March 24, 2008 at 10:52pm

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

One wonders at the idiocy of Barack's bookending his own hypocrisy in regards to Pastorgate. How you might ask? Allow me to explain. At the time that the comments were made, Barack called for the firing of Don Imus following his "nappy-headed hos" sophistry. No equivocations by Barack on "context" and "history" and "uncle-ness." Nope. Just "fire da man!" Flash forward, to the "damning of the U.S. of KKK A." for its creation of AIDS and crack cocaine to kill black men and suddenly, its suddenly ALL about context and forgiveness and slack-cutting. I might have been willing to cut Barack himself some slack... IF he'd been smart enough to retroactively apply the same standards that he applied to the his crazy racist uncle, Rearend Jeremiah Wrong, to Don Imus. But flash forward just a LITTLE more to a State Department story about someone taking a peak in Baroke's file's and, once again, it's SOMEONE MUST BE FIRED! So, in conclusion, white guy jokes - FIRE HIM! Black guy launches one of the most paranoid and racist diatribes EVER and we must "understand." Finally, white guy peaks in file and it's -- FIRE HIM! Rearend Jeremiah Wrong ain't the only RACIST. Baroke's own hypocrisies reveal HIS racist tendencies!

- Walter

March 24, 2008 at 10:55pm

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

...and the Japanese will win this election in London

- Little Hoser

March 24, 2008 at 10:57pm

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

Everyone I am a African American, highly educated professional female, 37 year old, married mother of 4 with a combined income of 150K. We are voting for Obama and we have an 18 year voting for Obama. I am a delegate and will be attending my Senatorial convention on Saturday with hopes of being a delegate at the National convention. I am active on the campaign, I blog and I make calls on behalf of the campaign. I say you can vote for whom ever you like. But I support Barack Obama because I believe he is the best one for the job. Insulting me an others like me because we don't think as you do has become the American Way. In fact it is hoe the Bush got elected twice. Not this time…the stakes are too high. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. That is how you can worship Jesus in a church where you do not agree with the political views of the pastor and not "beat him" up for disagreeing. He didn't go for his political views he goes to worship Jesus Christ the Savior for all not just the ones you agree with. The bible says that each has to walk out their own salvation. Sen. Obama walked out tolerance for the world to see and you missed it. Don't worry you will see it again to be exact you will see if for the next eight years. VOTE OBAMA 08.

- Sady

March 24, 2008 at 11:04pm

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

"No party has won 3 consecutive terms" ? How soon you forget... 80, 84, 88... Reagan, Reagan, G H W Bush !

- S C H

March 24, 2008 at 11:06pm

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

Mark Tomasik: Don't discount Gore-led ticket http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/24/mark-tomasik-dont-discount-gore-led-ticket/

- John K

March 25, 2008 at 12:09am

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

Elevation of the political dialogue above the level of the gutter and beyond the emotions of fear is a task that no politician has been able to accomplish, until now. Obama has brought us closer to an honest dialogue about the direction of our country. His moral compass parallels most of America as he strives to advocate for a society where no one person succeeds that the pre-destined expense of another. He talks about personal responsibility and responsible public governance -- principles that are neither liberal nor conservative but truly American.

- FinHowBra

March 25, 2008 at 12:34am

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

Wow, that verkstad morph is truly terrifying. I prefer TNR's gentler effort.

- hewstino

March 25, 2008 at 1:22am

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

Obama will finish with a small but clear lead in the elected delegates, and then the superdelegates will give it to Hillary. Meanwhile they will destroy each other, leaving themselves helplessly watching McCain sweep to power. Bwahahahah!!! Lord Rove's plan is working to perfection. There is great power on the darkside ...

