I'm happy. It makes me wonder if the era of Rovian politics is coming to an end. All the negative stuff Obama had thrown at him in the last few weeks and he still came out on top.

I also liked both of their speeches last night. His was moving, hers was gracious and positive.

I felt kind of bad for Hilary last night, during her post-primary speech. She knew she was grasping at straws when she referred to her 1.6% victory in Indiana as "the tiebreaker" and claimed an overall victory for the night, despite that margin representing a difference of two delegates at the most, but she had to overestimate the significance of the win to her audience and the country at large anyway for the number of reasons she didn't drop out before making it this far.

As for what those reasons are, I really can't say. Clearly they go beyond her desire to win the nomination, though. Maybe she's banking on using the influence and grassroots support she's gained from her powerful run as a springboard, much in the same way Howard Dean did. Maybe it's just about getting enough campaign contributions to pay back the millions of dollars she loaned to her own campaign.

But in any case, I expect her to stay on until her next expected loss, which won't be for a while. In the meantime, though, I imagine we'll see the same change in tone we saw from the Republican candidates who ran against McCain during their own final days. She'll maintain her visibility, but step back from the negative campaigning in addition to encouraging solidarity in the Democratic party.

Tonight's victory in Indiana was close, and a margin that narrow means just one thing: every single thing you did to help us win in Indiana helped make the difference.

Every call you made, every friend you spoke to about our campaign, every dollar you contributed made tonight's victory possible. And I couldn't be more thankful for your hard work.

Every time we've celebrated a victory, we've celebrated it together. And tonight is no exception. This victory is your victory, this campaign is your campaign, and your support has been the difference between winning and losing.

Thank you so much for making this campaign possible. Let's keep making history together.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Oddly enough, no pleas for donations from the last Clinton e-mail. Coupled with her cancellation of every media appearance she was scheduled to make today, it seems like she's laying low for the time being, perhaps until the media stops talking about her loss here and starts talking about the next vote.

In the beginning I supported Hillary becasue I thought Obama didn't have many concrete ideas or plans-- just a lot of rhetoric. This changed when I watched their interviews on the Sunday morning news programs. Hillary sounded dangerously like Bush: pretending to be a woman of the people (I mean, let's get real, she went to Yale Law), saying she's not going to trust "elitist" economists more than blue collar workers, etc. Bush has been strutting like a populist for years and his refusal to listen to professionals voicing reasonable concerns about his policies have gotten us into heaps and heaps of trouble, none the least in Iraq. I'm done with Hillary. It's a shame because when she started her campaign she was all about listening and conversation (her tag line was something like "join the conversation" right?) Now sh won't listen to anyone. I don't want another bull headed president who will do anything to be right. We have suffered through enough of that over the last 8 years.

ummmm.....Obama LOST last night. I know the biased media has spun it as a victory, but for months he was projected to win NC. He actually stated that Indiana was going to be the tie-breaker. But of course not that he lost Indiana, they won't report that.

"Coupled with her cancellation of every media appearance she was scheduled to make today, it seems like she's laying low for the time being, perhaps until the media stops talking about her loss here and starts talking about the next vote."

There were no scheduled appearances.

dedf, a win that is predicted in advance is still a win. What matters isn't the narrative attached to a state, but final tally of the votes and how that affects a candidates odds of winning the entire contest.

That said, Clinton's odds have fallen further following her loss in NC and a win in Indiana that was actually much smaller than predicted (yes, she was predicted to win Indiana in the same way Obama was predicted to win NC). Whenever you fall short of predictions, your overall odds of winning go down, and at this point they're so far in the hole that there's simply no recovering.

Also, I'll take your word for it on Clinton not having been scheduled to make any appearances.

Robos is that Indiana was the tie breaker even stated by Obama...but you would never know it with the biased media.

It was a big win for Hillary last night.

Dedf, a term like "tiebreaker" is meaningless to the primary to the primary, even when a state is cited as the tiebreaker by the opposition.

Obama and Clinton weren't tied, after all.

"With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates."

Indiana was the tiebreaker in the context of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, but in regard to the run for the nomination as a whole it's meaningless. Hilary won by 1.6%, the definition of small and a difference that accounts for two delegates in total. Two is a drop in the bucket, and hasn't made a difference in the least.

I have completely had it with the way Clinton is conducting her campaign. Even apart from attempting to have the Florida/Michigan delegates seated, with I think is pretty unconscionable, it seems clear to me that more than any policy or group of constituents Clinton cares about one thing: Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, each candidate things they are the best for the job - otherwise they wouldn't be running. But continuing to pursue her candidacy at this point - which she must know is almost certain to fail, given the delegate count - means that she does not care if Obama, her fellow democrat, loses to McCain.

In fact, it seems that she may prefer that outcome. I don't want to believe that an intelligent person would so sacrifice their country for their own political benefit, but it seems that Clinton may be banking on how much damage she can do to Obama before getting out of the race - making him more likely to lose to McCain, making her more likely (in her estimation) to win the nomination in 2012. No matter the prolonging of the war in Iraq, no matter the effects on our civil liberties or Supreme Court appointments, no matter the continued decrepitude of our health care system.

