Please accept the thanks of a grateful community for listening to these conference calls. Maybe after June 3, you won't need to.

I just have to say that this:

Indeed, he repeatedly maintained that she would still be ahead in the popular vote at the end of the contest and predicted flatly that she would be behind by less than 100 delegates at the end of the voting

sounds very much like The Math of Karl Rove's in 2006. And I am particularly taken with "she would still be ahead in the popular vote" part. Still? She's not even ahead, now. I hate to be flippant, but I want some of what Harold appears to be on.

What a fighter but you chose the kool aid.

Lets see him unite the party to prove his bs.

We know he will not lead.

I just want to underscore my gratitude," she concluded. "This is bigger than me...it's about standing firm [behind] the values we share.

Other than the "black guy can't win" value, what shared value of Hillary's campaign isn't covered by an Obama nomination? I'd say Hillary's ego, but she said "bigger than me" so she purportedly isn't talking about that. If it's about "a woman in the white house no matter what," I'd only have to say that it might be a value, but one that perhaps isn't quite as important as the bigger picture.

I'm left to conclude she's full of BS and it isn't "bigger than her," it's just her. It's about her. And scary black men.

She says at the end that "this is bigger than me"; but it's not. The only reason that she is still in the race is because she wants to win, not for some idealogical difference with Obama or some issue that she is trying to champion; just her own desire and ambition.

This is truly creepy.

The delusional Hillary "I Rejoice In My Racist Supporters" Clinton. Ickes sounds even worse.

I had no idea that "Broad Coalition" equaled "Small Minded Racists Who Plan To Help the Republicans When I Lose the Nomination."

She's happy?

War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/09/war-with-iran-might-be-closer-than-you-think/

I bet she is...

I will never, I repeat never support this neocon.

Just be ready for next week, when she wins West Virginia and starts crowing about how well she polled among Klansmen.

That and the Weinstein Brothers threatening to break people's arms should guarantee at least another week of this train wreck.

"Despite what some in the media are saying, this race is not over,"

How so?

Anyone know-- what's Hillary Clinton spent more time this week doing? Campaigning in West Virginia? Or trying to convince superdelegates not to bolt? From the news this week I could barely tell if Sen. Clinton had even been to WV this week, it kinda sounded like she sent Bill and then spent Friday in Kentucky. If you find yourself spending more time trying to convince people the campaign's not over than you do actually campaigning... that doesn't sound very functionally different from the campaign actually being over to me.

Hillary: "Stay calm, no need to panic. My ship is not sinking. I placed an order for that big block of ice."

"This is bigger than me...it's about standing firm [behind] the values we share."

I have to wonder to whom the "we" refers to in the above sentence? And what values in particular she's referring to?

I personally value fair play and unity very highly. I'm guessing I'm not included in that "we".

Either me in '08 or me again in '12 that's her strategy. She doesn't give a rat's ass about party unity.

You're kidding me right?

1. This is NOT Soviet Russia. The expectation that Hillary would get 300k votes from Michigan and Obama gets zero is a calculation bereft of logic.

2. The fact that there are multiple ways to count the "popular vote" means that it is not a real metric of anything. If this competition was solely about the popular vote, then the candidates should have just camped out in California. I love it how Hillary people talk about 50 states getting their say, but their metric of choice expressly devalues all but a handful of states.

3. I think it is incumbent on you, the Hillary supporter, to pull your head out of your ass and look around. You are creating all of these tests that Obama and we his supporters must meet in order to somehow earn your support. Well, I think you have it absolutely backwards.

Otto....

This is going to be a long post.

Sorry if anything I ever said offended you. I made the assumption that you were the same kind of troll as gotalife who would vote for McCain to spite his own liberal/progressive agenda.

I have said all along we have to vote for the Democratic nominee to save the Supreme Court. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Mccain Appointment #1 and Mccain Appointment #2 would be a catastrophic situation for our country. I feel like every liberal ideal would be destroyed....with no hope for correction in our lifetimes.

I am coming around to a Clinton VP spot... but i need some convincing...and I'd like to enage some discussion with you. Telling me you'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee is my message that YOU are the Hillary supporter that I can ask these questions. Please know I am asking these questions merely to alleviate some of my fears.

1. I can see how a Hillary Clinton VP position would reconcile a lot of Dem women voters. I think that's awesome. My concern is an African American and a woman on the same ticket might be too much history for some moderate male white voters. Thoughts?

2. I see where Hillary can bring some voters into the fold. My concern is that Obama loses certain voters too... independents, anti-establishment voters, moderate Republicans. IS it an even trade? Many many many of Clinton's pro choice women voters will come to his side anyway... because a McCain presidency literally means the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Does she help enough in PN and OH and FL to counter possible losses of support in CO and other western states? I just wonder.

