When race comes in play in anything, the politicians of american can not go and preach democaracy to any other countries.  When you have white people not voting for someone because he is black and you have politicians supporting those statements, it does make me ashamed to be american.  the people in power are constantly talking about giving freedom to everyone, but look whats happening today.  Clinton says she is ready from day one, how can she be ready from day one when she can not even admit the misstakes her staff and supporters are constantly bringing race into the mix.  It is the blacks now, who next, the mexician, then the chinese, the american indians (the list goes on and on).  The world is looking at her.  If you can't bring the american people (I mean all people, black, white, hispanic, asian, american indian, etc) together, how can she work with the rest of the world.

I WANT KEITH OLBERMAN FIRED!!!!!!! I'M ABSOLUTELY SICK OF IT BEING AN OPINION SHOW...HOW CAN THIS BE ABOUT THE BEST POLITICS ON TV WHEN ITS ALL OPINION!!  IF I WANTED TO WATCH THAT KIND OF BIASED BS I WOULD WATCH FOX!!

AMERICA, please remember the world is watching this election very closely. Would you want your neighbors, let alone your community to hear and see those things you are not proud of that go on in your home? It is the same thing, when we night after night fan the flames of negative, bias and racially charged reporting!
We can not lead,but by example! We can not go into other countries preaching Democracy, when the world can see clearly that we don't practice (without bias) what we preach, often enough...which is what the Demoractic party is shamefully demonstrating...and I am a Democract.

Why aren't you blogging about the Washington Post story showing Hillary Clinton picking up 1 more delegate in NY and 4 more delegates in Colorado?  You post every single delegate pick up by Obama.  How about some fairness here.  With these pick ups in Colorado and NY she has completely obliterated any advantage Obama got from Mississippi.  We are back to post Texas primary.

Get Colin Powell to change parties and veep for Obama, case closed......

I wonder how long it will take Jaycee Venture, Ca. to cut and paste his daily Pravda-like dietribe.

Message to the super delegates; If he can't win at least one of these states...NY, Tx, Ca, Pa....then he probably can't win the general election.

Yes HILLARY can!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:32 AM)

Although she becomes more of one each day, Clinton is not a Republican. So you can't say Obama wouldn't win California or New York, etc. in a general election just because he didn't win them in a Democratic primary.

Your rudimentary analysis is best saved for Clinton's website. Or a high school classroom.

*** Legacy watch:
--Funny this was mentioned.  I was just pondering how the kitchen sink strategy and prodding the racial fires would affect the Clinton legacy.  Is the election worth that to the Clintons?



"The percentage of respondents who correctly identified Obama as a Christian increased from 18% to 37%."
--I suppose that Clinton's sidestep to answering this question helped.  So, in a way, Mr. Obama should be thanking her.


*** The Limbaugh effect:
--I refuse to believe that Mr. Limbaugh has that much power, but 25% (R) for Clinton in Mississippi ...  I suppose it's one more example of how little so-called conservative values matter to Republicans.
--It also goes to demonstrate one more thing.  The Republican is held hostage by the radio talk scene, whereas the liberal blogs (DailyKos/MoveOn) are nowhere near as powerful.  The opposite of what has been pushed by our current President.

Just curious, but are "Southern tendencies" of GOP voters in OH, TX and MS synonymous with "racist white trash?" Seems to be a euphemism here.

The moment Hillary Clinton praised John McCain for his foreign policy experience and slammed Barack Obama for his, this Democrat and his large Hispanic family decided that we won't be voting for Hillary if her name is on the ballot in November.

It's clear that Hillary is in this race entirely for herself. The Democrats have the best opportunity in years to win the White House and gain more seats in Congress. Hillary is hell bent on destroying those chances.

Democratic lawmakers are becoming persuaded that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have a more positive impact on other Democrats on the November ballot than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Obama’s advantage over Clinton would be most pronounced in the Southern and Western states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004, say lawmakers interviewed by The Hill. In total, 32 members of Congress from these “red states” have endorsed Obama. Twenty-two lawmakers from those states have backed Clinton.

A Southern House Democrat who faces a difficult reelection this year said Obama “has the potential to bring more folks to the polls and swell the ranks of Democrats.” The lawmaker, who has not endorsed either candidate, declined to speak on the record because Clinton may become the nominee.
Lawmakers have begun looking more closely at how the nominee may affect their own reelections or influence races in their states. Sensing this, Obama supporters have pushed their colleagues to consider how Obama and Clinton would impact Democratic candidates in November.
“I’ve had quiet conversations with a number of members,” said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who has endorsed Obama. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about it, Obama would be more helpful to House candidates virtually everywhere.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/eyeing-obama-coattails-2008-03-12.html

The Clinton Race-Baiting continues..