Bottom line: she cannot win, she can only damage Obama - a man she claims to support. She needs to get out of the race.

Dedf- Yeah, yeah, and Hillary said that North Carolina was a "game-changer." How'd that work out?

Obama increased the delegate margin last night. Increased the popular vote margin. Hillary's "big win" in Indiana gave her a net increase of a blip. Congrats and all, but it's over. She's got no money, she's got no discernable chance to win enough delegates, and the superdels are about to break for Obama in droves.

Biased media? She was cl-hoh-hoh-hobbered in North Carolina, and barely squeaked out a win in Indiana after declaring victory early. *She. Can't. Win.* It's over.

well....as small as guam was, obama won by seven votes, yet all over the news it was a win! lol

Also, 3-4% of total voters in the Democratic primary in Indiana were pro-McCain Republicans voting for Hilary.

That means that people who plan to vote Democrat in November support Obama more than Clinton in that state, and that Obama would have actually won if the Republican nomination was still in contention.

Not that it matters, in the end. Just as a 1.6% victory for Clinton doesn't matter, a 2% or more victory for Obama would have been similarly meaningless, at least in terms of numbers.

but it does matter to the media...if obama had won Indiana it would have been considered a huge victory....unfortunatly when it comes to Hillary it is ignored or downplayed.

I really, really, really wanted to support Hillary Clinton. I did. I wanted to be able to get behind a woman candidate for POTUS. You've no idea how much I wanted it. Edwards got my primary vote (in SC), and Obama was my second. The further she gets into the campaign, the less Clinton appeals to me. I agree with whomever said she was seeming more and more like Bush. Hell, I said a long time ago that she was my favorite Republican, but I never expected her to go all-out Republican on me. I am just not sure she can squeak out the numbers she needs to win now, and I think it's time for her to bow out and give Obama a better chance against McCain (it seems like an easy victory, but so did W in '04). At this point, any attempt by either Clinton or Obama to damage the other's reputation is simply fodder for the McCain campaign.

I'm feeling pretty happy right now, honestly, as an Obama supporter. He won NC by ~14% when it looked like it was going to be 5-10%.

Indiana would have been nice, but losing by 2% when recent polls suggested a 6-10% loss isn't so bad. (And not that anyone in the media will care, but I have to wonder if Rush Limbaugh didn't convince at least 20,000 Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton, thus giving her the win.)

So what? Hillary went to Yale. Obama went to Harvard. Bushes Sr. and Jr., Howard Dean and John Kerry went to Yale. Dukakis went to Harvard. Even Ralph Nader went to Harvard AND Princeton. How anyone can believe that any of these or any candidate (with the possible exception of Kucinich) is actually in touch with the people? Why are people consistently surprised and frustrated that their candidate isn't a more "common" person, in touch with the values and beliefs of Americans? Why is it any more egregious that Hillary plays the populist than Obama and Michelle's populism? And why oh why are we ever even fooled by it in the first place?

I turned off the election coverage on my TV a long time ago. Not that I am apathetic, but because I am so damned tired of the in-party fighting. Obama is a feminist. Clinton is a feminist. Their views differ on few things. Can't we just get this shit over with so we can start taking care of Mc[Cane]? What bothers me even more are the people who say that if either Democratic candidate does not win, they're voting for McCain. Jesus Christ, if I had hair, I'd be pulling them out.

I turned off the election coverage on my TV a long time ago. Not that I am apathetic, but because I am so damned tired of the in-party fighting. Obama is a feminist. Clinton is a feminist. Their views differ on few things. Can't we just get this shit over with so we can start taking care of Mc[Cane]? What bothers me even more are the people who say that if either Democratic candidate does not win, they're voting for McCain. Jesus Christ, if I had hair, I'd be pulling them out.

Obama is NOT a feminist. He has addressed, head-on, exactly ZERO issues that women face: poverty. job discrimination. rape. abuse. the slow, deliberate erasure of our reproductive rights. etc.

There were no scheduled appearances.

So NBC News was lying, then?

I'm incredibly disappointed.

This will be the first presidential election I'm able to vote in and with the non-stop media coverage of the democratic candidates I'm all ready sick to death of both of them. (Which I obviously the point.) While both Clinton and Obama will bring some much needed damage control and help us move a little to the left (Im wanting a big fucking leap!) or at least a bit closer to center, Im not thrilled about either one.

Truth be told I like Congressmen Kucinich a lot, but he doesn't have a the loud presence thats needed to win the vote. And where the hell did Gore go? It's a general consensus among my friends and I that if he were to jump in the race he could easily steal a good portion of youth vote with all the environmental work he's done. And also I cant help but keep a piece of my liberal heart reserved for Nadar. That's right! I admit it! Now, Im not saying he should try running... again... because ultimately he does steal votes that would otherwise go toward defeating the Republican party, but Im fond of the old fart. I would like to see a third party introduced, cause this old coin is getting awefuly rusty.

TinFoil, and what, exactly, in terms of hardcore feminist issues, has Clinton advocated? I am not adcovating for neither here, but I know this much: Obama is one of the few senators who have supported the REAL Act (Responsible Education About Life) that covers comprehensive sexual education, and Clinton has not. For me, comprehensive sex ed is a feminist issue.

