You know, after last night, I had started softening up to her again.
Thank God she reminded me how loathsome her campaign is this morning. I was actually on the road to remembering why I liked her six months ago.

This is why I was amazed at all the "awww isn't she nice" comments from last night's debate reactions. Did you all really think she wasn't going to keep trying to change the rules and play dirty to get what she wants?

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: TEXAS AND OHIO PRIMARIES
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 5 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008
Obama Leads on Electability in Close Texas and Ohio Races
Trailing on electability, Hillary Clinton is running in a dead heat with Barack Obama in
the Texas Democratic primary and holds a single-digit lead in Ohio, lifted there by lunch-
bucket voters and party regulars.

Both March 4 primaries have been described as critical to Clinton, who's lost 10 contests
straight, including Tuesday's Wisconsin primary. Differing demographic and political
profiles in Texas and Ohio change pieces of the puzzle ­ but both contests look close,
with more than enough moveable voters to tip the balance either way.

With about two weeks until the primary, this ABC News/Washington Post poll finds a
48-47 percent Clinton-Obama race among likely voters in Texas, 50-43 percent in Ohio.
A quarter in Texas, and a third in Ohio, could change their minds or are undecided.
48%50%47%43%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%TexasOhioClintonObama'08 Democratic PreferenceAmong Democratic likely votersABC News/Washington Post poll
In Texas, Clinton's being kept competitive by support from Hispanics; she likely needs
them to turn out in more-than-usual numbers, as they did in California, which she won
Feb. 5. In Ohio she's benefiting from a greater number of Democratic Party regulars than 2in Texas, fewer college-educated or higher-income voters, and support from union
households.

In both states, senior citizens are crucial to Clinton's side; independents and younger
voters, to Obama's. And he's taken a lead over Clinton on electability, a point he may try
to drive home, along with his mantle of "change," in the days ahead.

ELECTABILITY ­ Obama beats Clinton in the perception that he's got the best chance
of winning in November by 47-36 percent in Texas and 48-37 percent in Ohio. He
trounced Clinton as more electable in Wisconsin; he's also made broad strides on
electability in national ABC/Post polling, moving up from a 43-point deficit in mid-
December to just 5 points earlier this month.

Obama's lead on electability peaks among college graduates, a key group for him; nearly
six in 10 of them say he has the best chance to win in November. Even women, less-
educated voters and mainline Democrats ­ Clinton groups ­ roughly divide between her
and Obama on who's most electable. Indeed among seniors, her best group, well under
half say Clinton's got the best chance in November.
51%40%36%41%37%40%47%47%48%53%46%36%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%StrongestleaderBest tobringchangeBest chancein NovemberStrongestleaderBest tobringchangeBest chancein NovemberClintonObamaDemocratic Candidate AttributesAmong Democratic likely votersABC News/Washington Post poll-------------------- Texas -------------------- --------------------- Ohio ---------------------
For her part, Clinton continues to prevail as the strongest leader, by 53-36 percent in
Ohio and 51-40 percent in Texas. That edge extends to some issues; she's ahead in both
states in trust to handle the economy as well as health care, her signature issue. Clinton
has a slight edge in Ohio in trust to handle the Iraq war; in Texas they're even on it.
3Voters in both states split about evenly on the key dynamic of the race, a "new direction
and new ideas" vs. strength and experience; that mirrors the last national poll. It cuts
overwhelmingly to vote: Eight in 10 voters who place more importance on "strength and
experience" favor Clinton; about as many "new direction" voters go to Obama.

Obama is slightly stronger among "new direction" voters in Texas (80 percent support
him) than in Ohio (75 percent) ­ part of the reason he's a bit behind there.