- Minion of the Machine

March 25, 2008 at 1:27am

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

I read every post. Except the three that were thousands of words long- cocaine or crack? Take it for what it is worth from a white haired white man, Obama is by far the weakest candidate that has run on a national platform for a long time. The question then is who put him out there to run. I think I always saw him smiling not so long ago. That would mean that he knew he had no chance, but was winning. If it was HRC, I do not think she would have waited so long to turn this around, but maybe. The breathe taking nature of Obama's fall will make for a great distraction and she will need one. It will become clear when Obama is routed in NC that the nomination is Hilary's. She just might beat McCain, he is 72 after all. That said, I think that Hilary might be the best choice. She understands that governance is about policy not promises. I guess at this point I should turn in my right wing, conservative card, huh? One more thing. There is a foreign policy problem that I hear everyone talk around and never get the point. "Evangelicals", "born agains", have only one belief that is dangerous to the USA's foreign policy. It is the belief that the world will come to an end soon. They call it the second coming of Christ. True Christians know that this happened in 70 AD. It is the same thing as Old Testament, New Testament. Once the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed their became a "new" people of God. That is not what the Hagee/ Robertson clan members believe. So their support of Israel is in the hope that there is death and destruction on a large scale. Since this is not true, not Christian, and not Biblical, please feel free to beat them over the head and take back our foreign policy from these loonies. There are lots of them and they make my head hurt badly.

- Cool Bobby K

March 25, 2008 at 1:50am

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

It is interesting. It reminds me of a Sci-fi story where a man goes back in time to make things better in the present by preventing something he perceives as bad from occurring or causing something that he perceives as good to occur. However, after he completes his mission he returns to the present only to find that he made things worse. This comes to mind when I think of the reporters who made public the private divorce records of Jack Ryan (Obama's original Republican rival for the U.S. Senate) causing him to drop from the race and thus assuring Obama's victory against nutburger Alan Keyes. Talk about unintended consequences. If Obama was still in the Ill. state senate, Hillary would have captured the nomination by now and the Democratic Party would not be in such a bind. Due to the unethical actions of those reporters(Which I believe was done to help Obama) Republicans may retain the White House this fall.

- John

March 25, 2008 at 2:00am

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

The Pastor disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Joe

March 25, 2008 at 8:30am

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

To the poster Truth, you summed it up nicely when you said: "I think its because I now know how strongly they dislike me because of my skin color and that they will always blame white people for slavery in this country -- all white people, with no exceptions." I often see looks of hatred because I am white. Yeah, maybe that's only fair after what non-whites have endured in this country...I get to see how it feels. OK, it sucks. Big time. And I admit I could never know what it is like to be a black person in this country, because I am white. I am trying to empathize, trying to help, but hatred towards me because of my skin color is getting in the way. Somebody TELL ME WHAT TO DO to help make it better for others. I am willing to help. I am willing to see individuals as individuals, not judge them by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. BUT I CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO HELP SO LONG AS I AM THE ENEMY. Truth also said "It is sad to realize that racism by blacks toward whites will never go away no matter what white people do. Until black Americans can forgive the white and African people who enslaved them, there will never be a coming together." While I know this hatred is NOT true for all, the group of folks who feel this way are VERY angry and VERY vocal. Rev Wright is only one example. We do need to look at the context of his comments. But the anger IS there. Will that anger ever go away? Especially when politicians fuel the fire for their own gain? I don't think so. Obama, who does represent change, could no more achieve unity with his clear message of hope over the race issue than that white supremacist nutjob David Duke who ran from Mississippi. Why? Because Obama cannot fix what is wrong no matter how hard he tries. While Obama represents a solid candidate to many whites (and not just Democrats), and folks are willing to give him a chance because of HRC negatives, his candidacy opens the door for lots of white folks to see the persistent and seething anger of blacks below the surface. White folks don't want to acknowledge that the anger exists. This is not something Obama can control. It's an undercurrent which noone speaks about, but it is a key "fault line" in this country and it is getting deeper. The issue of race. Meanwhile, all the white guilt or all the white attempts to make up for past wrongs will mean nothing so long as the intended recipients refuse to accept these efforts at good will. But who says blacks should not be angry? Who says they should forgive? And when? My question is, when will we reach the point that anger is not in the way of unity and reconciliation? God Bless Dr MLK, who is in heaven receiving his reward. I wonder if his efforts would have continued to progress towards unity if he were still alive? He preached love and compassion, not hate. Nobody came along to fill in for him with that message of love and compassion. We are (mostly) past the point of the laws which discriminate, and the rules which segregate. We're now at the point (and stuck at this point) on the "hearts and minds" change and the "forgiveness and acceptance" stage. We've been at this point for decades, and we seem to be slipping backwards. The competition for the Democrat primary is just one example of the current situation related to race.

