Matthew Yglesias (May 07, 2008) - Now We Know (Media)

If she doesn't drop out by Friday, I'll have lost whatever residual respect I had for her.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 12:18 AM

We actually knew after Super Tuesday. At that point, the basic dynamics of the race and the nature of their respective coalitions were well-established. So, it was possible to calculate within a reasonable range how many more pledged delegates Clinton could win in the remaining contests. And once you did that, it was clear that she had failed to win enough delegates on Super Tuesday to win the overall contest.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:20 AM

credit where it's due - Chuck Todd has been saying it for months.

Posted by Ready for change | May 7, 2008 12:20 AM

We knew it after Iowa!

Posted by Al | May 7, 2008 12:23 AM

I demand a Jackson 5 montage from the nets! We're going back to Indiana...

Posted by Tim | May 7, 2008 12:23 AM

It would be pretty sweet if Indiana finally did pull through for Obama, after Hillary made such a big deal earlier in the evening that it was the tiebreaker...

Posted by McKingford | May 7, 2008 12:26 AM

Matt Yglesias, you have no idea what you're talking about. March 5th?? There were at least one political disaster since then, possibly two or three (Reverend Wright, Bittergate, etc.), that could have outright imploded the Obama campaign if they hadn't handled them in the right way.

I hate to say it, but Tim Russert is right and you are not. Clinton always had a chance, even a decent chance, of getting the nomination before tonight. But now it's over.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 12:27 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

Posted by Roddy McCorley | May 7, 2008 12:29 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

Posted by Roddy McCorley | May 7, 2008 12:29 AM

Obama's eventual victory was indeed a good bet after Iowa, but I also think there was some uncertainty at that point, such as where the Edwards voters would head and what would happen when the campaigns did not have months to work a state.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:30 AM

but I also think there was some uncertainty at that point, such as where the Edwards voters would head and what would happen when the campaigns did not have months to work a state.

But that's back when Petey was assuring us that it was Edwards who was keeping Obama alive by splitting Hillary's vote.

Man, aside from being an obnoxious pill, is that guy wrong about everything...

Posted by McKingford | May 7, 2008 12:38 AM

There were at least one political disaster since then, possibly two or three (Reverend Wright, Bittergate, etc.), that could have outright imploded the Obama campaign if they hadn't handled them in the right way.

This evaluates the counterfactuals all wrong. It was entirely foreseeable that Obama would handle all that stuff well. You know why? Because he's Barack Obama, with all the skills and political talents that Barack Obama has, combined with a fairly intelligent campaign apparatus. Build that into the case, and the implosion of the Obama campaign in the face of Wright or Bittergate looks pretty implausible. It would've taken a pretty big scandal, probably involving his penis entering something that is not part of his wife, to defeat a politician with those talents.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 12:38 AM

By the way, Chuck Todd has indeed been a voice of sanity (or at least math literacy). But to be fair, I remember his reporting from Super Tuesday, and he was basically given the answer: both campaigns had roughly similar estimates of what would likely happen after Super Tuesday, which gave them roughly similar estimates of how close Obama needed to keep it on Super Tuesday to stay in contention

And then Obama actually got more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday. Todd appropriately combined that result with what both campaigns had told him beforehand, and came up with Obama very likely winning the nomination. Of course, the Clinton Campaign just tried to drop all that down the memory hole, but Todd inconveniently refused to play along.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:39 AM

Obama Cyberbullies & Pundits

You are not going to dictate this election. Hillary is being held to a different standard than any other presidential candidate. Obama is stealing the election if the votes from MI and Fl are not counted. The Democratic Party is brain dead if they think these voters can be shut out of the process.

Something is awfully crooked in Lake County, IN. That's the largest county and the votes will not be tallied until tomorrow.

Presidential candidates from Reagan, Brown, Jackson, Kennedy, and Hart all went to the convention. No one was telling them to drop out.

This is the first election where the pundits such as Matt, Russert, Halperin, and so on have taken it upon themselves to tell one candidate to drop out. That's not your job Matt. The most important quality a journalist has is trust. Matt, you've prostitued your profession.

The 15,000,000 voters that voted for Hillary will not let her quit. It is going to the convention.

If Obama manages to steal this nomination, a whole coalition of groups will come together defeat his candidacy.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 12:44 AM

Because when the dufusses were deciding the storyline on March 4th, the results of the caucuses weren't known, so the spin was that Hillary had won both Ohio and Texas (instead of just Ohio). You can't push someone out if they've just won the two biggest prizes remaining. So we suffered through to PA, and then she won there. Tonight's the first point since February where she's had a clear loss on the books before bedtime.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 7, 2008 12:44 AM

Any events in Northern California?

Posted by Lee | May 7, 2008 12:46 AM

"The 15,000,000 voters that voted for Hillary will not let her quit. It is going to the convention.

If Obama manages to steal this nomination, a whole coalition of groups will come together defeat his candidacy."

As I've said before, moron EWard does not care about healthcare, getting out of Iraq, climate change, a new energy policy, or the Supreme Court. He/she only cares about Hillary. Despicable.

------

Neil the Ethical Werewolf: Awesome name. Does that mean you only hunt criminals every full moon or something?

Posted by 55 | May 7, 2008 12:49 AM

Petey was assuring us that it was Edwards who was keeping Obama alive by splitting Hillary's vote.

Well, something like that was actually correct. Obama probably would've had a lower margin of victory in SC without Edwards distracting white folks so that Obama could ride black turnout to a landslide victory. It was one of the reasons I was sad to see Edwards drop out -- if he'd stayed in through Super Tuesday, this race could've ended after TX and OH.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 12:51 AM

I said, right on this blog, on the eve of Super Tuesday that Clinton just wasn't positioned to win ugly. And yeah, Chuck Todd's pure nerdy goodness was very welcome here.

Clinton always had a chance, even a decent chance, of getting the nomination before tonight.

She did, but only because the continued primaries created space between them for a dead girl / live boy situation. I've said this repeatedly, but after February's primaries, it became a situation where only Clinton was in a position to concede with grace. If Obama were to lose the nomination, it would be a career-ending loss.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 12:52 AM

Anthony,

Unless you actually remember Wyoming and Mississippi (and Guam, but even I don't really count Guam).

And generally, the whole idea of "winning big prizes" is inapplicable, since these contests aren't winner-takes-all. So, the fact that the media went along with that invalid framing for so long was really a matter of choice on their part.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 12:53 AM

You could foresee it, sure. Your foresight might even be right. But there's a big difference between predicting an uncertain result correctly and knowing something with great certainty. Actually the real solid bet in politics is that shit always happens--that some sort of scandal or gaffe would eventually engulf the Obama campaign when he became the frontrunner. As has been illustrated so vividly this election cycle, two months is a lifetime in politics. The open question was always how he would handle that inevitable scandal/gaffe, how he would handle the position of frontrunner. I don't see how you could have possibly KNOWN (as opposed to predicting) back on March 5th that Obama would survive something like the Reverend Wright scandal. I could very easily see him screwing it up badly--he ended up rising to the occasion, but we couldn't have known beforehand that he would, nor had he ever been tested like that in a comparable moment.

P.S. I just remembered that Petey was exhorting us a few weeks back to buy Clinton shares on Intrade. I wonder how much money he lost tonight? Poor guy.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 12:54 AM

Seriously, when you're at the Nixon library, check out the mugs....

I didn't know Nixon was actually arrested. I mean, he wasn't even impeached....

Wait, you mean in the gift shop, not the museum.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 7, 2008 12:55 AM

I'll give EWard some credit, most of the Hillary supporters are keeping quiet tonight, at least he still believes. He's demented and delusional, of course, but he still belives.

Let me clue you in on a couple things, though, Mr. Ward. You Hilary voters don't get a say as to her decision as to whether to go forward. And there are some encouraging signs that she is starting to see the light.

And if she does withdraw, there will be a deal made to seat Florida and Michigan, so that little problem won't exist.

As for your grand coalition, I'd be curious to know which groups you are referring to. Almost all of Hillary's institutional support will support Obama as soon as he is the nominee.

Will some of her voters stay home or vote for McCain? A few, sure. But if history is any guide, far, far fewer of them than current polling would suggest.

But hey, man, if you want to see Iran invaded, etc., etc., you go ahead and vote for McCain. That will show them.

Posted by LarryM | May 7, 2008 12:59 AM

Hillary is being held to a different standard than any other presidential candidate.

Indeed, a lesser one - one where she can lose election after election and still expect the media to entertain her arrogant notion that she's still a serious contender for the White House.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 1:01 AM

It's over, folks. She's canceled all public appearances tomorrow.

Posted by Ted | May 7, 2008 1:03 AM

Obviously, one always has to qualify one's political predictions with the possibility that some unexpected external event will change the fundamental nature of the contest. But the possibility of Clinton herself doing anything to keep Obama from winning, meaning in the absence of such an external event, was eliminated on Super Tuesday.

Incidentally, I personally do not think the Reverend Wright stuff was really such an external event. Indeed, even with the Clinton Campaign, the GOP, and the media all doing everything they could to make it into such an event, they failed to significantly change the nature of the contest.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 1:06 AM

Obama is unqualified to be President. Three years in the Senate and spending your entire time running for President does not qualify him for this office.

Everytime the Obama cyberbullies open their mouths with the name calling it just makes the case against Obama. There are some decent Obama supporters.

You cannot discount the supporters of Hillary! This is going to the convention. I will vote for McCain, donate money to the Republican Party and so will most of her supporters, if he manages to steal the nomination.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:13 AM

@EWard: No one has discounted her supporters. Rather, they've simply been counted. And there haven't been enough of them. Which is why she doesn't get to be the nominee.

Posted by moff | May 7, 2008 1:17 AM

There is a large rift in the Democratic party. It once was the party of the working class and now it is trying to remake itself. It won't work. This fight should go all the way to the convention.

Posted by endodoc79 | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

"There are some decent Obama supporters."

And there are some decent Clinton supporters. But one who vows to actively work to defeat the Democrat- not just stay home- is not one of them.

Posted by JD | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

There is no need for Hillary to quit. Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win. And with each win she is gaining ground. Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?

You say Hillary can't win the nomination. Well, the truth is that the Democratic Party can't win the GE without her. Most of her supporters will vote for McCain or not vote. So the DNC should tell your wet behind the ears excuse of a man to sit down and take 2nd so that Hillary can wipe this up, or you can expect the Republicans to stay in the White House.

Incidentally Reverend Wright did extreme damage to the reputation of the unknown image of the Mr. Obama

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

There is no need for Hillary to quit. Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win. And with each win she is gaining ground. Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?

You say Hillary can't win the nomination. Well, the truth is that the Democratic Party can't win the GE without her. Most of her supporters will vote for McCain or not vote. So the DNC should tell your wet behind the ears excuse of a man to sit down and take 2nd so that Hillary can wipe this up, or you can expect the Republicans to stay in the White House.

Incidentally Reverend Wright did extreme damage to the reputation of the unknown image of the Mr. Obama

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:19 AM

Does that mean you only hunt criminals every full moon or something?

Actually, I'm going into a job as a philosophy professor, and ethics is my specialty. But if you want to see what happened to me on a full moon night in late December, back when Edwards was still in the race, I made a video...

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2008 1:22 AM

Tonight's the first point since February where she's had a clear loss on the books before bedtime.

Hmm, well, taking as givens that Wyoming doesn't count because it's small and Mississippi doesn't count because it's full of you know what, that's true. But no candidate named "Smith" could have sustained that losing streak in February without her party and the media pulling the plug on her.

It has, in any case, been fairly certain that Clinton would not be the nominee since at least mid-Feb. Not that Obama would certainly be the nominee, which is not equivalent to Clinton not being the nominee; but rather, any plausible scenario that led to Obama not getting the nomination would not necessarily have led to Clinton getting the nomination.

So it wasn't just that Clinton's probability of being the nominee was vanishingly small (a fraction of a percent, really), but that her probability of being the nominee conditional on Obama not being the nominee was also well short of 1.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 7, 2008 1:23 AM

"Boys, my mom always said not to pick on the girls ... didn't yours?"

I'd say Bill Clinton has gotten just as much criticism as she has.

Posted by 55 | May 7, 2008 1:23 AM

I will work for any candidate that is worthy of this office. If Hillary is not the nominee, Senator McCain is more prepared to be President than Obama. That's my duty to elect the most qualified person.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:28 AM

I put the chances of Obama being elected president at 0.1%. This all would be extremely humorous for me if not for the fact that that means President McCain.

Posted by TLB | May 7, 2008 1:31 AM

Eward is an idiot, but he's also right.

This IS going to the convention - and BEYOND with LAWSUITS from Clinton.

She will not drop out. She will not drop out even if Gore and Carter and the DNC leadership tell her to. She will not drop out even if the DNC files suit against her somehow to force her to, if they can.

This woman intends to see Obama lose and a Republican win. It's that simple. There's no other explanation except stupidity (and she's not stupid) or pure ego (more likely, but not good enough) to justify this behavior.

She thinks that if she can get Obama to lose that she will be a shoe-in in 2012. In reality, she will be treated like Ralph Nader by then.

So that's my prediction: she goes to the convention and beyond.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 1:32 AM

Understand that when the media is biased (which it is), the opponent spends twice as much money and still cannot prevent her from coming back (which he does),and she still keeps going with men slamming her at ever turn ... well, that is a win.

Except in any sense that matters.

What did you think she was going to do in the general? Persevere her way to the White House? I realize that her supporters have always viewed her as the Once and Future Queen, but you have to do more than simply tread water to win a general election.

You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far. Obama has beaten her. There's no shame in the loss; simply in being too self-centered to see it.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 1:37 AM

EWard -

Are there concrete policy issues that made you support Clinton - health care, foreign policy, etc?

If so, how is it that McCain is better than Obama on those issues?

You support Clinton on setting a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq, but would rather have McCain extend the war into Iran than have Obama bring the troops home?

I'm sure you could make a substantive case that Clinton's health care plan is better than Obamas. But, if you support universal health care - why would you support McCain?

And so on...

I understand getting invested in the personalities of individual candidates, but having your preference be Clinton, McCain Obama is just incoherent if you're looking at the actual policy positions of who you're voting for.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 1:40 AM

@Reason: If the 50-year-old and older women who've made up so much of Hillary's support are really willing to let McCain do what it looks like he'll do to the reproductive rights they've spent their lives fighting for, then that's a pretty goddamn sad commentary on something. But I don't think they are. And I feel quite confident that Obama has a better chance of bringing the Clinton supporters into his fold than the other way around, since he's already started talking about it.

Posted by moff | May 7, 2008 1:41 AM

Bill Clinton did not receive near the criticism being tossed on Hillary. Hillary is forced to endure her own abuse and any leftovers from Bill.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 1:42 AM

Chet

"You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far. Obama has beaten her."

Hillary has earned the votes of 16,000,000 voters and has won most of the big-swing states that are crucial to the electoral map.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 1:44 AM

Reason, please change your name. The irony is getting so thick in here I can't find the exit.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 7, 2008 1:45 AM

Ah, Whack O'Mole, a sad shut-in whose one big issue -- alerting Americans to the coming Insurgencia, any time now, he promises -- has been swept aside. It is to laugh. Perhaps he can keep his white-supremacist pals happy for a while, but they're too concerned about the ZOG.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 1:47 AM

This primary has actually made me believe that there are women who would vote for Paris Hilton over Al Gore.

justaguy: EWard has consistently proven to be a parrot for the Clinton's dumbest talking points. Just see the point above. He/she believes that John McCain has passed the ambiguous yet crucial Commander-in-Chief test, which we know is all that matters.