Is it a campaign strategy ?

'...Geraldine Ferraro, stepped down from the campaign after making comments that some considered racially divisive...'


Whatever it takes for Billary to steal the nomination



"Blacks aren't going to sit back while the winning candidate is told to sit at the back of the bus,"




From the LA Times:

'... Race returns to fore in Democratic contest

March 13, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted this week that the Democratic primary should turn on substantive issues, such as healthcare and energy. But despite their stated hopes, an especially sensitive subject keeps pushing itself into the campaign: the role of race.

In the latest sign of a racial rift in the contest, two prominent black pastors warned Wednesday that African American voters could become so discouraged by the campaign that they might stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee.

"This is a virtual race war, politically," said the Rev. Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community church in Boston, one of the country's leading Pentecostal ministers.

In the close contest between two popular candidates, strong emotions are often spurred by nuance and competing interpretations of comments and events. Rivers said black voters were especially offended by Clinton's suggestion this week that Obama could join her on the ticket as her running mate.

"Blacks aren't going to sit back while the winning candidate is told to sit at the back of the bus," he said, adding that the Democratic Party and Clinton risk handing the election to the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

Bishop Charles E. Blake of Los Angeles, as leader of the Church of God in Christ, which claims 6 million members nationwide and abroad, presides over one of the largest Christian denominations in the country. He said in an interview that black voters could come to feel so disheartened that "their whole motivation for participating in the political process in this election would be greatly reduced."

The pastors' comments came during a week in which racial issues have retaken a central role in the campaign. Obama's 24-point victory Tuesday in the Mississippi primary highlighted the party's racial rift, with the Illinois senator winning 90% of black voters and Clinton winning 70% of white voters.

On Wednesday, a high-profile Clinton supporter, former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, stepped down from the campaign after making comments that some considered racially divisive.

Ferraro had said that Obama's standing in the presidential race was due in part to his race. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she told the Daily Breeze newspaper in Torrance.

Both Clinton and Obama tried this week to turn the discussion away from race.

The New York senator was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that she repudiated and regretted Ferraro's comment that Obama would not have advanced so far if he were white. In the contest for the nomination, Clinton said, "we ought to keep this on the issues."

Likewise, Obama said Wednesday that discussions of race and gender were counterproductive. "I don't think identity politics has served the Democratic Party well," he said.

He called it "an enormous distraction" from such issues as healthcare, jobs and the national debt.

But the candidates acknowledged that a campaign pitting the would-be first female president against the would-be first black president was destined to touch delicate nerves in a party built in part on coalitions of blacks and women.

Obama complained Wednesday that at times Clinton has invoked race in ways that are subtle.

"I do think that the Clinton campaign has talked more during the course of the last few months about what groups are supporting her and what groups are supporting me, and trying to make the case that the reason she should be the nominee is there are a set of voters that Obama might not get," he said. "That seems to track certain racial demographics. And I disagree with that."

His comment came on a day that Clinton released a demographic-oriented memo, citing Obama's loss of support among men, women, independents and Republicans between the voting a few weeks ago in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin and the contests more recently in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi.

There was no mention of race in the memo. But much of Obama's success in those earlier states listed in the memo had been attributed to his progress in winning white voters. Also, though the Clinton memo did cite Obama's lackluster performance in Ohio, it did not mention one glaring exit poll result from that state: Of the 20% of voters who said race was important in their decision, nearly 60% voted for Clinton.

On Wednesday, Obama suggested that his ability to win white support was now unfairly in question -- just as his ability to win black support had once been in doubt long before he overwhelmingly won the heavily black South Carolina primary in January.

"We keep on thinking we've dispelled this, and it keeps on getting raised once again," he said. "This was raised after South Carolina, and then we won in a host of states, and then people say, 'Well, he hasn't proven he can win the white blue-collar vote.' And, we won that in Virginia and we won it in Wisconsin. And, in each state we seem to have prove this stuff all over again."

Race has been ever-present from the start of the campaign, particularly since Obama's dramatic victory in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. The backing he won from voters in the overwhelmingly white state translated into broader support from African Americans who now believe that Obama has a legitimate chance to win.

Even Blake, the bishop of the Church of God in Christ, said he was a late convert to Obama's team because he initially thought the candidate's race would make him unelectable. Now he has invited Obama, along with Clinton and McCain, to attend an event next month commemorating the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. -- a summit of religious leaders meeting to lay out an aggressive black-focused agenda for U.S. policies domestically and in Africa.

Tensions erupted before the South Carolina primary when Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, drew parallels between Obama's candidacy and that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Critics said the Clintons were trying to cast Obama's appeal narrowly, characterizing him as a black candidate.

But the finger-pointing has gone both ways. Clinton in January cited an Obama campaign document to show that her rival was encouraging the media to focus on race -- forcing Obama to blame the strategy on "overzealous" staffers.