- Voter352

March 25, 2008 at 10:55am

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

"Pastorgate," as some are calling it, is a smear worthy of Lee Atwater. Neither Barack Obama nor his wife has done anything worthy of the hateful treatment they've endured. My view of Hillary Clinton is that Samantha Power got it right - she's a monster who cares about nothing but her own ambition. The Clintons have a poisonous influence on American politics. McCain is regrettable, but Clinton is a disaster looking for a home. Obama, warts and all, is the only one with a soul.

- Robert Smith

March 25, 2008 at 10:59am

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

Vote for HillaryVote for HillaryVote for Hillary She knows how to make the tough decisions. Trust me, when she makes up her mind, a deadly calm comes over her, but her eyes get as brightly narrow as a cobra's. And then -- darkness, silence. If only I knew then what I know now. [That's from foster_vincent, whoever that is.]

- Rolyat

March 25, 2008 at 11:05am

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

Has any person on this blog commenting ever even watched Pastor Wright's FULL SERMON? You'd be surprised. Totally taken out of context. The total ignorance of we Americans is depressing.

- jem

March 25, 2008 at 12:23pm

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

Oh, Hell's Bells. Don't you folks see it? Both Hillary and Obama are unelectable. What planet are you folks from? Just be glad McCain is a pretty moderate guy and suck it up. You'll get another chance in four more years. Maybe you'll do better picking nominees by then.

- Eye Doc

March 25, 2008 at 1:37pm

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

Voter 352 - David Duke was not involved in Mississippi politics. He was born in Oklahoma and lives in Louisiana. He made a strong bid for governor of Louisiana and lost to Edwin Edwards. The signature, pro-Edwards, bumper sticker message of that campaign was "Vote for the Crook, it's Important."

- Robert Smith

March 25, 2008 at 2:19pm

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

Dear Doc: You remind me of Claytie Williams talking about rape during his failed Texas gubernatorial bid. Perhaps folk aren't going to just "suck it up" because they're sick and tired of the way Shrub and Dick have run this country like some kind of banana republic. McCain can't even keep straight who's who in Iraq. Time for the reign of the angry bubba to come to an end. I am a bubba and I've had enough.

- Robert Smith

March 25, 2008 at 3:03pm

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

Call me crazy but isn't it possible that Hillary Clinton is already looking ahead to 2012? Is she betting that beating a 76 year old GOP incumbent with no agenda other than prolonging the war in Iraq and expanding it into Iran, might be easier than beating a 50 year old Obama who now has 4 years of presidential experience? Is her end game here to prevent Obama from becoming president, now that her own chances have diminished to practically nil? After what we have seen in this primary anyone who thinks she will place party loyalty and party unity over her own ambition is delusional. It seems that the best we can hope for is that the superdelegate stampeded starts sooner than June and that in the mean time, McCain continues to dazzle us with his own brand of foolishness.

- Jim DiRenzo

March 25, 2008 at 4:19pm

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

Robert Smith, What does rape have to do with anything I said? My point is that both Democratic candidates are unelectable for a variety of reasons. They are both dishonest, unethicak, far left candidates at a time that the American people are screaming out for a moderate candidate that has some integrity. John McCain is literally tailor-made for this election. So he confuses Shiites and Sunnis, so do most people. You think Bubba is fed up with Bush/Cheney? That's possible but I wouldn't bet money on it. But, it's a moot point anyway. McCain isn't Bush or Cheney, and most Americans aren't going to vote for either of the two Democratic con artists in order to vote for somebody different than who we have now.