Also, in the hour between EWard's 12:44 post and his/her 1:44 post, Clinton somehow got a million more voters. Hmm.

Posted by JD | May 7, 2008 1:47 AM

"EWard has consistently proven to be a parrot for the Clinton's dumbest talking points."
Clinton praised Obama's supporters in her victory speech and said that she' support him if (read when) he's the nominee. So, nope - dumber than Clinton's talking points.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 1:54 AM

Man, I thought that event was Thursday night, there's a Lakers game tomorrow night.

Posted by Jimm | May 7, 2008 1:57 AM

Hello,

Neither candidate is going to get the votes needed prior to the convention, no matter what the superdelegates say, since they cant vote until the convention, and will change their minds before that.

Hillary is the candidate that can beat McCain, hands down. Hillary will not quit before the convention because she has not lost, and Obama hasnt won. This is politics, so let it be decided at the convention, that is what conventions are for.

Everybody is doing the math and saying that it is impossible for Hillary to win, but in politics, anything is possible.

I will vote for Hillary in the general election when she gets there. I did not get to vote in my states caucus, Wyoming, because I was not allowed to vote, even though I am a registered Democrat and voted in the last election. Hundreds of Democrats in Wyoming did not get to vote for the same reason. If and its a big if, Obama wins, I will not vote for him, neither will my wife and family. We will vote for McCain, and the polls show, at least half of Hillary's voters will do the same.

A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 2:01 AM

Initially at the start of this democratic primary, I had no favorites. I thought there were many good candidates. Now that the field has come down to two candidates, the only person I can reasonably support is Hillary Clinton.

It's very interesting. Senator Obama had a string of losses with Ohio, Texas, R. I., and Pa. but no one was asking that he step down but now that he wins North Carolina which was expected and happened because the AA voters are backing him overwhelmingly, again Clinton is supposed to step down.

If the Obama supporters think that by calling for Sen. Clinton to step down and insulting her and her supporters as well, is going to cause us to support Obama should he get the nomination, forget it.

Although my family and I are life-long loyal democrats, we ultimately care more about our country than the party. We will not be voting for a candidate who has very little experience and what there is known about his record is hardly "noteworthy." We only have his speeches and campaign slogans. Unfortunately his associates and wife don't seem to be on board with his "messages of hope and unity." Why take that chance? The last time this country took a "chance" we ended up with Geo W.

Moreover, how does the democratic party think they are going to win in the fall if the voters in two very important states like Michigan and Florida are dis-enfranchised or their delegates are seated at the convention in some 50/50 arbitrary split? I can guarantee that this alone could spell "political suicide" for the democratic party come Nov.

As far as I'm concerned this "race" can go to the convention floor. It's happened before. In the old days before there were primaries that's how the candidates were selected. Then whoever emerges as the winner, would have legitimacy (provided of course Mi. and Florida delegates are seated in a "fair" manner.)

Posted by Cathy in Ks. | May 7, 2008 2:04 AM

"You actually have to convince people to vote for you. She's failed to do that in the requisite numbers, so far." She has convinced more people that Obama has, oh, but that's right we don't count Everyone’s vote.

And as for the shallow statement of "Obama has beaten her." Only in his dreams. He has not beaten her, he has purchased more air time. He needs to take vacations, can't find time to debate, needs to eat his waffles ... and this a Commander-in-Chief makes? Only in the minds of the newly registered, “I believe in the dream but don’t yet get politics” following he has assembled. The world laughs at his notion that he can lead. You would think that the man would be embarrassed that he gathered most of the support from the fallen candidates, outspent her by 25 million in purchasing the media and still can't shake her. All he has done is created great racial tension where there was little to none. Now there is a great uniter.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 2:09 AM

Obama hasn't done anything to go out and piss off the demographic groups in Clinton's coalition (polling showed that most people in PA agreed more with Obama's bitter comment than with Clinton's attack on it). Clinton's people have dismissed his black supporters as irrelevant (and she has also tried to blame black economic woes on Latinos, which is a great way to keep her coalition together against the man nicknamed Juan McCain). She has also attacked the type of white supporters that Obama attracts. This is why she has been getting less support. Clinton would have a lot more fence-building to do than Obama if she got the nomination than he will have to do when he does.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 2:12 AM

You know, all of the Clinton supporters trying to use mean words to make us switch to Clinton just sound sad and desperate without having a coherent argument. They're also making great arguments against voting for Bill Clinton in 1992. No Bill presidency would mean no Hillary Senate seat and no primary run. Basically they disavow her campaign. It's silly.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 2:20 AM

Hillary is our choice in this household and most of my friends are of the same notion.
If we are not voting for her we will move on.
I took a look at McCain's site this evening I have never gone there before when I came on line to check things out I checked mainly blog sites. Then selected the HillaryClinton.com site when I got a new computer and did not have my bookmarks.
I have donated bought a wardrobe,jackets, shirts, hats, misc. and saw that there are some neat things at McCain's site tonight that you may force me to sample if Hillary is not the choice.
You only have to look at the two remaining choices and select best choice. Then that means you do not just vote for them, you man the phones and do everything in your power to assure your new person wins.
Should Hillary leave this election I will be calling and doing everything in my power to assure that a Republican wins the election this fall.
Considering that I have always gone for this party since I was a kid, it will expand my comfort zone and make me a more rounded person.
I noticed that it was the thought in NC that all would back him given time.
The Emperors New Clothes is the best description of this fairy tale.

Posted by Marian | May 7, 2008 2:22 AM

Reason: "She has convinced more people that Obama has, oh, but that's right we don't count Everyone’s vote."

She has not. As of tonight Obama's lead in the popular vote is insurmountable, INCLUDING FL and MI. You need to update your talking points.

Face reality: Clinton no longer has a viable path to the the nomination. Barack Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee for President of the United States. The race is over.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2008 2:22 AM

"A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president."

So, you're voting for Clinton because only she can beat McCain. But if she looses, you're voting for McCain.

There seems to be a slight flaw in your reasoning there...

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 2:25 AM

Where did all the crazy people come from? Did you get linked to by Hillaryis44?

Posted by br | May 7, 2008 2:26 AM

PA and Indiana and 647,000+ voters in NC are truly turned off at the man. I cling to my Religion because of what it does for me, not becasue I am bitter...and I don't own a gun AND I live in PA.

Clinton's people have never dismissed black voters, black voters have dismissed Clinton because they are united on race not issues or experience.

Clinton doesn't need to build fences, she will be busy executing her plans and getting things done. She won't need to learn the ropes, she knows them. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Posted by Reason | May 7, 2008 2:27 AM

Wow, we have a whole new crop of concern trolls tonight. Taylor Marsh sent you?

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president.

Will you start waving a fluffy kitten in the air and threaten to shoot it if you don't get your way?

Face facts: your candidate's campaign dismissed a host of early contests, realised after the fact that those contests ran up the numbers against them, and has acted ever since as if they didn't count.

The choice for November resolved itself into the prospect of re-running Kerry 2004 for a couple of hundred thousand more votes in Ohio, and the prospect of making the GOP play defense like they did in 2006. The long term fortunes of the party, I'd argue, are better staked on a continuation of what succeeded in 2006.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 2:33 AM

has won most of the big-swing states that are crucial to the electoral map.

Which is irrelevant; either Dem candidate will win the same states. That Hilary beat Obama - narrowly - in any of those states is no indication that McCain will do the same. Just tonight we saw more than 25% of the GOP primary race go to candidates who have already dropped out.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 2:35 AM

"there are some neat things at McCain's site tonight that you may force me to sample if Hillary is not the choice."

You say that as if its a threat. If you want to empower McCain to outlaw abortion, stay in Iraq indefinitely and expand the deficit by further cutting the income taxes of the wealth go for it.

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 2:36 AM

Cardenas: "A vote for Hillary is a vote to beat McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain to be president."

You're an idiot. Clinton has no chance to beat McCain, who is running on a (probably fraudulent) record as a war hero. Not to mention that Clinton has no chance to be the nominee, absent lawsuits beyond the convention - which means even if she gets the nomination by such means, McCain wins.

It is now clear that Clinton - AND HER SUPPORTERS - are intent to make Obama lose, no matter if McCain wins. And yet these morons claim to be Democrats?

What's wrong with this picture?

They're not Democrats, they are Republicans who happen to be registered as Democrats.

Anybody who would vote for McCain over a Democrat while being registered as a Democrat is clearly both a moron and a traitor to the United States and to the Democratic party.

These clowns are "Joe Liebermans". They're not Democrats. They're right wing hawks like Lieberman and like Hillary herself. They're the sort of scum who liked it when Bill Clinton became more conservative than the conservative Republicans.

If these people win over Obama (and I've criticized Obama massively since the beginning as being clueless on foreign policy), you can count on years more in Iraq and a war in Iran and probably one in Pakistan as well, and more disaster in Afghanistan.

The problem for the Democratic party right now is that if these morons vote Republican, Obama WILL lose - especially if Bush starts a war in Iran before the election as I am convinced he will do.

Therefore these people are little more than Mafia extortionists, threatening to destroy the Democratic party for their own purposes, even if it damages the country massively as a result.

These are truly some scumbags here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 2:44 AM

Justaguy

"Rudeness is a weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer

JD

Hillary added over 1,300,000 voters from NC & IN.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 2:48 AM

I like Reason's reasoning.

I can use it to show that my Patriots actually WON the Super Bowl, because the Giants didn't score more points, they just got more rushes and sacks against Brady. How does Eli Manning expect to be a Super Bowl champion when he came in as a wild card? And frankly, the NY Giants aren't even considered the front-runner for the Super Bowl NEXT year.

Overall, they're a poor champion, and I'm glad we can award the trophy to the true champs, the New England Patriots.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 7, 2008 2:51 AM

Where's the "THIS IS GREAT NEWS! FOR HILLARY!" guy?

Second, let's not let Russert explain what he meant, should he decide to backtrack from this comment. After all, he never lets anybody else do it.

Posted by M | May 7, 2008 2:54 AM

hey EWard, did Obama add any votes from NC & IN? Or did people there only vote for Hillary?

Posted by and...? | May 7, 2008 3:00 AM

Eward,

Asking you to explain the coherency of your position is rude?

Do you like McCain over Obama because he has more leadership experience? If so, why don't support him over Clinton? Is it because of his policy positions? They're pretty incompatible with hers.

oh, and

A dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority.

-Eric Hoffer - gotta love that guy

Posted by justaguy | May 7, 2008 3:14 AM

FYI, the sudden influx of new voices with strong pro-Hillary opinions comes from EWard posting this on the official Hillary Clinton blog, http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/05/07/033203

"-Need bloggers on Atlantic's Website-

If anyone has the energy, I could use some help on the Atlantic website. Here is the link:http://www.theatlantic.com/

Please look on the right hand side and you'll see Matthew Yglesias and the question "Now We Know"

Thank you!

by EWard at 5/7/2008 1:00:44 AM "

Posted by jimmosk | May 7, 2008 3:14 AM

It's kind of easy to lose sight of this when you spend so much time reading blogs, but I really don't think it's worth the time to take these Hillary supporters seriously or worry about their threats. They're hardly representative of Clinton's primary coalition --- what they are representative of is the Jonestown cult centered on 5 or 6 ridiculous websites.

Speaking of which, it should be interesting to watch Armando Llorens pivot from ostensibly arguing that Obama is more electable than Clinton --- a kind of tic he'd append to whatever preposterous Clinton agitprops he was trying to run --- to hourly thousand word rants about how white people won't vote for Obama, so he's doomed, doomed!

Similarly, d'ya think the readership of the Clinton cocoon blogs will dissolve over the next few weeks? Couldn't happen to nicer folks.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 7, 2008 3:22 AM

Daniel: Has Crack Tent Democrat not posted an 'Obama's done, he's toast, he's through' up on TalkLeft tonight? I daren't look.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 3:27 AM

Justaguy

I don't trust Obama. There are a couple of reasons. Since Iowa, the pundits have handpicked him as the nominee. This has hurt his candidacy and damaged his credibility among voters that are unfamiliar with him. It appears the election is being fixed. Somehow, we are to believe that everyone will fall in line like robots and vote for him.

In addition, Obama's supporters especially on the web have viciously attacked Hillary. Her voters are labeled as "low information" types or racist voters.

Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?

The biggest mystery about this campaign is the disconnect between Obama's rhetoric and the voice of his followers. It's disgusting! If he is the nominee, we will vote for McCain or an Independent.

Elizabeth Ward

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 3:40 AM

EWard: "In addition, Obama's supporters especially on the web have viciously attacked Hillary. Her voters are labeled as "low information" types or racist voters."

Accurately in the cases represented on this blog, anyway.

"Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?"

That we can read and understand Hillary's words, as well as the words of her supporters?

Now the whining starts...

This is typical of the sort of intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty one gets from this sort. First, they make up facts, disregard the real facts, threaten to take their toys and go home by destroying the Democratic Party at a time when NOT getting a Republican in power is probably the most important thing America has faced in decades - and then when they're called on all this utter shit, they start whining "Gee, you don't respect us for not being intellectually honest! You don't respect Hillary for being a lying, corrupt POS willing to destroy the chance for a Democratic President just for her own purposes!"

Christ on a stick...

Take this shit down the road to the Republican Party where it belongs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 3:53 AM

Excuse me, I did not realize that a simple statement would be taken as a threat, more of a promise, after all one needs to check things out before testing the water.
Hillary sets a standard, but we are individuals and as such we follow when we find it pleasant. We are not carbon copies, we prefer fair play.
Democrats are not made like icecubes, we are more like tacking jello on the wall.
I voted for JFK and waited to see if he won, wanted to vote for Robert K but he did not make it to the MT primary. Had no desire to vote for the next Kennedy. Found Jesse Jackson interesting when he campaigned in Mt. Voted for Carter and Clinton. Wished they had not put in term limits as it would have been nice to have Bill Clinton still in office can you imagine where our econ would be if he had not had to leave office.
Yes, I think his personal life was right up there with some other presidents, yes JFK also and we knew with Watergate that the Republicans would need to down a Democrat to make up for Nixon's demise.
Printed out Pickles thesis and sent that over to my grandkids school for the history teacher, makes it easier to see why she is finally proud of America. (didn't need that amount of scratch paper)
All in all we are not calling names I just see alot of people who stand up for what they feel is right and do not vote for someone they do not respect.
We do not tell you that you must follow us. We just state that we will not be a portion of the adult population that would rubberstamp Sen Obama.
I do feel sorry for his white grandmother and grandfather.

Posted by Marian | May 7, 2008 4:00 AM

"Low information voter" does not equal "moron". It simply means people who either do not have the time or do not have the interest to explore political issues in depth.

Basically they're the kind of people who think a gas tax holiday is a good idea.

Posted by Neil H | May 7, 2008 4:12 AM

Jeez, Elizabeth --- the only thing that fixed this election were the voters who, you know, gave Obama the lead in delegates. If anything, the pundits refused to call this campaign over for far too long. I really don't know where you're coming from with that.

