Also in that article:

"A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past."

That would certainly be something new for the Obama campaign. Not taking the high road anymore, or can he do this as a question of integrity and not as a smear campaign?

I am afraid that what Donna Brazile said sounds like a call to race rioting and voter disenfranchisement. This is Republican behavior and not acceptable in the context of the history of the Democratic party's commitment to making votes count.

WHY THE CLINTONS WON'T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?...

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

Someone in a earlier post stated that, despite her wins last night, Hillary is fighting a losing battle. I think it would be more accurate to say that Hillary's winning a losing battle, and will go on winning it all he way to Denver. I think we can expect to see Obama's poll numbers continue their downward spiral in the days and weeks ahead. Sure, he'll maintain an anemic delegate lead, but as time goes on (and time is no longer his friend) he'll seem increasingly vulnerable as a candidate. Meanwhile, Hillary will intensify her negative assaults, so that by the time April rolls around no one will be able to distinguish the man from the mud. This, to put it mildly, will sow doubts in the minds of the Democratic sachem. This past week revealed an astonishing ineptness in the Obama P.R. campaign. It was almost as if he had gone on vacation and left the field entirely to Hillary. She dominated on every front, and his attempts to parry her thrusts were not only ineffectual, but were downright lame. It's silly to try to dismiss Hillary's domination as nothing more than dirty politics. Dirty politics is politics, always was, always will be. If you think Obama is going to win the nomination or general election by "standing above the fray" -- well then, get prepared for humiliation. It's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to recover anything like the "shine" he enjoyed going into Ohio and Texas, and if he doesn't start giving like for like, he will not get the nomination. Ah, but then Mr. Nice Guy will be transformed into Mr. Politics-as-Usual. In other words, by the time Denver rolls around Hillary will have won her losing battle. Then the question will be how this increasingly hateful contest can possibly be redeemed.

Dark horse, anyone?

elonepb- that's in fact the one way that he can actually square the circle. Painting Clinton as a tool of the old, corrupt politics as usual actually reinforces his positive message of change rather than undercutting it. I'm encouraged to hear this.

Wow, talk about the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard -- Hillary might actually come back and win this thing, so we need to END THE PRIMARY NOW!!! The more Obama supporters whine that Hillary needs to drop out because the "math" is against her, the more people start to realize that the math is bogus. Obama's "superdelegates are undemocratic" argument is pretty much already out the window.

I am afraid that what Donna Brazile said sounds like a call to race rioting..... Sancho

Are the Clintonites already shamelessly race baiting?
Are these people really tryinhg to make it impossible for me to show up next November?

I think its time to break out the 527 to go on the attack against the clintons. Obama can disavow the 527 all day long and decry such politics and then reap the benefits. Back up the dump truck and dump it on the clintons.

By the way clinton cultists, congrats on your candidate winning yesterday. She'll never win the presidency and will bring down the democratic party in the process. Congrats.

Did I miss something, or did the Clintons fail to cut Obama's delegate lead to 25 as they predicted? How many net delegates did she pick up with her 3 victories?

It's about the math folks. Ignore the spin. Look at the numbers.

3 of 4.
3 of 15.
14 of 41.

As some have said recently, if it was Hillary Clinton that had won 25 (possibly 26) elections out of a total of 40, that had the lead in delegate counts which include super delegates and she had won the popular vote so far – the media and the Democrat establishment would have asked Barack Obama to drop out of the race for the ‘good’ of the Party long ago.

The establishment and media are not only allowing Hillary to stay in the race, they are now talking about ‘saving her’ by having Do-Overs in Florida (population of mostly seniors – Hillary’s strength) and in Michigan even though the DNC denied them delegate counts if they went ahead and voted early against the DNC rules. We all know she won those States previously. How dare they!

"If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate," Brazile said. "But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

I don't always agree with her, but she's right on the money here.

Up until now, Obama has criticized Clinton on issue grounds -- her vote for the Iraq war, the health insurance mandate, flip-flopping on NAFTA -- while Clinton has attacked Obama on personal grounds -- not ready to be commander in chief, all he's done is give a speech, etc.

Yes, we know Republicans will also engage in the politics of personal destruction, but why should Hillary do the job for them?