When was the last time Clinton spoke about rape?

Michelle was telling young women NOT to go into the corporate world.

TinFoil: With a quick visit to Obama's website, you will find his proposals for the following: expanding hate crimes legislation; fighting job discrimination through increased enforcement by the Department of Justice, as well as making it easier for women and minorities to raise pay discrimination suits; increasing the minimum wage; providing universal early childcare; expanding the family and medical leave act; and expanding flexible work arrangements. He has also received a 100% pro choice rating from NARAL for the last three years. I could go on, but it's really not that hard to just go to the candidates' websites and read their proposals.

I watched the election coverage last night and as an Obama supporter I was excited to see him cut Hilary's leads. That said, if Hilary was the nominee I would definitely vote for her although I do not like her as much as Obama.

I am an Indiana resident so while itw as exciting to actually matter for one :) (cause let's face it, come november my vote for a democrat will not really matter) i'm still sad to see how this has played out. Obama won all the areas that generally go democrat in November while Clinton won the republican ones...which will most likely go to Mccain in november.

Also, just a side note: I live in Lake County and it's pretty common for people to register as democrats and then vote republican when it comes down to the presidential election.

Obama is NOT a feminist. He has addressed, head-on, exactly ZERO issues that women face: poverty. job discrimination. rape. abuse. the slow, deliberate erasure of our reproductive rights. etc.

I'm not sure why people say these things.

Poverty: As long ago as last summer, Obama released a specific and comprehensive $6billion plan to combat poverty. The National Review has a really great overview of it. I'd suggest checking it out.

Job discrimination: He JUST VOTED in favor of the Ledbetter discrimination act 2 weeks ago! This should still be fresh in everyone's mind.

Rape: He cosponsored Dru's Law which increases monitoring of rapists.

Abuse: He also cosponsored the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN act which provides funding to non-profits that specifically help women seeking escape from domestic violence situations as well as orgs that help combat sexual assault.

Reproductive rights: Planned Parenthood has given him a 100% voting record, and he's quoted as saying: "A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."

tinfoil I agree with you that Obama is not a feminist.

*And when I say the National Review has a great article, I mean simply that they give a decent overview of the plan. And then they say they hate it. And when the National Review hates something, it's usually good by me.

I like this article:
mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001?f=h_column#comments_bottom_nav

You know what bothers me the most? It's all the people telling Hilary to drop out for the good of the Democratic cause.

First, what kind of person would she be to so easily compromise her intentions for the presidency? You just can't do that.

Secondly, this makes me think of all the other times a woman is asked to put aside her ambitions for the good of something else. On an individual level, we put aside our careers for the welfare of our families; in a larger level, women's rights get put aside in the fight for civil rights.

I don't think it's necessary to narrow it down to 2 nominees at this point, I don't feel it weakens the democractic party (I mean WTF. There have been presidential races where we've had 3 contenders up until November, so why is it important now?)

I've also wondered if Clinton has to be that much better than Obama and McCain, the way so many of us have to out in the workforce, only in order to justify her right to be there?

Clinton started with an advantage over Obama, Lotus. Everyone supported her, nobody knew who he was, and it seemed like nothing could stop her. Obama's the one who had to work harder, first to get his name out there and earn the money to even compete and later to overcome the woman who once was the presumptive nominee.

That said, I agree that she shouldn't drop out before she's ready to do so. My only hope is that she'll refrain from negative campaigning from here on, a practice that undeniably DOES harm the Democratic party.

Where do people draw the conclusion that she is negative is obama is not? I see him as being more negative than her.

Can we just call the next election thread "Repetitive Dead-Ender Open Mic Night"?

Also, what's this about "elitist"? All of the presidential nominees in recent history had above-average socio-economic status and/or opportunities.

To me, "elitist" has less to do with your bank account and your diplomas, and more to do with where your concerns and values are.

I don't agree dedf, but I don't think the point is worth arguing because it doesn't matter if Obama is more negative than Clinton, at this point. She isn't going to be the nominee, barring extraordinary circumstances, and so public opinion of her will have no bearing on the Democratic Party's chances in November.

He most likely will be the nominee, meanwhile, and so negative campaigning against him from Hilary, who reaches voters McCain cannot and crafts the public image of Obama in a way McCain cannot, does stand to have a negative effect on the party's odds of winning.

That's why, regardless of whether or not she continues on, it would be to the benefit of the party if she changes her tactics a bit.

"You know what bothers me the most? It's all the people telling Hilary to drop out for the good of the Democratic cause...think of all the other times a woman is asked to put aside her ambitions"

I hear you, Lotus, and I think women are often asked to put themselves second. However, I totally disagree with your read on this situation. In elections, politicians are *often* asked to step down when the time comes. When it is obvious that the big fights are done and one candidate has lost, it does not compromise their integrity, character or their courage to step down. It is done historically, John Edwards saw the writing on the wall and stepped aside when it was obvious that he wasn't going to win. Clinton had a real shot at this, but the big fights are done now, and Obama has come out on top. As for McCain, Having 3 candidates late in the game always strengthens the third one who has suffered fewer recent public blows.

It is time for Clinton to step down, *endorse Obama*, and get on to the fight with McCain, because the presidency isn't in the bag yet, but I believe that the nomination really is.