But yeah, Obama's got a lot of obnoxious followers. I'm pretty sure Hillary does too, though.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 7, 2008 4:13 AM

"Rumsfeld?" he's a man without idealism."

Richard Nixon, 1972

One big difference between Obama and HRC is that she doesn't seem to have a shred of idealism left in her. Maureen Dowd's column tomorrow nails her on just that. As her appearance with O'Reilly demonstrated - Hillary is now that most empty of vessels - the old cynic. Her campaign platform?

1. Nuke Iran for Israel.
2. Fuck hope
3. The nigger's all coked up and probably dealing.

To pretend otherwise is just to be in denial.

Posted by Trevor | May 7, 2008 4:15 AM

"do not vote for someone they do not respect.
We do not tell you that you must follow us. We just state that we will not be a portion of the adult population that would rubberstamp Sen Obama."

This after EWard whines about Obama supporters not respecting Clinton supporters.

What's wrong with this picture?

Apparently Obama supporters are supposed to respect Clinton, but not vice versa.

I'm an anarchist, I really don't want anybody in the White House. But I can clearly see where Clinton - a KNOWN liar, a KNOWN corrupt politician - KNOWN by the historical record - does not measure up. I can also see where Obama does not measure up - in national security and foreign policy, none of the candidates measures up.

Anybody who can't see that Clinton is bad news either is completely ignorant of what Clinton has done and who she is based on known facts of her history, career, and associates, or has an agenda aligned with Clinton - which is to say, is as much a corrupt liar as Clinton is.

And many of the Clinton supporters posting here tonight have demonstrated the latter.

I've never claimed Obama is not corrupt. I simply don't know. I do know that so far nobody has managed to make any significant corruption charges stick, not even in the Rezko case. And the Wright business is utterly irrelevant - especially when Hillary Clinton is a member of a right wing Christian religious cult herself. Neither has anybody made any significant charges that Obama has deliberately lied. The same simply cannot be said of the Clintons. It's impossible.

And anybody who can't see that is either ignorant or corrupt. It's that simple.

I repeat my prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to destroy the Democratic Party's chances for winning the election. She is going to go to the convention, file lawsuits, do whatever it takes to shoot down Obama's chances of beating McCain, whether they are great or small. She is doing this to make sure that either she gets the nomination using Mafia extortion tactics or that she gets a chance to run in 2012, meanwhile saddling a dangerous, deluded Republican nitwit on this country for the next four years.

And anybody supporting that kind of person who would use that kind of tactics has no right to ask to be respected.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 4:21 AM

Again, if that's true about someone begging pro-Hillary types to pleeez respond to this post, that's just sad.

But maybe like the Petey / RSS / Obsessive thing I learned, that's typical.

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 4:23 AM

Popular vote:
16,261,716(Obama) > 15,439,337 (Clinton)

+ Florida:
16,837,930(Obama) > 16,310,323 (Clinton)

Guys, is it really that hard to say who's winning.

Posted by kablamo | May 7, 2008 4:34 AM

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending I'm doing well
My need is such
I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell

THE Platters' song from the mid-1950s could serve as a great campaign song for many a politician. But it's the ideal anthem for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Trevor | May 7, 2008 4:34 AM

Popular vote:
16,261,716(Obama) > 15,439,337 (Clinton)

+ Florida:
16,837,930(Obama) > 16,310,323 (Clinton)

Guys, is it really that hard to say who's winning.

Posted by kablamo | May 7, 2008 4:35 AM

Nominating a known terrorist who has stolen the vote in every caucus is a good enough reason to work to block him from winning the presidency. Stop throwing him at us. Hillary has a large base and they will not vote for this unsavory character. Blame the media for throwing him at the American public. This is not just conjecture. This will happen. Seniors, Latinos, women, et al will NOT vote for this fast talker with two left feet who spent an entire 143 days in the Senate total and very little time in the state legislature. It's more than resentment or hate. Their good sense will not allow it. McCain must be a very happy man now.
And BO's Republicans crossovers will disappear to McCains side and there goes BO's support. All he'll have is a smattering of uneducated women, 90% African Americans, some students, and the sexist elitist Independent men who cannot vote for a woman including deluded gays. These are a very small amount of voters.
The perception that he has huge support is due to the media rant in his favor and his vote fraud with many of his supporters voting many times in every state making it appear he has more support than he does and throwing Hillary caucus votes in the trash (like the 3500 Hillary votes in Guam). If you throw him at us as the nominee for 48 states, it doesn't look good for him at all. He will finally be recognized as the great divider and the reason Dems lost this "would be cake walk". He needs to stop bribing Super Delegates with his $10,000 offering and bow out. He has done enough damage and the world is watching. America is not going to vote for a white hating, terrorist, conniving wannabe politician, who has an unknown agenda with ties to Hamas and Jihad etc. Not going to happen. People are working very hard to stop this. If he didn't "rock" the vote (steal votes) we would all have our nominee. Either John Edwards or Hillary. BO screwed John Edwards in Iowa with stealing the votes...yes stealing..it's all documented and filed. Opinions no longer matter. Facts remain.
Statiscally they are still in a dead heat. Hillary will take WV, KY and Puerto Rico in a landslide. It will all be over in three weeks. If people want a Dem nominee, then they have to begin to think with their heads and not their misguided hearts. Only fools fall in love.

Posted by Lou | May 7, 2008 4:56 AM

Dear Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. or MISS "and...?",

You may have wanted to read a little earlier in the postings BEFORE you made that comment to EWard...He was answering the question as to WHY Hillary Clintons pop vote went from 15,000,000 to 16,000,000..or should I say OVER 16,300,000?????

Alot of you have been asking us 'why we Hillary Clinton SUPPORTERS would rather vote for McCain than BHO'?...or Stinky (which is what his wife, Michelle, says he is in the morning) oops, that was uncalled for...(slap my hand)...

The question at the top of OUR list is AFTER FOLLOWING THIS CAMPAIGN, AS A DEMOCRAT...WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE IS FOR OR AGAINST!!!!! He changes his stance on everything, for example?...let's see....THE WAR!!! First he said he would have the troops out in his 1st 6 months, then it was by the END of 2009 and now, according to his campaign insiders; by the END of his 4 year term???? The Code Pink Group is going to wail on him if he doesn't produce his 1st 'promise', that's a given....Second..At the beginning, he was all for talking to our 'enemies' without restrictions...now he wants restrictions?? Must be because he got too much flack...Some of you say that "SHE' is like Joe Lieb...If that was the case, she would have backed out at the first sign of trouble and moved to the INDY ticket...since you all think she is too 'central' to be a Democrat!!?? Wow, how the tides have turned...I used to love being called a LIBERAL, seriously...Now I'm just embarrassed to be called a Democrat!!!

Respectfully....ONE of the 'crazy' trolls that is, probably, linked to Hillary44!!!!!!!

I wish you all peace cuz we are guna need it.

Posted by AreYouKiddingMe??? | May 7, 2008 4:58 AM

Wow. You're awesome Lou. Can I marry you? I'm so glad someone is willing to speak out against the MSM's invention of math. God knows I wouldn't want counting to get in the way of your facts about how few Obama supporters there are.

PS.
You do know there is no statistics behind counting votes, its an actual number (Mostly, 4 states are playing hide the sausage with their turnout)

Posted by Kablamo | May 7, 2008 5:02 AM

I love the whining from the Clintonistas. Whipped dogs howl loudest.

Posted by jasmine | May 7, 2008 5:04 AM

EWard wrote: "Obama and his team have disrespected us from the beginning. You talk about Progressive values. What message are you sending to her supporters by calling us morons, idiots, or racists?"

Ask your fellow Clinton supporters, particularly the bigoted morons who parrot the 'Obama's a Muslim' canard.

Especially the morons whose criticisms of Obama are 1) he's a Muslim and 2) his pastor.

How else can you describe such people?

Also, you say you don't trust Obama, but your 'reasons' (if they can even be called such) are remarkably weak. How many people do you trust or not trust based on what pundits say?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:05 AM

Marian wrote: "Should Hillary leave this election I will be calling and doing everything in my power to assure that a Republican wins the election this fall."

Well, you're old and just waiting to die. When McCain and his Supreme Court picks outlaw abortion, it's no skin off your nose.

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:12 AM

EWard wrote: "I will work for any candidate that is worthy of this office. If Hillary is not the nominee, Senator McCain is more prepared to be President than Obama. That's my duty to elect the most qualified person."

How many coathanger abortion deaths are you prepared to live with on your conscience?

Do you have a conscience? Or are you just another self-absorbed baby boomer?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 5:15 AM

Oh...Mr. Hack!!!

Why are you getting so upset??? You're a self-proclaimed anarchist!!! Why are you instructing the Hillary Supporters to 'settle' just because you are??? Your post is soooo un-becoming of a true anarchist. If your kind could have a candidate, who would it be? Oh, wait...NONE! (I'd say 'peace', but that would be an oxy-moron)

Posted by AreYouKiddingMe??? | May 7, 2008 5:23 AM

The Republicans know how to win elections. They are wise enough to realize that two candidates polarizing the electorate spells doom for the party. The winner take all system has its virtues.

Obama has the edge in delegates but without counting FL and MI. Somehow these voters are going to fall into line and just vote for your guy in November. Do you think they might be angry at the Party? Or they just don't matter.

Can Obama win without our votes or the blue collar vote? He can't just be President for independents and progressives. The pompous arrogance of your side is amazing. You write as if, we don't exist and somehow he's going to unite us. In your dreams!

Someone quoted Maureen Dowd. She's part of the problem. Who in the heck gave her the power to tell Hillary to drop out? As the voice for Obama, you have done the impossible. The Republicans look heroic compared to the Democrats.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 5:33 AM

As a real journalist, Russert has to maintain his phony objectivity so when the writing is on the wall he has to pretend he can't see it.

Posted by aleks | May 7, 2008 5:37 AM

EWard, how many young women are you going to let die due to botched back-alley abortions, just because you're in a snit because Hillary lost?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 6:02 AM

Hillery is in it to win, it she fights on and I will keep fighting too! I'm from Florida and there is noway I will ever vote for Obama after he didn't wants us to have a right to vote again or to count our votes.So come Nov he will loose!

Posted by Hang in there Hillary | May 7, 2008 6:04 AM

"I'm from Florida and there is noway I will ever vote for Obama after he didn't wants us to have a right to vote again or to count our votes."

You people can't even count your own damned votes.

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 6:15 AM

Matthew,you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama was supposed to put her away. He didn't. Don't you get it. Iy's going until the end. Obama cannot win November. Lets put up a candidate who can and that is Hillary. Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party. He neds to assess where he is going and what votes he is getting.

Posted by Kathy | May 7, 2008 6:26 AM

Matthew,you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama was supposed to put her away. He didn't. Don't you get it. Iy's going until the end. Obama cannot win November. Lets put up a candidate who can and that is Hillary. Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party. He neds to assess where he is going and what votes he is getting.

Posted by Kathy | May 7, 2008 6:26 AM

Matthew,you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama was supposed to put her away. He didn't. Don't you get it. Iy's going until the end. Obama cannot win November. Lets put up a candidate who can and that is Hillary. Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party. He neds to assess where he is going and what votes he is getting.

Posted by Kathy | May 7, 2008 6:26 AM

Matthew,you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama was supposed to put her away. He didn't. Don't you get it. It's going until the end. Obama cannot win November. Lets put up a candidate who can and that is Hillary. Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party. He neds to assess where he is going and what votes he is getting.

Posted by Kathy | May 7, 2008 6:27 AM

Matthew,you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama was supposed to put her away. He didn't. Don't you get it. It's going until the end. Obama cannot win November. Lets put up a candidate who can and that is Hillary. Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party. He neds to assess where he is going and what votes he is getting.

Posted by Kathy | May 7, 2008 6:28 AM

Just Wow.

The pro-Hillary comments here have outstripped Hillary herself in utter shamelessness.

Please, all you people, just go vote for John McCain and SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. Never have I witnessed such offensive myopia from ostensible Democratic voters.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 6:31 AM

Oh by the way I forgot to tell you That 75 members of my family will not ever vote for Obama, so No Hillary no Dem win!

Posted by Hang in there Hillary | May 7, 2008 6:36 AM

Bill,

At least Nader voters are picking someone to the left of the democratic party. What the hell's wrong with these upset Clinton supporters?

Posted by themann1086 | May 7, 2008 6:52 AM

Obama has failed miserably in uniting the party.

Well, who wouldn't fail, when the opponents are the say-anything, do-anything Clintons. You've accurately diagnosed the disease, but missed the cause completely.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 6:55 AM

Man, these comments are depressing. I

'm an old-fashioned Democrat, a throwback to 2007, when the most important thing was repudiating Bush and his legacy of disaster at home and abroad. McCain, with his proud ignorance of domestic issues and his program for 100 years of war, looks like he might leave us all fondly yearning for the halcyon days of Bush the Lesser.

The identity of the particular Democratic nominee is far less important than beating the Republican and saving the country.

And yet, come to this thread, and we see people who claim to be Democrats, but who don't care anything about policy--it's all about "personality" to them--with "personality" is scare quotes because they're focused on media image rather than anything real. And so, they'll put the party through a destructive fight, and then desert to that nice man, John McCain, if they don't get their way.

What's wrong with you people? Don't your care about the country, and the world?

Posted by rea | May 7, 2008 6:55 AM

Yeah, this might be OT for the blog post, but seriously...if you are voting for Hillary because you think she represents women's rights to a greater degree than Obama, I would think long and hard before even throwing the "I will campaign for John McCain" card. Specifically, what I would think about is his SC court selection and reaction to the recent Ledbetter case/bill. I can't BELIEVE this hasn't gotten more press than it has.

Posted by colleeniem | May 7, 2008 7:01 AM

Ahhh...what a beutiful morning here in NC.

Adios, Bitch.

Posted by Jay | May 7, 2008 7:05 AM

EWard, how many young women are you going to let die due to botched back-alley abortions, just because you're in a snit because Hillary lost?

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 6:02 AM

As many as it takes! Does Hillary deserve any less?

Posted by aleks | May 7, 2008 7:08 AM

@ Kathy (above)

WTF? Just shut the fuck up and go do some housework. Your lame analysis and opinions are pathetic.

Posted by Larry | May 7, 2008 7:09 AM

Obama betrayed his followers, clinging to the worst side of human nature, harboring hate and bigotry behind the facade of an attractive, promising personality. He can denounce Wright to Kingdom Come, but people will never trust the man again.

For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in a church were Black Liberation theology was preached and practiced. It is not Christianity, but Marxism with Holy Scripture tossed in here and there to make hate speech sound like the language of a noble mission.

«The goals of Black liberal theology are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.»From The Truth About Black Liberal Theology — Dr. Robert A. Morey, an internationally-recognized scholar in the fields of theology and apologetics, 1994.
Obama stayed at Trinity United Church for two decades without denouncing what he heard and witnessed. By doing and saying nothing, he allowed Rev. Wright's demeaning and tragic conduct to continue before his little girls and wife, the latter of whom adopted notions that America was a bad country.