GROUPS ­ Clinton does especially well among women, and particularly among white
women, one of her core support groups, in Ohio; Obama makes more inroads among
white women in Texas (39 percent support), though not up to his unusual 47 percent
support from white women in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday.
56%43%18%59%64%52%53%76%40%81%17%39%36%29%0%25%50%75%100%WhitewomenWhite menBlacksHispanicsWhitewomenWhite menBlacksClintonObamaSupport by GroupAmong Democratic likely votersABC News/Washington Post poll----------------------- Texas ---------------------------------------- Ohio -----------------
Hispanics are key in Texas; they favor Clinton by 59-36 percent, about the same as the
average in exit polls across all primaries to date (61-35 percent). By contrast, it's a much
closer 50-46 percent contest among whites in Texas, while African-Americans there are
favoring Obama by a 4-1 margin, 76-18 percent. That, too, resembles the outcome in all
primaries to date (79-17 percent for Obama among blacks), but it's lower than some of
his high-water marks, including his 91 percent support from blacks in Wisconsin.

Obama continues to do better with college graduates (who are less numerous among
likely voters in Ohio than in Texas), with higher-income voters (also less numerous in
Ohio); and with younger voters, particularly in Texas, albeit not at the level he achieved
in Wisconsin. He leads by 59-39 percent among those under age 40 in Texas; Clinton 4comes back with 60-25 percent support among seniors there. Seniors also are her best age
group by far in Ohio, 57-33 percent.

Eleven percent of seniors in Texas are undecided, more than in any other group. But
among likely voters who have a preference, it's the younger people in Texas who are
most apt to say they may change their minds ­ 29 percent of under 40s. (And about as
many in Ohio.)

The age gap shows up other ways. Texas seniors are much more apt to say they'd be
"very satisfied" with Clinton than with Obama as the nominee; young people are more
likely to be very satisfied with Obama. There are similar divisions by race. (In Ohio
there's less of a gap by age, but a somewhat bigger one by race.)

A quarter of likely voters in Ohio are from union households; they back Clinton by 53-37
percent, vs. a narrower 49-45 percent division among those from non-union households.
Clinton lost union households voters to Obama in Wisconsin, though across all primaries
to date she's won them by 50-43 percent. There are very few union voters in Texas.

PARTY TIME ­ Political allegiance also counts for much. Clinton leads among party
regulars in Ohio (55-39 percent) and Texas (53-42 percent) alike; Obama owes his
competitiveness to independents who intend to vote in these open primaries. He leads
among independents by 53-39 percent in Ohio and 53-40 percent in Texas.
53%55%50%53%53%37%40%39%44%42%53%39%0%20%40%60%80%100%DemsIndsDemsIndsDemsIndsClintonObamaVote by Party Allegiance Among Democratic likely votersABC News/Washington Post poll--------- Texas ------------------ Ohio ----------- Primaries to date -- 5Those are similar to previous primaries this year: Clinton's won Democrats overall, by
50-44 percent; Obama's prevailed among independents, 53-37 percent.

ISSUES ­ There's a difference on issues between these states: The economy and health
care rank about evenly as the most important issue to Democratic likely voters in Ohio,
cited by 34 percent and 30 percent, respectively. In Texas, 33 percent cite health care,
with the economy second, 22 percent.
33%22%14%30%34%9%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Health careEconomyIraqTexasOhioMost Important IssueAmong Democratic likely votersABC News/Washington Post poll
Though demographics and personal attributes matter more, issue priorities do divide
voters somewhat; in Texas, Clinton's supported by 53 percent of those who cite health
care as their No. 1 issue, and 51 percent of those who cite the economy, vs. just 39
percent of those who say it's Iraq. Her lead among economy voters in Ohio, 52-37
percent, is bigger than her lead overall; that's not so among health care voters.

CHANGE/EXPERIENCE ­ As noted, Obama trounces Clinton among voters who care
most about change, and she beats him as broadly among those more focused on
experience. But another measure fleshes out this equation, and raises a potential
vulnerability for Obama. Two-thirds in both states say Clinton, if elected, would "do
enough" to bring needed change to Washington; fewer, 56 percent in Ohio and 53 percent
in Texas, say Obama has the kind of experience it takes to serve effectively as president.