I don't like any of the candidates for president this year. It seems every presidential election, the candidates get worse and worse. As of now, I cannot say who I support. I don't like McCain, Clinton or Obama.

So sad....

I really wanted Edwards to be on top...well, maybe in the next 4 years...sigh

Edwards should be Hillary's VP.

"When it is obvious that the big fights are done and one candidate has lost, it does not compromise their integrity, character or their courage to step down"

Give me a break! LOL! I will support her in taking it to convention.

I was really hoping Obama would take both, even though odds were against him in Indiana. Don't get me wrong, if Hillary got the nomination, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, but that's just not going to happen. The continuing negative campaigning is so destructive and causing so much divisiveness in each camp.

The rank and file...us...are so invested in their "one true candidate" that some are becoming blinded to the fact that either one of them would be a great improvement over what we have. We need to be able to set aside the negativity and throw our support behind EITHER candidate. It just kills me to read that there are people from both camps that say they will vote for McCain before voting for the opposing democrat candidate. It boggles my mind. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

So, one way or another, this needs to be sorted out so we can heal the divisions that seem to be getting wider.

Do you support giving the nomination to Hilary, even if she goes into the convention in second place?

Robos, I must not hang out with the same people as you, because I've known about Obama at least 3 years ago, and many associates of mine were talking at that time about wouldn't it be great if he ran for president.

I can't say that I feel I know the man, even now. This is why I can't support him over Hillary. And as for her being the presumptive nominee, I NEVER got that feeling, no way.

Lotus: In January, Clinton led Obama by 20% in the Gallup Poll. You can't tell me that isn't representative of a sizable advantage and more than enough for the average person to have predicted a win for Clinton.

Robo, you said no one knew Obama. That was the statement I took issue with. I said nothing else about the average person or Clinton's odds of winning.

That said, I never, ever believe a race is in the bag when it's 11 months from the finish line.

What finish line is 11 months away?

Robo, you said no one knew Obama. That was the statement I took issue with. I said nothing else about the average person or Clinton's odds of winning.

That said, I never, ever believe a race is in the bag when it's 11 months from the finish line.

I apologize for my hyperbole.

Firelili - when a Gallup poll numbers from January, when the election is in November = 11 months away.

duh, yeah, sorry. The timelines here are important which is why I asked. I mean, the timeline is why I think Clinton should step down now and endorse Obama. If they fight each other all the way to convention, there's only a few months to campaign against McCain.

Watching the election coverage last night, I was impressed by both candidates' speeches, and excited by the prospect of a woman and a black man changing what has been the status quo of electoral politics for both parties over the last several years. To me, it's been kind of exciting to see the two of them going head to head, because I think that they are both extremely smart politicians, and really challenge one another.

I'm sick of this... sick of all of it. I wanted Edwards. Just tell me who the Democratic candidate is and I will vote for that person, but until then I'm done.

I would have only voted for Ron Paul. It's a shame he faced a media neutering.

Mmmm, this is good, "getting it off our chests"...

Ya, truth be told, I am very, very sad about Tuesday night's results in IN and NC. This entire nomination should have been Hillary's from the get-go. The Democratic Party leaders should have rallied around Hillary from day one. Obama should have been her VP choice - then this election would have been in the bag and we wouldn't be sitting here panicking about John McCain.

But, no, there are no women at the top of the Democratic Party leadership (save the recent arrival of a once outspoken Nancy Pelosi) to back Hillary or her campaign. And, since Bill made the Dems look bad (why Republicans always come out smelling like roses is beyond me!), Dem leaders aren't too keen to see a return of Bill (or Hillary, for that matter). So, a candidate with all the required experience, with the plans and ideas to back up the speeches she makes, has to concede to someone who I dare say is his own funny brand of elitist, racist and typical "good ole boy". I honestly don't believe for one second that Obama is going to bring the kind of change anyone who so rabidly follows him says he will. I see no sign of him being able to break out of the "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" mold of politics. What I do see, however, is hubris, ego and a sense of typical, masculine entitlement. The US presidency is now (and may for a long time be) a boy's club.

Sure, Obama getting the party nomination will be a big banner day for African Americans, but it will also be a dark and sobering day for women - the glass ceiling appears to be impenetrable. My heart aches.

"The Democratic Party leaders should have rallied around Hillary from day one."

They did. That's why Clinton has a lead in superdelegates despite have less support from Democrats.

Or are you saying that she should have been annointed the Democratic Nominee from Day One, effectively circumventing the various state votes and thereby removing voters themselves from the process of selecting the man or woman who would represent them in the general?

"And, since Bill made the Dems look bad (why Republicans always come out smelling like roses is beyond me!), Dem leaders aren't too keen to see a return of Bill (or Hillary, for that matter)."

Again, she has always had the lead in super-delegates. She has always had more support from her own party, except after last night.

"Sure, Obama getting the party nomination will be a big banner day for African Americans, but it will also be a dark and sobering day for women - the glass ceiling appears to be impenetrable. My heart aches."

I imagine the black women who overwhelmingly support Obama will be quite pleased.