Where, is this man who would take on the ultimate responsibility for all of America's citizens, was the protection and concern for his own precious family? If Obama had been a dutiful father and husband, he would have sheltered them from such bitterness and corruptive hatred.

Why did Obama permit Wright to taint the spirit of his immediate family and fill their minds with hateful thoughts regarding people who were not of color? Obama's cold and calculating actions (and inactions) were rites of passage within Chicago's leftist circles. Obama perceived that all of this was necessary in order to reach his ultimate goal. He put himself and his quest for political power before the welfare of his own family.

Obama was supposed to be the candidate that transcended race, yet we've never seen his entire family standing alongside him. Why? Because he is not who he has portrayed himself to be. Obama's white relatives — grandmother, cousins, aunts and uncles — have never appeared with him. It is arguable that he has treated them shabbily and by virtue of this indeed does identify himself in mind as «the black candidate.»

Are Americans to believe that such a man has what it takes to lead our nation? In the words from «Dreams of My Father» lie answers to many of the questions Americans have been asking themselves. Read Obama's thoughts and understand that this is a man who rejects his own flesh:

«I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, which I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.»I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.»It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.»And, from «The Audacity of Hope»: «I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.»

If unchecked, the Democratic National Committee's course has the very real potential to set our country back forty years in race relations. It is all too clear that the Democrats have bred a race problem within their own party. Now they wish to infect all of America.

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 7:13 AM

"Hillery is in it to win, it she fights on and I will keep fighting too! I'm from Florida and there is noway I will ever vote for Obama after he didn't wants us to have a right to vote again or to count our votes.So come Nov he will loose!

Posted by Hang in there Hillary | May 7, 2008 6:04 AM"

So basically you're fine with being lied to by someone who hired onto her campaign the very people who voted to strip your state of its delegates in the first place. How does it feel to be so easily fooled and used?

Also, screaming "I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way" just makes you look like a child. When a child screams that, the best thing to do is to let them because once they pass out they'll start breathing again. If you want Hillary to be the nominee, then she has to win. If she cannot pass Obama, then that's her own damn fault.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 7:19 AM

What do they say about Obama's campaign/movement..that it's a cult of personality? Remember, EVERYTHING is projection.

It's actually pretty simple. In order for progressivism to actually do any good, these arguments that Obama is making, for example like the Gas Tax Holiday thing, need to be won. Plain and simple. If not now, what..in 2012? 2016?

I don't think things can wait that long....maybe it'll never happen.

But maybe it will.

To the Clinton supporters:She..and you made a huge tactical error. Maybe it was made for ideological reasons, but frankly that just makes it worse. Instead of spending the last 2 months pounding on Obama, Clinton and you should have spent it showing how you guys could hit McCain harder. But you didn't. So you lose. I hope one day you guys realize it.

Posted by Karmakin | May 7, 2008 7:21 AM

There is a large rift in the Democratic party. It once was the party of the working class and now it is trying to remake itself. It won't work. This fight should go all the way to the convention.

I love how only white people count as working class these days.

Posted by marc h. | May 7, 2008 7:25 AM

Ben, are you French? You're quotation marks are rather French, so I'm just wondering. Otherwise, you're probably a bot.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 7:26 AM

To the Hillary supporters (read: McCain supporters) who are carping about Florida and Michigan, go back and read Hillary's opinions about excluding those states BEFORE she realized they would be so crucial to her win (which, of course, last night's results rendered moot anyway).

What a bunch of dupes. Hillary's arrogance early on crippled her, and NOW you're whining about how Obama had to actually struggle to defeat the overwhelmingly advantaged erstwhile front-runner. It's not about who "will win in November." That's not how nominees are chosen. They're chosen for winning the MOST DELEGATES, and Obama is poised to do just that -- AND the popular vote. Get over it.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 7:31 AM

Hillary for you and me! Bring back our democracy!!!

Posted by I heart Hillary | May 7, 2008 7:32 AM

EWard, how many young women are you going to let die due to botched back-alley abortions, just because you're in a snit because Hillary lost?

Barack Hussein Obama refused to support legislation to protect babies that survived late-term abortions, claiming «I did not want to concede.»

To what was Obama referring? His statement was in reference to babies that were fully outside their mothers' wombs. Thus, Obama did not want to concede the fact that babies who survived a late term abortion were in fact «persons.» He was the only senator of the
Democrat Party to speak against baby protection legislation. He was the only legislator from either side of the political isle that took his position.

In 2002, the Illinois State Legislature passed the Infant Liability Act to outlaw the inhumane practice of infanticide. There was never a thought that this bill would be opposed. However, Obama opposed it on two different occasions - first by trying to limit discussion and then trying to block a vote on it in the committee he chaired.

How presumptuous. Obama must actually believe what is said of him by Louis Farrakhan (who praised Obama as «Hope of entire world» at the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day event). Obama tried to play God when it came to life and death of babies.

What did the Savior of the World say about children? «But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.» (Matthew 18:6) Clearly, babies who survive abortions and are breathing on their own are children. Obama is a hypocrite betraying those who are black. «79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are placed in target minority neighborhoods. Almost half of all African-American children conceived are aborted.
And while accounting for only 13% of the population, African-American women submit to an enormous 35% of all abortions in the United States.» - Gerald Korson

Because widespread acceptance of abortion has become the norm in our society, millions have become desensitized. Abortions result in the death of a living human being. Late term abortions are the most hideous and cruel variety of all. Unfortunately, too many Americans have a distorted view of the word «abortion.» They refuse to call it «killing» or «murder» because they do not equate it with such acts.

Posted by Sue | May 7, 2008 7:32 AM

Suck me, Sue

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 7:33 AM

One other thing about Obama that I can't stand is that he refuses to acknowledge that the earth is only 5000 years old. Maybe they didn't teach him that in the madrassa.

Posted by Sue | May 7, 2008 7:36 AM

Seriously. Now we've got spammers-for-hire (one, actually) using European-style quotation marks, and expounding Republican platform positions. I'd say this thing is truly over.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 7:38 AM

It's done now. And I bet Hillary does the right thing and shuts it down.

MY is a twit for claiming that it was over on March 5. It wasn't - look at Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Hillary had won out big, there would have been a real decision for the supers to make on whether Obama was a dead nominee walking. But he's ridden out the storm and held his own at the polls in Indiana. He's the winner.

O-bots ought to do Obama and the Democratic party a favor and quit acting like spoiled A-holes. He needs every Hillary vote he can get.

Posted by Undecided | May 7, 2008 7:39 AM

Ahh....so-called "Undecided" finally weighs in.

MY is a twit for claiming that it was over on March 5. It wasn't - look at Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

It's called being RIGHT, making a CORRECT PREDICTION. Happens all the time.

If Hillary had won out big, there would have been a real decision for the supers to make on whether Obama was a dead nominee walking. But he's ridden out the storm and held his own at the polls in Indiana. He's the winner.

And in his honor, I'm gonna step up to the Starbucks counter this morning and say "Make my latte a triple!"

O-bots ought to do Obama and the Democratic party a favor and quit acting like spoiled A-holes. He needs every Hillary vote he can get.

Yeah, because the habitues of blog comment threads hold the keys to the future of the Democratic Party in their hands. Truly. Spoiled A-holes? Let's take a poll and see how many associate that term with the Clintons over Obama. It is to laugh.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 7:45 AM

From the onset, Barack Hussein Obama has billed himself as a candidate of “CHANGE”. His entire marketing strategy, for the most part, can be summed up in that ‘single’ word that appears on each podium he stands before.

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and PASTOR WRIGHT---the story will disappear. Obama has contributed thousands of dollars to Wright’s church. Obama is a person who, for over two decades, turned to, was counseled by, and formed a strong personal bond with a friend-mentor-pastor, who is a divider and a hatemonger, can simply not effectively act as a unifying force for the USA. Some of Wright’s beliefs must have been accepted by Obama. A year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement. They feared THEN that his radical anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel spewing of hatred would be found out! Obama LIED when he said he didn't know about these "particular" speeches. Then, he threw his white grandmother, who loved him and helped raise him, under the bus, to try and make Wright look better.

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and FARRAKHAN and all the money Farrakhan donated to his campaign ---the story will disappear. Wright gave Farrakhan a "lifetime achievement" award, and Obama lied in a debate saying it was for some community service Farrakhan did. Later, he said he may have received money in donations.

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and the NAFTA Meeting---the story will disappear. The Obama campaign admitted the meeting AFTER they were caught!

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and MICHELLE’S COMMENTS---the story will disappear. Read her college thesis.

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and Exelon---the story will disappear. Exelon is the country's largest nuclear plant operator. Obama's “Chief Political Strategist”, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. Is this the history of the candidate who doesn't accept money from big business? How many other big companies are helping to raise these huge funds? (The Obama Camp collected $55 million in February)?

OBAMA thinks if he puts distance between himself and REZKO and his Arab associates---the story will disappear. There is ample evidence that Rezko did favors for Obama. A million dollar home for three-hundred-thousand, plus the land next door. At first, Obama said he did a few hours of work for Rezko. On March 15, 2008, he admitted he may have received about $250,000 from Rezko. THE TRIAL OF TONY REZKO PRESENTS A MAJOR POTHOLE IN HIS ROAD AHEAD. Though the Chicago Tribune may be satisfied with the bulk of Obama's answers on the matter, the stigma of "business as usual," or "Chicago-style politics" is not a label that does well, when affixed to the "CHANGE" brand. WILL THEY PUT THE TRIAL OFF UNTIL AFTER OBAMA GET ALL THE VOTES IN? If so, we won’t know the truth about his dealings with Rezko until it is too late!

Obama is not responsible for what his pastor/mentor said or did, but he is responsible for lying about it. I'm sorry, but his past and his 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright, as well as relationships with others, tells me that he is not an AMERICA-FIRST supporter. Over the last year, he has been stretching out lies (a little at a time). His fault is not just about his ‘association’ with others, it’s about all the lies he has told.

The best result out of Obama's campaign may turn out to be progress in the form of ALL American cultures accepting that each individual, regardless of race, is to be rightfully held accountable for their actions, affiliations, as well as the doctrines that they adhere to and cultivate in others. The embarrassing litany of anarchy, filth and hate that Pastor Wright spews should not be excused away as simply "the way our people speak". “OUR people” should be ALL Americans! Wrong is wrong and is not to be determined on a sliding scale according to skin color.

The biased media still handles Obama with kid gloves. The honeymoon is over---will we see the real Obama before it’s too late? What else is he hiding? Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Obama is the frontrunner, and its time for all Americans to take a closer and deeper look at him. He has along list of terrorist and Anti-American figures in his closet. Obama promises “CHANGE”. I’m afraid his change may not be good for America. The question is: “Who is Barack Hussein Obama?” The problem is: “Nobody knows!”

THIS MAN IS ASKING US TO IGNORE WHAT HE HAS BEEN AND HOPE HE WILL “CHANGE” FOR THE BETTER!

Posted by Bobby | May 7, 2008 8:02 AM

Paging the HRC die-hards who have dropped in:

There's a rapidly emerging consensus over at mydd.com to the extent that:

a.) it's over for HRC
b.) they're going to back Obama, even though they don't like him or positively hate his guts

If the vast majority of the mydd crowd, who have been fervent HRC supporters and Obama bashers, have come to this conclusion, maybe it's time to take a deep breath, step back and pause for a little reflection.

And just out of interest: what makes Obama so unpalatable or unelectable, that you would rather vote for McCain?

Posted by novakant | May 7, 2008 8:03 AM

The super-delegates need to get together to inform HRC that it's Last Hurrah time.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 7, 2008 8:09 AM

The only issues that matter are the gas tax cut and answering the phone at 3 A.M. I will never support a Democratic nominee who is closer to Hillary on every single issue, because he had the temerity to defeat Hillary. Plus, the logic of his supporters makes no sense!

Posted by Clinton Troll | May 7, 2008 8:11 AM

Hmm, what's this? http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/05/07/033203

Need bloggers on Atlantic's Website
If anyone has the energy, I could use some help on the Atlantic website. Here is the link:http://www.theatlantic.com/

Please look on the right hand side and you'll see Matthew Yglesias and the question "Now We Know"

Thank you!
by EWard at 5/7/2008 1:00:44 AM
[Login or Create Account to Reply]

In case anyone was wondering as to the source of this flood of delusion.

Posted by qjkgdqr | May 7, 2008 8:21 AM

Dear Novakant,

I think the fact that a number of the pro-Hillary commenters feel the need to remind us of Sen. Obama's full name suggests that his melanin level might be part of their problem. It certainly one of the few areas where Clinton has a lot more in common with McCain than with Obama.

Posted by Anon | May 7, 2008 8:24 AM

Dear Novakant,

I think the fact that a number of the pro-Hillary commenters feel the need to remind us of Sen. Obama's full name suggests that his melanin level might be part of their problem. It certainly one of the few areas where Clinton has a lot more in common with McCain than with Obama.

Posted by Anon | May 7, 2008 8:25 AM

Too bad, assholes. Hillary will live on to fight another day!! West Virginia and Kentucky form the true working class backbone of our great nation and if a candidate can't win there how can they win the election at large? Once we roll in these two crucial states, the Automatic delegates will fall in line. Yes, you'll see. Hillary has a plan.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 8:28 AM

EWard, don't aggrandize yourself. The fact that you are a) a moron, b) an idiot and c) a racist does not mean that Obama supporters think all Hillary supporters share your delusions. You are one, lonely, embittered and aggressive person. Quit using Hillary's loss to pump up your self-pity and persecution complex. Failing that, maybe you should propose to Petey. What a perfect marriage that would be!

Posted by jasmine | May 7, 2008 8:30 AM

Yes, you'll see. Hillary has a plan.

Uh, ok. Does that "plan" include slinking back to NY and fading into oblivion? Baring that, she's wasting her time.

Posted by BlowMeHillary | May 7, 2008 8:35 AM

Must say, I do enjoy watching these Clintonistas getting torn a new one.

Posted by Andy | May 7, 2008 8:39 AM

West Virginia and Kentucky form the true working class backbone of our great nation

Never been to West Virginia or Kentucky, eh?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 7, 2008 8:53 AM

"Once we roll in these two crucial states, the Automatic delegates will fall in line. Yes, you'll see. Hillary has a plan.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 8:28 AM"

Does he plan include losing the biggest gimme primary since Gore in 2000?

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 8:56 AM

If we are going to partake in generalizing by the way, here is my attempt at pigeonholing the female Clinton supporters in this thread:

I shake my head in disgust when I see you driving your aging minivan down the street, ketchup dribbling down your chins as you turn your attention from your McDonald's to the latest Clay Aiken CD ("Isn't he so cute?").

I imagine your careers to be no better - your cubicles, plastered with posters of kittens clinging to branches (an apt metaphor for your candidate) and generic motivational platitudes that you picked up for 2 for $100, framed, at Sam's Club, reek of mediocrity and the decay of the American Dream.

If any of you were on fire, you'd better hope that I have diarrhea - I'd be willing only to drop a deuce onto the crackling flames, now bubbling after reaching your manifold deposits of subcutaneous fat, that consumed your sad, pitiful excuse for a body.

Gee, that was fun.

Posted by Andy | May 7, 2008 9:01 AM

Jasmine, Jeffrey Davis, and Reality Man

You are responding to an EWard impostor!