I do think if she continues this approach -- and there's little doubt she will as the campaign will attribute her victories to their getting down and dirty -- then turnabout would be more than fair play. And her vulnerabilities on these fronts are greater than Obama's -- the Norman Hsus and sleazy fundraising, the various Clinton administration scandals from Travelgate to the Marc Rich pardon, the tax returns, Bill Clinton's Kazakh dealings, the hidden White House records. All the things to remind us that their record on veracity and integrity is questionable at best, and that Clinton fatigue is what awaits us if she gets the nomination.

I hope it doesn't come to this, but it may have to. And while Howard Dean and the party elders may well decide to intervene to keep things from getting uglier, I can't imagine the Clinton campaign responding in any way other than giving him their middle finger. Because they still have a sense of entitlement and it's still all about them, not the larger good.

Q: Who decides who gets the democratic nomination?
A: Delegates.

Q: Who has the most Delegates?
A: Obama.

Q: How many Net delegates did Hillary gain on Obama last night.
A: Less than 10.

Q: What would that leave Obama's delegate lead at?
A: Between 149 to 140.

She can't beat him. The math is not there. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Now this is what I am talking about:

``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''

Break out the dump truck.

In reference to David Kurtz's post "Enough Already."
Yes, Obama's supporters are whining. Remember, Obama brought new voters into the process based on changing the status quo in partisan politics. And they can take their votes and walk away from the process just as easily as the came in.

Hillary has learned through out her turbulent career to never give up regardless of the fly-back for those around her. She has learned to never say never, this time she is risking the hopes, and aspirations of the Democratic Party and the women who have placed their hopes and aspirations in her. She is willing play brinksmanship and to fight to the very end, regardless of the cost to the Party.

- Just a few weeks ago Bill Clinton said a race between Hillary and McCain would be the most civil in recent history.

- And just this week Hillary brought out the Kitchen sink against her Democratic Opponent to redefine the lows in "dirty tactics" - (Praising McCain on National Security over Obama, employing Foreign Powers in negative campaign strategy, broadcasting fake Breaking News Items, feeding the flames of racism with the release of the turban photos)

I believe she deserves to be opposed by Democrats with as much voracity as she has shown towards Democrats and her Democratic Opponent.

She wants a fight. LETS FIGHT!

A VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSITION FOR ALL THOSE INVOLVED.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/breaking-news-h.html

The continual flame wars between Hillbots and Obamatons is going to do nothing but send undecided voters and disillusioned voters to John McCain, who despite being a NeoCon in moderate clothing, is sitting back and waiting until he gets a firm opponent, lobbing label-bombs at our party.

Hillary is right. We need to get these two on the same ticket. We need to convince both of them to stop attacking one another and just let the rest of the primaries (including new FL and MI) be on the issues. Whoever is ahead at the end of a POSITIVE ONLY process is at the top of the ticket, whoever loses gets VP.

The key factor is that we can't hamstring either candidate anymore. If the people decide Hillary is who they want, than we Obama supporters must respect that and support her 100%. Of course, the converse is absolutely true too.

I will admit that Hillary's attacks of the last week have been effective; however, at this point on they serve to do nothing but further hurt the party if Obama happens to win the most delegates and Super-delegates.

A super ticket would solve all of our collective problems. He brings youth and inspiration and an ability to put swing states in play, she brings ability to appeal to bread and butter democrats and industrial states. Rather than being happy with winning the same 10 states, this team could win in KS, FL, NC, IA, CO, MO, OH, IN, GA, maybe even TX.

Obviously I'm going to support an Obama/Clinton ticket, but as of this moment (currently 7:01 am PST) I ain't saying another bad thing about Hillary because she *might* be our party's nominee.

I hope that Ms. Clinton (congratulations on last night, by the way) is serious about a super ticket and that they can find a positive and uniting way to bring it about without tearing the party apart. Their ideas are 95% identical, they bring very different strengths to the table. Together they motivate the Democratic base like nobody else can in this time of need.