I feel limp and weepy. No, I don't think Hillary ran a very effective campaign, but I think she would be an outstanding president, an FDR to get us out of Bush's worse-than-Hoover mess.

Someone above said that Hillary started ahead in this race. I disagree. Once you factor in the sexism, media hostility, and years of irrational hate directed toward the Clintons, she was handicapped from the start.

And I think it is inaccurate to say that Obama's campaign has been fair while Hillary's has not. That has been his most effective technique, which the media has conveniently played patsy to. He has had his hoards of supporters personally insulting and attacking hers for months, long before she "went negative." And the sexism? The theme of this year's presidential race should be "Latent to Blatant: How Twenty-first Century Sexim did in a Fine Public Servant and Dashed the Hopes of Millions of Women." Hey, that's pretty good. COPYRIGHT!!

Didn't anyone here find it funny that Lake County in Indiana had 'problem' with counting the votes for Obama? That on cnn the Mayor of Hammond was calling out the Lake County mayor that it looked corrupt?

"Someone above said that Hillary started ahead in this race. I disagree. Once you factor in the sexism, media hostility, and years of irrational hate directed toward the Clintons, she was handicapped from the start."

I agree that all those things were handicaps, but none of them negate the advantages she began with either. After all, how could she have won those early votes and maintained a 20 point lead in the Gallup otherwise? Furthermore, with none of those handicaps being new (they've been around for years, after all), what do you attribute their sudden efficacy to? Finally, since Obama's support largely comes from black voters with white voters largely supporting Clinton, doesn't it then follow that the scenario of media manipulation and sexism determining the results of this race is only plausible if black voters are that much more susceptible to these things than white voters?

Finally, how can you judge a candidate by their supporters? The majority of Clinton supporters think Bill being a serial sexual harasser and the subject of at least two allegations of rape has done nothing to tarnish his image (He doesn't get booed off stages like he ought to be, now does he?), but I'm not going to judge the candidate for the overwhelming misogyny that pervades her base nor the racism that has scared a large number of white democrats away from Obama. Conversely, I don't think Obama should be judged for the assholes who support him.

And yes, there are many, many assholes who support Obama.

"Didn't anyone here find it funny that Lake County in Indiana had 'problem' with counting the votes for Obama? That on cnn the Mayor of Hammond was calling out the Lake County mayor that it looked corrupt?"

Obama lost, and that put the theories of corruption to sleep. After all, if there had been corruption, he would have won. What's the point of fixing an election just enough to give the candidate you want 2 or 3 more delegates, none of which he actually needs, but not enough to actually give him the state?

And this is why the media stopped suggesting corruption once the final tally came in.

Sorry, I can't write for shit without being able to edit, and that's why my composition sucks.

No Obama lost because people started to question why the voting numbers were not being released. I still think there was corruption, but it was stopped before it caused major damage. (or he won)

The problem is there was corruption whether he won or lost. Also there goes the 'NEW' politics he stands for.

"No Obama lost because people started to question why the voting numbers were not being released. I still think there was corruption, but it was stopped before it caused major damage. (or he won)

The problem is there was corruption whether he won or lost. Also there goes the 'NEW' politics he stands for."

That's ridiculous. Obama had no reason to risk his entire campaign on a single county that was only worth a handful of delegates.

If there was corruption, he had no part of it, if only out of self-interest alone.

Well seems to me he was able to risk everything. I think it was more for a win than delegates.

Well seems to me he was willing to risk everything....not for the few more delegates but for a win. He did say this state was the tie breaker.

Also, your theory of corruption comes from little more than the allegation of a mayor who, at the time, thought the candidate he supported might lose.

He's hardly an authority on election proceedings outside his jurisdiction, he's hardly unbiased, and since his candidate won he has no basis for his allegation of shenanigans.

"Well seems to me he was willing to risk everything....not for the few more delegates but for a win. He did say this state was the tie breaker."

But he lost!

Furthermore, before anyone even started talking about corruption, Obama conceded Indiana to Clinton.

Finally, you're saying some pretty ridiculous things without any support, which is insane on your part.

And you do realize that you can't bank a win on a single county, right? And that, again, the majority of white voters went for Clinton while the majority of black voters went for Obama in Lake County?

Once the results came in, it was clear that nothing unusual had occurred at all, save the delay.

Well I see just as insane as the mayor of Hammond speaking on CNN then. Unfortunately you cannot face the fact that Obama's politics are not 'new' or fair.

the glass ceiling appears to be impenetrable. My heart aches.
-------------

Since there have been (and are) women leaders, the ceiling does not exist.
--------------
Again, she has always had the lead in super-delegates. She has always had more support from her own party, except after last night.
----------------

Obama has the popular vote.

I believe that the voice of the people is more important than what the delegates think, dont you?

I can't face the fact that an unsubstantiated claim by a single mayor based on a fear of an abnormal result which proved to be unfounded and which he hasn't bothered to pursue since completely demolishes the virtuous image of a candidate who has managed to make it this far relatively unblemished?

Yes, which is why FL and MI should be seated and the rest of the states should be able to vote.