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 9:05 AM

"the ground she lost in February"

I don't see what Clintons Farming deal has to do with it, what she does in her personal life should remain personal.

Posted by Johan Hari | May 7, 2008 9:06 AM

Obama said judgement was more important than Any experience well looks like he doesn't have either!

Sleaze charge: 'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama'
Minnesota man takes his case to court, YouTube, $100,000 polygraph challenge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 17, 2008
4:45 pm Eastern

Editor's note: The accompanying YouTube video contains sexual language that some will consider offensive. The article itself contains material that is inappropriate for children.

Larry Sinclair accuses Barack Obama of homosexual acts and drug use in video posted on YouTube

WASHINGTON – The electrifying presidential campaign of Barack Obama faces a new challenge – a Minnesota man who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with him.

When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff.

Sinclair, who says he is willing to submit to a polygraph test to validate his claims, will now get his chance – thanks to a website offering $10,000 for the right to record it and $100,000 to Sinclair if he passes.

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest," Sinclair told WND by telephone. "I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."

Sinclair, who lives in Duluth and describes himself as "gay," claims he "personally engaged in sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999" with the man who is now the leading Democratic presidential candidate. He claims the activity took place in the back of Sinclair's limousine and occurred again, later, in his hotel. Sinclair also says he personally no longer uses drugs.

In his lawsuit, filed last week, he charges his civil rights have been violated by Obama and the Democratic Party. Named as defendants in the case are the presidential candidate, David Axelrod of AKP Message and Media in Chicago and the Democratic National Committee.

Sinclair charges Obama smoked crack cocaine in the limo while Sinclair snorted powdered cocaine provided by the legislator. He says the two met in an upscale Chicago lounge before leaving in Sinclair's limousine where the drug use and sex took place for the first time.

Sinclair says he is a registered Democrat but has never voted for any candidate. He is 46 and claims to be physically disabled.

He says he was not physically impaired in 1999 when the alleged incidents with Obama took place.

Calls placed to the Obama campaign were not returned.

See Larry Sinclair's allegations:

Larry Sinclair lawsuit,

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56627

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56628

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56629

Posted by vote for McCain | May 7, 2008 9:15 AM

Clinton Troll wins.

Posted by Pete | May 7, 2008 9:17 AM

Ding, dong, the witch is dead! Finally.

I'll be more than happy to see the tiny cult of online Clinton-supporters splinter over to the Republican party. Their rhetoric makes pretty clear that they are not (and never really were) Democrats... Meanwhile the vast population of offline, low-information Clinton voters will be plenty happy to vote for Obama.

Posted by J.B. | May 7, 2008 9:19 AM

Clinton Troll wins

Pete, maybe you missed Lou's "Nominating a known terrorist who has stolen the vote in every caucus is a good enough reason to work to block him from winning the presidency."

That has to win the thread. I mean, the known terrorist bit is just sublime. Known. Like he's on a watch list or something.

That has to win.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 9:27 AM

Glad I started at the bottom of the thread, and thanks to the helpful poster who explained the assault from the Clinton blog.

What seemed to change last night was the media narrative. I couldn't believe we dragged on so long after 2/14, when the Clintons explained there was no way they could catch up in pledged delegates. Finally, the majority of pundits are following MY and other people who can do math to call this one over.

Posted by Deborah | May 7, 2008 9:48 AM

Has a gay man ever actually said "I had homo sex" in history? I'm calling bullshit on that claim.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 9:49 AM

So do these handful of Clinton diehards have enough spare cash left to pay her campaign's debts to herself, Mark Penn, and so on?

Because that is the only purpose they are serving for Clinton at this point: she needs them to empty out their pockets.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 9:50 AM

Deborah,

I favor a pecuniary explanation. As long as they could get people to tune in to watch more election coverage, the media was going to keep propping Clinton up. But they know darn well no one is going to be tuning to watch returns from Kentucky and West Virginia, so they are finally calling it.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 9:59 AM

no one is going to be tuning to watch returns from Kentucky and West Virginia

Do you mean the Kentucky and West Virginia that are "the working class backbone of America"?

Posted by Mort | May 7, 2008 10:07 AM

Larry Sinclair is probably telling the truth. Who cares? The funny thing is, every one of the candidates now standing is an overt homosexual (Hilary Clinton) or latent homosexual (Obama, McCain). Rumors of McCain's "experimentation" while in the Navy have followed him for years. But our current President is also a latent homosexual, actually Bush is probably one of the most flaming repressed homosexuals ever to hold major office. The truth is the average American heterosexual man lacks the ability to instantly connect and empathize with others, doesn't present himself well and is typically not a good public speaker. For that reason most male politicians tend to have homosexual personalities, hence so many closeted Republican congressmen.

Posted by steve | May 7, 2008 10:13 AM

BARACK YOU CAN KEEP TOOTING YOUR OWN HORN AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STARTED NEGATIVE CAMPAGAIN ADS AND ADVERTISING AGAINST HILLARY, BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, DEMOCRATS ON HILLARY'S SIDE WILL "NOT" VOTE FOR YOU IN NOVEMBER. YOU WILL NEVER SEE PRESIDENT. THEY STILL WILL VOTE MCCAIN EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW HE IS A BUTT HEAD ALSO. YOU STATE ON EVERY ELECTION YOU WIN, AND JUST LIKE IN N.C. LAST NIGT YOU STATED "THESE ELECTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT THE CANIDATES..HILLARY OR YOURSELF...THEY ARE ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT" "WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR DELEGATES SEATED FROM FLA. AND MI. WE THE PEOPLE WANT HILLARY, "NOT" YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK WE ALL DO, THAT IS TRULY NOT THE CASE OR YOU WOULD HAVE WON MAJOR STATES TO WIN AGAINST MCCAIN. FACE THE REAL FACTS...YOU MIGHT LOOK GOOD NOW...
BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO SEE THE REAL BARACK...QUIT WHILE YOUR AHEAD OR YOU MAY NOT EVEN STAND A CHANCE AT RUNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN..GET EXPERIENCE..COME BACK IN 8 YEARS..BUT NO YOU WON'T DO THAT, BECAUSE YOUR A PIGHEADED MAN.

Posted by Kim S | May 7, 2008 10:13 AM

BARACK YOU CAN KEEP TOOTING YOUR OWN HORN AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STARTED NEGATIVE CAMPAGAIN ADS AND ADVERTISING AGAINST HILLARY, BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, DEMOCRATS ON HILLARY'S SIDE WILL "NOT" VOTE FOR YOU IN NOVEMBER. YOU WILL NEVER SEE PRESIDENT. THEY STILL WILL VOTE MCCAIN EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW HE IS A BUTT HEAD ALSO. YOU STATE ON EVERY ELECTION YOU WIN, AND JUST LIKE IN N.C. LAST NIGT YOU STATED "THESE ELECTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT THE CANIDATES..HILLARY OR YOURSELF...THEY ARE ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT" "WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR DELEGATES SEATED FROM FLA. AND MI. WE THE PEOPLE WANT HILLARY, "NOT" YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK WE ALL DO, THAT IS TRULY NOT THE CASE OR YOU WOULD HAVE WON MAJOR STATES TO WIN AGAINST MCCAIN. FACE THE REAL FACTS...YOU MIGHT LOOK GOOD NOW...
BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO SEE THE REAL BARACK...QUIT WHILE YOUR AHEAD OR YOU MAY NOT EVEN STAND A CHANCE AT RUNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN..GET EXPERIENCE..COME BACK IN 8 YEARS..BUT NO YOU WON'T DO THAT, BECAUSE YOUR A PIGHEADED MAN.

Posted by Kim S | May 7, 2008 10:15 AM

BARACK YOU CAN KEEP TOOTING YOUR OWN HORN AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STARTED NEGATIVE CAMPAGAIN ADS AND ADVERTISING AGAINST HILLARY, BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, DEMOCRATS ON HILLARY'S SIDE WILL "NOT" VOTE FOR YOU IN NOVEMBER. YOU WILL NEVER SEE PRESIDENT. THEY STILL WILL VOTE MCCAIN EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW HE IS A BUTT HEAD ALSO. YOU STATE ON EVERY ELECTION YOU WIN, AND JUST LIKE IN N.C. LAST NIGT YOU STATED "THESE ELECTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT THE CANIDATES..HILLARY OR YOURSELF...THEY ARE ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT" "WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR DELEGATES SEATED FROM FLA. AND MI. WE THE PEOPLE WANT HILLARY, "NOT" YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK WE ALL DO, THAT IS TRULY NOT THE CASE OR YOU WOULD HAVE WON MAJOR STATES TO WIN AGAINST MCCAIN. FACE THE REAL FACTS...YOU MIGHT LOOK GOOD NOW...
BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO SEE THE REAL BARACK...QUIT WHILE YOUR AHEAD OR YOU MAY NOT EVEN STAND A CHANCE AT RUNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN..GET EXPERIENCE..COME BACK IN 8 YEARS..BUT NO YOU WON'T DO THAT, BECAUSE YOUR A PIGHEADED MAN.

Posted by Kim S | May 7, 2008 10:15 AM

John McCain is a senile warmongering sociopath with an anger management problem. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Posted by InCaseEveryoneForgot | May 7, 2008 10:16 AM

I really have not wanted to believe that Clinton supporters are a bunch of dimwits, but at this point it seems that is all she has left, judging from their contributions above. Or maybe they're all 7th-grade girls -- the writing style fits.

Dropping by their home blogs briefly, I note that many of them are giving HRC money like there's a tomorrow (rather than no tomorrow, as is actually the case for that campaign). Pretty pathetic.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 10:16 AM

That Larry Sinclair story has no legs. The guy is an ex-con. More importantly, he failed two lie detector test regarding this story. Besides, has anyone seen this guy. If Obama is gay, he could do much better than that.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 10:19 AM

That Larry Sinclair story has no legs. The guy is an ex-con. More importantly, he failed two lie detector test regarding this story. Besides, has anyone seen this guy. If Obama is gay, he could do much better than that.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 10:20 AM

DEMOCRATS ON HILLARY'S SIDE WILL "NOT" VOTE FOR YOU IN NOVEMBER

Then they're "not" Democrats. They're Clinton partisans.

If there was any humor in the real extreme left, the Communist Party USA would nominate Hillary as their candidate, just so we could watch the Clinton partisans put up hammer-and-sickle flags on their blogs.

Posted by Anticorium | May 7, 2008 10:26 AM

Kim S would enjoy a taste of my middle leg.

Posted by Barry | May 7, 2008 10:26 AM

Here's an OT question for this esteemed panel. While speaking with my father (a devout Fox watcher and staunch conservative) last night on the phone, he remarked that Obama seemed to be a "communist". Needless to say, a fairly heated argument ensued concluding with a hang up. My question is this: should I call him back this am to resume the discussion?

Posted by Pete | May 7, 2008 10:29 AM

I'd be interested in hearing from Petey as to whether he thinks Clinton should stay in the race at this point, and if so, what path to the nomination, or any other path, he sees for her.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 10:31 AM

Hello,

The bottom line is that Obama can not beat McCain in the general election. Why are his supporters so against this going to the convention? These are politicians by the way. They will politic their superdelegates, and the best one at doing this, no matter what the delegates say now, will win.

I am a Democrat and have never, ever, voted for a Republican in any election. I graduated from UC Berkeley, in probably the most liberal town in this country. But with a heavy heart and after much thought, I decided to vote for McCain, not because I am a closet Republican, but because I can not vote for Obama, because he can not win. Why vote for a loser?

The leaders of my party believe that we will all step in line, once Obama wins, and deliver the election to him, well, that is not going to happen.

For instance. In my state, Wyoming, our Governor, a Democrat, said at the beginning of the election, that neither candidate was appealing to him, too liberal, he is a conservative democrat. He wasnt endorsing either. Then all of a sudden, he is in the Obama camp, campaigning for him. Our governor in bed with Obama? Something is fishy here.

I hear all this nonsense this morning about how Obama will get the pledged delegates by the convention. He is not going to win in West Virginia or Kentucky. Oregon is not assured either. So how can he get the pledged delegates again? He cant. Obama is too cocky and sure of himself right now. The real campaign begins now up and through the convention. Obama may have a bunch of Oprahs money, but Hillary will still come out on top.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 10:38 AM

Hillary's comeback strategy: Claim that her campaign motorcade (or is she using a pickup truck with a Confederate flag and a gun rack now?) was shot at by snipers. It'll garner her an even bigger sympathy vote than crying did in New Hampshire, and there's no downside because no one who wouldn't fall for it supports her at this point anyway.

Posted by aleks | May 7, 2008 10:39 AM

I find it sad that an illiterate Clinton-fascist (Kim S.) should share my first name. Surely these people were supposed to be helped by No Child Left Behind?

Posted by kim t | May 7, 2008 10:41 AM

We do not tell you that you must follow us. We just state that we will not be a portion of the adult population that would rubberstamp Sen Obama.
I do feel sorry for his white grandmother and grandfather.

Of course you do. You sweet, sweet Hillary supporters just overflow with sympathy for white people. I can't imagine why anyone brings up racism in the campaign!

Posted by Persia | May 7, 2008 10:43 AM

The fact that people aren't accepting this is even MORE insane than this primary has been...
truly WTF

Posted by coomaraswamee | May 7, 2008 10:44 AM

I have been watching the political campaigns closely over the past two months. I am very concerned with what is happening. I see the media favoring Senator Obama that prevents us from learning about him and where he actually stands on the issues. He NEVER has really given specific details. I am concerned with his associations. Police officers cannot associate with anyone who has a criminal background. Why would the President of the US not have an even higher standard? It took him 20 years to make a decision about his Pastor. I would even accept if it took him 10 years because he was learning about himself. But 20 years? AND only when Rev. Wright embarrassed him. I also look at the votes. Senator Obama is not in favor of seating Florida or Michigan. He worked hard to "knock off" his opponents in his state's senate race. He receives the huge majority of African American votes. My husband is Black and he and his friends really do not know where Senator stands on the issues, but they just want a Black person in power. Understandably with the history, but it concerns me that some Blacks, and the numbers seem to indicate most, are voting for skin color. It also concerns me that when I look at blogs those supporters of Obama are rude and crude in their comments. More so than Senator Clinton's supporters...although some of hers can be distasteful as well. These issues go toward divisiveness. His statements in San Francisco regarding clinging to guns and religion and antipathy toward those who don't look like me and the statement about the loss of sense of self and dignity in Indiana. These are huge concerns for me. He states that he mangled his words and that is not what he meant. This man is an eloquent speaker and unites through his speeches so I do not buy that spin. He is supposed to be a uniter and I just see him and his surrogates dividing. From when I started watching closely, most have been calling for Senator Clinton to leave the race that she is dividing the party by staying in and that she is changing the rules and she wants to change the math and on and on. But isn't it the rules and the word of the Democratic Party to count every vote and didn't they set up this process to allow it to listen to every person? I understand that the Democratic Party did not want Florida and Michigan to change the dates of their primary, but were there not other states that did that as well? If she had received positive coverage and not been asked at every step by the party and the media to withdraw, don't you think she may have received more superdelgate support? AND had Florida and Michigan counted, don't you think she might have received more monies and more superdelegate support? Senator Obama has raised a lot of money and done well, but he out spends her 2-1 and 3-1 and sometimes 4-1 and she still represents in these states? With all of this information and all of these questions and concerns, I just do not think Senator Obama is ready to lead the country at this time. Maybe he will be ready in 4 or 8 years, but not now. I do not think he can or will win against McCain. He is too divisive and does not have the experience or presence to confront the issues. He refuses to debate Senator Clinton because she wins them handily. He refuses to be interviewed by someone who will confront him and press him for answers and who will challenge his policies and beliefs. This is not a leader or a contender for the General election. I am at a loss and now am a full supporter of Senator Clinton based on what I have seen and not heard from Senator Obama. This year is too important for the superdelegates not to do their job and vote responsibly, with their best judgment, and with the American people in mind. We cannot endure another 4 years of Bush type Administration. I am counting on you to make the right decision and for me that seems to be for Senator Clinton and perhaps with Senator Obama on the ticket or Mr. Ford from TN. He is ready. Please give Senator Clinton your support and base your decision on what is in the best interest of the Nation.

