"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel."

"We control America" Ariel Sharon


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everywhere I hear and read liberal thought, Obama is lionized and Hillary is vilified. Now I'm to believe that the liberals of Pennsylvania democratically elected her. Sorry, America, but in this age of Limbaugh advocating Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries and Diebold, I have every right to reject what was reported to be the outcome of that election in this banana republic. When Jimmy Carter certifies the election for me, then I'll believe it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why doesn't that woman stop running? She isn't a "historic" candidate like Barack, she only takes large states, she can't win by normal delegates!

I mean its not like shes the first major female candidate, large states are worth more than small states, and Barack can't win by delegates either. I mean, that would make the Democratic Party a democracy! We can't be having that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I admit it. I like her better than Barack Obama and I think she can win. Part of my decision-making process is intellectual (I appreciate clearly stated policies) and part of my decision-making process is emotional (I think a woman could be a wonderful change from just another pissing-contest, and I recently lost my mother, so I am drawn to strong underdog women). Only a few months ago, I felt myself to be part of the mainstream "left" Alternet audience. Now Hillary - and by extension, myself - am/are villified by constant attacks from so called "alternative" voices who are strangely similar to those coming from the MSM. How many of us have seen the "Should Hillary Quit?" ads popping up on this very website? Why should she? By intimidation? Who funds these ads? God? You and I know the rules. If no one candidate achieves the requisite delegate margin, the contest is decided via a brokered convention. Those are the rules and there's no need to be frightened and paranoid by them - unless there's great anxiety underneath the bravado.

Reality check - Hillary won Pennsylvania by 10 - THAT'S TEN - percentage points, despite a money/media gap of 3-4 against 1. Is there no respect or recognition of this incredible victory? The MSM - of which Alternet is in my mind clearly an adjunct - is still unmoved by the will of the voters of PA, and the fine-toothed demographer elitists are already out to disparage them, as if one of their diploma-mill college degrees are worth more that the experience of living through the Great Depression (which we're about to reprise, and then some), or of working in a car garage, or at the post office. But limousine liberals beware. There's a mighty wave of discontent out there. BO is not speaking to it. And then there are disenfranchised Florida and Michigan voters whom BO's supporters ignore entirely as they tout his populist message. Without their votes, there is no legitimate nominee, so spare us your fanciful popular vote and delegate counts. To contest Hillary's viability is to question democracy itself.

Julie Brownstein

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If this is the best she can do being a 'Scranton Town girl' she is in big trouble.
She can not consider this a 'win' since she was up about 20 point only a few weeks ago, but of course she will.
Super Delegates should realize many Obama supporters Will NOT vote for her should they Hand Her the Nomination. I voted for Bill 2x's - was a supporter & Defender of Both (Far Too Long- Hindsight 20/20),But since she has been in the Senate I've seen enough evidence to be convinced she is NO DEM. Add to that her Outrageous comments about Nuking Iran if they attack Isreal,SAUDI OR UAE And Now I'm as fearful of her as I have been since the first time Dick stepped out of the Shadows. She is the 'Devil in the Blue Dress'- Dick in Drag. No real Dem would consider 'Obliterating' any other country-not even as a Bluff.
She is as Crazy as Nixon, as Senile as Reagan, as Complicite as HW and as much of an meglomaniac as W. Just another Puppet for Cheney &Co.
P.S. thanks Penn for making sure she didn't walk away with a 'Mandate'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I admit it. I like her better than Barack Obama and I think she can win. Part of my decision-making process is intellectual (I appreciate clearly stated policies) and part of my decision-making process is emotional (I think a woman could be a wonderful change from just another pissing-contest, and I recently lost my mother, so I am drawn to strong underdog women). Only a few months ago, I felt myself to be part of the mainstream "left" Alternet audience. Now Hillary - and by extension, myself - am/are villified by constant attacks from so called "alternative" voices who are strangely similar to those coming from the MSM. How many of us have seen the "Should Hillary Quit?" ads popping up on this very website? Why should she? By intimidation? Who funds these ads? God? You and I know the rules. If no one candidate achieves the requisite delegate margin, the contest is decided via a brokered convention. Those are the rules and there's no need to be frightened and paranoid by them - unless there's great anxiety underneath the bravado.

Reality check - Hillary won Pennsylvania by 10 - THAT'S TEN - percentage points, despite a money/media gap of 3-4 against 1. Is there no respect or recognition of this incredible victory? The MSM - of which Alternet is in my mind clearly an adjunct - is still unmoved by the will of the voters of PA, and the fine-toothed demographer elitists are already out to disparage them, as if one of their diploma-mill college degrees is inherently worth more that the experience of living through the Great Depression (which we're about to reprise, and then some), or of working in a car garage, or at the post office. But limousine liberals beware. There's a mighty wave of discontent out there. BO is not speaking to it. And then there are disenfranchised Florida and Michigan voters whom BO's supporters ignore entirely as they tout his populist message. Without their votes, there is no legitimate nominee, so spare us your fanciful popular vote and delegate counts. To contest Hillary's viability is to question democracy itself.

Julie Brownstein

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmmm...just read the hysterical comments of Purple Girl to affirm my own. No mention that BO threw Jimmy Carter under bus a few days ago while pandering to certain voters, condemning our Nobel Peace-Prize-winning former president's courageous peace efforts in the Middle East while masturbating himself though his snooze-worthy stump speech (once you get used to the lovely tone, it's DULL - like a failed AMERICAN IDOL contestant). Ummm...what words did he use this time? World peace? Unity? Believe?. At least HRC was a little more colorful on the same topic. Obliterate. She doesn't mean it, but you'd never know. Would Purple Girl please explain to me BO's support of the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill even as she heavy-breathes over HRC's ominous words about Scranton?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Leader?

She has trouble
Cleaning her own house
And
Throwing out
The Garbage.

If she had any B-LLS?
She would have dumped
Mr. Cigar Affectionado
Wild Bill
A long time ago.

All the Reptilian
Fauxtian Voters

All The Garbage
Spewing Blimps

All of Diebold's
Phony Black Boxes

Can put
Put Hillery
Back in
The Black House
Again.

Last CALL!

The BUSH/Cliton DINOSTY
is
over.

Where's Jeb?
Someone got his Goat?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack Obama is the most extraordiary candidate to come down the Democratic pike in four decades. What does his defeat in Pennsylvania mean? It means that the Democratic primary voters in that states are racists and fools. It caon't mean anything else.

Here's a wake-up call for the Democrats:

AMERICA IS SICK TO DEATH OF THE CLINTONS.