According to Obama insiders, there will be a woman as Vice President on his ticket. However, it will not be Senator Hillary Clinton. It will be....
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. She is a progressive that has won a "red" state in 2002 and 2006. She also opposes the death penalty, is pro-choice, and at age 61, will only be 69 in 2016, when the electorate will be largely above age 50.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

Sebelius's father was governor of Ohio in the 1970s, and she will help Obama win that state.

Why not Hillary as VP? Because her skills as a legislator would befit her serving as Senate Majority leader. She could be better than what Lyndon Johnson did for Eisenhower. I love Sebelius - she would secure Kansas, and help out in bordering Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Missouri.

Nebraska splits its electoral votes by congressional district - and Obama leads McCain in the western Nebraska district centered in Omaha (Obamaha?), meaning we already have added one more Electoral Vote.

And one thing that needs to be said - there is a fear in the feminist community that Hillary will be the "last chance" for a woman President for a while. That is simply not true. First, Obama knows he HAS to choose a woman VP. Sebelius endorsed him, and shares his love of the more issue-based politics that avoids silly distractions like "guilt by association". Second, next time you are at a Democratic gathering, look around - what do you see? Women. Lots of 'em. Women are a majority of the party, and make up 10 senators, 6 governors, and the speaker of the house. Several contenders for statewide office are female, and every year, the number of elected female democrats increases. This fall, we will see Bev Perdue elected governor of North Carolina, and Jill Long Thompson as Governor of Indiana. Soon, women will be a majority of the elected Democrats, and by 2032, we will have seen at least 2 women presidents.

Obama for Prez! Hillary for Senate Majority leader! Sebelius for VP!

"...the virtuous image of a candidate who has managed to make it this far relatively unblemished?"

You're joking right?
You haven't heard of his shady connections with Rezko, Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, etc.

I suppose not as the biased media on reports on negative things about Hillary.

Yes, Obama is connected to them, but not in a way that suggests he has ever done anything wrong. It's only simple proximity which damns him in the eyes of the public, as if he could catch evil from others the way some catch colds.

"According to Obama insiders, there will be a woman as Vice President on his ticket. However, it will not be Senator Hillary Clinton. It will be....
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. "

Is this supposed to be a good thing for Obama?

"Yes, Obama is connected to them, but not in a way that suggests he has ever done anything wrong."

Really?
rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/rezkowatch-factchecker-obamas.html

I wrote (in a longer comment):

"Someone above said that Hillary started ahead in this race. I disagree. Once you factor in the sexism, media hostility, and years of irrational hate directed toward the Clintons, she was handicapped from the start."

They replied:

I agree that all those things were handicaps, but none of them negate the advantages she began with either. After all, how could she have won those early votes and maintained a 20 point lead in the Gallup otherwise?"

Here is my response to that:

You misunderstand my point, or perhaps my choice of words was not clear. Instead of saying she was handicapped (meaning she started further behind), perhaps I should have said Clinton was HOBBLED by sexism, hostile media, and repeats of hostile, anti-Clinton messages. They have been prevalent throughout the campaign, and they not only make undecided voters turn toward Obama, they also make Clinton supporters wonder if she (and they) can ever overcome the irrational hatred.

At the beginning of the campaign, an Obama supporter put up on YouTube a riff on the old Apple Ad with a 1984 theme, Big Brother talking on a large screen, rank and file automatons drearily awaiting orders. Then someone runs in an throws a track and field type hammer towards the screen and it crubles into rainbows, happiness and freedom.

The think was, if you've seen the piece, Clinton is saying the most un-big Brother like things: "I want to get to know the American people...I want to build a better country..I'm concerned with your needs..." Yet read the comments underneath. Unfair, sexist, childish.

One later example. Obama ran a television ad citing Paul Krugman, an economist with the new york times, as attacking Clinton's gas tax/excess corporate tax plan. He--Krugman--denounced the ad as misleading, misappropriating his arguments, and said it should be withdrawn. Big news. Did you hear about it? NO? Not surprised. Really, it's one of manyu major scandals that the media has thusfar kept him from.

As for the Black vote--I'm not going to denigrate it, I am Tohono O'odham, myself, a Native American. But, like us, Blacks must be honest. They are 12% of the country, and are not even the most populous minority anymore. They exert a large influence in Democratic Primaries, but, let's face it, the Republicans have won election after election poking Blacks in the eye. They're not always CRUCIAL in the fall. Obama got 90% of the black vote last Tuesday. Clinton got 60% of the white vote. I've heard pundits spinning it as if it's Blacks that are racist. But the truth is that, I think, the media and Blacks have unfairly charged Clinton with racism. Really? You disagree? Point to a vote that wasn't in Blacks' interest. To quote another blogger, "Add up all the "evidence" of Clinton's racist appeals and you find that it amounts one after another quote yanked out of context and paraded around by Obama surrogates (the "fairy tale" remark, the LBJ/MLK dustup, the fabricated "War Room" video, WJC's Jesse Jackson comment) with helpful "translations" that turned innocuous comments into a concerted Willie Horton campaign. In the process a couple that were on the front line for black people all their lives got turned into the very people they courageously opposed. And you thought Karl Rove's Swift Boat strategy was a Republican intellectual property."