Posted by wackiekat | May 7, 2008 10:45 AM

wackiekat...i try to avoid this sort of base comment, but you are clinical

Posted by coomaraswamee | May 7, 2008 10:48 AM

Daniel Cardenas, your rant would make more sense if your state of Wyoming didn't go for Obama when it decided to hold its vote.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 10:50 AM

I am a Democrat and have never, ever, voted for a Republican in any election. I graduated from UC Berkeley, in probably the most liberal town in this country. But with a heavy heart and after much thought, I decided to vote for McCain, not because I am a closet Republican, but because I can not vote for Obama, because he can not win. Why vote for a loser?

LMAO.

For the win.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 10:51 AM

The reason everyone jumped on the bandwagon is b/c Drudge said around midnight, we have a nominee.

That's right. Our entire political discourse is run by a GOP hack.

Come on down from the ledge and focus, people.

Posted by mcd | May 7, 2008 10:58 AM

Wow, you have to wonder if the spammers are here to make Hillabots look stupid. Usually weird formatting in a comment is a pretty good sign someone is a bit nuts.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 11:00 AM

Hello,

First of all, Obama and his supporters stole the election in Wyoming. My county, Fremont, is a very large county, by any standards, 9,200 square miles. We had only one polling place for the caucuses. The location was the very liberal tree hugger part of the county, which is in Obamas camp by default. At least one hundred people were turned away, myself included, who were registered democrats, registered to vote, actually voted in the last election, which was last year, but for no good reason, were not allowed to vote. Obama won our county by six votes. This happened all over the state. The whole caucus system at least in this state was rigged to favor Obama, by people so deluded to think that he has a chance in the general election. If all the democrats were allowed to vote in a real election in Wyoming, he would not have won, not even close.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:02 AM

There is no possible way that these Clinton supporters are being serious. Either these are parodies or these people have a serious problem dealing with reality. Although I can't imagine how people supported Clinton over Obama, I really can't imagine how these people "hate" Obama. What is your reason for it? This is insane.

Posted by Stacy | May 7, 2008 11:04 AM

Why is that ONLY Clinton supporters seem unable to grasp basic rules of English grammar and syntax?

If I see another "wall of text" or all caps post, I will beat them senseless over the head with my copy of The Elements of Style. Given that it is a slim, ring-bound 60 page text, it's going to take a while.

Posted by Andy | May 7, 2008 11:04 AM

Why is that ONLY Clinton supporters seem unable to grasp basic rules of English grammar and syntax?

If I see another "wall of text" or all caps post, I will beat them senseless over the head with my copy of The Elements of Style. Given that it is a slim, ring-bound 60 page text, it's going to take a while.

Posted by Andy | May 7, 2008 11:04 AM

Daniel,
You have absolutely lost it. Don't you think if something fishy happened in WY, the Clinton camp would have been all over it? You literally have mental problems. Its probably time to hang it up.

Posted by Terry | May 7, 2008 11:07 AM

Hey,

Call me on (307) 472-0995 here in Wyoming and we can discuss why I hate Barack Hussein Obama so much.

Cheers,

Daniel Cardenas

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:10 AM

Mugatu:

"Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

----

I had to laugh last night when Hillary canceled all of her public appearances today. Onwards to the White House!

It was also funny when Wolf Blizter asked the Mayor of Gary once again why was it taking so long to count the votes, and the Mayor was like, "um, I've explained it five times already."

Posted by Peter K. | May 7, 2008 11:10 AM

Hello,

Why are our comments parodies? What is the reality? First, neither candidate will get the pledged delegates from the elections or caucuses to win. A superdelegates pledge is not binding. This thing will be decided at the convention, not before. Superdelegates will decide in August who they think can really win, and they will pick Hillary.

Obama supporters on the blogs are so quick to denounce Hillary, its sick. These are the deluded people who do not live in reality.

Why are you so afraid to let this thing go to the convention? Answer that. Hillary isnt.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:13 AM

I'm guessing Daniel Cardenas broke his wookie. Anyone stupid enough to put their phone number on a blog is living in a log cabin alone in the woods while making an army of stuffed squirrels.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 11:17 AM

The whole caucus system at least in this state was rigged to favor Obama, by people so deluded to think that he has a chance in the general election.

Why do you complain, Daniel? The Clinton campaign went on the record as saying that your caucus vote doesn't count because your red state doesn't matter anyway. Or were you unaware that in much the same way that you say you won't vote for a "loser", the Clinton strategy was to let the "loser" states like yours just go pound sand while they wrapped everything up by sweeping all the winnable states on Super Tuesday?

Posted by Anticorium | May 7, 2008 11:18 AM

Daniel:

Your life is a parody. Some might accuse you of being an imbecile. Those people would be correct.

Posted by Lyle | May 7, 2008 11:19 AM

Hello,

I did not put my phone number out there, that is a made up number by one of you Obama supporters.

This is just another case of people not wanting discussion. Its vote for Obama or you are a nut.

Have any of my comments been rude? You may not agree with them, but I have not been rude. Nobody wants to answer why Obama does not want this to go to the convention. And its not for the sake of unity or to give us time to heal.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:21 AM

Please email me at dacard@wyomig.com for further discussion. See you on the internets!

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:26 AM

Re LarryM's comment "But hey, man, if you want to see Iran invaded, etc., etc., you go ahead and vote for McCain. That will show them. "
-------------
Actually, same thing if you go ahead and vote for Eward's Hillary. How do you think she's earning those $millions from Israeli billionaire Haim Saban?

Of course, people like Eward are always ignorant of who their idol Hillary really works for.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 11:29 AM

dcardenas@hammawi.com

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM

Hello,

If Obama thinks he has such a sure thing, why care if Hillary stays in the race? Why care if this thing goes to the convention? Why care if Hillary won Michigan and Florida and their delegates get seated?

I just read on the Daily Kos a comment about Hillary kneecapping your guy. If she is so insignificant, why is she a threat?

Are these crazy delusional questions?

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM

Daniel,
If Hillary really wants to give "working class Americans a break," she should STOP TELLING THEM TO DONATE TO HER CAMPAIGN. It is over. Anyone with a brain can see this. Its not going to the convention because, again, anyone with a brain can see that she has lost. But hey, let's divide this party more and have people waste their money. You are an idiot. I don't care if you've been rude or not. You are delusional, and that's probably worse.

Posted by Stacy | May 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Obama can and will win the nomination and also the general election....

Obama can and will be one of the best presidents of this great country.

I really hope he wins because he has integrity and passion that will bring us into a new direction.

Obama cares about people, and he is the closest chance we all have of having a president that actually understands the struggles of the average person. We need that.

There are a lot of problems in the world. There is hunger, poverty and despair. Lots of hungry and abused children and forgotten people. We need a leader of the free world whom can change the direction of humanity or at least try to change it.

I believe Obama can and will do that. He has the vision, the will and the support of hundreds of thousands of people not only in American but around the world.

If you want a socialist China as the model for America in the next century go ahead and vote for the Clinton's. The clinton's are worth over 100 million Do your really think they care about the average Joe Get real!!. It's not gonna happen.

Hillary is about power and herself. She wants to be the first woman president. She has the money and now is all about prestige. I don't blame her and I wish she really was deserving of accomplishing that.

I am a woman I just don't think she is the right woman. She lies way too much and who is she kidding she is the farthest thing to a working mom. She has been pampered for sooo long she has no way of connecting with regular people. She should take her millions and enjoy life. She thinks we are all moron's and don't see she is the elitist. Give me a break. Good luck Hillary

Posted by Maria | May 7, 2008 11:37 AM

Daniel,
Yes, yes they are.

"Why care if Hillary won Michigan and Florida and their delegates get seated?"

Uh, people that have been paying attention don't care that she won those states. Do you know why? Because THEY DON'T COUNT! You want to talk about turning off voters, I'm an Obama supporter living in Florida. I didn't vote in the primary because it didn't count. And now you want it to count? You are an idiot.

Posted by Terry | May 7, 2008 11:38 AM

I imagine the 'Hillary' trolls in this thread are operatives of Rush's 'Operation Chaos'. They are not Democrats so they weren't going to vote for Hillary either. The polls showing Hillary supporters not voting for Obama are overblown and a good percentage of those polled are Republican spoilers.

A real Democrat will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. They constitute 90% of the party. The other 10% are split between hard-core lefties who will vote Nader and conservatives who just never changed their voter registration to Republican.

Posted by Ricky | May 7, 2008 11:40 AM

Recipe for a whiny Clintonista screed:
1 part stupid cliche, "Push the girls to the side"
2 parts misunderstanding of the culpability for the FL and MI voting issues
1 part misunderstanding of the relevance of winning big states in a Dem primary
1 part proof of being a racist or low-info voter, "I'll vote for McCain" even though he's on the opposite side of the issues
1 part citing your family as being as silly as you are (voting for McCain)
1 miscellaneous concern troll thought

Stir briskly, spew all over the blogosphere.

Posted by Chef Jim | May 7, 2008 11:45 AM

Hello,

How is discourse dividing the party?

Using Daily Kos numbers. How many delegates does Obama have? 1,589.5. How many does he need to win? 2024.5. Is he gonna get those pledged delegates prior to the convention? No. So how has he won and Hillary lost?

The superdelegates arent pledged and shouldnt be counted until the convention. They can change their minds at any time and tell Obama what he wants to hear.

Hillary lost North Carolina. How does this show she cant win in the general election? And how does Obama show that he can win in the general election by winning North Carolina?

Last time I checked, Hillary won in California. California is the most diverse state in this nation. Doesnt that show she can win in November? How is North Carolina so important? Its not. Just fluff.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Wackiekat & Daniel Cardenas

Kudos to your posts!

Have you noticed that Obama's side cannot refute your comments? Their main response is to attack the messenger. They can't defend their guy.

Daniel, your remarks about the Wyoming caucus echoes what I had read about Texas. How is it that Hillary wins the popular vote in TX and mysteriously loses the caucus vote in the same state? Obama won the Guam caucus by seven votes, and hundreds of ballots were marked spoiled. They came from a district that favored Hillary, and this is all a coincidence.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 11:55 AM

Daniel Cardenas, you have got to be the stupidest motherfucker ever to post on this blog.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Well the reasonable Clinton folks are either resigned to defeat or at least keeping quiet right now, here anyway, and the remaining Clinton commenters on this post are the ... well, let's just say not the most persuasive or reasonable. So what I'm about to say will likely fall on deaf ears.

Can we, at the very least, seperate what you think "should" happen from what "will" happen? I'm sure you all still believe with a passion that Hillary "should" be the nominee, that she would be more electable, etc., etc. But clearly at this point, absent a huge scandal, she won't be the nominee.

Now, I can imagine all sorts of reasons why some people may think that, despite that fact, she should stay in the race. Not convincing reasons, IMO, but if you all want to vent a bit, go ahead and tell us (a) why she should be the nominee, and (b) why she shouldn't drop out, even though she isn't going to be the nominee. (And in making the latter argument, it might help your credibility to at least acknowledge that her doing so does have a cost in terms of the general election).

But please don't embarrass yourselves by arguing that she still has a chance at the nomination, barring the proverbial lighting strike.

Posted by LarryM | May 7, 2008 12:00 PM

Drudge is saying that superdelegates are literally refusing to meet with her today.

Hey, moron Clinton supporters, here's a friendly message - fuck your couch. Fuck. Your. Couch.

Posted by Andy | May 7, 2008 12:01 PM

Hello,
If Obama thinks he has such a sure thing, why care if Hillary stays in the race? Why care if this thing goes to the convention? Why care if Hillary won Michigan and Florida and their delegates get seated?
I just read on the Daily Kos a comment about Hillary kneecapping your guy. If she is so insignificant, why is she a threat?
Are these crazy delusional questions?
Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM

Exactly. Everyone knows that wars stop accruing casualties as soon as one side becomes the inevitable loser. Since Obama knows Hillary's not going to beat him, why should he care if she's chewing on his ankles and telling Democrats that he's not their man while he goes up against McCain?

Posted by aleks | May 7, 2008 12:01 PM

Daniel, your remarks about the Wyoming caucus echoes what I had read about Texas. How is it that Hillary wins the popular vote in TX and mysteriously loses the caucus vote in the same state?

Easy: Operation Chaos, and Obama out-organizing her at the caucuses (because she's incompetent at running more than a negative tv campaign).

Obama won the Guam caucus by seven votes, and hundreds of ballots were marked spoiled. They came from a district that favored Hillary, and this is all a coincidence.

Aha, so now Obama has illegally stolen the election. Because of what happened in that deal-maker of a non-state, Guam.

I thought Daniel Cardenas was quite the idiot, but you're definitely in the running.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Though looking again at the comments of EWard and Daniel Cardenas, it occurs to me that, in their own, likely inadvertent way, they are two of the strongest anti-Hillary voices here. Keep it going, guys.

Posted by LarryM | May 7, 2008 12:05 PM

This whining about Obama's supposed hardball tactics in the caucuses is hilarious, coming from people so utterly convinced that only Hillary has the balls for the fall. Since you're backing the "tough, seasoned" Democratic candidate, try to imagine how pathetic your whining sounds now that you've lost.

No one likes a sore loser.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 12:10 PM

Hello,

When Bush stole the election against Gore, what did the Democrats do? Throw in the towel. Why? For the sake of healing the nation. Had Gore fought harder we never would have had this Bush presidency or the war in Iraq.

What do these same Democrats want Hillary to do? Throw in the towel. Why? For the sake of healing the party.

If Obama is hurt by Hillary just being in the race, then how is he going to fare when the heat is on against McCain, when the Republicans will be up to their old tricks? He cant stand the heat. He will wilt no matter how many millions he has.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 12:15 PM

Finally, and this is a pet peeve that applies to some Obama supporters also, but in this thread it's the Hillary supporters who are guilty.

There is a difference between saying "my opponents haven't answered my arguments" and saying "my opponents haven't convincingly answered my arguments." The former statement just makes you look stupid when, in fact, answers (convincing or not) have been provided.

Posted by LarryM | May 7, 2008 12:16 PM

Daniel Cardenas wonders:

If Obama is hurt by Hillary just being in the race, then how is he going to fare when the heat is on against McCain, when the Republicans will be up to their old tricks? He cant stand the heat. He will wilt no matter how many millions he has.