Obama still has the majority's endorsement on experience ­ but at a considerably lower
level than Clinton's acceptability on change. (In only a few groups does Obama fall short
of a majority on experience, such as seniors and Hispanics in Texas.) 6Obama: Clinton: Experienced enough? Do enough to bring change? Yes No Yes No Ohio 56% 40 69% 26 Texas 53 43 67 30
Additionally, while Obama leads as the most electable in November, more than six in 10
likely voters in both states say either candidate could beat John McCain, the front-
running Republican. In Texas, seniors and Hispanics say by 2-1 that only Clinton could
beat McCain; African-Americans, by 3-1, say only Obama could do so. In Ohio, college
graduates, independents and blacks pick only Obama by especially wide margins. ENTHUSIASM and TURNOUT ­ Enthusiasm for the candidates ­ potentially a factor in
turnout ­ is running about equal for Clinton and Obama, albeit a bit lower in Ohio than in
Texas. That's especially true for Clinton; in Texas 65 percent of her supporters describe
themselves as "very enthusiastic" about supporting her; in Ohio, 53 percent. (Obama's
numbers are 62 percent in Texas, 56 percent in Ohio.)

Turnout, naturally, is crucial. Clinton leads in Texas and Ohio alike among people who
say they voted in the 2004 primary; new voters are better for Obama. Given their sharp
differences, the relative mix of Hispanics and blacks voting in Texas is equally critical;
Clinton's support may rely on a boost in turnout by Hispanics over 2004, when they
accounted for 24 percent of voters. On the other hand, Clinton arguably could prevail
without a big Hispanic turnout, if instead seniors showed up in large numbers; they
accounted for a sizable 26 percent of voters in the Texas Democratic primary in 2000, but
then dropped to 19 percent in 2004.

Likely voters in this poll account for 24 percent of the adult population in Texas and 30
percent in Ohio. While actual turnout at those levels is unlikely, vote preference results
are similar in likely voter models positing much lower turnout.

METHODOLOGY ­ This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone
Feb. 16-20, 2008, among a random sample of 611 Democratic likely voters in Ohio and
603 in Texas. The Ohio survey included an oversample of 27 African-Americans for a
total of 104 blacks (weighted back to their share of the total population). Interviews in
Texas were conducted in English or Spanish. The overall results in each state have a 4-
point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

Analysis by Gary Langer.

ABC News polls can be found at ABCNEWS.com at http://abcnews.com/pollingunit
Media contact: Cathie Levine, (212) 456-4934.

Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent). 7
1. Vote registration.

2. How closely are you following the presidential campaign: very closely,
somewhat closely, not too closely, or not closely at all?

---- Closely ----- ---- Not closely ----- No NET Very Smwt. NET Not too At all opinion
2/20/08 Ohio 84 39 45 16 10 6 *
Texas 82 43 39 18 12 6 *

3-4. Likelihood of voting/which primary.

5. If the Democratic primary were being held today, would you vote for (Hillary
Clinton) or (Barack Obama)?*

NET LEANED VOTE AMONG LIKELY VOTERS
Hillary Barack Other None of these No
Clinton Obama (vol.) (vol.) opinion
2/20/08 Ohio 50 43 1 1 6
Texas 48 47 1 1 3
*Past tense if already voted

6. (IF NAMED CLINTON/OBAMA AND NOT YET VOTED) Will you definitely vote for
(NAME), or is there a chance you could change your mind and vote for (OTHER
NAME)? (IF CHANCE CHANGE MIND) Is there a good chance you'll change your mind,
or would you say it's pretty unlikely?

2/20/08 ­ Summary Table
Definitely -Chance change mind - No
vote for NET Good Unlikely opinion
Hillary Clinton
Ohio 72 27 11 16 2
Texas 73 24 14 9 3
Barack Obama
Ohio 70 26 14 12 4
Texas 79 21 12 9 *

7. (IF SUPPORT CLINTON/OBAMA) How enthusiastic are you/were you about voting for (NAMED CANDIDATE) - very enthusiastic, fairly enthusiastic, not too
enthusiastic, or not enthusiastic at all?