Finally, I was involved when BOTH Clinton and Obama courted the Native American vote in Arizona. Really, we indigeonous get used to the fact that we're usually just part of the color wheel, you know, White, Black, Yellow, Red, etc. And Obama asked for our vote. So did Clinton. BUT. SHE. KNEW. She knew the bureaucracy. She KNEW the source of our problems. She suggested that the BIA could be moved out of the Department of the Interior. If you're Native, you know that the BIA is charged with preserving the lands and assets of Natives, and that the Department of the Interior--in which the BIA is contained--is charged with developing the land for the good of the country as a whole. Little bit of a conflict, no? Yet Clinton--policy wonk extraordinaire--recognized the source of the problem. And that, to me, is more impressive than all the lofty speeches of an Obama.

Man, she would have made an awesome President.

Sorry for the early morning spelling gaffs. think=thing, etc.

I'm not sure why you're under the impression that Krugman's comment wasn't news, CNN/MSNBC/ABC all carried the story, a quick hit on google news with draw up a dozen articles on the subject. Krugman himself writes for the NY Times and maintains a blog on their cite, he's clearly in a very strong position to defend himself, and has written several posts on the matter. The reason the story died after a couple of days is that the issue wasn't that Obama had erroneously claimed Krugman thinks Clinton's gas tax holiday was a bad idea – because he does – it was that Krugman felt misrepresented in the way Obama portrayed his position. Krugman, an avid Clinton supporter, still thinks her plan is wrong. It's because it is wrong.

The fact that Hilary has been accused of racism is very unfortunate, because she simply isn't. This is one of the issues that was continually revisited with all of the coverage – Bill has been called “the first black president� by many, and tended to receive strong support from the black community, even for a Democrat. Both he and Hilary made strides in race relations while they were in the White House. Every time a race issue about the Clinton camp comes up in this campaign, the pundit comments on how strange it is to be reporting accusations of racism when the Clintons have historically been strong on race. Hilary herself hasn't said anything too bad that I can recall, though her constant claim that Obama is less electable is careless in the sense that it, in part, plays on the notion that America won't elect a black president, even if she doesn't mean it to. Most of the problems come from things done by members of her campaign, comments Bill made that he shouldn't have and Geraldine Ferraro's gaffs come to mind first. None of these things stem from Hilary being racist, they're just symptoms of a poorly run campaign – she constantly has to reel in Bill after he goes on the attack, she should've addressed the Ferraro issue directly instead of letting her continue to do damage to her, she should use more care with what she says, etc. It's these kind of mismanagements that lead to smaller issues in her campaign to begin snowballing and lead to complaints of a bias against her. I'm not saying the media isn't complicit in it, making non-issues into attacks on character (for both candidates), but her campaign opens her up to it far more often than necessary.

Correction: *(for both candidates, but for Hilary in particular)

The reason the Krugman story died after a few days was because the media and blogs didn't endlessly harp on it. Anything else you add at this point (unless you were in the newsroom) is sheer speculation. Also speculation is the following assertion: Iff Hillary had made the same misrepresentation-correction, lie--she would have been excoriated for it.

And I don't entirely agree with your assessment that Krugman said Hillary's plan was bad. Tied to the excess corporate tax, what he said was that it was "harmless." Ditto Kevin Drum.

At least they were honest enough to put it in a different category from McCain's plan, which is fiscal folly. How many newsstories have you seen that fail to mention the distinction between McCain's and Clinton's gas tax holiday? I've seen dozens (Your comment kind of qualifies, too).

In any case, the point was that from first to last, Hillary has 'enjoyed' unfavorable press. Really, today's favorite can be found here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/7/15359/49127/131/510397 The author admits to a systematic Hillary bashing (of both her and her supporters), telling his readers that it's time to turn it off and welcome all those [stupid, blue-haired post-menopausal, low-class, uneducated, working class, Republican] losers--I mean, Hillary supporters back into the loving arms of the Obama fold. Right.

(My response about Krugman was too long and is pending approval still, sorry)

I wasn't trying to say that there isn't a lot of bias against Clinton, because there is. 5 minutes on youtube and you can pull plenty examples of some reprehensible misogyny mascaraeding as journalism, and not only from Fox News (read: Glen Beck). However, to cry foul every time she gets bad press, and read into it some kind of deliberate, universal media bias (think dedf's comments) only makes real identifications of bias against her less credible.

You're right, Hilary receives a great deal of unfavorable press. In regard to the Kos article, it's not a CNN (or any other ostensibly objective news organization) giving a disproportionate amount of weight to Clinton's mistakes, it's a blog. He self-identifies himself and the site as being unabashedly pro-Obama and anti-Hilary. You can fault him/them for "Hilary bashing" and being too negative if you think what he has said in the past was uncalled for (he certainly admits to it), but there's no pretense otherwise. Theres a difference between a media bias and a lot of people not liking Clinton/her policies/her campaign. Bush, likewise, "enjoys" an absolutely ridiculous amount of unfavorable press, but that in itself is not evidence of bias - it's evidence that people don't like him/what he's doing.