Listen, tiny tiny brain, ANY candidate for a party's nomination is hurt by a prolonged battle. Do you think Hillary hasn't been hurt by staying in?? Think her negatives haven't gone up? Who's wilting here? Obama just won N.C. by 15 points in spite of all the nicks Hillary tried on him. So he's stood the heat reasonably well. I.e., he's all but won the nomination. Since you can't stand that idea, you're desperately flailing for stupid-ass reasons for why the loser should be proclaimed the winner anyway, so that supporters like you can feel better. It's totally idiotic.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 12:22 PM

Hillary rulz! I invite all you kool kats to drop me a line (I LOVE porn) and say 'yo'.

dcardenas@hammawi.com

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Keith Olbermann sums up the desperation pretty well actually. Watch the vid here:

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=981

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 12:30 PM

Hello,

The reason there is a prolonged battle, is because Obama is not our Savior, as you folks would like to think he is. Theres a prolonged battle because there is no consensus in the Democratic Party.

I never wrote that Hillary is the winner. I wrote that the primaries will not choose a winner and that winner will be decided at the convention.

I said the best politician will win at the convention and not before.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 12:35 PM

Daniel,
Really this is getting quite sad. Let's see if I have your reasoning correct...

"California is the most diverse state in the Union. Clinton won California. This proves she's the best candidate for general election."

Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? By any reasonable metric, your candidate lost. There is no way around this. You need to be locked up.

Posted by Stacy | May 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Clinton will enter the convention losing in pledged delegates and popular vote. You think the super d's are going to give her the nomination? How could that make sense? She will not stay in to the convention because she is quickly losing a lot of respect from powerful democrats. You should just stop now.

Posted by Terry | May 7, 2008 12:45 PM

I think Obama would make a better president than either Clinton or McCain, mostly because he seems like the most likely candidate to end the war in Iraq. The least likely candidate to start a war with Iran and he does not support the gas tax holiday.

What issue makes people support Hillary?

Posted by John Rove | May 7, 2008 12:47 PM

What issue makes people support Hillary?

People like Daniel Cardenas are reputed to have an Oedipus complex.

Posted by Joko | May 7, 2008 12:51 PM

Hello,

This morning, all the pundits are saying that by Obama winning North Carolina, that Hillary cant win. That makes no sense. I used the same logic to say that by Hillary winning California, Obama cant win. Same reasoning. No one can answer why if Obama wins North Carolina, Hillary cant win.

My posts are not pathetic or desperate attempts to some how say Hillary is the winner. I am stating the obvious.

All the pundits are saying that Obama needs 184 delegates to win. He needs 435. So. How has he won?

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 12:54 PM

I used the same logic

This is some sort of sick, twisted, joke isn't it, Daniel? You are one clever mofo for creating a ruse as elaborate as this.

Posted by ken | May 7, 2008 1:00 PM

Cardenas, I hope you are being willfully obtuse, because surely you recognize that the delegate counts become more of a factor the closer they get to the magic number. California was a few months ago now so its allocation is less relevant than a primary which occurred yesterday.

Slowly: Based on even generous projections for the remaining primaries, Hillary can't win enough delegates to overcome Obama's delegate lead at this late stage. Even if it gets to the convention, Obama will have more delegates, and the superdelegates have been breaking towards him since the beginning of the race. Now if you choose to ignore these relevant facts, you can. But don't say no one told you what was up, because the answer is now obvious to even that idiot Russert.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but STFU already; it's your own fault you're not informed enough about the dynamics at play.

Posted by Chef Jim | May 7, 2008 1:04 PM

Cardenas, I hope you are being willfully obtuse, because surely you recognize that the delegate counts become more of a factor the closer they get to the magic number. California was a few months ago now so its allocation is less relevant than a primary which occurred yesterday.

Slowly: Based on even generous projections for the remaining primaries, Hillary can't win enough delegates to overcome Obama's delegate lead at this late stage. Even if it gets to the convention, Obama will have more delegates, and the superdelegates have been breaking towards him since the beginning of the race. Now if you choose to ignore these relevant facts, you can. But don't say no one told you what was up, because the answer is now obvious to even that idiot Russert.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but STFU already; it's your own fault you're not informed enough about the dynamics at play.

Posted by Chef Jim | May 7, 2008 1:06 PM

Damn server errors, apologies.

Posted by Chef Jim | May 7, 2008 1:10 PM

Daniel Cardenas writes a lot like Charlie Gordon in "Flowers for Algernon," before the surgery.

Posted by hum | May 7, 2008 1:11 PM

If Obama thinks he has such a sure thing, why care if Hillary stays in the race? Why care if this thing goes to the convention? Why care if Hillary won Michigan and Florida and their delegates get seated?

Aleks, IIRC you've been around this blog before, so I'll bite.

I care if Hillary stays in the race because she's draining money that could be used in the general from donors.

I care because she keeps parroting Republican talking points and proposals ('Commander-in-Chief test', gas tax relief). Not only is this a Lieberman-esque betrayal of the party, it just pisses me off. I hate it when John McCain does it; why on earth should I tolerate it from a Democrat?

And I don't really care about Florida (though I do feel for the people in Florida who didn't vote in the primary, thinking that-- as all the candidates agreed-- it would be a beauty contest rather than a binding primary). I do care about Michigan, which only had one person on the ballot. We'd call that ludicrous in the Soviet Union, why is it acceptable in the beautiful U.S. of A.?

(Insert Soviet Russia joke of your choice here, but my point stands.)

Posted by Persia | May 7, 2008 1:19 PM

Hello,

Either some of you guys dont read or are just picking and choosing what you want to see.

I am not being obtuse. I understand politics and the dynamics of this election.

All I said, if you cant understand, then I cant help you, is that the superdelegates dont count until the convention.

Because of the nature of politics and the nature of the superdelegate process, nothing is written in stone.

This process is fluid, dynamic, and changes daily. We have all summer to see how many delegates go back and forth between the two as the pundits spin.

I dont totally discount the superdelegates. But agian, they are politicians. Do I have to say more? Each side will do anything to get the delegate. Its always been that way. Those who count them now, over simplify things. And hope Hillary takes the bait and quits now.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 1:22 PM

Fellow Obama voters- I urge you to read Peggy Noonan's column:

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=412

By now, you either get it, or you don't.

Posted by Lex | May 7, 2008 1:29 PM

Daniel wrote: "Because of the nature of politics and the nature of the superdelegate process, nothing is written in stone."

Right. And Kucinich or Gravel might just sweep the supers at the convention and clinch the nomination.

While nothing is 'written in stone', neither is it 'entirely batshit random' either.

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 1:39 PM

Lex, I may not support Hillary, but Peggy Noonan is still full of shit.

Posted by Persia | May 7, 2008 1:43 PM

"I am not being obtuse. I understand politics and the dynamics of this election."

Daniel Cardenas

The problem, Danny me young shaver, is that you understand them so badly. If you were discussing the Kreblakistan Junior Miss pageant rules circa 1200 BC, you might be almost coherent, but alas, this is the Democratic primary in the USA, in the year 2008 AD. I don't want to tire out your older brother, who I assume is reading these posts to you, and writing your replies, so I will simply point out that you really need to start talking to people who live in the USA. You might start by leaving the basement for 5 minutes every day. Work up to it slowly, and don't panic when you see strange metal things on the street. They are called "cars". I know it's a big step for you, but try it - you'll be amazed at the things you discover.

Posted by elrodblues | May 7, 2008 2:03 PM

"The 15,000,000 voters that voted for Hillary will not let her quit."

As one of those voters, let me say that you don't speak for me. I voted for Hillary because I thought she had the better health care plan.

"Obama is stealing the election if the votes from MI and Fl are not counted."

I find this offensive. One of the basic principles of running a fair election is that you should decide what the rules are before the votes are cast, and then stick to the rules regardless of the outcome. Changing the rules after the votes have been cast is nothing short of cheating.

You can choose to lie about this, and claim that following the rules is "stealing the election." To the extent that you convince people to believe that nonsense, you are undermining the credibility of the Democratic party.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | May 7, 2008 2:03 PM

Peggy Noonan is still full of shit

How about Danny Noonan?

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 2:03 PM

If Obama's nomination is predestined, why are his supporters so insolent? Why all the fuss, if he has it wrapped up?

This campaign has a new norm. The pundits are asking one candidate to leave early and are serving as political dealmakers. From 1976 to 1992, all the Presidential candidates took their campaigns to the convention. We are talking about Reagan, Jackson, Hart, Kennedy, and Brown. They weren't even close to getting the nomination with the exception of Reagan. No one accused them of destroying their party or acting selfishly.

Somehow a different standard is being applied to Hillary Clinton. She has more of a chance of winning the nomination than any of the above mentioned candidates. Yet, she's ridiculed. Unless the Democratic Party is brain dead, this will go to the convention.

Larry M., Bill, and Andy

"Oh, God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!" William Shakespeare

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 2:16 PM

I support Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, and I wish her to continue her fight to the convention floor, simply because I know and feel she has the superior fortitude, compassion, ideas and candor to be President. Mr. Obama is sadly lacking. For example, google the New Republic for a recent comprehensive article on his political career. He is disingenuous and interested primarily in Power. His associations with questionable persons are numerous, as are his political tactics. Ms. Clinton has her priorities correct. She will take care of our country and not sell us out.
That's simply the way I feel. She has expressed that her reasoning behind her persistence is that she truly believes she can defeat McCaine, that Obama cannot. To insist she is so perverse and egotistical to remain in this when she cannot win sounds like simply taunts from her opponents. And, sadly, I guess you'd have to include most of the national media/pundits in this category.

For those of you ridiculing Clinton supporters, it seems like people are asleep in this country, having been lulled into the O-Ba-ma chant. What do you REALLY know about him or about Ms. Clinton, for that matter? If you listen to a dozen or so of their speeches, who REALLY is putting forth plans and ideas that will help the people in this country? And please don't bring up the nonsense about Iran--Senator Clinton did NOT advocate invading and annihilating that country. She was speaking of deterrence, which is still an important leverage for any President, else we would not have a need for a military. She was also responding to a question of how a President should react if Iran attacked Israel. I would not want a President who would simply sell out Israel and neither would the majority of Americans. I do NOT and will not support Mr. McCain, but neither can I in good conscience vote for Mr. Obama. Oh, yes, we've learned that Hamas would really love for Obama to be our President. Something a little bit wrong with that picture?

Posted by CStone | May 7, 2008 2:21 PM

I actually agree that it doesn't matter much whether Clinton concedes before the convention or not, and it appears she may be financially unable to do so. Rather, the real question is whether she and Bill will endorse and campaign for Obama once he is the nominee. Although frankly she just needs to endorse, and Bill can do the campaigning.

On the other hand, I do think it mattered (although only a little bit) that the media was propping Clinton up for so long. Basically that was like giving free ad time to McCain and the GOP, since Clinton was using the media's coverage of her to echo the McCain/GOP attack strategy against Obama. That said, those attacks were pretty lame, and probably didn't cause much permanent damage.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 2:22 PM

CStone,
Guess what, a lot of groups all over the world want to see Obama win the Presidency. You probably would two if you heard the other two candidates talking about bombing other countries. The international community clearly sees what we've done in Iraq. They don't want to see the same thing happen in Iran. Your candidate is a joke, and so are you.

Posted by Sandy | May 7, 2008 2:41 PM

EWard,

Maybe Obama supporters feel the way they do because if it were the other way around Obama would have been out of the race already. So when Clinton supporters talk about taking it to the convention, it just comes off disingenous.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 2:41 PM

EWard,

Maybe Obama supporters feel the way they do because if it were the other way around Obama would have been out of the race already. So when Clinton supporters talk about taking it to the convention, it just comes off disingenous.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 2:43 PM

EWard,

Maybe Obama supporters feel the way they do because if it were the other way around Obama would have been out of the race already. So when Clinton supporters talk about taking it to the convention, it just comes off disingenous.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 2:43 PM

CStone,
Guess what, a lot of groups all over the world want to see Obama win the Presidency. You probably would two if you heard the other two candidates talking about bombing other countries. The international community clearly sees what we've done in Iraq. They don't want to see the same thing happen in Iran. Your candidate is a joke, and so are you.

Posted by Sandy | May 7, 2008 2:44 PM

EWard,

This campaign has a new norm. The pundits are asking one candidate to leave early and are serving as political dealmakers. From 1976 to 1992, all the Presidential candidates took their campaigns to the convention. We are talking about Reagan, Jackson, Hart, Kennedy, and Brown. They weren't even close to getting the nomination with the exception of Reagan. No one accused them of destroying their party or acting selfishly.

This is a valid point. Personally, I don't believe Hilary is any more selfish or negative than any other challenger running behind in a presidential primary race. On the other hand, I don't see how you can deny that for Hilary to stay in the race all the way to the convention would be detrimental to Obama's chances in the general election. It would suck up Obama's financial resources, delay him from devising a strategy against McCain, exhaust his staff, and leave him more exposed to Republican attacks, etc.
I would hope that Hilary supporters would at least take those consequences into account before urging Hilary to keep running.

Also, I'm not sure about Jackson & Brown (who really had no chance of winning) but the Ford-Reagan, Carter-Kennedy and Mondale-Hart contests were definitely damaging to Ford, Carter, & Mondale. Carter & Mondale (and perhaps Ford) would have lost anyway, but they certainly weren't helped by a long & divisive primary.

Posted by Peter H | May 7, 2008 2:49 PM

Hello,

Why are Obamas problems Hillarys? Hillary wants to be president. Hillary will stay in the race until it is decided at the convention, not sooner.

If this hurts Obama, so be it. Obama is a big boy and hopefully can take the heat. This is politics and the name of the game. I dont believe Hillary would expect anything less, if the roles were switched.

Whoever the nominee is, hopefully Hillary, but whoever it is, will be stronger because of this contest, rather than weaker.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 3:02 PM

When a whole lot of Clinton's contacts keep on going to jail, you can't exactly attack Obama for having talked to Ayers that one time. A whole lot of her fundraisers and business partners just seem to end up in prison.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 3:06 PM

Good news for the Clinton campaign! Good news for Hillary. She's whooped, and that simplifies things. But never mind that; Puerto Rico's right around the corner – a big win there will restore Hillary. And, don't forget Montana! There's always Montana. There's always 2012. It's not over ... Hillary's a fighter. That's almost like being a winner. She'll never stop fighting. Oh yeah, send her all your money too, so she can kick and scream all the way to the convention. Just in case you always believed Hillary was wrong for America, here's just a tad more conformation: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | May 7, 2008 3:15 PM

Sandy,
In your offhand comment about my candidate being a "joke," you demonstrate what I mean by a lack of sense. This is NOT a joke, any of it. I know there are countries and groups who support Obama, and most countries have legitimate reasons for not wanting our next President to have the same war mentality-- but really, Clinton is in NO WAY GW Bush. So that comparison is way off. And you know as well as I do that HAMAS is a terrorist organization--albeit whose representatives were elected by the Palestinian people. While I don't advocate not talking to them, I have a hesitancy about their support of Obama. I think he might be way too willing to negotiate a faulty peace in the mideast. At any rate, I have expressed my opinion, and you may think it a joke or not, but I'm just suggesting that we Americans not blindly follow any movement or person, but make sure we look deeply before we commit.