- Eye Doc

March 25, 2008 at 4:59pm

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

Your comment was incredibly eloquent. I wish you all the success in the world in whatever you pursue. I wish people like you could talk to the cultist that support Obama. I do not understand why people so adamently support someone that has no viable experience for such an important job. Plus his affiliation with his church is a show stopper for me regardless of the previous point. Then, he has not actually summarized how he plans to bring all the people together and 'change' everything. Its like choosing what is behind door number 3 because the curtain is pretty. I want to know what I am buying before I commit my future. He is an unknown. And Hillary is staying in the race because her supporters desparately want her to, so its not just all about Hillary, its about me and everyone else that believes in her like I do. And I couldn't care less about the blue dress and Hillary's exaggeration about Bosnia. And how crass that Obama's campaign would bring up the blue dress. It doesn't get any lower than that from someone who thinks his campaign sends a positive message. He is the most divisive politician out there. He CANNOT unify his party, little less America and if Hillary drops out, her supporters are not going to change their opinions of Obama. She is our last hope.

- concerned

March 25, 2008 at 5:35pm

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

Good article. Hillary Clinton is evidently a Frankenstein-ian combination of Tracy Flick and Tonya Harding.

- Filecabinet20036

March 25, 2008 at 6:47pm

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

How can we expect a dysfunctional family to have time to repair the house, go out into the world and handle a job, make a living, and take care of business when they cannot even solve thier family issues. The energy they spend on thier problems keeps them from being productive. Did I say the Democratic Party? Excuse me for being forward. Sincerely, GJR

- Gorman John Ruggiero

March 25, 2008 at 7:18pm

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

Hilary does not have a chance to win the nomination or the general election, and she should step down.

- Sejo

March 25, 2008 at 9:39pm

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

Ed writes, "no party since World War II has been elected to three straight terms oin the White House". Hmmm, doesn't Bush vs. Dukakis count after the two Reagan terms? This is shaping up as a big year for the Republicans in the presidential contest -look at the states in which McCain leads Obama - states like New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio. This could be a blow-out. But the math (the relative numbers defending seats or having already announced retirement) between the parties is such that the Dems should be able to pick up further seats in both houses. And I have doubts that McCain's likely rising popularity can stop that. So we'll have a split government - a situation that's always (oddly) suited "Gang of 14" member, "McCain-Feingold" sponsor,"McCain-Kennedy" sponsor, John McCain.

- trpdean

March 25, 2008 at 11:29pm

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

This whole discussion strikes me as CHAOS are you people really that stupid that you can not see that!

- Jr Lexington

March 26, 2008 at 3:25am

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

I think Obama should just give up and get out of the race right now! How can America elect a man president who sat for 20 years in a church listening to a bigotted, racist, anti-American preacher? The only way a person could or would do that is if they agreed with the preachings of that man. This brings into question a serious doubt as to the true patriotism of Obama. Also, Michelle Obama's comments that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." It shows she believed in the pastor's preachings and agreed with him. Add to that Obama's 20 year relationships with criminals like Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers, the normal person would have to question the "judgement" of a man who would associate himself with such people!! And if all that weren't enough, Hillary Clinton has much more qualifications and experience. Also more Democrats who support Hillary would NOT vote for Obama if he is the candidate. Again, Obama should just bow out now and concede the nomination to Hillary Clinton, the person who has paid her dues and is ready to do the job on day 1.

- AlwaysforHillary

March 26, 2008 at 12:03pm

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

I think the tone of this article is overly negative to be honest. I think one slight advantage the Democrats still have is that at some point there are going to have a nominee and then they can come out attacking McCain with what will be then fresh attacks. And mid-June through to November is pretty long really. By then McCain's attacks on (most likely) Obama may seem old and dated. Frankly I think Pastor Wright's comments will have minimal impact on the election. Already they have given Obama a chance to make a truly historic speech, looking as Presidential as anyone else has this campaign season. I think by June, it might take some gentle leaning on Clinton, but I think either she quietly steps aside and can maintain dignity and respect from within the party or she becomes tainted by her and her husband's actions throughout the campaign. Of course judging by the attitude of her online support, I am not sure she is prepared to go quietly. But whoever ends up as the loser in this process ahs to be a good loser come mid June and help bring the party together.