2/20/08 ­ Summary Table

-- Enthusiastic --- -- Not Enthusiastic -- No
NET Very Fairly NET Not too At all opin.
Hillary Clinton
Ohio 91 53 38 8 6 2 2
Texas 94 65 29 6 3 2 *
Barack Obama
Ohio 92 56 36 6 6 * 2
Texas 94 62 32 6 4 2 *

8. What is the single most important issue in your choice for the Democratic
candidate for president?
8----2/20/08---- -2/1/08-
Ohio Texas National*
Iraq/War in Iraq 9 14 26
Terrorism/National security 1 1 *
Economy/Jobs 34 22 41
Education 2 3 2
Environment * 0 1 Health care 30 33 10
Ethics/Honesty/Corruption
in government 3 3 2
Immigration/Illegal
immigration * 4 1
Abortion * 0 *
Morals/Family values 1 * 1
Federal budget deficit 1 * *
Housing/Mortgages * 0 *
Global warming * 0 *
Social Security * 1 *
Foreign policy * 1 1
Taxes * * 1 Energy/Ethanol 0 0 1
Change 3 2 0
None/Nothing 0 1 *
Other 9 9 6
No opinion 7 6 6
*Among leaned Democrats, "...in your choice for president"

9. How would you feel if (INSERT NAME) wins the nomination ­ very satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?

2/20/08 ­ Summary Table
--- Satisfied --- -- Dissatisfied -- No
NET Very Smwht. NET Smwht Very opinion
Hillary Clinton
Ohio 77 42 35 21 13 8 2
Texas 75 42 33 24 10 14 1
Barack Obama
Ohio 71 39 32 27 13 14 2
Texas 77 44 33 21 10 11 2

10. Regardless of who you support, who do you think (ITEM) - (Clinton) or
(Obama)? 2/20/08 ­ Summary Table
Both Neither No
Clinton Obama (vol.) (vol.) opinion
a. is the strongest leader
Ohio 53 36 5 2 4
Texas 51 40 6 1 2
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 58 34 2 1 4

b. has the best chance of
getting elected president
in November Ohio 37 48 7 3 5
Texas 36 47 10 3 4
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 47 42 3 2 7

c. best understands the
problems of people like you 9Ohio 44 40 8 5 3
Texas 43 43 7 5 1
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 48 41 5 2 4

d. would do the most to bring
needed change to Washington
Ohio 41 46 5 4 3 Texas 40 47 7 3 3
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 42 49 3 2 3

11. Regardless of who you support, who do you trust most to handle (ITEM) -
(Clinton) or (Obama)?

2/20/08 ­ Summary Table
Both Neither No
Clinton Obama (vol.) (vol.) opinion
a. The war in Iraq
Ohio 45 39 6 6 4
Texas 43 44 5 6 2
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 48 40 6 3 3
b. The economy
Ohio 53 34 6 5 3
Texas 51 38 4 4 2
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 52 38 4 1 5

c. Health care
Ohio 54 34 5 4 3
Texas 54 37 4 4 1
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 60 32 4 1 3

d. Immigration issues
Ohio 40 38 5 8 8 Texas 42 40 5 7 5
Compare to national, 2/1/08: 43 39 5 5 8

12. Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president:
(strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength and New direction Both Neither No
experience and new ideas (vol.) (vol.) opinion
2/20/08 Ohio 45 47 7 * 1
Texas 44 46 9 1 1
Compare to national, 2/1/08:
46 45 7 * 2

13. Regardless of who you support, do you think Barack Obama does or does not
have the kind of experience it takes to serve effectively as president?
Does Does not No opinion
2/20/08 Ohio 56 40 4
Texas 53 43 4
Compare to national, 1/12/08: 53 41 6

14. Regardless of who you support, do you think Hillary Clinton would or would
not do enough to bring needed change to Washington?

