After Wright comes Emil Jones

[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.

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.

Sigh...more of the same dismissing Obama's campaign and his supporters as illegitimate. For the record, Bill Richardson is a Democrat, a longtime friend of the Clintons and well regarded among Democrats. Tell him he's got it all wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does anyone seriously think that there aren't going to be inconvenient "secrets" in Hillary Clinton's closet when the general election comes around?

Like this one perhaps?

Universal Healthcare? I can see that happening.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Number 6

[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.

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.

Sigh...more of the same dismissing Obama's campaign and his supporters as illegitimate.

Pot, kettle...

[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.

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.

Sigh...more of the same dismissing Obama's campaign and his supporters as illegitimate.

Pot, kettle...

I've never believed that Hillary was unqualified to be President...just that I happen to think Obama is the better choice...and for many Democrats, that's the distinction here.

[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.

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.

Sigh...more of the same dismissing Obama's campaign and his supporters as illegitimate.

Pot, kettle...

I've never believed that Hillary was unqualified to be President...just that I happen to think Obama is the better choice...and for many Democrats, that's the distinction here.

OK, Steven.

And HC's supporters feel she is better qualified.

Edited March 24, 2008 by illumine

[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.

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.

Sigh...more of the same dismissing Obama's campaign and his supporters as illegitimate.

Pot, kettle...

I've never believed that Hillary was unqualified to be President...just that I happen to think Obama is the better choice...and for many Democrats, that's the distinction here.

OK, Steven.

And HC's supporters feel she is better qualified.

Perhaps it's a difference that isn't easily distinguishable to some, but I'd argue that for most Democrats and the American voter in general can see the real difference between dismissing a candidate as illegitimate vs. arguing that one candidate is better qualified than the other. Obama's candidacy has never quite measured up to a real candidacy by Hillary's camp and that has done damage to the Democratic Party as a whole. People like Bill Richardson should count for something and to not recognize his opinion as valid will only further divide the Party.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Perhaps it's a difference that isn't easily distinguishable to some, but I'd argue that for most Democrats and the American voter in general can see the real difference between dismissing a candidate as illegitimate vs. arguing that one candidate is better qualified than the other. Obama's candidacy has never quite measured up to a real candidacy by Hillary's camp and that has done damage to the Democratic Party as a whole. People like Bill Richardson should count for something and to not recognize his opinion as valid will only further divide the Party.

Maybe, but if I read the Daily Kos or the Huff Post these days I start ti wonder if they aren't getting funded by Floyd Brown, such is the level of anti-Clinton invective. This is also not helpful. It takes 2 to be "divisive"

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

Perhaps it's a difference that isn't easily distinguishable to some, but I'd argue that for most Democrats and the American voter in general can see the real difference between dismissing a candidate as illegitimate vs. arguing that one candidate is better qualified than the other. Obama's candidacy has never quite measured up to a real candidacy by Hillary's camp and that has done damage to the Democratic Party as a whole. People like Bill Richardson should count for something and to not recognize his opinion as valid will only further divide the Party.

Maybe, but if I read the Daily Kos or the Huff Post these days I start ti wonder if they aren't getting funded by Floyd Brown, such is the level of anti-Clinton invective. This is also not helpful. It takes 2 to be "divisive"

I agree that a lot of the negativity has been divisive, which is why, for the sake of the Party - at some point the candidate trailing should concede and throw their support behind the leading candidate (Bill Richardson's argument). The longer this contest is drawn out and the negativity continues, the Democratic Party suffers. It has been a heated contest, but aside from that, neither candidate should be declaring the other one illegitimate, particularly if they are trailing. IMO, that's helping lift McCain's candidacy up in numbers.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Perhaps it's a difference that isn't easily distinguishable to some, but I'd argue that for most Democrats and the American voter in general can see the real difference between dismissing a candidate as illegitimate vs. arguing that one candidate is better qualified than the other. Obama's candidacy has never quite measured up to a real candidacy by Hillary's camp and that has done damage to the Democratic Party as a whole. People like Bill Richardson should count for something and to not recognize his opinion as valid will only further divide the Party.

Maybe, but if I read the Daily Kos or the Huff Post these days I start ti wonder if they aren't getting funded by Floyd Brown, such is the level of anti-Clinton invective. This is also not helpful. It takes 2 to be "divisive"

I agree that a lot of the negativity has been divisive, which is why, for the sake of the Party - at some point the candidate trailing should concede and throw their support behind the leading candidate (Bill Richardson's argument). The longer this contest is drawn out and the negativity continues, the Democratic Party suffers. It has been a heated contest, but aside from that, neither candidate should be declaring the other one illegitimate, particularly if they are trailing. IMO, that's helping lift McCain's candidacy up in numbers.

I read Bill Richardson's remarks as suggesting the candidate withdraw after the primaries are finished. I support this view completely, although it seems like many Obama supporters do not.

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

Perhaps it's a difference that isn't easily distinguishable to some, but I'd argue that for most Democrats and the American voter in general can see the real difference between dismissing a candidate as illegitimate vs. arguing that one candidate is better qualified than the other. Obama's candidacy has never quite measured up to a real candidacy by Hillary's camp and that has done damage to the Democratic Party as a whole. People like Bill Richardson should count for something and to not recognize his opinion as valid will only further divide the Party.

