I like her also. Problem is she can't prevent the clintons from taking this to the convention and the clintons will take it all the way. They don't care about anything, but the clintons.

Good luck stopping Hillary, she has the biggest ego in the history of humanity.

Nancy. Now that's a female politician of whom women should be proud. Come on Erica Jong, give her some love. Nancy's made it up to number three, without the coattails of a husband.

The one thing that brings a smile to my face are the freaked out thoughts in the minds of superdels when they see video footage of the Clinton supporter vigil taking place outside of the Rules meeting...candles, songs, chants.

Normal to Shrill's supporters, but disturbing to the SD's. I just wish they realize they're doing more damage for her than helping once the media starts airing this footage.

Perhaps she will quit on Wednesday. Does no one think this is a possibility?

would seriously damage the chances of electing a Democratic president in November.

Nancy seems to be under the impression that the Clinton bitter-enders in question would be upset with that result. That is what they think works for Clinton to be POTUS in 2012.

Or what?

Or What? I'll tell ya - Clinton still has time left in the Senate and if she wants to be viable senator in the time left, she will have to cooperate with the leadership eventually.

Although I agree that a lot of the Supers holding out are spineless for fear of "being mean" to the Clintons, they waited because of the Clintonian BS argument: "let everyone vote."

Obama will then gain the requisite number of Supers next week, even if it's the number the Shrillaryites cook-up by counting FL and MI as if fully seated.
Hillary will then be escorted off the stage.
Atta-girl Nancy!

The Tweetster is not going to let go of IraqGate. Scott will be on for "most of the hour" on Monday.

Richard Clarke was just on. He said he met with Scott and was impressed by the sincerity of his personal apology for snarking Clarke's book, which was also spot-on. Clarke supported the content of Scott's book without issue.

And thus do the injuns tighten their circle around General Dubya Custer...

Oh yeah, Chicago does have a second baseball team, don't they?

Cardinals - once in first place, but not anymore. :-)

Hey, did anyone see Wolfie on Fox this morning remind everyone it would go against DNC rules to give Obama one single delegate in MI? Did that clown really say this???

Her campaign is the last group of clowns who should be talking about following DNC rules!

Clintonites already know how this is going to end and they have, by saying the following publicly, let Hillary Clinton know she must accept the rules meeting ruling and bow out gracefully this week. It's why Hillary's tone has changed today.

From the LA Times:

Richard Schiffrin, a national finance co-chairman in the Clinton campaign, said a fair compromise might be splitting Michigan's 128 elected delegates between the two candidates.

"I would support a compromise that is within a range of reasonableness," Schiffrin said.

Alan Patricof, also a national finance chairman for Clinton, said that Obama couldn't be the only one to sacrifice when Michigan and Florida delegates were meted out.

"Some accommodation has to be made to reflect what took place and so that both parties can walk away and feel justice prevailed," Patricof said.

William Galston, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former member of Bill Clinton's White House staff, said: "There's only one kind of outcome that really makes sense here. The rules have to be adhered to or else the whole thing turns into a farce. There must be some punishment. The minimum punishment is the reduction of weight of their delegations by 50%."

Garry Shay, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee and a Clinton supporter, said it was important to impose a sanction so states wouldn't leapfrog one another in the next presidential campaign. With no penalty, he said, "you'll have absolute, total chaos in 2012."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems30-2008may30,0,1119825.story

I'm sure gotalife & the other dead-enders will insist it's still going to the convention. Poor things. Don't taunt them people! That would be cruel.

LOL.

Tena,

Yeah, but this season is their best record in decades - they have a legit shot of doing something with it in October...and now here's where the naysayers tear me a new with with history lessons of Cub seasons past.

Hillary hasn't done any of that.

You've missed it. You're watching the wrong hand.

Why did Carville come out yesterday and admit that not only can Obama win, he will win in November?

There have been other statements that surrogates have made recently that sounded to me like they were softening her landing.

Tena,

I haven't missed anything. I saw Carville. And cheered.

And I hope you're right. I *do* believe that her campaign is fraying. But that's not enough. We need Hillary herself (and Bill!) to admit defeat.

And I just don't see them gearing up for that.

Yesterday, McAuliffe switched horses again--said it's the DELEGATES--not the popular vote, that count.

And I wondered, what's that about?

Today I hear all of this talk about the uncommitted delegates in Michigan legally having to stay uncommitted until the convention.