- markymark

March 26, 2008 at 2:30pm

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

Blah blah blah blah blah blah DID YOU KNOW THAT B. HUSSEIN OBAMA IS BLACK/RACIST/A MUSLIM??! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah HILLARY IS SOOO EXPERIENCED AND REALLY DESERVES TO BE PRESIDENT blah blah blah blah blah blah cultists blah blah blah blah TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN AND B.HUSSEIN WANTS TO HELP THEM blah blah blah HE KNOWS BAD PEOPLE blah blah blah....... Don't you people listen to yourselves? Stop posting online. You're not changing anyone's mind, you're only making people more entrenched in their opposition. Take a deep breath. If you've voted already, your job is done. Donate some money to your candidate if you feel so inclined. Walk a precinct or volunteer to phone bank some Pennsylvania voters. But stop with the shrill partisan demagoguery and the politics of destruction already. You're what's wrong with politics today. Also, Florida and Michigan are getting what they deserve. Rules are rules and they had plenty of time and warning to abide by them. I'm guessing they'll not try to get a head start in 2012. Hillary Clinton: see above. Rules are rules. You knew all these rules going in and it was your campaign who chose to ignore red states and caucuses other than Nevada. Pledged delegates matter. The electoral college matters. Sure, it would've been nice if we could've used IQ or popular vote to overrule the electoral college in 2000 and seat Gore, but you can't make up your own rules halfway in so they'll benefit you.

- Getting ridiculous...

March 26, 2008 at 3:03pm

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

Negativity is what will kill the Democrats chances in November. I happen to prefer Hillary, but I'll vote for Obama if he is our party's nominee. There's no way I would vote for the Republican. Any Democrat who thinks they would ought to be ashamed of themselves.

- LightenUpPeople

March 26, 2008 at 11:18pm

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

An ugly idea keeps resurfacing...the nomination of former VP Al Gore to settle the party rift. Let's put this one to bed RIGHT NOW!! There is no way in hell I'd vote for Al Gore instead of H.R.C. or B.H.C. I would sooner vote for McCain than A.G.... is that understood????!!!! The guy has got "one oar in the water!" We might as well hand the Presidency to McCain and get on with life than TRY to elect him again. Allot of us don't believe in the "sky is falling" environmental baloney he selling. Every day new data comes out contradicting this global warming crap. Some of us want drama in our lives so we buy into it....then WE GROW UP. A.G.? Give me a break.

- Lord Humongous

March 27, 2008 at 11:17am

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

The irony of this race is that McCain lost his ALLOT his staff, was broke...and almost dropped off the map 5 months ago. I don't know who fronted him the money to go on (Soros?)... but some believe he was to be the patsy for OUR sure thing. It SURE isn't feeling SURE these days.

-

March 27, 2008 at 11:30am

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

The simple fact is that this is not just a primary fight -- this is a life and death struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party that’s been going on since the heady days of John Kennedy. Ever since the disaster that was Barry Goldwater in ’64, the Republicans have been slowly moving towards the center. John McCain is just another logical step in this process. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been lurching back and forth between the left and the not so left. The current Obama and Clinton fight is merely the public face of this ongoing ideological battle. Eventually, some faction is going to win this “civil war” but it isn’t going to be now and it’s not going to be in Denver. In fact, given the carnage of this Primary Season, it may take several years. The one thing Democrats have to remember is their only winning candidates in nearly half a century, Carter and Clinton, were both Centerists.

- W.D.Fyfe

March 27, 2008 at 12:31pm

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

Fun article. Well written. Clever title. But just so I'm clear: What exactly does the American presidential election of 2008 have to do with the second coming? Should I be investing in bomb shelters and bibles?

- Darryl Magee

March 27, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

"Actually this entire quagmire can be traced back to the manner that the Democratic Party has segregated everyone into miniscule Special Interest Groups. The democrats have divided everyone by Race (Black, Brown, Asian, etc), Gender (GLBT), origin, sex, religious affiliation, class, etc. Even among the divisions they further divided the groups (Latinos, Latinos of Mexican descent, Blacks of caribean descent, etc)." Repubs don't have to segregate...they are all white people. White people are the majority, thus = win.

