After Wright comes Emil Jones

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, fresh off his endorsement of Barack Obama this week, suggested Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should consider dropping out of the race if she trails in the delegate count and popular vote at the end of the primary process.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Richardson also decried the negativity in the Democratic primary, adding that John McCain is coalescing his support as the Republican presidential nominee while Obama and Clinton continue to attack each other.

Richardson, who served under President Bill Clinton as energy secretary and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also took what appeared to be a shot at his political patron. When asked about Clinton confidante James Carville’s comment that his endorsement was an “act of betrayal,” Richardson offered his own tough talk.

“I’m not going to get in the gutter like that, and that’s symbolic of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they’re entitled to the presidency,” said Richardson. “It shouldn’t just be Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton, you know, what about the rest of us...It’s important we bring in a new generation of leadership.”

Richardson’s sharp criticism of the Clintons is especially striking because he often defended Hillary Clinton while he was still in the race — even in the face of sharp attacks from the other presidential contenders.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9174.html

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I rank them:

Obama

McCain

Hillary

I don't plan to vote for any of them, but I really can't see any situation in which I would vote for Hillary.

Then your rank is moot.

How so? If it came down to it, it's quite possible that I will vote for Obama if Dr. Paul decides to drop out. However, if he dropped out and Hillary got the nomination, I'd probably vote for Nader.

[metta 0]

I would'nt hasten to predict, just yet.

You've got to be kidding yourself if you still think Hillary has a chance of being the nominee without causing a shitstorm within the DNC. Does Bill Richardson's opinion also not count? Her goose is cooked and she'll only be doing the Party harm by staying in this race much longer. The numbers cannot by spun any other way.

Yeah, yeah, her goose has been cooked several times over and yet, she is still standing. But, how about his?

The key word now is "ELECTIBILITY".

Do you think BO if nominated will make it to the Whitehouse? Think about it. For the delegates, nominating BO now would be a sheer exercise in futility.

GOP machine is waiting for him with the "Trinity Ad" featuring Barack, Michelle and PAstor Wright.

Do you think he stands any chance winning Electoral College votes from the "Red" states where he won almost activists only caucuses ?

What are the uncommitted supers thinking right now? I wonder.

[HAL 9000 96]

What basis on actual fact do you have for stating "For the delegates, nominating BO now would be a sheer exercise in futility." ?

He's the current leader in delegate count and will probably continue to be the leader in delegate count by the time the ballons fall on the convention floor.

States are states and if you go by numbers of new voters registering to vote (*mind you call them fans if you will, they still vote*), a Red state may not be "Red" for any guaranteed reason.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would'nt hasten to predict, just yet.

You've got to be kidding yourself if you still think Hillary has a chance of being the nominee without causing a shitstorm within the DNC. Does Bill Richardson's opinion also not count? Her goose is cooked and she'll only be doing the Party harm by staying in this race much longer. The numbers cannot by spun any other way.

Yeah, yeah, her goose has been cooked several times over and yet, she is still standing. But, how about his?

The key word now is "ELECTIBILITY".

Do you think BO if nominated will make it to the Whitehouse? Think about it. For the delegates, nominating BO now would be a sheer exercise in futility.

GOP machine is waiting for him with the "Trinity Ad" featuring Barack, Michelle and PAstor Wright.

Do you think he stands any chance winning Electoral College votes from the "Red" states where he won almost activists only caucuses ?

What are the uncommitted supers thinking right now? I wonder.

My point is...how many more respectable Clinton allies need to come out and endorse Obama before you'll give credibility to his campaign? Bill Richardson was a huge endorsement and what he said (see above) should be considered. It's just frustrating to see this continued denial that Obama's campaign is nothing but hype and that it's just a matter of time before the DNC 'gets' that Hillary is really the better choice, regardless of the numbers.

[metta 0]

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, fresh off his endorsement of Barack Obama this week, suggested Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should consider dropping out of the race if she trails in the delegate count and popular vote at the end of the primary process.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Richardson also decried the negativity in the Democratic primary, adding that John McCain is coalescing his support as the Republican presidential nominee while Obama and Clinton continue to attack each other.

Richardson, who served under President Bill Clinton as energy secretary and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also took what appeared to be a shot at his political patron. When asked about Clinton confidante James Carville's comment that his endorsement was an "act of betrayal," Richardson offered his own tough talk.

"I'm not going to get in the gutter like that, and that's symbolic of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they're entitled to the presidency," said Richardson. "It shouldn't just be Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton, you know, what about the rest of us...It's important we bring in a new generation of leadership."

Richardson's sharp criticism of the Clintons is especially striking because he often defended Hillary Clinton while he was still in the race — even in the face of sharp attacks from the other presidential contenders.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9174.html

“It shouldn’t just be Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton, you know, what about the rest of us...It’s important we bring in a new generation of leadership.”

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

<h2 class="h2-article">Time to Buy Hillary Clinton</h2> By John McIntyre

Three reasons why it may be wise to become bullish on Senator Clinton becoming the next U.S. President.

1) Senator Obama's "problem" in regards to his long-time pastor is a real issue. Brian Ross' report Thursday on Good Morning America, and more importantly the surfacing of the incendiary video(s), make this an explosive subject that will not go quietly away.

2) The very serious meltdown in the financial markets is likely to focus the country's attention on the health, stability and future of the American economy. Fairly or unfairly, Senator Clinton will benefit from her association with Bill Clinton's administration in the prosperous Nineties, and that perceived experience on the economy will stand in stark contrast to Senator Obama's dearth of experience.