I think the only thing Dean and elected officials who actually care about the Democratic Party can and should do is try to convince the Clintons to stop trying to poison the well for Obama. If she beats him on the merits, fine. But if they continue with this crap about him not being qualified to be Commander in Chief (as if ANYONE has ever been qualified before they took on the job), then I suggest Dean, Gore, Edwards and others confront her with the idea that THEY will hold a press conference demanding that she release her tax returns and her White House records. Somebody's got to play hardball other than the spittle spewing Matthews maniac!

"I think he can do it and not come off as negative. The argument is that if Hillary is the nominee the voters need to know what is in those tax documents and White House records becuse if their is some skeletons hidden within, then she will torpedo the chances of the Democrats to win in November. In essence, he can make an argument that the voters have a right to know. Which isn't a negative argument, but a realistic argument."

I agree, he has been good at counterpunching when he chooses to do it. He's not as tone-deaf as Hillary, who often hits the wrong note and looks ugly when going negative ("The fun part" as she once put it with a creepy smile)

Well, now that Clinton has demonstrated that she can win Ohio, New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusettes, Florida and Michigan, I think Barak Obama should consider dropping out of the race in the name of party unity. Obviously, he cannot win amongst Democrats in Blue States let alone beat a Republican.

This was the Democrats' election to lose, since there was no way the Republicans could win it, not after eight years of George W. Bush. But that just might be what happens.

First, the Republicans nominated their strongest candidate. McCain is a guy few Republicans really liked, a man who was almost completely written off last summer. But due to infighting - and the fact that the other candidates were so bad that even Republicans couldn't stand them - McCain got the nomination after all. He's still not popular with their base, but he can pull in the independents if there's not an equally-popular Democratic candidate.

And now, the Democrats are eating their own. Clinton's negatives are so high that she can't win against McCain. And she can't win the Democratic nomination without the dirty trick of seating Michigan and Florida AND persuading the super-delegates to ignore the primary and caucus voters. Do you think Obama supporters will just shrug that off? My vote counted this year, and I don't want anyone taking that away. So what does she really think she's doing?

Furthermore, if she can't get the nomination through dirty tricks, her negative campaigning will really hurt Barack Obama in November. That's not because she's saying anything the Republicans won't, but because they can now point to her and say, "See, even the Democrats admit this." After all, she came right out and said that McCain had the experience to be commander-in-chief, but Obama didn't. If she was conducting a positive campaign (as Obama is), this extended nomination process wouldn't be a problem. But she's not. And since this 'kitchen sink' plan seems to have worked, we'll see a lot more of it from now on.

This was the Democrats' election to lose,... and I'm wondering if we're doing just that.

Donna Brazile and Howard Dean calling the shots? Get real.

Blame the DNC for the mess the Dems are in. Who was the genius at the DNC that declared that the most appropriate punishment for a REPUBLICAN scheduling decision in Florida was to disenfranchise DEMOCRATS at their convention?
The DNC could have found some other, more proportionate remedy (like bad seats at the Convention).

Well, today the Obama campaign will announce they are flush with cash, $50-60 million from Feb. There are one million plus contributors who haven't tapped out. I'm one of them and will give another $50 today. The opposition research and media effort will be in full gear, and there's plenty of skeletons still in the Clinton closet. I guess if that's what the name of the game is in politics, then as Hillary says, "Let the fun begin!"

When the Clintons begin colorizing people's skin on TV ads, then I guess all bets are off. When Clinton can present herself as an experienced national security expert because she slept in the same bed as Bill, then there is certainly a media vacuum ready to be filled. I would have hoped for a debate about issues, but campaigns are revelatory about character and integrity as well. And the Clintons seem to have none.

I realized something this morning. If this is how HRC is going to fight this campaign, with the smears and the subtle racial crap ... I just can't and won't vote for her in the general.

I don't want Obama to go negative. The reason I like him is that he is inspiring. he says noble things that I want to believe are possible and that I'd fight for.

We've had a decade of this miserable sort of slimy, evil, ends-justify-the-means politics. If the Democratic nominee can only win with more of the same, what's the point? IT WON'T MATTER WHO WINS.

So I want Obama to play his own game. Talk about what he believes in, stick to the issues that we care about. If they weasel the nomination from him with non-substantive smearing crap, but he sticks to what I care about and fights the good fight, I will gladly write him in in November and feel good for having done at least that.

A small note to the writer---the word "Staunch" means resolute or steadfast---it is an adjective.