- Ryan

March 28, 2008 at 5:14am

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

Sign a petition politely asking her to withdraw now: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/clintonwithdrawnow/ "This petition respectfully and humbly requests that you make what may be the hardest decision of your public life and withdraw from the 2008 presidential contest. Your service to this country, passion about the issues and qualifications to be President are recognized by any fair-minded observer. In addition to your many accomplishments and service in the US Senate, you have come closer to the US presidency than any woman in history while bringing many important issues and positions to the national discourse. We now call on you to act as a statesman and perform a noble service to the nation by suspending your campaign. ..." Read the rest & sign at the URL above.

- TiredVoter

March 28, 2008 at 9:15am

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

I agree with #7. Hillary shouldn't have to bow out just because the Democratic party screwed up their own process. I was not impressed when Romney did it. The word for that is "quitter," and he won't get any support from me on anything from now on.

- olcottr

March 28, 2008 at 10:40am

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

Finally - Someone shows true intelligence.

- jonsie

March 29, 2008 at 5:23pm

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

JUST WONDERING WHY THE RUSH FOR HER TO GET OUT? YOU PEOPLE AT MSNBC AND MR RUSSETT ESPECIALLY HAVE BEEN YELLING FOR HER HEAD EVER SINCE DAY ONE OF THE CAMPAIGN. THAT'S WHY I NO LONGER WATCH MSNC I THINK IF OBAMA CAN EXCERSIZE HIS RIGHTS AND DISENFRANCHISE FLA AND MI THEN SHE CAN DO THE SAM AND STAY UNTIL SHE IS READY TO LEAVE.

- DIALTONE2511@AOL.COM

March 30, 2008 at 7:04pm

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

JUST WONDERING WHY THE RUSH FOR HER TO GET OUT? YOU PEOPLE AT MSNBC AND MR RUSSETT ESPECIALLY HAVE BEEN YELLING FOR HER HEAD EVER SINCE DAY ONE OF THE CAMPAIGN. THAT'S WHY I NO LONGER WATCH MSNC I THINK IF OBAMA CAN EXCERSIZE HIS RIGHTS AND DISENFRANCHISE FLA AND MI THEN SHE CAN DO THE SAM AND STAY UNTIL SHE IS READY TO LEAVE.

- DIALTONE2511@AOL.COM

March 30, 2008 at 7:04pm

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

well said

-

March 31, 2008 at 11:52am

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

The Rev. Wright clips were false and created by Fox news. The rev. is really quoting ambassador Peck the Clinton administration representative to Iraq. Obama will be the next president of the US.

- ombasha

April 8, 2008 at 2:11am

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

Well Well it seems we are wearing rose colored glasses as it qwas said during the ragan years,we the people of America are going to suffer even more with the Obama apidemic and so will our children.shame on us who voted for him and shame on the supper deligets and regular deligets who swoung over and sold our souls for a few bits of silver, I for one will never forget where I cam from and how I was raised to do the right thing ,and I ask my my self what would Jesus Do, as he died on the crooss for our sins and how easy it is for us to get up every morning aand go to our jobs and come home and eat our dinner and read the paper and maybe some will sit back and remember when we were young at heart and remembers the time when we as a nation were a whole and not broken apart.,and remember the time when our moms and dads went to war and fought hard for what we have today,and as our parents went to war they them selves went with honor and with God in their harts and the love at home they had supporting them...Our fuel was cheep our food was afordiable and our Church we prayed for love ones and at bed time we thanked our God ,,"Never forget" what we had at one time.We must never forget our saveour Jesus who we prayed to and still do for some who love him we alone are at grid lock with our selves on choosing a President ,so woul you put a person with no experence inthe white whos only reson for him to be there is not for you but for him self to prove that those whoare African American voted him just to make a point, Some with great power se this and support this Idea and do not how to back out now that they see he is not electable and America is not ready for this so call CHANGE that is the only change he has and you and me and our Country will sufffer this if the supper people do not pull back,, they are realy scared of what will happen so I say to them "PRAY TO OUR FATHER OUR LORD KING FOR COURAGE" AND STOP IT we who belive no you can supper peolpe you know you can make that change so its in your hands just fold them togrther and pray together and figur it out Gods is not ready for Obama nether are you...God Bleess

- Richard Lopez

May 28, 2008 at 3:33am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close