And all of this talk about how the exceptions made for Iowa, NH, NV, and SC, were improper, so like MI and FL, they have to have their delegates cut, too (admittedly that wasn't from the Clinton camp, but Ickes is on the RBC and supposedly a rules expert. He's already said that the legal memo was wrong).

Mark me down as one of those people that believe that Hillary WANTS a reasonable offer of less than 100% of the delegates to be made.

That way she can call it an outrage and use it as grounds to keep fighting.

I hope I'm wrong.

'Cept I'm not.

Public opinion and Party leadership mean nothing to Clinton. Otherwise, she would be helping the Democrats win in November. As far as Clinton is concerned, she and Bill are the Party.

I hope the Democratic leadership pull together to stop Clinton because she is full steam ahead to the convention. It really doesn't matter if Obama gets the needed delegates to claim the nomination. Clinton will find an excuse to stay in it all the way to Denver.

I love how Senator Obama's supporters have been insulting Senator Clinton and her supporters all this time and now expect us to "unite" as Democrats.

I doubt that anyone much cares, but here are my reasons why I am considering splitting my ticket for the first time in my life rather than install a man with only two years of national elective experience in the presidency.

The Supreme Court would be a dealbreaker for me as far as McCain goes. However, it looks like the Democrats are going to have a rather healthy majority in the Senate. Consequently, if a president McCain appoints justices that would overturn Roe/Casey and are "strict constructionists" we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Iraq: I'm sorry, but I think that a President Obama isn't going to get us out of Iraq in the next four years. His campaign has been hinting at this for months. As soon as the generals tell him that the place is still an unstable powderkeg, your going to start hearing that the campaign timeline simply isn't realistic. Consequently, Iraq as an issue between Senator Obama and McCain is a wash for me.

Lastly, making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. Again, the Democrats will be in the majority in Congress. If the Bush Tax Cuts are made permanent under a President McCain, we Democrats have no one to blame but ourselves.

These are the three potential deal-breakers that would prevent me from splitting my ticket. As it is, I'm starting to wonder if they are really deal-breakers at all.

If Hillary does not get the nomination she should run as an Independent. That would be REAL CHANGE and she would win.

Pelosi's leadership on this is as good as her leadership on impeachment and Iraq. Further, the problem has been not that the campaign is running long but that the tactics used by Obama have been a strategic disaster for the party-- once voters catch on to how he maninpulates phony charges and his unwillingness from the outset to let Michigan voters have their say -- many who share far more policy preferences with Obama and McCain will vote for McCain because Obama has such a bad character -- powerhungry, deceitful, unkind, angry -- in short just like the men he chose for mentors. Hillary will do her best to retrieve the situation for the Democrats but many of her supporters decided months ago that they will never vote for Obama.

If Pelosi wants to win in November she better hope that the delegates take a good look at how Obama opertes and switch to Hillary.

A lot of men thought that the women didn't mean the feminist revolution. A lot of women can now compete for slots in college from which they were completely cut out prior to that revolution.
So I think some men are in for a shock again: NNO means NO.

Two things,

While I can't deny that there hasn't been (bitter and destructive) acrimony on both sides, I cannot help but find it galling that the same people who say that Senator Clinton is a liar and a racist (and I suppose that we also must be if we continue to support her despite the fact that she is a liar and a racist) now ask us to put this aside and support their candidate. They simply have no moral authority to do so. If this had remained a civil discussion (and I don't place any blame for the fact that it hasn't on one side or another), then it would be much easier to unite around a candidate.

Second, because the Democrats are likely to retain control and even increase their majorities in Congress this year, a President McCain is not going to destroy civilization as we know it (as some would have us beleive). There will be a real check (if the Democrats in Congress have any spine) on his authority.

My rational basis for supporting Senator Clinton was that she had a better skill set for the presidency. Senator Obama, in my opinion, does not. It just boggles my mind that we are seriously considering turning the presidency over to this man. His resume is ridiculously thin for the job. Thus, I am left with the delimma of finding Senator McCain the better candidate as far as experience for the job goes. Unfortunately, he belongs to the wrong party. So I ask myself, what prevents me from voting for him? I come up with three answers. I analyse whether or not those three areas of disagreement are so great or so implacable as to prevent me from voting for Senator McCain. I find that they may not be. Am I angry? Yes. Am I being irrational? I don't think so