The word "Stanch" is a verb meaning to stop, check, or delay---frequently used in referring to stopping the flow of blood.

The two terms are not interchangeable.

Sorry to be picky, but it does make a difference.

Yes, indeed, John Edwards sure is looking fresh this morning.

Let's see, what did I do with that definition of DARK HORSE?

Publicus you're exactly right.
The clinton spin machine is firing on all cylinders. Who else could say with a straight face that the contest is reset now and I kid you not, "Pennsylvania is the new Iowa". It would be like the Miami Dolphins saying that because they won the last game of the season, they should now be in the playoffs, because nothing else counts. The bs about winning big states is also a fabrication. The real sad thing is that the Clinton's picked these states as firewalls because they knew that the race baiting and nuanced religious "not that I know of" crap would work. MSNBC exit polls show greater than 20% of voters in Ohio said race matters and 75% of them went for Hillary. What else can be said?
Finally, when it all boils down, she may only take back 4 or 5 delegates out of almost 160 he had going into Tuesday and he'll net those back by next Tuesday. He needs to take back the narrative and hold the media accountable when they continue this spin. There are only 3 parties that benefit with a continued Clinton candidacy: Her overpaid consultants, Clinton's ego and the media. Do you not think the media has a financial interest in continuing to take almost 100m a month in cash from political advertising. This thing was over after Wisconsin.

I think the strategy is two-pronged here - the Clintons will inform the DNC and superdelegates in no uncertain terms that they will play a game of high-stakes chicken. Either they hand the nomination to Hillary, or they scratch and claw all the way through the convention, ensuring a McCain win in November, laying the groundwork for their "I told you so" campaign for the 2012 nomination.

I agree with Brazile's assessment.

If Clinton wishes to continue her campaign by destroying Obama, then enough is enough. But if she wants to continue by highlighting policy and substance differences, then that's fair.

If she can't win on policy, then it's time for her to step aside.

As a supporter of Mr Obama, I would rather he loses than go negative. I don't care about the Clinton's tax returns or who Mr Clinton may or may not be sleeping with. Mr Obama promised a new way of doing politics and I for one hope he sticks to it. He must provide a break from the politics of them versus us politics of personal destruction and the philosophy of doing whatever you have to do to win. I know...I am naive but I am also tired of watching my country divided in a time when it most needs to be united. I am tired of politician preying on our fears. From our standing in the world to our crumbling infrastructure to the abuse of power (the President) and the impotence of power (Congress) something has to change. If Mr Obama's new way is not to be this cycle so be it( I still think the math is on his side) but I for one hopes he will maintain the high ground in this battle.

I've spent all morning trying to convince myself that a McCain Presidency won't be the end of the world. Because there's no doubt that's where we are headed.

So I want Obama to play his own game. Talk about what he believes in, stick to the issues that we care about. If they weasel the nomination from him with non-substantive smearing crap, but he sticks to what I care about and fights the good fight, I will gladly write him in in November and feel good for having done at least that.

What could the Dean do to "step in"? Does he have that kind of power? I think not.

But here's an idea... if the DNC can somehow build a coalition of half the super delegates and have them make a public pledge that they will support the winner of the total elected delegate count, that would essentially void the super delegate influence as a whole. In other words, the "magic number" is no longer 2025, but 1626.

A move like that could effectively force Clinton's hand, without an explicit endorsement of Obama (though it would likely be perceived as such by Clinton supporters.)

Obama's most convincing argument to the superdelegates is simple:

"My campaign is a movement the Democratic Party can build a future on. It is a movement that will turn Virginia , Colorado, and Missouri bright blue, and someday even Idaho. It is an inclusive and empowering, and truly grassroots wave that will put money in the Democratic party coffers, feet on the street for our candidates, and those candidates in the White House, state house, and most households for 2008 and far beyond."

That's enough. Stick with relentless organizing and mobilization, and that will be compelling to many superdelegates. Or Obama can go negative and make them chose between evils.

Try to get it through your head that the stakes for this country in that contest are very high, regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.

Try to get it through your head that on every substantive issue, from warmongering to corporate welfare to suppression of first amendment rights (banning artistic expression and anti-corporate speech and whistelblowing), Hillary has exactly the same positions as McCain. I defy you, absolutely defy you, to draw a difference between the two. No. Body. Can. You're fooling yourself.