3. White working class voters. I get their significance. But my fear is there is a level of racism amongst a lot of these rural voters in PN, WV, TN, AR, KY. And even putting Clinton on the ticket isn't going to resolve that. My heart tells me that these voters will never cast a ballot for an African Aamerican President... and Clinton will not be able to bring those voters into the fold. Racism is cultural and taught...I am not pointing fingers, but I think we can all agree that these kind of voters exist. (Although I don't think racism is a good reason to pass over Obama for the nomination when he has won every meason of victory)

4. I have to confess I am skeptical about Hillary's commitment to seeing Obama elected President. It seems to me that him losing in 2008 sets her up for 2012....and she doesn't have to wait until 2016. I desperately want a VP candidate for Obama who will fight tooth and nail for his victory... not just a token effort. I hope you understnd I don't mean that as insulting. I understand the idea of working for your own ambitions...I don't blame her. But i hope you can appreciate the passion I feel for Obama's candidacy. I want his VP to go balls to the wall for him to win.

5. How on earth do we get past Clinton's statement about Obama's CIC credibility. The statement is more than Bush's voodoo economics statement. Let me explain. Bush was ripping on a particular policy plan of Reagan's. He was not attacking Reagan's credibility as a candidate. It just seems like it's too much to get past and too much ammunition for Republicans. It makes me nervous in my tummy.

6. I think there would be something really powerful about an Obama/Clinton ticket and an Obama Presidency with Hillary working on aspects of policy. I fear Bill Clinton. This needs to be Obama's Presidency, not a return to the old guard. Can Hillary (a powerful Alpha-Dog leader) serve in a submissive role in the Presidency? Obama doesn't need a Cheney. And what do we do with Bill? My impression this election is he has really crossed the line on many occassions. He forgot his role as a former President and an elder statesman of the party. And I think Hillary nwould have looked more Presidential all along if Bill had remained Presidential in his own right...a bit more aloof, guarded, neutral, interested but distant. Three cooks is a lot in the kitchen. Can Bill take a back seat to the back seat? It makes me nervous.

7. Does Clinton on the ticket fire up the Republicans? Do they come out in droves against the Democrats? I worry, although I am not sure that fear is a reality.

8. Do you think Clinton has to scale back the negative rhetoric at this point? The more she pushes at this point, the less likely healing can take place. I am really worried.

Ok so here is where I am.... I feel in my heart it has to be Clinton, Rendell, or Strickland. Richardson isn't dynamic enough. Webb doesn't have a lot of expereince. Casey is too pro life. I don't think another woman placates Clinton's supporters (it'll read like pandering... "We dont want THAT woman... but LOOKY! We'll give you THIS woman!). Biden is a bit dull.

Ultimately Clinton is qualified for VP. I won't deny it. And I challenge every Obama supporter to admit her qualifications. But we have to resolve a lot of issues if it is going to happen.

Otto, I appreictae you addressing these things and helping me embrace a possible Obama/Clinton ticket. If we all start communicating we can heal the riff in the party and save the Supreme Court. I can't stress enough it's THE SUPREME COURT. Even if Obama is a disasterous president along the lines of Carter or Bush...he will AT LEAST protect the Supreme Court. We're not talking about the next 4 years. We are talking about the next 40 years. That is why I would vote for Clinton for President if need be (even thought at this point I would feel she had stolen the nomination)

BTW. If I were President and Hillary was my VP... i would immediately put her in charge of Health Care and let her finish the job she started in 1993. (which was unfairly blocked by Republicans). And what about Bill as the UN ambassador? Is that position lofty enough for him? It seems like he would be awesome at that. he could travel the world.... working the crowds and helping to shape world policy.

Curious... "I just want to underscore my gratitude," she concluded. "This is bigger than me...it's about standing firm the values we share."

Just what are those values that are different from the values Obama & his supporters hold? Freedom? Choice? Religious tolerance? Separation of church & state? Doing what's best for the country as a whole over what's best for certain individuals? Values of education, health care, equal opportunity, equal rights, civil rights, voting rights, loyalty, friendship, generosity, defense of the nation?

Hmmm... there's only one thing I can think of, and that has to do with the value of "Clinton winning". Okay... two. Add truthfulness to that.

Either she wasn't overly successful in making her point, or the VI super-delegates weren't on the call. Obama picked up 2 VI supers, one of which switched from HRC. Obama also picked up one add-on in UT. Obama total for the day +3 HRC -1 for a swing of 4 delegates.

