I can't believe the HRC people are doing this. It's completely offensive to Obama. He's free to pick whoever he likes, and they should be saying so clearly and without equivocation. Even Hillary supporters should see that this tactic isn't very fair to the nominee. She lost. She doesn't get to call the shots. There are many qualified people out there for his VP choice. She's now the one dividing the party by suggesting that if he doesn't pick her, the party won't be unified. That's not exactly supporting the nominee.

It seems to me that any softening Obama might have been undergoing to her case before this will be wiped away now. How dare she threaten him? Grrr.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:35 AM in response to Hillary's Top Fundraising Official Says There's "Risk" Of Obama Loss If She Isn't Invited To Be Veep

How come no one is talking about all of the potential voters who stayed home because they were told that the primary wasn't going to count for anything?

Posted at May 22, 2008 12:34 PM in response to Obama Suggests Half-Sized Florida Delegation As Compromise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

After watching this, someone explain to me how Hillary Clinton is not a hypocrite!

Posted at May 22, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Hillary's Distorting the TRUTH Once AGAIN -- She was FOR Stripping Delegates Before being Against It

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Case closed.

Posted at May 22, 2008 12:01 PM in response to Raise your hand if you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would still advocate seating Michigan delegates if she had not "won" the state

Why, specifically, did he lose your trust?

Posted at May 22, 2008 10:58 AM in response to That's it. F**k it.

Why would I need to find a way to figure out what calculus the superdelegates are using, and then how to counter it? The superdels are going 5-1 for Obama already. They can do math.

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:48 AM in response to Raise your hand if you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would still advocate seating Michigan delegates if she had not "won" the state

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period.

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:39 AM in response to Raise your hand if you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would still advocate seating Michigan delegates if she had not "won" the state

First of all, it's unfortunate that a Clinton supporter's defense of their candidate has been reduced to, "yeah, what she's doing is bad, but Obama would do the same thing."

Frankly, I'm not so sure that Obama would be doing "the same thing" if he was in her position. He actually was in her position for many months, before Iowa when people actually starting voting, and the polls had him consistently down 20 points nationally (and on a state by state basis as well). Clinton was often outperforming him in debates, and was being treated by the mainstream media as the inevitable nominee.

During this time, I never once heard Obama cry racism in the way that Clinton is conveniently crying sexism now (I didn't hear her crying sexism when she was ahead, either). I've followed his campaign closely, and since I was a college student in Chicago between 2000 and 2004, I've been aware of him long before he took the national stage. Here's the thing that's hard to refute: the man has principles, and integrity. When he was down, he didn't go for Clinton's knees. Meanwhile, when she was down, she took a sledgehammer to his (campaign staffers publicly bringing up drug use, advocating that his wins were meaningless, writing him off as another Jesse Jackson, saying McCain would be a better Commander in Chief). I didn't hear him doing any of those things when he was 20 points behind.

I think people have become so cynical about politicians that they have trouble wrapping their brains around the idea that a candidate wouldn't try to win at whatever cost. Clinton is the ultimate political animal; we expect it from her. But Obama is playing a different game, and I think that really frustrates her. In her acceptance speeches these days, she keeps trying to get him to take the bait by throwing all of these fight analogies at him, all of these veiled taunts at his credibility. And he has done a good job of taking a deep breath, pausing, and then saying something like what he said in Iowa the other night: she has been a formidable, incredibly impressive candidate, her candidacy and service to the country has shattered ceilings and made the world a better place for my daughters to grow up in. Don't we want someone who's going to take the high road?

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:34 AM in response to Raise your hand if you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would still advocate seating Michigan delegates if she had not "won" the state

Actually, every single democratic candidate still in the race at the time of the Michigan primary (including Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Obama), took their name off of the Michigan ballot except for Clinton and Chris Dodd.

Hillary Clinton, when asked why she was (rather suspiciously) leaving her name on the ballot when most other candidates were abiding by the rules set by the DNC, said (I'm paraphrasing, but it's almost exact): "The results are not going to count for anything, so it's just a technicality that my name is on the ballot."

The fact that she is now claiming a popular vote lead by including votes from Michigan (without allowing Obama any leeway to claim some if not all of the uncommitted vote, which incidentally didn't come in too far behind Clinton), is completely disingenuous. I am a woman who would love to see a woman in the white house. That said, I don't want a woman in the white house who has repeatedly shown herself alarmingly willing to bend the rules/change the meaning of victory/disassociate her campaign from those who chose to support another candidate (see: blacks, college graduates, people under 30).

To sum up: Obama was not the only one who took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Every single other candidate did so as well, except for Clinton and Dodd. At the time, Clinton explained that this was a formality.

It is odd to me that she now has the gall to explain her position regarding Florida and Michigan by arguing that the nomination process would be a farce if the nominee was picked by only 48 states. Firstly, I believe it was Terry McAuliffe who said in January that this race is essentially "a 27-state contest" (she thought the race would be over by February 5). Secondly, her calculation that she is ahead in the popular vote has been made by, literally, excluding from the tally four states that voted via caucuses and thereby didn't precisely record a popular vote. Essentially, she has decided that it's acceptable to disavow states that haven't supported her, or that don't support her political calculations.

Do we want a president who is so willing to bend facts to fit her own self-serving perspective on the world? Doesn't this sound dangerously familiar? Obama has consistently showed respect to all 50 states, which is why he's ahead right now. Rather than simply planning for the big states (New York, California, etc), he set up massive organizations in all the little states in between - and they rewarded him with victories.

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:33 AM in response to If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?

very clear: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegatecalculator/index.html

Posted at May 6, 2008 9:16 AM in response to Today's Primaries Could Change State Of The Race