Maybe, but if I read the Daily Kos or the Huff Post these days I start ti wonder if they aren't getting funded by Floyd Brown, such is the level of anti-Clinton invective. This is also not helpful. It takes 2 to be "divisive"

I agree that a lot of the negativity has been divisive, which is why, for the sake of the Party - at some point the candidate trailing should concede and throw their support behind the leading candidate (Bill Richardson's argument). The longer this contest is drawn out and the negativity continues, the Democratic Party suffers. It has been a heated contest, but aside from that, neither candidate should be declaring the other one illegitimate, particularly if they are trailing. IMO, that's helping lift McCain's candidacy up in numbers.

I read Bill Richardson's remarks as suggesting the candidate withdraw after the primaries are finished. I support this view completely, although it seems like many Obama supporters do not.

That's a valid point, although I'd then make the argument that if you're trailing by 200 delegates and you know there is no mathematical way of closing that gap, what is the point of continuing further unless you are hoping that the Super Delegates will tip the scales in your favor and go against the more popular choice?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

That's a valid point, although I'd then make the argument that if you're trailing by 200 delegates and you know there is no mathematical way of closing that gap, what is the point of continuing further unless you are hoping that the Super Delegates will tip the scales in your favor and go against the more popular choice?

It might not happen but I thought the Democrats want every vote to count? That's what they said in 2000, anyway. Let the states that have not yet voted have their say.

[no name 1]

I was listening to Richardson on the Today show - the reporter questioned him backing the non-leading candidate in his state - something Richardson advocated earlier for all SDs.

Richardson's excuse? 'Oh, it was only half a point difference.'

???

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

That's a valid point, although I'd then make the argument that if you're trailing by 200 delegates and you know there is no mathematical way of closing that gap, what is the point of continuing further unless you are hoping that the Super Delegates will tip the scales in your favor and go against the more popular choice?

It might not happen but I thought the Democrats want every vote to count? That's what they said in 2000, anyway. Let the states that have not yet voted have their say.

Apples to oranges. If I remember correctly, Florida's total delegate count in the Presidential election were a winner-take-all, and given the fact that the popular vote in the state was a very close race, meant that whoever came out on top (even by less than a 100 votes) would win the election. Furthermore, Al Gore had won the popular vote nationwide. In this case, Hillary trails in both the popular vote and delegate count, so dragging this out to the final Primary is futile as mathematically, she cannot close the gap that is already there. If there was any chance that Hillary could win by delegate count then of course she should stay in the race, but unfortunately that chance has passed her by already.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Apples to oranges. If I remember correctly, Florida's total delegate count in the Presidential election were a winner-take-all, and given the fact that the popular vote in the state was a very close race, meant that whoever came out on top (even by less than a 100 votes) would win the election. Furthermore, Al Gore had won the popular vote nationwide. In this case, Hillary trails in both the popular vote and delegate count, so dragging this out to the final Primary is futile as mathematically, she cannot close the gap that is already there. If there was any chance that Hillary could win by delegate count then of course she should stay in the race, but unfortunately that chance has passed her by already.

Not really - the argument against not continuing the recount was that it was statistically impossible for gore to win FL even if every last vote was counted. It seems like you are buying into a similar argument here. 10 states still haven't voted - it's statistically improbable but not impossible for her to pull it off. Let the process play out is what I say.

Even if you believe every negative against Obama was brought out by her campaign (I certainly don't and you shouldn't either), I think we can all agree that the Republicans have proven to be very adept at finding these negatives on their own. They don't need her help even if you think she is giving it to them.

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

Apples to oranges. If I remember correctly, Florida's total delegate count in the Presidential election were a winner-take-all, and given the fact that the popular vote in the state was a very close race, meant that whoever came out on top (even by less than a 100 votes) would win the election. Furthermore, Al Gore had won the popular vote nationwide. In this case, Hillary trails in both the popular vote and delegate count, so dragging this out to the final Primary is futile as mathematically, she cannot close the gap that is already there. If there was any chance that Hillary could win by delegate count then of course she should stay in the race, but unfortunately that chance has passed her by already.

Not really - the argument against not continuing the recount was that it was statistically impossible for gore to win FL even if every last vote was counted. It seems like you are buying into a similar argument here. 10 states still haven't voted - it's statistically improbable but not impossible for her to pull it off. Let the process play out is what I say.

Even if you believe every negative against Obama was brought out by her campaign (I certainly don't and you shouldn't either), I think we can all agree that the Republicans have proven to be very adept at finding these negatives on their own. They don't need her help even if you think she is giving it to them.

If she has a chance at winning, she should stay, but if she is staying in the race in hopes that somehow she can convince the Super Delegates to tip the contest in her favor by throwing their support behind her candidacy, then by staying in, she's hurting the Party.

General negativity aside, claiming that your fellow Democratic opponent isn't even qualified to be President is hurting the DNC's chances in the Presidential election because if Obama is the Party's nominee, how do you make amends over such a claim? Tell other Democrats to vote for McCain?