If John McCain had dropped the "hard working people, white people" line this week, it would have cost him his political career.

But Hillary drops it and, hell, were talking VP material!

And unlike McCain, Hillary is not even going to be her party's nominee... yet she's permitted to continue shuffling around the country spewing her race-baiting sewage while the party whistles and looks the other way.

What a grotesque, bizarre party this has become.

The Hillary VP stuff is being floated by the desperate and the not-too-deep thinkers.

Hillary herself negated the possibility of it with her commander in chief threshold comment.

It can't be taken back, and she would be asked continually why she would agree to run on the ticket of someone she had said was unqualified. Obama would be continually asked why he would run with someone who considers him unqualified. It would undercut the credibility of both candidates on the ticket.

Finis, kaput. It won't happen.

Clinton-Thurmond 2012: "white, like us."

blah blah blah

I want to illustrate my earlier comment regarding TPM's and TPM-EC's coverage of Senator Clinton.

Undoubtedly, Hillary is our Huckabee, and Obama is our nominee. Yet, as we speak, the TPM home page's main headline is about Hillary's activities (alongside her picture of course):

"Hillary In Private Call With Super-Dels: 'I Know This Is Not Easy'".

In addition, just below this headline, TPM has two bullet points, one of which is about Hillary's activities:

"Clinton Camp Sends 'Electability' PowerPoint To House Dems".

Then, also on the TPM home page, four of nine "TPM Campaign Wire" headlines are about Clinton's statements and activities while only two are about Obama's statements and activities.

In the videos on the home page, TPM has two videos of Clinton surrogates, two videos about McCain and none from the Obama campaign or about his activities or statements.

The current lineup on their home page is indicative of TPM's coverage throughout this primary campaign. TPM covers Hillary's statements and activities, and those of her surrogates, at a rate of about 3-to-1 over coverage of Obama's statements and activities (unless Rev. Wright's in the news).

Such ongoing and dominant coverage of Hillary Clinton on this site, especially after last Tuesday, is wholly unjustified. My God...it's all Hillary, all the time. Why not continue to cover Ron Paul? He's still running. What about Bob Barr and Ralph Nader? Let's post their statements and activities ad nauseam on the front page.

Josh and Greg...I love you guys, but IT'S OVER! Please...I'm begging...move on. She's not newsworthy anymore.

What's "not easy" is understanding why Hillary is still working this.

Tragic, in a way.

My mind keeps returning to the Hillary as Big Brother - Obama as apple ad from a year ago.

I sent my comment three times because I felt sure the stupid people wouldn't understand it enough the first two.

Indeed, [Ickes] repeatedly maintained that she would still be ahead in the popular vote at the end of the contest, Florida and Michigan included, and predicted flatly that she would be behind by less than 100 delegates at the end of the voting.

The current delegate gap is somewhere between 155 and 170. To get it below 100, Clinton would need to gain a net of 55-70 from here on in. The only plausible way I could see the gap getting below 100 is if:
1. Clinton gains a net 20 delegates from the remaining contests.
2. Michigan and Florida are seated "as-is", with a net gain of about 50 delegates for Clinton.
3. Clinton gains at least half of the undeclared superdelegates, even though Obama has been getting many more such endorsements since Super Tuesday.

Now that is a fairy-tale scenario. But the point isn't that this, or any other claim, be taken truly seriously, it's to keep making assertions, no matter how inane, to make it appear that the race isn't mathematically over.

Clinton is fighting hard to retain her superdelegates, many of whom must now fear that her campaign is starting to jeopardize Democratic prospects this fall. I don't blame her camp for trying this. But I don't buy it, either.

Senator Obama won 5 SDs today, including the 2 from Virginia Island who previously backed Clinton, meanwhile Senator Clinton got one (an add-on from MA)

This is another good day for Senator Obama...

Senator Obama won 5 SDs today, including the 2 from Virginia Island who previously backed Clinton, meanwhile Senator Clinton got one (an add-on from MA)

This is another good day for Senator Obama...

She's delusional. Someone needs to save her from herself. She has become pathetic.

To equate these folk with West Virginia Hillbillies is to denigrate hilbillies.

HC is ahead in WV and Kentucky by huge margins. If these figures hold true, how many delegates and what number of actual votes is she likely to win? Could any of these wins change the tide?

Somebody needs to call her at 3:00am and explain that it's all over . . .