We are perilously close to a sort of Italian corpo-fascism that we won't emerge from without utter national disaster, and either McCain or Clinton will lead us down the final approach to that landing.

Howard Dean won't be able to step in Sep.-Nov. to stop the Republicans from attacking either Clinton or Obama so nobody should step in now. Let these two strong candidates battle it out through the convention and may the best fighter win.

3am phone calls, tax documents and kitchen sinks. Bring it on!

Full disclosure: I'm a Hillary supporter. Nobody's perfect so I'm going with change and experience.

Easy commercial:

Show American soliders in body bags, with her speech on the Senate floor authorizing use of force in Iraq played overtop the images.

Done deal.

If Obama pulls it out, he needs a running mate who neutralizes McCain on national security WITHOUT playing Republican-lite hawk a la Hillary. Jim Webb would be my first choice, Wesley Clark my second.

Let's go completely negative. For the next press conference..

Senator Clinton, the Clinton administration played fast and loose with pardons peddled by individuals whose number included your brothers. (Where did she stash those bad boys!) Your daughter is seriously involved with an investment banker who is the son of a felon who in jail for financial shenanigans. Have you discussed pardoning him if you become president?

I am a little cross this morning.

Just made another $25 donation to Obama. Much more satisfying than arguing with wacko Clinton supporters.

coleridge, if you can't find any it's because your'e not looking. Hillary is too hawkish for my taste, but she would have nothing like McCain's enthusiasm for starting new wars or for staying in Iraq for 10,000 years. As for domestic policy, you can start from health care and McCain's enthusiasm for making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent, and go from there. And if you really don't see the difference between plausible Hillary Supreme picks and the Alito types that McCain would nominate, (and the Senate Dems roll over for as usual), then frankly I don't know what to say to you.

If you can't deal with the actual choices before you rather than retreating to some imaginary land of doctrinal purity, you just don't "get" democracy. We need to keep working for a real progressive majority that can push the Democratic Party to where it should be, but we can't do that with Republicans holding the levers of power.

It's people like you who voted for Nader in 2000 and gave us the wonderful George W. Bush Presidency. Thanks a lot.

Look at the Ohio exit polls, race was a factor for white voters in how they voted. What kind of factor was none specific.

First race war came from the Clinton campaign in Iowa with the drug stuff and with the Cumo remarks.

You could start with pointing out specifically why you think I'm wrong

And it's plain stupid to equate Hillary's triangulation on the Iran resolution, annoying as it was, with McCain's positive enthusiasm for starting wars.

Again, your kind of "thinking" gave us George W. Bush. Thanks a lot. Me, I support Obama but will support our nominee in the general. Period.

This is good. They can't ignore what Hillary and her campaign are doing, but to adopt her methods exactly is no good since that would mean compromising what most of use find appealing about Barack. So this means Obama has the opportunity to hone his skills sparring with Clinton in preparation for the title bout with McSame. And whether we, as Obama supporters, like what Hillary is doing or think it's fair isn't really the issue; if we liked her tactics we'd have been Hillary supporters from the start. He has to find a way to neutralize her rhetoric.

Billary McBush

Republican lite.

Just as foul as the original Republican brand, but with fewer calories and more carcinogens.

Vote Billary McBush, for a dynasty you can trust!

The more I think about it, the more all the ridiculous "re-set" talk coming from my TV makes sense. We've got seven weeks until Pa. Obama should look at this as a period to prove to all Dems that he can take on McCain. The problem with his run of wins is that the fundamental dynamic between Hillary and Obama didn't change. She didn't weaken so much as his campaign better planned for the month of February and he hit a number of states favorable to him. She did the same for March 4. Now he needs to retool and find a way to win Pa. The math matters, but not as much as the arithmetic in November. He needs to kick her ass someplace unexpected to show the party he's not just the guy who got more delegates, but that he's the only person to represent the party in the general.

Obama doesn't need to talk explicitly about scandals.

All he needs to to is undermine Clinton's claim to experience. He can do this fairly easily.