Would Would not No opinion
2/20/08 Ohio 69 26 5

First, the Clinton camp has repeatedly touted the huge turnout in Florida as evidence that the Florida vote should count and that the Florida delegates should be seated. Would someone PLEASE point out that there was a huge and very controversial tax reform proposal on the ballot? In my small county (Leon) in Tallahassee alone, this tax reform means the loss of $18 million dollars or the net gain of about $200 dollars per household. With so much at stake, Jiff peanut butter vs. Skippy on the ballot would still have generated huge turnout.

Second, it is not at all clear what voters would have done if they thought their votes would have counted witness this from a reader comment to “The Tallahassee Democrat”: “ I voted for Hillary when I thought my vote would not count. If it is going to count, then I want to vote again, for Obama”.

Third, it is short-sided to suggest that Florida’s voters *will be* disenfranchised if their primary votes don’t count. That disenfranchisement began long before the actual primary. For part of enfranchisement has got to be the opportunity to engage in the political process: to be part of the rallies, debates, speeches and, if one chooses, to be an advocate and volunteer on behalf of one’s chosen candidate. Yes, I had a vote, but I was deprived both the opportunity to be an influence as well as the opportunity to be influenced and it is that two way system of influence that is at the heart of enfranchisement.

Not gonna happen!! Once again Hillary trashes herself and the Clinton legacy.

Fine. Seat Florida. Everyone was on the ballot. It is hard to argue that one IMHO.

But Michigan? I don't see any situation in which she can pull that off and not piss off a huge amount of people.

Whoa. Did you just feel the temperature go up after reading that? If we think that she's going to bow out gracefully, maybe we should think again?

Once she suspends her campaign, everyone is going to move to seat the MI and FL delegates.

I just hope the leadership of those states have learned their lesson -- don't play chicken with voter rights in your states. What they did was really inexcusable, and if I lived in one of those states, I'd be angry with them.

It isn't too late for either of these two states to agree to a DNC-paid caucus. That offer is on the table. I will even donate to this cause and I think others would join with me.

The Democratic parties in these two states need to have their leaders taken to the woodshed and spanked. These votes would have been heard and the delegates would be seated at the convention if their original dates had been kept.

Schedule caucuses for early summer and start a national campaign to raise money to cover the cost. Good grief, how hard is this?

Whatever it takes, Hillary. Never mind the folks who didn't bother to vote because they were told that their votes wouldn't count. Never mind the people who voted for "Other" because Edwards and Obama weren't on the ticket. Just get the prize; that's all that matters. Screw the Democratic Party. Screw everyone. Just get the prize.

JTHB,

I'll try to be civil here: Obama wants FL and MI seated. It's inclusionary and the polite thing to do. It will also pave the way for mostly normal participation by those states in the general election.

What Obama doesn't want is a change to the rules that allow Clinton to effectively hijack a process she already agreed to. Of course he's going to call for them to be seated. I believe he's on record as saying as much.

Aren't you going to denounce HRC as a lair "It doesn't matter if my name's on the ballot because the race doesn't count" in NH. What's she saying today?

I absolutely think the delegates ought to be seated -- as long as it doesn't change the outcome. Assuming March 4 is a split decision, or both Ohio and Texas go for Obama, Florida and Michigan won't make a difference. Won't it be better for the party as a whole, in that case, to seat them? Yes, MI and FL broke the rules, but that's not the way a lot of voters will see it, and not a reason to hand the Republicans a free weapon to use in two important states.

Anyone thinking 2016? I realize it's a long way out, but why not start fighting for electoral votes now? What is missing in this interview is any discussion of FL and MI delegates as necessary for her to secure the nomination. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that this is a strategic matter at all. Rather, she is arguing it as a matter of principle. And it is a safe position to take if, as most agree, delegates will be seated eventually.

"I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are." Hillary Clinton

Senator Obama should make sure that all Texans become aware of how Hillary dismissed their state primary.

It is her same old dismissive Red State Wins do not matter spin, but she then says that she would love to carry Texas.

Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama needs just 40,000 more donations to put him at 1,000,000 total donors to his campaign.

Help put him over today, everyone! A $10 contribution is a real deal, compared to the $7500 plus interest each one of us owes for our share of the war in Iraq.

Spread the news, too!

Please tell me, Democratic voters, that you're not going to continue clamoring for Michigan and Florida to be denied seating at the convention.

We want to WIN these states in the general, yes?

Clinton is not going to win based upon these delegates, and it would be incredibly foolish to not seat them.

These claims about the voters turning out in Florida to vote in the Democratic primary are just not true. The main feature of voting that day was a constitutional amendment reducing property taxes. Police, firemen, teachers and other public employees were very active in opposing the amendmant. I got lots of mailouts about it. The governor actively stumped for it. It was a very hot topic in the local news. Virtually every newspaper in the state ran front page articles about it. A lot of people were unaware that a Democratic presidential primary would even be on the same ballot.

JTHB, the GOP may control the Florida legislature but, when the primary move was raised, there was no outcry from the Dems. They went right along with it. I call that complicity.

Just to cover all bases, I have to ask --- the interview being quoted was done this morning, correct?

Guess I was just whimsically hoping that, even if she was still riding that ridiculous hobby-horse earlier in the week, she realized last night, with her inability to land (or even effectively throw) a punch, that she is NOT going to win and so will concentrate on closing out her campaign with class and dignity. Hey, one can always hope!

For what it's worth (and I'm speculating wildly): Obama will be able to support the seating of a Florida delegation (which will probably be reduced in size by half, which I understand is a more historically-appropriate action) without changing his stance that he is abiding by the DNC's decision, because the DNC will be the ones changing their minds. This would all be less of a hot-button issue if the Clinton campaign didn't keep lumping the Michigan contest in with Florida. I can see why they don't, but it interferes with a fair assessment of the Florida situation.

Florida ok. But Michigan? When she was the only person on the ballot (in effect)? Every time I start to warm up to her a little bit, she does something like this. Who is the woman really? I don't think she even knows anymore.

Do you know how close Michigan was in the past two presidential elections?

Yes, Michigan needs to be seated too. Again: These delegates will not matter, especially if only half are counted.

Not only would seating those delegates be completely unfair (as the results reflected essentially uncontested primaries for Hillary), but no one will stand for such a transparent attempt to exploit the decisions in Florida and Michigan to her advantage. Also, those two states are only worth about 51 delegates to her, which is about the same amount Obama beat her by in the Potomac primaries alone, so even if she did get them seated, it isn't enough to have the verdict here. She needs to leave now, because right now she is helping the Republicans and no one else. She obviously only cares about her own political ambitions, not about the party or the voters.

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26280565

What about those who didn't vote? Because their candidate was not on the ballot? They've already been disenfranchised! It's simply not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I think her warm closing statement was probably urged on her during a commercial break by her advisors after getting booed for her Xerox dig that went bad. She's a politician who uses emotions to manipulate voters. She's not the EarthMother or the Great Feminist either,

We Democrats need to stand by the rules the party designated as punishment for these states moving up their primaries, or we'll never have a leg to stand on when complaining about Republican vote control methods. Remember when Cheney drew congressional district maps to his liking? Remember Florida 8 years ago and Ohio 4 ago? If our core values as Democrats include adhering to the rules, then we must do so now. Any perception of fluctuating the rules, whether or not the delegates help anyone's total, make we Democrats weak and lessens our ability to criticize Republican tactics in the GE or even from here on out. We need to decide. Are we a party that sticks by our rules, or are we a party that bends its will. If we choose the later, be prepared for the backlash. I for one, will be disappointed with the lack of backbone in our party.

Now should we disregard the rules set, and it DOES alter the results of the nomination as well, then there will be a great deal of us leaving the party.

You mean this PDF? If you can get to it on the internet you can link to it.

Could somebody tell me what Hillary is proposing to do with the 40% in Michigan who voted "uncommitted?" Do they go to Obama? (not quite right), or do they just not count (impossible since she doesn't want to disenfranchise voters, right?) Or does Umcommitted sweep into the convention and began marshalling supers? (Blast that Uncommitted and his attempts to subvert the process.)

Dear JTHB and Everyone Else:
I have to say-the cynicism that I have felt and indeed been part of is partially responsible for the corporate take over of the U.S.

At this point I do not trust the government because they have shown that they do not merit my trust.

That is exactly the reason why Obama is turning so many millions on. He is making people feel like there IS something we can do to take it back.

I understand why you are so cynical-I am one who also dropped out years ago.

You may not like Obama and that is your right-but I can assure you Bobby had the same passionate followers in 1967-68 because people felt (rightly or not) that the assignation of JFK stole our hope and Bobby inspired people to feel we could take it back.

Obama is definitely the first major candidate since that time who makes people believe again.

I see that as healthy-we have not had millions of young people engaged since 1968. And say what you want-we were a significant part of the reason the U.S. left Vietnam! I have been waiting for some time for the youth to get engaged again-and now with the aid of the internet-who knows what can be accomplished?

The Kennedy’s were no saints and neither is Obama-but people can do amazing things when they get energized. Have you ever read about the state of our technology when Kennedy announced that he wanted to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade? We had not even orbits a man yet!

The effort that unbridled and focused energy releases can move mountains. There is nothing wrong with someone who makes people believe they can.

And here is the point. We do not know that Obama cannot!
I have read several comments from many of his colleagues who have always been impressed with his ability to bring people together.

For the record, here is my personal position: I am certain that neither HRC nor McCain can or will make any substantial positive changes. With Obama -there is a chance- at least a chance- that he can.
I support him because he has shown some good judgment, mental clarity and because I want to give him the chance.

I like feeling inspired about U.S. politics. It really could be so easy to right the ship if someone used the will of the people to push the Congress. What do we have to loose by trying? Hope is good.

A lot of you are going to be changing your tune rather quickly when Obama joins in on the call to seat (at least a portion of) these delegates.

What a complete loser she is.

The agreement that Clinton signed was that she would not campaign in these states.

Again...what are you going to say when Obama calls for the delegates to be seated?

I hope that the DNC does in fact decide some sort of deal to defuse the Florida/Michigan bomb they helped create. Obviously Obama is pushing back because that could hurt him; but just as obvious is that Clinton is only pushing to have them seated because it helps her.

Neither of them are completely pure on this issue but the team arguing to keep the rules that had been set obviously has a stronger leg to stand on than the one pushing to change the game.

wah wah wah Obamaniacs ...

The ticket is Clinton / Obama - get used to it.

BTW - it's unbeatable.

I would still like someone to explain why the democratic voters of Florida are being punished for their republican state legislature setting the voting date? Those republican voters are being punished as well but don't they only get to lose half of their delegates? Why should the democrats be punshed for something they had no control over? And all being equal, I don't feel anyone has to show up to campaign to have an informed electorate. A lot of places in other states don't always get to see the candidate if or when they show up in a state. I am not up to speed on the Michigan decision but I do know that no one had to remove their name. Edwards and Obama did it as was reported to show their support for Iowa being first. Clinton decided to leave her name on the ballot with others. Then when it came close to voting date, the Obama campaign went and told everyone to vote uncommitted since he had removed his name. Well, that was his decision along with Edwards. And having them do a "do over" caucus" is totally unacceptable. Those people all went and voted and if it has to be redone their vote should be a vote and in the same manner that it was cast at the time. You can't get a do over and hope for different results after the intervening time has gone by.
And I have to say to whoever posted above that their friend voted for Hillary when she knew it wouldn't be counted - that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. If she discounts her vote in such a manner then why did she go and vote in the first place?

Rules...

It's a bitch when they don't go your way.