3) The mostly unnoticed switch of Puerto Rico from a caucus on June 7 to a primary on June 1, gives Hillary Clinton a very real opportunity to surpass Barack Obama in the popular vote count. If Senator Clinton can "win" the popular vote, this will provide undecided superdelegates ample rationale to go with the less risky general election option of Senator Clinton.

Currently on Intrade Senator Clinton's odds to become the next president stand at 17.9%, down from a 2008 high of 47.5% on January 22. With Senator Obama unlikely to win another primary until May, it is time to be buying Hillary Clinton.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Have you considered that BO is more electable than Billary? You point out that his supporters tend to be swing voters (you had a much more cynical description, of course) like it is a bad thing. That's the biggest thing the DNC should even look at. The people that are voting for Billary are typically staunch democrats who will vote for a D, whereas Obama's supporters are shiftier and will more likely vote for the candidate. That seems to make for a + on his side of general election votes.

He's exciting more than the core democratic base, which is something that she doesn't do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

You've just validated my argument....that an infinity of Clinton allies could endorse Obama and still her campaign and her staunchest supports will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. Very sad for the Democratic Party.

[no name 1]

I rank them:

Obama

McCain

Hillary

I don't plan to vote for any of them, but I really can't see any situation in which I would vote for Hillary.

Then your rank is moot.

How so? If it came down to it, it's quite possible that I will vote for Obama if Dr. Paul decides to drop out. However, if he dropped out and Hillary got the nomination, I'd probably vote for Nader.

Well if you had said that initially, then I would have replied differently. But you didn't - you said you wouldn't vote for any.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Richardson, who served under President Bill Clinton as energy secretary and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also took what appeared to be a shot at his political patron. When asked about Clinton confidante James Carville’s comment that his endorsement was an “act of betrayal,” Richardson offered his own tough talk.

“I’m not going to get in the gutter like that, and that’s symbolic of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they’re entitled to the presidency,” said Richardson. “It shouldn’t just be Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton, you know, what about the rest of us...It’s important we bring in a new generation of leadership.”

Yeah, what he said.

It was just a matter of time that the Hillbots start peddling the next hit piece. Their ship is sinking and they are really getting into panic mode. They'd rather hand the White House gift-wrapped to the Republicans than listen to and respect the voice of the Democratic voters.

[no name 1]

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

You've just validated my argument....that an infinity of Clinton allies could endorse Obama and still her campaign and her staunchest supports will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. Very sad for the Democratic Party.

At what point will Obama's 'fans' admit he has contributed quite a bit (if not equally as much) to the Dem infighting as well? He si no saint, Steven, no matter what you personally think.

McCain will beat Obama in November.

[simple_male 1]

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

You've just validated my argument....that an infinity of Clinton allies could endorse Obama and still her campaign and her staunchest supports will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. Very sad for the Democratic Party.

No Democrat would deny Bill Clinton's Presidency for 8 years. But because Bill was the President for 8 years, does not mean Democrats must vote for Bill's wife. Time is different now and people would not want to see Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton cycle anymore. That is why, more Democrats voted for Obama than Hillary.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

At what point will Obama's 'fans' admit he has contributed quite a bit (if not equally as much) to the Dem infighting as well? He si no saint, Steven, no matter what you personally think.

McCain will beat Obama in November.

He has contributed to it, but it's kind of funny that you included "if not equally as much." Sounds like you're drinking some of the Clintons' kool-aid.

I rank them:

Obama

McCain

Hillary

I don't plan to vote for any of them, but I really can't see any situation in which I would vote for Hillary.

Then your rank is moot.

How so? If it came down to it, it's quite possible that I will vote for Obama if Dr. Paul decides to drop out. However, if he dropped out and Hillary got the nomination, I'd probably vote for Nader.

Well if you had said that initially, then I would have replied differently. But you didn't - you said you wouldn't vote for any.

You actually quoted me, then you add your own words, twist it, and voila!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

You've just validated my argument....that an infinity of Clinton allies could endorse Obama and still her campaign and her staunchest supports will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. Very sad for the Democratic Party.

At what point will Obama's 'fans' admit he has contributed quite a bit (if not equally as much) to the Dem infighting as well? He si no saint, Steven, no matter what you personally think.

McCain will beat Obama in November.

I never thought he was a saint, just a better choice than Hillary. But one thing I've never accused Hillary of having an illegitimate campaign which is what Obama's campaign has been labeled as. Both of them are strong candidates, and although there's enough finger pointing on the negativity from both camps, there's only one camp that has continuously disregarded the other's legitimacy. That is what Bill Richardson is being critical of and it needs to stop.

[metta 0]

If it hadn't been for 8 years of Clinton, Dems would not have had a Dem in the Whitehouse since 1980.

How many dems have been able to wrestle away the Whitehouse from the GOP? The question is , if nominated, can the democratic nominee win or has what it takes to win the WH?

You've just validated my argument....that an infinity of Clinton allies could endorse Obama and still her campaign and her staunchest supports will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. Very sad for the Democratic Party.

My point is , if BO gets nominted, don't think he can win given the fact that the swing voters are likely to swing away from BO post-Wright.

It really does not matter who endorses who by just looking at how much effect Oprah, Kennedys had on core Hillary supporters in California and Mass.

Yes, HRC has high unfavorables especially on the net thanks to moveon.org and netroots supported by wacky billionaires like Soros. However, the support she enjoys from core democrats is solid. Her supporters know very well where they stand unlike the wishy-washies weighing between Mccain and Obama.

Well, now that Obama has lost his "holy" sheen they will likely gravitate toward MCain.

However, with the economy nose-diving, quite a few of them might vote for their pocket books. When it comes to that, who do you think stands a better chance/

HRC or John mcCain.

Well, I know this is going to rile the Barackis but that is my honest take on this.