Identity: let's not go around and around on this. I NEVER said "universal" bias against Hillary, but will you admit to a prevalent bias? I think that's fair. My point in earlier comments is that not only was Hillary bashed, but her supporters were bashed, in cruel and dispicable ways. I think that's also fair. That the article I cited admitted as much does not discount it: I actually cited it because it was honest enough to admit to the systematic, organized cruelty and bias! You dismiss it because it's from a blog, but it's from the second most successful liberal blog on the internet. And if you think the MSM doesn't participate in such antics, check out Shakesville's running account of Hillary sexism, ALL of them by MSM sources.

I didn't hear such behavior directed towards Edwards, Dodd, Biden, etc.

I reinterate my constructive advice to Obama supporters:

First, realize you're not going to win in November with out Hillary's supporters.

Second, just saying "let's be positive from here on in" will be ineffective considering the damage done by the abuse heaped upon Hillary's following.
They, after all, didn't buy the nebulous promises of change Obama put forth.

Three, APOLOGIZE! Say you got carried away! Say you let your emotions get the best of you! And that you said things you didn't mean! Admit that Hillary isn't a murder of Vince Foster, or a racist, or a cunt, or a bitch, or a Republican, or the wicked witch of the West! Admit that the bulk of her supporters are lifelong--get that--lifelong democrats who have consistently voted against their own interests to further the civil rights of others, and are decent, intellegent, hard working Americans.

If you can't bring yourself to admit that, then you don't want our vote.

No, you certainly didn't, and I hadn't meant to imply that you did. In fact, I don't think you even used the term bias, I had only extrapolated that from your assertion that Clinton would have gotten more negative attention if she had done the same thing Obama did. I was speaking to the tendency that some people have to declare any negative coverage of her to be bias, specifically referencing dedf's comments on this thread, in effect crying wolf.

I also hadn't meant to discount the Daily Kos because it was a blog, I'm aware of its credentials, if you took that meaning then I was imprecise in my words. My point is that the Daily Kos is an opinion blog, not a MSM source. You can fault it for how it criticizes Clinton (which we're in agreement that it should indeed be faulted), but not for the fact that it is criticizing Clinton. It's not a bias if it never intended to be balanced – pro-Obama sites aren't can't be biased towards Obama/against Clinton, they openly support Obama. Of course they're going to downplay Obama slip ups and empathize Clinton mistakes, they have an overt agenda which they are upfront about (but again, if they're nasty about it it's fair to call them on it). The reason I contrasted Kos with CNN (ie: MSM) was because that is where an accusation of bias can be more accurately leveled. If the source is supposedly balanced but in practice it isn't, that's what bias means to me in this context, that's what needs to be called out. Labeling any kind of criticism of Clinton, MSM or otherwise, as a bias undercuts this, and progressively dilutes the claim to the point where it's written off as being a sore loser or making excuses. I'm not saying you've done this, you were mostly talking about the undue hostility, but do you understand what I mean?

The residual hostility between the camps is unfortunate, and is what everyone has been worrying about (and the Republicans goading on). I don't disagree with any of your three points. My only concern about it is that you've framed the discussion for the general election as “woo us back or we're not coming.� Both camps have sore feelings, and its completely reasonable to expect some apologies from Obama supporters now that we're all on the same team and playing nice. But to hold your support ransom, contingent upon sucking up Clinton supporters, is just childish. It makes Clinton supporters sound no better than the bitter refrain from some particularly resentful/misogynistic/stubborn/zealous (pick your term) Obama supporters who vowed to vote McCain if Clinton won the nomination.

"But to hold your support ransom, contingent upon sucking up Clinton supporters, is just childish"

Don't listen to this. This is what we tell women when they won't do as we want.

The DNC has forced the public to accept Obama without everyone voting.

I'm surprised at the substantial numbers of Clinton supporters who say they'll vote for McCain in the general if Obama is the Democratic nominee. If nothing else, judicial nominees should be the tipping factor. Not Roe v. Wade alone, though goodness knows that a few more Scalia-Alito-Thomas clones is all it will take to put that in jeopardy. (I don't list Roberts there because I see him more in the mold of Rehnquist, and therefore less likely to overturn a long-standing precedent even if, as in the case of Miranda, it was one he voted against the first time around.) But think about the Ledbetter case and the Indiana voter ID case. McCain came out against the legislation to overturn the Ledbetter decision because he felt it would lead to more litigation. Yes, precisely. If there is discrimination, it should be remedied, and the remedy is litigation. Do those Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain over Obama really want to elect someone who will choose judges, both at the Supreme Court and lower court levels, who will interpret statutes intended to grant equal protection in a manner that will effectively deny equal protection? Do Clinton supporters want to support judges who think it's OK to impose burdens on the poor and the old so they can exercise their right to vote? If so, then I'm not sure why they're supporting Clinton in the first place - it sure as hell isn't because they agree with what she stands for. The actual policy differences between Obama and Clinton are very narrow, despite the heated rhetoric. The difference between both and McCain is vast.

I honestly don't believe that Clinton supporters wouldn't vote Obama, same as I'd like to believe that the Obama supporters who used to say they'd rather vote McCain than Clinton really would. I feel more confident about the former, however, which stems mostly from hurt feelings from the past few months, than the later, which probably stems in large part to some latent misogyny. I think in 6 months intraparty tensions will have cooled, and no one will be so incredibly stubborn so as to vote against their own best interests just to be vindictive.