Posted by cstone | May 7, 2008 3:24 PM

Well, after this flood of insane Clinton supporters, I rest my case.

These people aren't even close to being Democrats OR Republicans - they're Nazis. Reverend Moon would like to see followers like this.

And they call Obama supporters "Obamabots"?

It is to laugh.

The Democratic Party certainly doesn't need these scum. It has plenty of scum of its own. Adding this lot would make it the Republican Party.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 3:34 PM

Hello,

So now, to be a Democrat, you must support Obama? Anything else, we are Republican or Nazi or both.

And we are insane because we support the best candidate, the most experienced candidate, and the candidate that can and will beat McCain in the fall.

And because we wont turn over and do whatever our Democratic Party "elders" tell us to do, we are scum. This is the best Democratic election in a long time, and there are those who want to cut it off, so Obama looks good against McCain. If he doesnt look good against McCain now, nothing will help.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 3:45 PM

Daniel Cardenas wrote: "This is politics and the name of the game. I dont believe Hillary would expect anything less, if the roles were switched."

This is clearly false, as shown by Clinton's focus on Super Tuesday. She expected all the other candidates to drop out after that, and was unprepared when Obama not only didn't drop out, but did quite well.

Posted by Jon H | May 7, 2008 4:08 PM

And you know as well as I do that HAMAS is a terrorist organization--albeit whose representatives were elected by the Palestinian people. While I don't advocate not talking to them, I have a hesitancy about their support of Obama. I think he might be way too willing to negotiate a faulty peace in the mideast. At any rate, I have expressed my opinion, and you may think it a joke or not, but I'm just suggesting that we Americans not blindly follow any movement or person, but make sure we look deeply before we commit.

By that logic, if the KKK endorses Hillary, we should look at her more closely.

And actually, Daniel, if you vote for McCain in the general because your darling doesn't win? You're a traitor to the party at the very least, and a person who puts his whiny sense of entitlement over women's rights, foreign policy, and common sense. (And no, I will not vote for McCain in the general if Obama loses the nomination, because that would be batshit.)

Posted by Persia | May 7, 2008 4:09 PM

Persia,

Hamas didn't endorse Obama. This is a scurrilous rumour that's been going around.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 4:33 PM

Persia,

Hamas didn't endorse Obama. This is a scurrilous rumour that's been going around.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 4:35 PM

Persia,

Hamas didn't endorse Obama. This is a scurrilous rumour that's been going around.

Posted by Micheline | May 7, 2008 4:36 PM

You want a Man to be the President and you do not even understand what he stands for or believes, he doesn't even like you white people He wants a revolution for his own people.

Looking At Obama and Black Liberation Theology

Barack Obama belongs to an unabashedly Black African-centered church. Its teachings focus on a «black value» system. It has knowledgeable Americans questioning how Obama's church (Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ) and its pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. influence the man who wants to be President of the United States.

Why couldn't Obama have chosen to be a Methodist, a Pentecostal or a Lutheran? What drew him to a church that many find questionable?

Many Americans attend churches their parents attended. Others choose denominations where they are comfortable with the teachings.

As a whole, the United Church of Christ does not teach black liberation theology. The main Conference of the denomination is responsible for the theological teachings of its churches and the manner in which they are presented.

The nagging question begs to be answered. Why would the top Democrat presidential candidate feel more comfortable attending an Afrocentric church? Obama's attendance at a church that encourages blacks to separate themselves from the rest of American society must be explained. How can he claim to be able to unite and reach across to all the people in the nation?

Excerpts from the Trinity United Church of Christ — Black Value System:

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.

A congregation preaching SALVATION.

A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

American society has changed positively since the days of Martin Luther King and the freedom marches. Why is there this need by some to retreat back to the days of separatism while claiming that they are moving society forward?

Many people do not understand what black liberation theology is. If Mitt Romney found it necessary to make a speech about his Mormon faith, it's about time that Obama explain black theology.

There has been much controversy over faith in this election year. However, Obama's church leaves something to be desired regarding social acceptability of its ideology. «Thus saith the Lord» is taught in quite a different fashion.

Black theology teachings began in America during the Civil Rights Movement. A demanding authority of presumptuousness was ushered in claiming black theology as the legitimate Voice of God to all black Americans.

The central theme of black theology puts an emphasis on the oppression of the black people. All aspects of this type of theology become a «subjugating theme.»

According to mainstream doctrinal teaching, black theology falls short. Its cornerstone is one which focuses on the oppression of blacks. The biblical teaching in mainstream Christian denominations is Christ-centered. Their focus is the Lord Jesus Christ who was to come, came, and is coming once again, and will reign forever. «I am the LORD; and they shall be my people.» (Jeremiah 24:7)

Is black theology one of hope or does it purposefully dredge up painful feelings of victimization? If that be the case, it would be wiser to consider a church where it is fully understood that God is no respecter of color or gender. (Acts 10:34)

The terminology of black theology is questionable amongst many biblical theologians. Its teaching is improperly centered in human pragmatism. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is not held in proper biblical perspective. Freedom has been granted to all who have become believers of the Living Word. We show our faith in Christ by living upright and reaching out in love to others.

If Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is not asking the most important question of all, «who is Christ?», then he does his congregation a disservice. For it is from this premise that all questions can be answered. The teaching of a theology written by black men for black man presented to an exclusive segment of society can only be a stumbling block to God and a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Accepting Christ as Savior makes all the difference in the perception of the believer's life. His or her status in life is made abundantly clear. This question of what God has done through Christ is focused upon and no longer in doubt when we learn that we are God's children.

Is Christ able to save you? Is it the Lord who brings positive changes in your life today? Is the believer's walk moving forward and touching others for Christ's sake? The answer ought to be «yes,» no matter what the color of our skin or gender.

In the final analysis, only by beginning to ask these questions for a starting point of Christian theology can black theology be defined. When one knows who Jesus Christ is, then man can begin to understand where God is in man's existence and problems, and how Christ will provide the help man so desperately needs.

The days of segregation are over. «There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.» (Galatians 3:28 )

The Goals Of Black Liberal Theology — Dr. Robert A. Morley, an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of theology and apologetics.

«l.The goals of Black liberal theology are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.

«III. The Methodology of Black Liberal Theology

«The main method employed by Black liberal theology is to manipulate embittered young blacks by turning their feelings of inferiority, alienation, jealousy, hopelessness and self-hate, into racist rage against whites, Orientals and affluent blacks who are conveniently blamed for their lack of personal initiative to better their lot in life.

«IV. The Main Philosophic Error of Black Liberal Theology

«Black liberal theology is based upon the philosophic error of relativism in which 'Jesus' is viewed as only a religious symbol which can be interpreted anyway they want. Thus it does not matter who and what the historical Jesus really was. Black liberal theology invented a black Marxist Jesus to lead the way to violent revolution because such a 'Jesus' will serve their purpose. Black liberal theology is condemned in II Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 1:8-9.

«V. The Racism Of Black Liberal Theology

«While Black liberal theology is filled with racist statements against whites and Orientals, it is primarily a form of 'black on black' racism. The following evidence demonstrates this to be true.

«A. While Black liberal theology claims to give blacks a better self-image, they unwittingly encourage a poor self-image among blacks by defining «blackness» in such negative terms as 'the poor,' 'the oppressed,' and 'niggers.' Why do they always define the 'black experience' in such negative terms? Why do they assume that all blacks live in the ghetto subsisting on welfare in the midst of crime and filth?

«B. With its constant emphasis on God loves the poor, the oppressed, etc. Black liberal theology actually paralyzes and demoralizes blacks to accept a parasitic life- style dependent on the government dole instead of fostering self-reliance and entrepreneurship.

«C. It seems to me that Black liberal theology feeds off of class envy and racist rage. Instead of spending their time blaming the white man for the black man's problems, Black liberal theology ought to be encouraging black men or women to become financially successful through hard work and self-reliance.

«D. Black liberal theology often describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. But this negative stereotype often leads people to accept poverty, drugs, crime and filth as their unalterable fate.

«E. Black liberal theology makes a great mistake when it assumes that poverty automatically means crime and filth. Just because you are poor does not mean you have a license to rob, rape, or murder others. The poor are for the most part good and honest people. Crime is crime regardless of who commits it. Poverty is no excuse for criminality.

«F. Black liberal theology judges people on the basis of the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.

«G. Black liberal theology gives the impression that the black man's problem is his skin instead of his sin.

«H. Most Black liberal theology books glorify rage, hatred and violence instead of faith, hope and love.

«I. Black liberal theology preaches race instead of grace as the solution to problems.

«J. Black liberal theology cries out for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.

«K. Black liberal theology thinks more of Marx than it does of Jesus.

«L. Black liberal theology is more interested in black culture than in Jesus Christ.

«VI. The Liberalism Of Black Liberal Theology

«Black liberal theology is not a fundamental, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring theology. Black liberal theology was created by white liberation theologians at white liberal seminaries and universities that are radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.

«A. Most of those involved in Black liberal theology do not believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal ascension or return to this world. They claim that all such doctrines are 'Western.'

«B. Many of those who teach Black liberal theology openly deny the immortality of the soul, a conscious after-life in heaven or hell, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and the eternal conscious torment of the damned in hell. They usually say that hell is 'being black on welfare in the ghetto.' They attack those blacks who talk about heaven as a 'pie in the sky by and by slave mentality.'

«C. Black liberal theology often denounces Christianity as racist and the 'white man's religion.' But then it turns around and claims that Jesus was black. If Jesus was a black man, then how can Christianity be the 'white man's religion?'

«D. Most Black liberal theology writers deny the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible while at the same time using it to foster their racist agenda.

«E. Black liberal theology just like the KKK and other racist groups claims that its race is the sole source of all that is good in all cultures. But this is a two edged sword. If the blacks are responsible for all the good in the world, then they are equally responsible for all the evil. To claim that the black man can do no wrong and that the white man and yellow man can do no good, is absurd as well as racist.

«F. Black liberal theology claims that the ancient Greeks were black and thus Greek philosophy was created by blacks. But then Black liberal theology also says that the white Greeks stole their philosophy from African blacks. How can the Greeks be black and white at the same time? But if they were all blacks, then what is wrong with blacks sharing ideas?

«G. Black liberal theology claims that the Greeks stole their ideas from black Africans and thus all the good in Western culture comes from blacks. But if this is true, how can Black liberal theology condemn Western culture on one hand and then claim that it came from blacks on the other hand?

«H. Black liberal theology also claims that all the good in Oriental culture came from African blacks. The Orientals thus stole their culture from the blacks. But if this is true, why are African motifs missing in Oriental philosophies and art?

«I. Black liberal theology authors claim that the Egyptian word Kemet means 'the land of the Blacks.' In reality, the word actually means 'the black land' referring to the dark soil along the flood plain of the Nile. It is used in Egyptian literature in opposition to the word Deshret which literally means 'the red land,' a reference to the color of the dirt or sand in the desert.

«VIII. Black Liberal Theology Contradicts The Bible

«In order to make everyone in the Bible black, Black liberal theology takes passages out of context, ignores the grammar of Hebrew and Greek, and then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as 'racist' or 'white.' But Black liberal theology violates several clear Scriptures.

«1. Acts 17:26 «He made from one all the nations of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.»

«The Bible teaches that there is only one race — the human race — regardless of size, shape or color. Thus there is no «black» or 'white' blood. There is only human blood which can be transfused from one man to the next regardless of color or race. Black liberal theology con-tradicts this by talking about «black blood.»

«2. Rom. 2:11 «There is no partiality with God.»

«God does not treat people any differently because they are red, yellow, black or white. They are all precious in His sight. But Black liberal theology claims that God is partial to blacks! This is just as wrong as the Nazis who claimed the same thing for the Ayrian race or the KKK who claims the same for the white race.

«3. Gal. 3:28 «There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.»

«Black liberal theology divides the Church into different economic classes and pits them against each other. Thus they try to put asunder what God has joined together. The Body of Christ is one.

«4. Eph. 4:4-5:2 «Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.»

Black liberal theology preaches bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and that blacks should seek revenge instead of taking the path of forgiveness.

«5. 1 Sam 16:7 «But the LORD said to Samuel, «Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.»

«Black liberal theology looks only at the outward appearance. This is wrong. We must judge people not by their color but by their moral character or lack of it.

Conclusion :

«Black liberal theology is not of God but of the devil. The only answer to liberal theology, regardless of the color of those who teach it, is personal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which Black liberal theology feeds. The black community needs a revival — not a revolution; Jesus — not Marx; Christianity — not liberalism. Jesus is the only One who can change the hearts of all men and set them free from their bondage to sin.»

May God add blessings to His Word: «Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come.» (2 Corinthians 5:17).

«A person with a history of Islamism and militancy in his family who was running for his party's nomination for President might think that being closely allied with a militant pastor (Trinity United Church of Christ's Reverend Jeremiah Wright) was a tad risky. The fallout from that blowing up in his face had barely cleared when on June 23, 2007, he decided to attack the 'Religious Right' » for 'hijacking faith.'

Its time you wake up America you think the rest of the world is going to come and save you when you walk right into this with your eyes wide open, we will set back and laugh!

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 4:37 PM

This is the funniest thread ever. The lack of self-awareness and self-parody among Clinton supporters here is just funny.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 5:14 PM

This is the funniest thread ever. The lack of self-awareness and self-parody among Clinton supporters here is just funny.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 5:14 PM

Sense you are so aware tell me who is Obama? What has he did for you, for someone you know? Bills that he has passed? What has he presented for the gas problem? Has he put anything in motion? I want you to share with me. Make me believe!

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 5:30 PM

Sense you are so aware tell me who is Obama?

Seems you lack *sense*

Posted by Mo Ron | May 7, 2008 5:44 PM

I eat HUGE penis.

Ben

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 5:45 PM

Sense you are so aware tell me who is Obama?

Seems you lack *sense*

Posted by Mo Ron | May 7, 2008 5:44 PM

I eat HUGE penis.

Ben

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 5:45 PM

You Obama supporters have made a great case to vote for Obama. No wonder your country is going down the shitter!

Posted by who cares | May 7, 2008 6:21 PM

Once again, I rest my case. Ben is a Clinton supporter (or a Republican, hard to tell).

Any questions?

While not all Clinton supporters are Nazi Republican racist lunatics - and neither are all Obama supporters "Obamabots", clearly this nomination race has gone WAY off the rails.

An adult needs to stop it now.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 3:09 AM

This guy is totally my favorite

From "Lou": "Nominating a known terrorist who has stolen the vote in every caucus is a good enough reason to work to block him from winning the presidency."
"America is not going to vote for a white hating, terrorist, conniving wannabe politician, who has an unknown agenda with ties to Hamas and Jihad etc. Not going to happen."

Stop the presses: Barack Obama has ties to "Jihad" (not any particular organization mind you, just the concept in general).

And for the kicker:
"BO screwed John Edwards in Iowa with stealing the votes...yes stealing..it's all documented and filed."

Yes, Barack Obama stole the election in Iowa, and it's documented and filed. Lou was going to release the information and destroy Barack once and for all but he was too busy with his Klan meetings and Neo-Nazi rallies.

These people are priceless.

Posted by Adam | May 8, 2008 6:02 AM

Now We Know

Comments (251)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories