That is right and I think this point is not being made by the MSM. At least not strongly.

Prediction: Edwards endorses Obama.

Very wishful thinking MikeMo.

However i agree 100 %

I think the post makes the point that she not only has to win she has to win big. Even if she wins TX 50-43. Its a loss and sinks her campaign.

Keith

I agree it's relatively hopeless for Clinton, but I don't see her bowing out before March 5th. And I really don't think she should. She's kicked off her campaigns there already, she's got volunteers committed, and she still has a glimmer of a chance.

My fear is she wins both Texas and Ohio 51-49, and she decides to take that as a mandate to soldier on and take it all the way to the convention.

Obama, get to work and put the nail in the coffin. 60-40 in both states, and she'll have no choice but to concede.

The snarkier you guys and the Obama become the less reason HRC has to concede early. Why should she? For the twits?
And don't go starting that HRC will lose us the election bs.
Hey, what about your polls? Remember, Obama can't lose!
I think it is going to be fun. For once Obama will have to answer his critics and not be able to cry "Racist"!
The Tweety interview with his Texas supporter was just a sweet taste of what's to come.
I'm gonna enjoy the mauling.

I read somewhere on here about the idea of Hillary on the Supreme Court. Now that'd be something. I'd LOVE to see the hissy fit Republicans had about that.

The real question is how long Hillary is willing to prolong this in the hopes that he makes some huge gaffe or self-destructs, at the expense of the strength of her party and her standing within it.

Well, HRC won't even think about getting out until after OH and TX, so you're going to have to wait and see where the chips fall in those states.

"I read a wishful thinking rumour today that HRC may be staying in the race as a firewall for Barack. He's shown great ability in deflecting her attacks, in fact they seem to bolster his constituency. So... she may be staying in the race to absorb some of the right-wing attack machine's vitriol and leave Obama with more time to shore up his base before GE campaigning."

Unfortunately, she seems to be double teaming Obama with McCain. I wish she would stop that.

At this point her only campaign goal or hope seems to be trying to destroy Obama - say or do anything to damage his candidacy severely enough to make him unelectable. Not even caring that it would doom her chances should she actually end up with the nomination. Anybody remember this old fable?

The Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature." (Wikipedia version)

Just change that to "I'm a Clinton; it's my nature" and you have the modern version.

Did Obama's campaign manager say he was going to have enough delegates to secure the nomination by the end of the primaries? If not, I would think all this talk of Hillary dropping out is without merit.

Why should she drop out? The "good of the party"? Come on now folks, if Obama were in the same spot would there be such a clamor? Doubtful in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with a contest between two strong candidates even if they are nothing but centrist, corporate Democrats who are nearly indistinguishavle with respect to their positions on almost every issue.

After watching the clips of Obama's speech in Houston, I'm more convinced than ever that he is an empty suit. He doesn't even have to make a pretense of believing what he is saying and the crowd goes wild. The fact that there is no such thing as a sceptical Obama supporter probably does mean that Clinton has a long, long row to hoe.

If he wins the nomination and then the general election under the current circumstances, it spells long-term trouble for the Democratic Party. Barack Obama's support in the general population is a mile wide and an inch deep. 80% of his supporters will not show up at the polls in 2010, which is when we really need to drive the cattle home, to clinch the win.

A friend of mine who participated in his local caucus in Washington state, told me that Obama supporters there refused to discuss any election issues. All they would talk about was electing the first black President; and when he tried to introduce a discussion of the two candidates' health care plans, he was frozen out. They just quit talking to him.

This scenario has been reported at other caucuses in other states, as well. These are not people who are interested in building up the party or the nation.

In that respect, they reflect the vituperative and narrowminded namecalling of the Obama supporters in this thread -- good only for calling Hillary Clinton foul names. And AWOL when it's time to man the barricades -- or the soup kitchens.

Thanks.

mp

oleeb,

if obama were in the same spot--having lost 10 primaries in a row and behind 150 pledged delegates and around 100 super-delegates--he would be getting nowhere NEAR the amount of press coverage. The race would be pronounced over.

The Obama camp would be well advised to not portray an air of inevitability. Not just because of what they did to Clinton's campaign, but because people in the upcoming states really want to be a part of this historic race. As long as record numbers are turning out and he's winning by large margins, it only helps his chances in November.

Also, what is so wrong with Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia having a real say in the Democratic Candidate. Let's get them as involved as possible. We're going to need several of those states in the GE.

In 2004, everyone was so jittery and in such a hurry to unify behind a candidate that I don't believe we found the right guy. We forced it and didn't let anything play out. Dean let out a screetch, we all freaked out and everyone just got behind Kerry for the sake of getting behind Kerry. I find nothing wrong with giving the nomination to the best battle tested person left standing in a heated primary battle.

No, actually I don't agree with this. I don't think she should drop out. She should stop running this ugly scorched earth campaign that is pitting Democrat against Democrat & White Voter against Black Voter & Female Voter against Male Voter.

What she should do is run the best and most positive campaign that she can, showing off her personal ideals and vision for the country’s future (which I’ve never heard her do) as best as she able. If she loses in Texas and Ohio, which it now appears that she will, at least she can bow out of the race when she chooses to, or when her campaign dollars stop for good, and still be a respected member of the Democratic party. And she can finally offer a concession speech to Obama and people will believe its genuine. Not more of what we’ve been seeing so far on the campaign trail.

I think her future reputation and Bill Clinton's should be preserved. I hope she understands how tarnished they are at this point, and I hope they make real amends with the party, black voters and with all the other alienated Democrats lined up against her.

And she needs to start thinking about her legacy NOW, not once its too late.

She doesn't have to get out but she does have to stop trying to seriously damage him. And yes, it's for the good of the party. In a party that has a very bad - and notorious - history of ripping itself apart during the primaries the last thing we need is a candidate so bloodied from the nomination battle that the Republicans have half their work already done for them.

We haven't had a majority-winning Democratic president who assumed office since Jimmy Carter. Chew that over while you decide whether her campaign attacking him nonstop is good or bad.

And yes, I'd say the same thing if it was Obama who was behind. Stay in the race? Fine. Destroy the other candidate to get the nomination? No fucking way.

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Rasputin wrote:
>>>And she needs to start thinking about her legacy NOW, not once its too late.

This is so true.

But I don't think her current set of advisers (including her husband!) are going to be the ones to give sound, forward-looking advice that focuses on HER well-being. In my opinion, she's been victimized more by her own 'team' than she ever was by Obama or any of her competition. (Yes, she allowed it, maybe even ecouraged it and for that reason shouldn't be president -- but still....) She should get away from all of them for a day and think clearly about herself and her own personal legacy, which could be a very good one.

Won't Senator Clinton's campaign begin to hit the fund-raising shockwave as she tries to finance major efforts in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? Those three states will require considerable expenditure. Her campaign fund raising began to stall weeks ago, before she started getting stained with the "loser" color scheme. Even if she gains modest victories in all of those three primaries, how does she continue her fund raising, when her chances of ultimate victory appear modest at best? Won't she have to contend with the arguments leveled against Edwards that she doesn't have the funds available to continue to campaign until the convention? The end game is fast approaching, unless a scorched earth policy is actively being considered. Time to go back and watch those movies about WW2 like "Downfall" and "The Bunker" for clues.

Good advice. She should take it. Give it one last try with a positive message, and then bow out gracefully if that doesn't work. I predict it would stop some of her erosion but be too late to salvage the nomination for her.

Before we all get too excited about what Health care plan either BHO or HRC will implement remmember - WE NEED 60 (real) Democratic senators before ANYTHING will happen. Lieberman needs to be stripped IMMEDIATELY of all positions of trust and/or leadership within the Senate !! The House can use more democrats as well but is in much better shape than the Senate....

Clinton should stay in as long as she can. The more times Obama drubs her, in the news cycle and at the polls, the more appealing he becomes to indies and republicans. Clinton, esp in the sadly pathetic and desparate mode that she appeared to be in last night, reminds indies and republicans of all the reasons they hated the Democratic party -- and reminds them that Obama is not that Democratic party. Last night her pettiness made him look bold and visionary; her harping made him look steady and reassuring; and her palpable desparation and willing suspension of reason by not acknowledging the results made him look pragmatic and can-do.

Just as Dukakis never scored as strongly in polls as when he was beating Jessie Jackson in the late spring of 08, Obama's best frame for the general election comes from him beating Clinton the way he has over the last 2 weeks.

Sounds like the extent of your knowledge are some dubious emails about Obama.

JTHB - You asked for someone to "list the Great One's myriad accomplishments." Michael A. provided you with the specifics you requested, when he re-posted wwjb's post of 2/20 (10:06 a.m.).

I'm going to assume that you've simply been too busy to respond to this thus far. But if you're asking other people to do the work of finding readily available information that's already been posted on this site, the courtesy of a reply seems appropriate, and I hope that you're going to follow up. I think that many of us are looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this.

If you could address the information provided with any specificity (perhaps shoe-horned in between the name-calling of Obama's supporters and the random profanity you seem to favor), that would be (as you put it) "sooper dooper."