If the party of FDR is smart (yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking, just bear with me) they will come up with a compromise candidate at their Denver convention that the party will be able to unite behind. I know that that' a long shot but it is the only thing that's going to save them in November. But that is not likely to happen. Why? Because the best that can be said of the Dems these days is that they're not quite as dumb as the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be the president of the United States. The only way a Democratic candidate has a chance to win a national election is if a huge turnout of African Americans turns up en masse at the polls. In November, a lot of them are going to remember what the Clintonistas did to the first African American in history who had a chance to live in the White House and a lot of them are going to stay home - or vote for Ralph Nader. Come to think about it, I just might end up doing the same thing. A choice between Hillary Clinton and John McCain is really no choice at all.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
And now a word or two about Capital Punishment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This guy is like the campy Reverand Wright of Alternet - blatantly racist (against whites, of which he is, ironically one) - and fired up against...the Clintons? Oh, please. What country are you living in? BO takes all kinds of corporate money - even from the nuclear industry - and Tom Degan, secular saint - likens him to a sort of post-industrial Che Guevera. So funny. And so deluded. And might as well be a McCain operative for all the party unity this anti-Clinton hysteria you're trying to provoke. And I know you're smart. And I know you write a lot. But you are the classic limousine liberal - and it's YOU - not the disenfranchised people of PA who voted for HRC by a margin of 10 PERCENT - who are destroying the "democrat" party, as your favorite demon would say....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton did NOT achieve a 10% lead

If the Math is Correct - at the last count with only 2 Counties with a few votes to come in (both in which Obama has a comfortable lead)

Total Votes Clinton 1,258,245 = 54.69%
Obama 1,042,297= 45.31%

Which equates to 9.38% lead by Clinton

Is this another unintentional Lie???

Isn't 9.38 closer 9.00 rather than 10 ???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The longer this plays on, the worse it is for Obama. The accumulation of negative issues surrounding him seems to be taking it's toll.

The democratic party seems hell bent on destroying any chances it had of gaining the whitehouse.

If Hillary pulls this out, McCain is the winner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's the headline: Clinton the Brawler Beats Obama the Consensus Builder

Every time the press characterizes Clinton yet again as a "brawler" clawing her way to the top with her thick ankles and manipulative, nasty, lying ways it also implies this: The voters who back her are nothing but the same.

I am one of those dumb-bells, I guess, and I'm so glad that Steven Rosenfeld is so brilliant that he was able to flush me out of the woods.

Yup, that's me, stupid, unable to discern that Senator Obama is a paragon of perfection who will have Congress and the world singing Kumbaya this time next year, if not earlier.

Thank you for your intelligensia elucidation. I am grateful to you and the Tom Russerts of the world for helping us poor slobs see the light. I'm still bowing as I sign off....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm amazed by all the Clinton supporters on this board who seem to think that Clinton's getting the shaft because of sexism on the part of voters and the media. If we voted for the ex-president's wife, what kind of "affirmation" of women's equality would that be? Do we want to be a country like Peru or the Philippines? Those are the kind of countries that elect the ex-president's wife. On her own, Hillary is at best a mid-level political hack who parlayed her family associations into a single full-term as a senator. During that time in the Senate, she supported Bush on the war and feigned ignorance of the facts when asked why she didn't oppose him. She has no qualifications, no integrity, and no chance. She wants to drain Obama's coffers and smear his name so he'll lose to McCain - giving us another 4 years of BUSH co. - and set herself up to run again in 2012. She's willing to sacrifice what's left of the country just to have another shot at running in 4 years. It's time for Hillary to go bye-bye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As the cost of oil continues to become more and more expensive, therefore, damaging our economy; the US dollar plunges in value; inflation is a real plus ten percent and increasing; more companies are dismissing workers; real estate sales have plunged and value is crashing:

Hillary threatens Iran with nuclear destruction, and sabotashes Mr. Obama's rightful nomination as the Democratic presidental candidate.

The people of Pennsylvania have supported two candidates who are cooporate shills. Though mr. Obama may be the less of two evils, he still takes huge amounts of campaign money from Wall Street.

Cui Bono? The ruling elite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I'd like to know is how Hillary Clinton is "sabotaging" Barack Obama's campaign by garnering votes? Would you prefer we move to a dictatorship where voters don't matter?

She is STILL IN THE RACE STILL because there are voters who STILL WANT HER IN THE RACE.

Get it?

If any one of you wants a self-anointed government I can suggest lots of places in the world where you might feel more comfortable.

America, in case anyone has forgotten or missed that history class, is a Democracy.

Sorry your candidate can't just walk in unopposed. But that's life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For Change Vote Obama!

John Mellencamp - Small Town (Video)

Bruce Springsteen - Radio Nowhere (Video)

Supporting Barack Obama 08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Hillary is given the nomination, here's the first republican attack ad...

"Hillary Clinton:
How can she be trusted to run the country honestly when she ignored the popular vote and pandered to the party elite to get her nomination?"

I'm really sick of the popular vote not counting in this country. Having big state voters decide the election (without counting smaller states) is the antithesis of everything that is democratic. The rest of us have a say in this as well, and we voted for Obama. What I hear here is that Hillary should stay in because it would be good for democracy. My question is, how is ignoring the popular vote, the delegate count and basic math good for democracy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is not the "underdog" who is too tough to beat. She's the former front runner and presumptive nominee who is trailing a relative newcomer because he has a better message and has impressed voters with his honesty and vision.

Hillary brags about being outspent in PA and still managing to win. But she went from a 25 point favorite to a 10 point win and has less money because for the first time in memory, Obama's small contributors (more than a million) have supplied him with more cash than Hillary's big time corporate donors have. If she had the money, she would spend it. She doesn't have it because Obama has broader support.

If Hillary would make a better candidate against the Republicans, how come SHE can't put away this alegedly weak and inexperienced hope merchant? She started this thing with a huge advantage in name recognition and financial backing and look where they stand. She not only has a problem with lying to us, she has a problem with lying to herself.

I used to admire her, but not any more. She's made it obvious that she has more interest in winning the Presidency than she has in the good of the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is fantastic that so many people are so idealistic in their views of how we want our country and our president to be. We need to be idealistic, but we also need to understand that the political landscape of today is ready to crush the idealistic.
Yes, the words of Senator Obama are inspiring and motivational. Every time I hear him speak I come away with a smile on my face. Idealism is not dead.

But, ladies and gentlemen, ideals or not...this time around we need to look at reality in choosing our leaders. After the smiles,promises and great speeches are over, the taking back of America begins.

I keep hearing about how Senator Clinton has turned this campaign into a dirty race, but all that I have seen and heard is criticism and bickering between the two candidates. Isn't that to be expected in a political race?

Most of the contention that Senator Clinton is not playing nice has come from the "pundits" who compromise information for ratings and, bottom feeders that most of them are, they are the ones who have thrown any dirt into the scene. They have villified Senator Clinton with their words and the smirks on their faces. (Reminds me of the smirking little puke who now lives in the White House). They have pecked and poked at Senator Obama to the point of attacking him for things his minister said and for things that are totally unrelated to the issues of this part of the election process. Who are these people? Help them find their home rock and lift it up so that they can climb back under there, then stand on it.

Do we really believe that the Republican Party and our dominating industrial giants are going to always play fair and run a clean and idealistic campaign against the Democratic candidate? Do we really believe that men like Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney are rare? If so, we are at best naive and at worst out of touch with the reality of those who seek to control and continually bilk the American people.

My hope is that Senator Clinton gets the nomination and fights as hard and as dirty as she needs to in order to give America back to Americans. If Senator Obama wins the nomination, I hope that he learns fast to fight fire with fire...dirt with dirt...because this country is at present in the grasp of a lot of nasty folks who don't give a fig about the people who put them there.They will not go away without a lot of mud-wrestling.

Hold fast to to the concept of ideals and goodness...we all need that...but even Superman has to "bust a few chops" for truth, justice and the American way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, but that's a description that fits Hillary, not Barak. She assumed she would be the annointed one and win the election with relative ease. Oops! The voters are deciding otherwise. Big deal, she won Pennsylvania (by less than half the lead she had a month ago) and had to resort to dirty politics to pull it off. She still faces an insurmountable deficit and is without money, because Obama has broader support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anyone who promises to 'obliterate iran' DOES NOT deserve nor will get my vote...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I congratulate Hillary and her supporters for winning Pennsylvania. With all the resources and effort we poured into the state we were only able to cut her lead of 20 to 25 points in about half.

I compare this thing to a 100 meter dash, however. Pre-Iowa, Hillary had a 90 meter head start and she was showering herself with victory flowers and spending outlandish amounts of money on nonsensical things.

Then around end-of-February or March Barack crossed the finish line and Hillary hadn't really moved.

If a sprinter starts a 100 meter dash with a 90 meter head start and loses even a small percentage of that lead before the finish line, maybe it's time to question whether they're in the right race and not question the length of the race or the rules that created the race.

Another sports analogy. If a boxer gets knocked down round after round and round after round she gets up and stumbles into the last round behind on every single card in every single way and lands a decent punch, the judges don't say "she's the winner and new champion."

The sports writers say "gosh, she fought a gutsy fight. Too bad she waited to the end of the last round to throw a good punch."

I appreciate the fact the news media want to make up more stories and make this "real" exciting. But even Paul Begala said last night (paraphrasing) "let's not make this bigger than it is." The reason for this is because most of us, like Barack in his speech last night, have moved on to November as a new race, a new match, has begun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Repub. can't win this election, so they need a Dem nominee who will be the most compliant with their agenda. Recently, the media began embracing Clinton, who has consistently promoted the Repub. (pro-war, anti-worker) agenda, in spite of deep public opposition to that agenda. She has been solidly anti-New Deal, with a long record of support for the Rep. economic agenda that created the mess we have today (defunding "common good" programs to pay for unlimited corporate tax "relief").

Yesterday, when only 1/3 of the votes were in, the media declared Clinton the winner. A "done deal", already decided. If the election were decided by the people, statistics clearly show that Barack Obama would win, but Clinton has been picked.

B. Clinton started repealing the New Deal via welfare "reform", and H. Clinton will focus on a similar Social Security "reform", which has been a primary Repub. goal for decades.

That said, is there any chance of seeing Obama
become president?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chipmunk Cheeks died in his sleep last night after only six months in office, the shortest presidency since Garfield.

Now President Romney is free to bomb Iran, sell off Social Security to Goldman Sachs and get polygamy legalized. Sales of American flag pins and magic underwear - both entirely imported from China - skyrocket.

Great work, Democrats!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just like the other 2,000,000 supports are doing today. The reason that Clinton is in debt is because the "real' Democrats (who contribute and who will vote for their party in November) are sending her a message...get out of the race...you have no right to be there...you can't win!

Meanwhile, the Reagan Democrats keep pulling her lever knowing that they are helping their buddy McCain who they will vote for in the fall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary did NOT win by 10%, it was much closer to 8%, than 10. For confirmation, check with the PA Sec. of State's Office and Daily Kos.

We have CNN and the Mainstream Corporate Media to thank for that. They obviously did some major "rounding up" to get to the 10% figure, thus breathing new life into her campaign, which they want to do to keep the contest going.

This is an example of how the big lie, once told becomes the conventional wisdom, and is repeated over and over by well meaning folks, even right here on Alternet.

Bloggers, thanks for keeping the big boys honest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am from Alabama, have been living in liberal Taos NM for almost 20 years, and people say I'm one of the most liberal people they know.

Being from the South, and staying in touch with friends and family from there, I can tell you that NOT ONCE since the Clintons left the WH did the Hillary hate jokes stop. Before she became Sen. of NY, and ever since. The SOUTH hates her.

I do not like her. I think she is unprincipled and a liar. I am a woman, and a feminist and would give anything to see a woman President, but I do have integrity.....and I don't think Hillary does. I cannot in good conscience vote for her, and I think many people who were raised to believe that integrity and honesty are important personal traits (particularly in a President) are going to have a hard time voting for her. I would also like to vote a) for something other than a revolving family ruler and b)a woman who is not riding in on her husband's coattails.

I have defended the Clintons as often as I could over the years, but with the way they have hurt the party during this election cycle - they are not getting my defense anymore and they sure aren't getting my vote. I think they are bad for this country.

AND ANOTHER THING - The one thing that no pundit is talking about that I think is VERY GERMANE is that what we are seeing this election cycle is a revolution in the party. It's the Republican Lite DLC (who haven't been able to get anybody elected since the Clintons since if folks want Repub policies they can just vote for the Repub) desperately trying to cling to the power they have left VS. the progressive new life in the party represented by the grass roots. It's actually quite similar to what is happening in the world at large - with the economy, the food issues, the fuel issues....we are seeing the final desperate graspings of the dying white patriarchy. They are manically trying to consolidate their "control" of the world's people and resources, and it's clear that it's not working and will not work. There are forces of culture and history that they cannot control, try as they might. The Clintons seem to have a similar mentality. They must maintain their power structures and control at whatever cost to the party and the country, but it is not working, because there are forces they cannot control.

Hillary is not electable. The Republicans are cheating to make her the candidate because they know that. The South will NEVER go for her.

So, if you want another Republican President to represent the gasping dying desperate stupid white men who are almost out of power, go ahead, support an unelectable Democrat.

The only way she IS electable is through fraud. Which I definitely wouldn't put past the Clintons. Murdoch loves her, he will help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't support Democrats, but it is really curious that Clinton keeps "running" even though it has become absolutely clear that - short of an Obama assassination - they have no chance of winning the nomination.

Jeffery St. Claire has it right:

"Hillary must know that she cannot possibly win the nomination by any rational standard. Hence the comic moment on Tuesday when her finance chairman Terry McAuliffe was asked to define what Mrs Clinton would invoke as a fair claim on the Democratic nomination. McAuliffe said it would either be a victory in the popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses -- including Michigan and Florida – (a very remote contingency) or a lead in the pledged delegates (an impossibility) or a lead among Superdelegates (among whom, since March 6, HRC has collected 12 and Obama 88) or there would be a consensus among party leaders that Obama is incapable of beating McCain. Obama is still ahead of McCain, though thanks to Mrs Clinton’s efforts the margin is narrowing."

"In other words there’s no rational scenario here, except the one suggested here by St Clair a month ago that her real aim is to ensure a McCain victory this year and come back in 2012."

You see, it is all about the Clintons, and nothing else matters. To that end the Clintons would much rather work with John McCain to secure his election, knowing full well that, hated and without a base within his own party outside of the neocons and military industry, and stuck with a failing economy and failing wars, he is likely to be a one term President.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton must endure becoming a national laughingstock. The current joke is that, should Obama be elected President in November, she'll still stay in the race - she's no quitter, remember!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It appears that Hillary will do anything to win the nomination, including the use of Karl Rove tactics to destroy America's hope for the future, Barack Obama.

Even so, I will vote for Mrs. Sniper Fire in the general election because the alternative -- four more years of Bush economic policies and the Iraq War -- is totally unacceptable.

On the bright side, if Hillary runs against Senator McCain in November, it will be the end of her politically and the beginning of a resurgent Obama campaign for the White House in 2012.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com, the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another tidbit:

I have friends from Alabama (more than 1 or 2) who have emailed me wanting more info about Obama. They are registered Republicans who are genuinely considering voting for him - because they think he might be best for the country.

So even though Alabama gets a lot of negative press here on Alternet (a lot of it deserved) - there are MANY, especially from younger generations, who don't fit the profile and shouldn't be written off. Even registered Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Clinton asks why Obama didn't take Pennsylvania, she's not acknowledging a fact that is all too clear. Thousands and thousands of Republicans in Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania, changed their party affiliation and voted for Clinton in the primaries - although they have no intention of supporting her in fall. They are McCain supporters, and as Rush intended, they have successfully skewed the vote. Further, when Clinton asks why Obama didn't take Pennsylvania, since he out-spent her in the state, she is not acknowledging that 1) She began massive mud-slinging about six weeks ago, which he had to counter, which accounts for a great deal of the money he had to spend, and 2) It was believed that she would lead by 28 or more points, so the fact that she closed out with only a 10-point lead means that Obama did, in fact, take quite a bit of the state of Pennsylvania from Clinton.
Further, it is ironic in the extreme - and sad - that so many blue collar workers who've watched their jobs shipped overseas have lost their jobs due in large part to Bill Clinton's NAFTA - yet these people have voted for Hillary as though they know nothing about her husband's part in destroying their livelihoods; guess they don't. It was like watching welfare moms voting for Head-Start and social service killer George W. Bush. Nothing could be more sad than seeing people supporting the very leaders who would bury them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As much as I hoped Obama could come back and put Clinton away in Pennsylvania last night, I had to console myself with the fact that Clinton needed to win by 20 to make a dent in Obama's lead and she did not. Now the race comes here to Indiana and we are in the crosshairs. However, the comments made by Obama's team toward the end of the article are telling,

"The Obama camp, in contrast, noted that Clinton had advantages that money cannot buy, such as the endorsement of Pennsylvania's popular and influential Democratic Governor, Edward Rendell, and the backing of his organization in a state with a history of loyal party politics. Still, Obama's staff said he would clinch the nomination in coming contests because the "delegate math" was on his side."

The Clinton team has many of the same advantages here in Indiana. Clinton has the backing of our popular and influential Democratic Senator Evan Bayh and the backing of the state Party organization that is, by and large, loyal to Bayh.

An "X" factor, however, is the large number of new voters who will be voting for Obama. The Obama team in Indiana focused on voter registration, knowing that the vast majority of new voters will vote for Obama. These are also voters who do not register in opinion polls taken of "likely" voters. As Stalin said, "It is not who casts the votes, it is who counts the votes." That can also apply to pollsters. Pollsters decide who is, and is not, a "likely" voter and that formula can vary widely.

I forsee a win for Clinton, probably along the lines of Pennsylvania. Maybe 53-47 or 52-48 with Clinton taking the more rural and conservative/moderate areas of the state like the 4th, 5th and 6th Congressional districts. Obama will continue to do well in urban areas, such as Gary in the 1st, Michigan City and South Bend in the 2nd, and Indianapolis in the 7th. However, such a victory will still only net Clinton a handful of the delegates she needs to catch Obama. Also, our superdelegates will respect the will of their constituents, so a win in each Democratic Congressional district is gold (1st, 2nd, 8th and 9th. Andre Carson in the 7th has already endorsed Obama)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton can hardly talk without making thinking people want to stab their ears out. When Obama crowds cheer, it’s usually because he’s said something deft and inspiring. But look at the sort of things Hillary has to say to win cheers:
"Some people,” Clinton said, “counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don't quit and they want a president who doesn't want to quit either."
After such an apparent win, you’d think Hillary would draw attention to the major differences between her and Obama; that she’d point to what really gave her the edge in the race. This is customary. But Clinton can’t point to what gave her the edge, because what gave her the edge is shameful: media bullshit. Not wanting to point this out, Clinton spews the meaningless drivel apparent above. As if “not quitting” is some sort of virtue. It’s more a picture of stubbornness (much like Bush’s reluctance to listen to the facts about Iraq) than of assuredness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just for fun, I put an analysis of the candidates together. Guess the tussling will continue for two more weeks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The notion that Senator Clinton's "big win" is a predictor of how she'll do in a national election is, at best, a stretch. What seems to me to be the ultimate issue is that the Senator has played the race card very effectively. It is obvious that her constant reference to "blue collar males" is simply a code word for white men.

I support Barak Obama for two reasons. First, he represents a radical change in political practice in America. He has the intellectual horsepower to address the needs of our nation; the integrity to confront the forces that have destroyed our standing in the world; and the sense to know that nothing can change if "we the people" do not unite to save our country from the corporate/religious/neo-con forces that control it now.

Second, because of America's history of race relations, each of us who are African American represents our race in miniature. Everything that a black person does (or doesn't do) reflects on all of us. If Obama loses, ALL African Americans lose; if that happens - like it or not - America loses.

Re: the Pennsylvania Primary ... James Carvelle said it best, "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburg separated by Alabama."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've read nearly all the posts here, so here are my random thoughts. As the comedian Steven Wright noted, "If someone says 'a penny for your thoughts' and you put in your two cents, who keeps the change?"....

Hillary carries so much negative baggage that there are enough people who will not vote for her come hell or high water. The dumbest thing the Dems can do is to nominate her for Prez. She would lose the general election, not winning enough states in the Electoral College.

I'm in Texas. A note for her campaign, the pundits and any readers here: she did not win Texas. We have a dual system, with about 2/3 of the delegates allocated by the regular primary vote; the other 1/3 via the caucuses. Obama won the caucuses, and has more pledged delegates from Texas. In Texas, you can vote in either primary-they just stamp your card "Democratic" or "Republican". I know there were ,amy Repugs who decided to cross over and vote for Hillary for various reasons. Some perhaps were truly inspired by her message, but many did it just because the GOP contest was already decided, and they wanted to vote in a way that somehow made a difference, or made a statement. I myself crossed over and voted for McCain in 2000 GOP TX primary because the Democratic one was already a moot point for Gore, and I wanted to make a statement against W.

As for her claims of "35 years of experience", 20 of those were being the wife of a governor and president. So, I guess if you are married to a brain surgeon, then you can operate on a patient. If your husband is a pilot, then you can fly a jet.

Hillary (and Bill's) egos are so inflated that they will do anything to get elected. She moved to New York as a carpetbagger to run for Senate, even though they were from Arkansas, and she was originally from Illinois.

Think about this: If Hillary became Prez, then since 1980 we would have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House....

She would serve the nation and her party better by staying in the Senate-she could become the Senate Majority Leader, where she would be able to do that fighting and hard work for the Anerican people. Or, President Obama could name her as Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services.

It is not mysoginy to say that I do not want her as President. I would like to see a woman president; just not THAT woman at THIS time.

Likewise, for those who do not want to vote for Obama being accused of racism....if you don't want to have a Black president, then vote for his White half!

Winning a party primary in a state does not mean that your party will win that state in the general election, Electoral College.

Support the troops-bring them home...NOW!
Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hilary Clinton's "big" win in PA wasn't that much of a surprise to anyone with a brain.

While I admire Hilary for sticking it out, I DO NOT admire her tactics, nor her stances. I'm still waiting for one of the Hilary-istas to explain to me why she VOTED FOR the war in Iraq and supported NAFTA. Woman or not, how can I trust someone who doesn't have the moral courage to stand up for what's RIGHT, even in the face of opposition? Basically, she and other cowardly Democrats gave Cowboy Bush a blank check to embroil this country in a war that we will not win.

What has always pissed me off however, have been the rabid "either/or feminists" who have soured me against Hilary with their endless bleatings about sexism, totally ignoring the level of racism in this country. They tout the same party line about black men gaining the right to vote before women, and completly gloss over such obstacles like the poll tax, literacy tests, and failing those tactics, physical violence INCLUDING MURDER.

These privileged women (mainly white as ususual) pay scant attention to their own intrinsic racism, yet expect us women of color to fall in line. Say what you like, but Barack Obama has NEVER complained about his race being a negative factor (though I'm certain he knows it and so does everyone else). Only Hilary and her crybaby supporters have whined about being unfairly picked on by the media. If Hilary is so damn "strong" as they claim, then she should be able to suck it up and deal with it with the same class as Obama.

I guess Hilary's LYING about getting shot at in Bosnia was an example of singling her out? I guess taking a whisky shot chased with a beer suddenly makes her less 'elitist'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A female weasel is still a weasel. The thought of having to choose between Hillary and McCain makes me seriously considering joining the ranks of voters who don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... No. I'm a Democrat. - Will Rogers.

It's increasingly clear that Hillary, whatever her supposed "experience", is the candidate the GOP want to run against.

Why?

Because the GOP knows they can win against her. After all, American culture is more sexist than racist.

Seems to me this is, or should be, clear to the Democratic party already.

So I ask you, seriously, is the current fight between Hillary and Obama just for show (gets them on TV every night, such as it is) or is the Democratic Party actually so frakin' stupid they are willing to throw out the actual election to satisfy the giant ego and legacy of the Clinton mob?

Hope it's the former. ;p

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And they keep asking "Why He can not seal the deal?". I know why: because 15-30% of democrats still use race as a criteria on who to vote for. What a shame. Until that generation die off,It will be like this. And Hillary plays up the race. As in "He can not win the elections (black man)" and "as far as I know he is not Muslim (May be he is)" and "I would have walked out of the church (Black Church)" and Her husband comparing him to Jesse Jackson (Black Candidate).
All evidence suggests that a large percent of Hillary's voters would never vote for a black man. That is why he can not seal the deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's safe to say:

OBAMA: winning :D

CLINTON: LOSING! D:

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got to hear about the primary through the grapevine of all my family and peers still stuck in the pothole that is PA. All I can say is, I'm laughing my ass off rolling on the floor.

Come petrocollapse all this shite will still be shite; all three candidumbs have an equally ferocious potential and proclivity for torching whatever is left of 'Merkuh, screamin' "freedom!" and wrapping themselves in a flag with a cross in the background.

Rich people will be the brute force that drags humanity into extinction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey,
To everyone panicizing on 'obliteration' word:
I've heard Obama and Clinton both talk tough on Iran.
They also both said diplomatic relations were paramount.
c/o PolitFact.com
The Clinton campaign is right when it asserts that there is little difference between Clinton and Obama on Iran policy. Both advocate aggressive diplomacy and economic sanctions, and both say a military strategy cannot be ruled out.
So it's Jimmy Carter whose the "man" this week.
Every intelligent wealthy Israeli should invest in Palestine's
infra-structure and well-being.
Those people are seriously hurting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These things are not bad alone, in the way that Hillary is attacking BHO; but instead they show a consistent state of poor judgement on Obama's part:

Admitting Hard Drug Use in a Book- Not a very good judgement call for any politician to do. Saying you've tried grass a few times is a lot different than saying you did blow.

Not Distancing yourself from Wright before or Now- Again, I'm not debating whether this guy should be disparaged or not. But a SMART politician would never attend such a church, or seek to distance themselves from him when allegations did come out.

Not putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem- Again, not questioning it as it pertains to patriotism. But if you look at every other Democratic candidate at that event, they all hand their hand over their hearts. Any person with decent judgement would look around, see their older and wiser competitors doing this and follow suit. This shows me he either puts his principles before pragmatism (a bad trait most often) or that he has incredibly poor judgement.

Having a professed Marxist as your head blogger- Communism doesn't play well with the American electorate, another bad idea.

Maintaining a relationship with Ayers- The guy said his only regret in life is that he didn't plant MORE bombs. Would you be friends with a guy like this? Nuff Said.

And Finally Constantly putting his foot in his mouth- From his wife's tirades, to his "cling to guns" statements; this guy can't even watch his own or wives words around friendly confines. The republicans will pounce on stuff like this come the General Election.

There are several others, but they don't immediately come to mind. In short all this speaks to his inexperience in being on a national stage. So how is he going to act on the world stage? Are we to be shackled with the "hope" that he doesn't continue to use his poor judgement? Or should the Democrats nominate someone with a bit more political savy. Someone who at least knows how to act on the campaign trail and in the White House. People will defiantely elect the Clintons again as they have fond memories of the Clinton era. Would they elect BHO? If his track-record of poor judgement is a precursor of dire mistakes he will make against McCain, then hell no! The question is are the Democrats willing to do what it takes to win the election by nominating Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you have some time on your hands ...
mind paying some ATTENTION to passing The Word:

GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) owns MSNBC & NBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. ENABLED, By the Cheney enrgy Bill, to begin building nuclear power plants again (after 30 years of NONE)... GE & Westinghouse, the nuke industry ... are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants.

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Her Energy Plan Does Not Include Nuclear.

Obama & McCain are Pro-Nuclear. THAT is WHY the "mainstream meda" MSNBC, NBC, CBS are Spewing Pro-Obama, Pro-MCain, Anti-Clinton PROPAGANDA all day everyday.

IT's the NEXT BIG Cheney Monopoly ENERGY RIPOFF ... just waiting in the wings for the election of EITHER Obama or McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary didn't win by DOUBLE DIGITS. And she didn't 'win' Texas, Michigan, or Florida. Hillary is sending one message to all Democrats... "No black person can win the general election." Thanks, Hillary. Where's her JUDGMENT? This message is fatal for her in the general election. And if you think 'flag pins' are a problem for Obama, just wait until we find out what Bill's been up to the last 7 years. Talk about taking a pass on JUDGMENT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have gotten to the point where the TV goes on mute now during election coverage. Just give me the numbers so I can go to bed. Pennsylvania was predicted and almost expected given the tracking polls. Governor Rendell was right - rural Dems were not going to support a black nominee and they said so - Clinton won the rural counties by margins of 40% or more. Of course, the exit polling will leave the "race" question out of it and hide behind code words.

Sadly we are engaged in protracted electoral trench warfare now. Obama will win back all the delegates lost in NC and possibly extend his lead in Indiana and Oregon. Clinton will once again triumph among the conservative white blue collar base that puts a premium on race in states like WV and KY. And come June we will be about where we started this process, Obama still leading in popular vote, delegate count and states won.

Clinton needs to think about a reasonable and constructive exit strategy. But that doesn't seem to be the plan - the plan is to force her selection at the convention which will be, of course, the real nuclear option. Forcing the leader in the race out will cause the party to implode and ensure the loss of the election in November. She and her husband have demonstrated that they have absolutely no interest in furthering the goals of the Democratic Party - only in achieving this "victory" that will ring hollow and dark by year's end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From CounterPunch

Hillary must know that she cannot possibly win the nomination by any rational standard. Hence the comic moment on Tuesday when her finance chairman Terry McAuliffe was asked to define what Mrs Clinton would invoke as a fair claim on the Democratic nomination.

McAuliffe said it would either be a victory in the popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses -- including Michigan and Florida – (a very remote contingency) or a lead in the pledged delegates (an impossibility) or a lead among Superdelegates (among whom, since March 6, HRC has collected 12 and Obama 88) or there would be a consensus among party leaders that Obama is incapable of beating McCain.

Obama is still ahead of McCain, though thanks to Mrs Clinton’s efforts the margin is narrowing.

In other words there’s no rational scenario here, except the one suggested here by St Clair a month ago that her real aim is to ensure a McCain victory this year and come back in 2012.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey there fellow average commentator - all of us hacks should stop typing and just read the marvellous post "Big Fat Reality Check" by "Lasirene".

I would also like to suggest to alternet.org that maybe they ought to publich her post so that more people will read it. And no, I don´t know who she is, but what she said made the most sense of ANYTHING I have read or watched or heard about this election.

I just hope that she´s not a professional operative in disguise....she´s certainly knowledgeable enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Despite what the Clinton campaign claims, the Democratic race is not a race for the popular vote or for most big states won.

The Democratic race is a race for delegates, plain and simple. States determine how those delegates are chosen...caucuses or primaries or even a mix.

What Clinton is trying to do is pretend the race is not about total delegates. If the tables were turned, her campaign and the Dem party elites would have already pushed Obama out of the race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I also knew she was a great loser for the republican party. She and John McCain should go on a ticket dowwwwwn. The problem is the party is fractured. the clinton's really have been doing this since 92', only coming to fruition now.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let’s see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;

Hillary Clinton;

Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

Barack Obama:

Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?

2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?

3. Do you believe either Clinton or Obama is free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?

How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when both Clinton and Obama have received more industry campaign cash than their Republican opponent? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.

Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable health care, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people.

What we’re left with is truly the best democracy money can buy. As we all know, or should know, that’s no democracy at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

10 points is not decisive, nor is it a "huge" victory. Obama still leads on primaries won and delegate count. If he were any other candidate with these numbers, there would be no discussion about who is in the lead. If it were any other opponent without the Clinton machine, this question would also be moot--Bill was the best spinmeister next to Rove.

Which bring me to wonder if we're ready for a candidate who clearly speaks to a cross section of the electorate about the issues that really matter or are we too enmeshed in our historical legacy to see beyond race?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Always have, always will. I have continually gotten Hillary hating jokes and cartoons about her since getting on the internet seven years ago. I used to stick up for the Clintons, but have come to see that they and the DLC are not for working people, just for power and control. As a really disaffected Kucinich supporter, I plan on voting for Cynthia McKinney if she is the Green Party nominee. I believe both Clinton and Obama are bought and paid for by the big boys. We will never have REAL change in this country with either of them in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know that Barack Obama has a few growing pains, I also know that Hillary / Bill know his perceived vulnerabilities. But, a few month's ago...on Fox, they were discussing Hillary's campaign (insiders probably know shell end up somehow on the ticket) and they have dick morris (been there for the clinton's since arkansas days)a dvd out there about her, all her baggage is coming up, they were actually stratagizing what they are going to do to politically bury both the Clintons.

I do know what they have, I tried to post it and it was taken off. I have researched this couple for twenty years. Voter's will tar and feather Bill and Hillary Clinton on the public square. their dirty laundry will include the 'Clinton Family Machine'. Most have been with her since College daze.

If she wins the nomination...sorry, steals the primaries, she will be dead on impact at the general.

Her Queenite fantasy will be over...in the meantime FEC is investigating all campaign donations to the Clinton camp...that is the reason she / they have been playing safe the last couple month's.

Also the Federal Court ordered officials to be at polls in case of voter fraud. Just a tidbit. I think they found something in other states and are extremely watching voter's and counts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality is that those who voted against Barack in the primaries will vote against him in November. Also, just as the blacks will block vote for Obama the whites will block vote for McCain.

Result; 4 more years of Republican "Leadership", too bad Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... I realize now what a bitter, humorless and sad little boy that you are, Jimmy.

So very, very sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Clintons have gotten fawned praise from mainstream media for giving 10 percent of their $109 million income since 2000 to "charity."

At first glance, 10% is a worthy and commendable amount. However, as many things about Hillary and her hubby, you have to look beyond their press releases for the facts, as follows

The Clintons gave most of their tax-deductible donations to THEMSELVES. Case at point -- Clinton tax returns that show $10,256,741 was donated to "CFF" -- the Clinton Family Foundation.

On the 2005 forms and those from previous years, Bill Clinton was listed as CFF president, Hillary had the title of secretary/treasurer and daughter Chelsea was a director.

The 2006 tax forms also list Gloria Clinton as CFF CEO who was paid $252,500 for her "work" that year.

Of the $10 million-plus the Clintons donated to CFF, the foundation only parceled out $2.5 million to other charities. So what happened the remaining $7.5 million? A good question for the IRS.

Here's something else to ponder. Although the CFF has been in operation since 2001, Hillary failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

Clinton's spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan; and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmm.... glad to see NOTHING ever changes here at ObombaNet.

I am SO going to laugh my ass off at the end of August when you fools look like the biggest Karl Rove Kool-aid chugging schmucks in the world.

Karl Rove's Trojan Horse Tool has been effectively negated; Hillary has already won the nomination AND the Presidency as McLaughlin called it MONTHS ago; what she loses among the hard core of rabid ObombaNation she'll easily pick up from independents and the small handful of closet feminist antiwar GOP soccer moms.

But by all means, keep flogging your dead horse. Even though all HE wants is to eat his waffle in peace.

See you... at the convention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MCCAIN WILL WIN >> DIEBOLD

DONT FORGET DIEBOLD DUMMIES

GOP RIGGED THE LAST 2 AND GOT AWAY WITH IT

WHY WUDNT THEY RIG ANOTHER?

DUH !!!!!!!!!!

VOTING IS FOR CHUMPS

WAKE ME UP WHEN WE HAVE VERIFIED VOTING

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't matter what happens in Indiana, North Carolina, or any of the other remaining primary elections. Even if Clinton wins them all in landslides, everyone knows that Obama would be the best to defeat McCain in November. His near-mystical charm, his ability to relate to the common man, his good judgment, his superior debating skills, his lovely wife and the morally admirable company he keeps, his cool in high-stress situations, his ability to make Democrat women swoon by his mere presence -- I could go on and on. But all Obama supporters know this already. Democrats are clearly geniuses in nominating this man Obama, saviour and redeemer of AmeriKKKa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary brings to the table exactly what? Distractions. Yesterday, students at Knox College confronted Mr. Ashcroft about his involvement with torture. Where's the press on this issue? Questions asked by these young students reflect the pathetic job the MSM is doing. Meanwhile, today, McCain stood outside a shuttered factory, with its broken windows, in Youngstown, Ohio and gave an inane speech about the glory of free trade and how anyone could have the success in life that he has. Where's the MSM on this? Well, Hillary is right there providing her own distraction about winning & fighting even though a casual glance at the numbers indicate that she can't get the delegates to win. She has some kind of agenda for some reason - people of good faith can only hope that there are more of us than 'them'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have him by the nuts now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a reformed Republican (the party left its historic values far behind)I was so pleased when Bill Clinton won the Presidency because we needed to get the country back to traditional Democratic values that helped make it great.

In looking back, I see two positives- Clinton's diplomatic involvement in Ireland, which, according to the Irish, saved countless lives and the economy that seemed to be doing well.

I was even sympathetic to him over the Monica business, since this was none of our business (other presidents got away with this with no repercussions) and the uproar distracted the country from what is really important. HOWEVER, this "affair" showed extremely poor judgement on the part of Clinton since he had to be aware that the Republicans were looking for anything, even that which was imaginary, to pull him down and he handed them a real gift.

Since the Bush presidency, I have spent all my free time reading about current events from a variety of sources- from the very far right to the most extreme left. I am no longer so pleased with the first Clinton administration. OR the Clintons. What is going on during this primary practically guarantees that we will have another Republican in office as the Democrats will be bloodied beyond electability.

Which brings us to Hillary. If she wins the primary -and the election- what will she do with "Bill"? He has intruded himself into her campaign time and time again, usually with negative results adn she has had to pull him into line. Would he continue to intrude on her job as president, based on his past experience as president and his own personality? Who would in reality be president?

Secondly, regarding the negativity of this campaign. Hillary's 3am campaign ad is reflective of control of people through fear, the hallmark of the current Republicans. Her criticism of Obama's present association with people who despite some regretable actions in the past but now settled into conventional life brings to mind that some of her assocications as a student had reappeared to haunt her during her campaign for Senate. From this she should know that people grow, people change, people cannot be judged by what others have done in the past.

As for her experience- what experience? If we are to talk about this, Bill Richardson was the most experienced. He was a diplomat, served in the Presidential cabinet, served as a trouble shooter, was elected to office and is running a state. He has had experience.

And is experience the necessary qualification? Is not good judgement,common sense, the ability to listen, (Hillary does not seem to listen),honesty, the ability to judge capable people to advise and to work in the various departments of government much more important? Lincoln was not experienced but no one questions his being a great president.

We do not need a president who can bowl well, who can shoot a rifle, down liquor (think of Harding). We need someone with vision who is inspirational in these frightening times. We do not need someone who is so enamored of power and winning that anything goes, even destroying inspiration and vision.

The needs of this country should come first, not personal power. (Sorry for all the ramblings but...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This from the editorial board which has already endorsed Clinton:

"It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election..."

Read the rest:
Hillary Clinton's Low Road To Victory

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason I am supporting Hillary is because she alone has a chance of beating "old-man McCain". When the chips are down and the general election is held in November, older, white voters, especially in the Red States are not going to be able to bring themselves to vote for Obama. I know, it's racist, but that's the reality we are dealing with. The way the primaries have turned out so far has little to do with what is going to happen in November. Unless you want 4 years of McCain and a continuation of policies that favor the wealthy, endless war in Iraq, a failing health care system, Constitution shredding and a collapsing economy, our only hope is Hillary because she CAN beat John McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would like to see a fair article about Hillary and her policies. It is interesting to note that whatever she says and however she says it becomes meat for bashing her. We don't talk the same way about Barack. The title of the article speaks volumes about how we view Hillary and by extension all women in powerful positions. Let's hear how you feel about her health care plan, her plan to help those who are affected by the mortgage crises and her plan to bring science back to America after almost 8 years of bashing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama the first black president? Hillary the first female president? Let's can all that. When I employ a plumber I want to know only one thing: is he/she good at the job. I don't want an oration on my doorstep, not do I select on the basis that the person looks like a good plumber. I think it's H to fix the ballcocks, and O to carry the bag. If he learns well he'll get his chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bring up her past actions. If Bill Ayers is a political handicap for Obama how does Hillary overcome Bobby Seale, Tom Hayden, and her 3 nights in the streets during the 68 convention? You think you know everything they will use against her because this stuff hasn't surfaced in the last 15 years. But if Obama is guilty by association, surely Clinton must also meet the same test. If not, someone please explain why not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let the democratic primaries continue. Either candidate will have my vote. But lets be honest, Ms. Hillary can carry an argument rather well with out the help of a script. Mr. Obama on the other hand can't. We the viewrs have experienced that over and over. On the national election for president, if it is Obama the candidtae against McCain, guess what, McCain will walk all over him.
Here is where experience comes to play. Right now Mr. Obama is taking baby steps in the political arena, while the others are doing marathons.
If we want this time around for a democrat to take over the white house, please let Ms. Hillary be the candidate. Otherwise we may have another republican for 4 more years. Think!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Though there was a 9 percentage point spread between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, Barack was only 4.5 percentage points plus one vote from winning Pennsylvania. A rise of one point would have brought Hillary down one point and put Obama one point closer to the tie. One more vote after the tie and he wins. Big deal! You could attribute it to whatever group you want to. When the tide comes in, all boats rise. Don't confuse percentage point spread with the distance to a tie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The near final numbers are a win for Hillary, of 9.6% which is closer to 10 than it is to 9. Recently, I saw another poor Obamagoon pretending that Hillary had won by "just over" 9, when she actually had won by "just under 10." This is the hypocrisy that has taken hold of the Obama movement. They pretend indifference and contempt for her landslide victory in Pennsylvania, but, in reality, they play with fragments of the numbers, desperate to make it seem that Hillary failed to reach a 10 point victory. So wounded are they by their loss, they can't bear to look at the reality.

Another preposterous argument made by the their tin GOD, is that Hillary started with a 20 point lead, and "OBAMA" brought it down to 10. But reality tells a different story. 20 point leads almost invariably end up either as 10 point leads, if the winning candidate is strongly favored, or, often, evaporate entirely if the candidate's support is soft, or "effectively challenged." The author simply adds one more cheap, spurious piece of literay bullshit to the near endless number of Hillary hate pieces which crowd the cowardly ranks of most "liberal" media, such as AlternNet, OpEdNews, Huffington post, etc. Most of these writers have no balls, and are afraid to support Hillary for fear that their hotheaded, moronic, fake leftists, constantly grandstanding and fulminating against her, will bite their heads off. Hillary didn't "brawl" her way to victory in Pennsylvania, you pathetic bullshitting, ass hole, she won, free and clear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we concerned voters want to be "progressives" we should honor the Godfather of progressive party reform.

From 1968 through 1972 Senator George McGovern worked for true election reform. No one has an equal record. No one comes close.

Humphrey was the Democratic Party nominee because of the old system of favoring the candidates who could gather support in larger numbers in state caucuses. This led to a skewed result in the conventions. The more POPULIST candidates,and those representing the working middle class, tended to be left out of the process in caucus states.

Thus, in 1968 was born the phrase, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me."

It was due to the McGovern reforms that more states came to hold primaries.

Primaries give all voters a chance to be counted. Caucuses favor the candidates who appeal to unemployed (students) and the well-off, or those who do not have to work or tend to family responsibilities.

Early on, Obama used the same tactics that McGovern sought to reform: manipulating the votes is state caucuses to obtain the perception of a "win" and committed delegates.

Unfortunately, the majority of voters were excluded from participation in the caucuses and the results are not representative of the "mainstream middle" of the country, the seventy percent who share the burden of responsibility for mortgages and rent, raising school-aged children, supporting the country's infrastructure, and happen to be the economic backbone that sustains the rest of us as a whole.

We should look to the nomination of Mondale in 1984 as an example of what to expect in 2008. The same campaign management is in play: win the caucus states to gain the perception of being the choice of the people, and use that image of the winner as a building block to win additional money and mindless followers who 'get on the bandwagon."

Mondale was an empty candidate. He could not debate well for a lack of substance.

Here we are again.

Demographic extrapolation in the caucus states would favor Clinton as the choice of the working people rather than Obama.

The delegate-count advantage that Obama claims comes exclusively from the ratio he gained in caucus states.

Without the caucus states that precluded the participation of millions of voters, Obama would be trailing Clinton in votes and delegates at this time, omitting Florida and Michigan.

An Obama nomination can or will only be achieved by exploiting the caucus system that Senator McGovern fought to reform in the Democratic Party.

Thus, it is a great irony that Obama, campaigning for change, intends to obtain the nomination as the archaic hold-out against party reform and change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They Party regulars told McGovern to quit the race in 1971 and 1972, over and over again.

But he won the primaries and the nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even now, when the media has gotten their dream, soon to be nightmare, scenario of Obama sitting as the king in waiting for the Democratic nomination, you still can't stop piling it on. If you think that the republicans & quasi-republican democrats in Congress are going to fall at Obama's feet the way that you have, you're delusional.

Obama has not shown any sign of being a leader in the Senate. Your type of democrat has a lemming-like urge to choose the candidate with the most idealistic rhetoric, regardless of whether that person has the experience & tenacity to achieve those lofty goals.

Who will you blame when Obama is exposed for the callow, flawed candidate that he is in the general election, and we get 4 to 8 more years of republican control?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]