If you are the most experienced, why won't you share your experience by releasing your tax returns and the White House papers? This would be very effective, would get a lot of press attention, and would be directed at Clinton's own arguments.

The idea that Hillary Clinton's campaign has gone "nuclear" on Barack Obama is preposterous. Despite what some of the most opinionated members of the blogosphere and Air America types claim, nothing Clinton's said, including her line about McCain having more experience to trot out on foreign policy, amounts to a implicit endoresment of McCain over Obama.

I've convinced myself that this long primary campaign is good for Democrats and good for progressive causes, but I will admit to the possibility of wishful thinking because I support the candidate who is trailing badly in the pledged delegate count. If Obama and Clinton don't train as much fire at McCain as they do at each other over the next few weeks, that will be evidence I'm wrong.

But all you Clinton haters out there, don't be so quick to dismiss the millions of liberal Democrats like me who are still strongly in her corner. We exist, we're smart, we're idealistic and we're just as sick of politics as usual and the Iraq War as you are. We simply believe Clinton has demonstrated the judgment, intelligence and ability to inspire and sign positive legislation and run the executive branch well. Further, we reject the notion that her Iraq vote disqualifies her or that there is something slimy or ethically challenged about her.

So Hillary should drop out of the race so that Obama doesn't have to get ugly on her in order to beat her?

God, I hate Donna Brazile.

I don’t believe Dean has any real pull on the Clinton campaign. In 2004 his winning the nomination was her greatest threat to a run in 2008, therefore we saw the Clinton sponsored candidate ,Wesley Clarke. A public opposition by Dean to Clinton’s continuation could -through an internal power struggle lead by the Clinton wing- threaten his chairmanship of the DNC.

Yeah, it's bad that Hillary raised a point that McCain never would have thought: compare McCain's experience to Obama's. A experienced senator would never think to attack a first-term senator for lack of experience.

I'm not seeing the kind of nasty attacks either side is claiming. And frankly, it's silly to ask everyone to cool the harsh, emotional rhetoric. There's something to be said for getting Obama's weaknesses out there for discussion and criticism, just as Hillary's have been, because I'd rather voters have their serious doubts now rather than in the fall. And I say that because I think Obama can repudiate and overcome those criticisms. If, for example, he's so inexperienced, then why aren't there more substantial differences between the candidates and their voting records?

This is very interesting, Ms Brazile's statement(s)

Earlier (few weeks ago), she said that the super delegates should follow what the voters say and vote for the candidate with the maximum number of delegates won in primaries and caucuses. She even threatened to quit the party (Oops, sorry she meant the party post) if super delegates don't vote for the candidate with maximum elected delegates.

Now, she suddenly says that Hillary Clinton won the states by attacking and casting seeds of doubt on Barack Obama; in effect she is saying that voters are not smart enough to know what is what!

She goes further to say that other party officials (I am sure most of them are super delegates) should "intervene" in the process.

Whatever happened to what the voters are saying? Or is it that as far as Ms Brazile is concerned, voters voting for Mr. Obama are smart and those voting for Ms. Clinton are either dumb or too carried away by negative attacks.

Note: Ich bin ein uncommitted non-resident alien

I have a different reason for the superdelegates to immediately weigh in, given the math re: delegates won for this reason:

Given that we're slipping into recession, if not there already, the superdelegates could tout that we should conserve precious resources and divert campaign contributions (more than 1 million a day) as seed money for a 'green' construction fund. By continuing the primary fight, and talking about re-doing Flordia at a cost of 10 million dollars, and Michigan, Democrats are mismanaging scarce resources. They could boost about their genuine concern for the plight of the working class rather than have candidates just make promises.

Another reader above? She DID endorse McCain. She said that both she and McCain had a lifetime of experience--the sound clips are everywhere. And in a despicable note, she said that Obama had just one speech. That's loathsome Karl Rove-ism.

This is the first time in my life that I can imagine sitting out an election if she's the Democratic nominee. Her tactics are sickening, and I used to like her and Bill Clinton immensely. The campaign has brought out the worst in someone who claims to be a lifelong Democrat. That is quite simply a lie. She was President of her alma mater's Republican group and she supported Goldwater.

Pardon me for noticing, but wasn't Donna Brazile the campaign manager for the LOSING and very badly run Al Gore campaign?