"HILLARY! YOU LOST! GO HOME TO CHICAGO, SCRANTON, ARKANSAS, CHAPPAQUA, WASHINGTON, NEW YORK CITY, THE WALMART BOARD, OR WHEREVER YOU WANT...EXCEPT THE WHITE HOUSE! FOLD THE BIG TENT! FORGET THE CROWN ROYAL! PUT AWAY THE GUNS! THERE'S NO SNIPER FIRE! OBAMA'S NOT A MUSLIM - AS FAR AS WE KNOW! YOU CAN DESECRATE THE FLAG! YOU CAN VOTE FOR THE WAR! YOU CAN DROP THE LANGUAGE OF GEORGE WALLACE! YOU DON'T HAVE TO OBLITERATE IRAN! TELL BILL TO GET BACK ON THE SPEAKER CIRCUIT TO REPAY YOURSELF! GO AWAY! LEAVE US ALONE! WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO CONDUCT! GO AWAAAAAY! JUST GO AWAY! NOW!"

Lets see, the Dems won the majority and has not done much.

They are funding Iraq and voting for corporate interests.

The goal of the progressive movement was to elect better Dems that vote for the people. A populist movement, if you will.

There are many spineless Dems that need purged from office, so I will not blindly worship any politician. They have earn my vote and will never trust any of them.

Lets see if Obama can actually lead and back up his kool aid before I decide.

This is a much better video of Hillary than that Sunset Boulevard finale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

"Standing firm behind the values we share."

I honestly have no idea what she's talking about. Nor do I have any idea why these people are standing firm with her. It's over. We need to move on. Why are we indulging her so?

Totally OT, but interesting article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Obama will be the nominee.

Can we quit talking about Hillary?

Saturday's superdelegate tally:

Obama -5

Clinton- 0.

The woman is delusional and her husband has become rabid. They both need to exit this race NOW.

The nation is in shock after the realization that it is really over. After more than a year of this ad nauseum democratic primary, especially the last 3 months or so, it will take us some time to realized hillary may really go away...say good night hillary...exit stage left hillary ...or is it stage right...stage white...don't come black...I mean back...your black , er back, is against the wall, you can't always be white. just go now.

who doesn't feel angry when their candidate is demonized and bludgeoned to a pulp?

Exactly. But what's most galling is the people with the heads up their asses not realizing that both camps are doing it to each other.

I'm fucking sick of this victim complex/denial bullshit coming from Hillary's supporters, when the venom from that side has been just as bad, if not worse than that spewing forth from Obama's more juvenile supporters.

Since last Tuesday, I have seen scores of posts from Clinton supporters saying that they could not countenance voting for Obama because Obama's supporters have been so mean. That's beyond infantile reasoning.

For all of the condescending ("there, there, you just don't know any better") tropes from Clinton's camp thrown at Obama supporters over the past 6+ months, I still had every intention of voting for her if she won the nomination. Yes, she has some incredibly stupid and arrogant (a lethal combination to be sure) supporters, but that doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on her.
The part that's making it difficult is the race baiting going on right now, directly from the Candidate, which tells me a lot about what kind of president she'd be, in the face of adversity. That gives me pause and anxiety.

, which is reckless and stupid.

If "popular vote" were a metric of any value no state would hold a caucus.

There is one measure for determining the nominee - delegates. Everything else whether it be "big states", "popular vote", "middle class white vote", etc, is simply the political equivalent of tracking rushing yards, passing yards, yards per play, etc in a football game of which your team was on the low end of the final score. Points on the board is all that counts in football; delegates in the Dem Nominee race. All else is fodder for chatter over a beer.

Question: Why this remains the headline on the front page for two days now?

Is this a game changer?

Coz no one seems to care about a Hillary conference call but tpm.

The black block was equally devided between both candidates until South Carolina, when we all know what happened. The Clintons did so much for civil rights, when "blacks" were willing to stay in their place, but they showed their true color when a black candidate dared to believe America could support him. Get off the Clinton band wagon!

oh brother, how ridiculous. Michelle has led about as codled an existence as is humanly possible in this life. As a beneficiary of affirmative action, she gets a free ride to Princeton and HLS. As un undergraduate, she writes her thesis on the predictable and academically worthless topic, "Princeton Educated Blacks," as opposed to something substantive or that would require her to reach far beyond her own bubble existence. And doubtlessly at Princeton and HLS she was doted upon for being "special," i.e. a black person who can write and speak passable English. She gets a legal education at Harvard, in order to become the Director of External Affairs for a hospital, essentially a flack-PR job. And despite being showered with expensive education, which she has put to negligible use, she thinks the US (of the KKK of A!) has been insufficiently generous to her.

well, screw Michelle.

on another topic, screw Tibet too. Tibet is a sovereign Chinese affair, and no business of busybodies like you fools.