And some members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are backing Clinton -- and who are under pressure to switch their loyalties -- have complained that Obama supporters are targeting them because of their race.

One prominent lawmaker who switched to Obama's side after coming under that pressure was Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a veteran of the civil rights movement.

One of the black Clinton backers in Congress, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri, said in a recent interview that he feared a "backlash" if whites see African Americans pressuring one another to vote based on race.

"If conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans and independents start saying, 'Well, all these black people are being beaten up because they won't support Barack Obama because he's black,' " Cleaver said, " 'maybe we ought to support a candidate because he's white.' I mean what's the difference?"

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

DO YOU EVER WONDER THE MESSAGE FOR HILLARY CLINTON KEEPS ON CHANGING? IT IS NOT BECAUSE HILLARY IS STUPID. MARK PENN WHO MAKES 4.3 DOLLARS  TO TAKE INSIDE POLLS IS TARGETING THE FEARS WITHIN  EVERY GROUP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.OLDER PEOPLE OBAMA IS A DRUG HEAD.LATINOS OBAMA WILL TAKE CARE BLACK PEOPLE.HE WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF YOU.JEWISH PEOPLE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM.WOMEN OBAMA IS A BLACK MAN PICKING ON A WHITE WOMEN.MIDDLE CLASS WHITES OBAMA WILL BE A WEAK COMMANDER-IN-CHEIF.OBAMA WILL NOT PROPERLY PROTECT YOU.THE CLINTONS KNOW THEY WILL NOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE THIS TIME OUT BUT ARE MAKING DAM SURE THAT OBAMA DOES NOT BY PLAYING THE FEAR CARD WITHIN EVERY GROUP OF THIS PARTY.HILLARY WILL THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY SHAME ON YOU DEMOCRATICS FOR VOTING FOR OBAMA BUT IT WILL BE OK I WILL RUN IN 2012 AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY TO VOTE FOR ME!

Michael (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:41 AM)

Michael, what a pastor says has no bearing on the person him/ herself.  I don't agree with many things my pastor says, but I attend. Some days I leave church thinking...what?  and I can't believe he said that, but I am glad I can think for myself.

WHAT???  Some pastor's are living in mansions, have jets, driving Bentley's, Mercedes, etc., while the members are barely making it...don't get me started.    

Pastors all over the place are controversial, instead of Obama's pastor, what about Pastor Hagee for MCCain?

Remember in the Fall it will be:  Dems v Rep, but we want the best leader to lead our country for ALL, the pastor is not running and his opinions does not matter to me; so can it with that.  Pastors are not God and they are human, but they have many faults as we do.    

We are Dems and pastor's comments...who cares...IT DOESN'T MATTER.  

It's Obama.  You can't have any negative stories about him.  You'll be called a racist.

Another SD for Obama;;

Gubernatorial candidate Beverly Perdue, who last month was remaining neutral on the presidential race, announced Wednesday she is supporting Sen. Barack Obama.

Hillary DIDN'T win California by 10%
She only won by 8%

'...the party’s unofficial count is 203-167...'
NOT 204-161 delegates


From the WSJ:

'...March 10, 2008, 4:43 pm

Obama’s California Comeback

A little-noticed shift in the tally of California’s Democratic delegates may affect the primary between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton as much as the heavily hyped results last Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.


Sen. Clinton won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Sen. Obama won the Vermont primary and appears likely to win the Texas caucus. For the day, Sen. Clinton is likely to trim fewer than 10 delegates from Sen. Obama’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, which by most counts stands at about 100 delegates.

But Sen. Obama may make up all that lost ground in the media counts that are the closest this race has to an official scoreboard. A California politics blogger has argued that Sen. Clinton won 36 more pledged delegates in the state than Sen. Obama, rather than the 44-delegate margin that has long been included in the news organizations’ tallies. A spokesman for the state party confirms the blogger’s numbers.

The shift, if validated once the state certifies its election results this week and the party chooses its delegates, is a reminder that the commonly reported delegate totals are mere estimates, subject to change as states finalize election results. It also highlights how a blogger with intense focus on the numbers may be faster than the established delegate counters.

David Dayden Dayen*, who blogs at the site Calitics and serves on its editorial board, wrote last week that Sen. Clinton won 203 of the state’s 370 pledged delegates — and not the commonly reported total of 207. He relied on updated vote totals from the state, based on late counts of absentee and provisional ballots. Later, when he noticed that several major news organizations still were showing Sen. Clinton with 207 delegates, he wrote a follow-up post explaining his calculation and exhorting, “I know math is hard and everything, but get out your calculators, people.”

It’s hard to explain the difference because most news organizations don’t provide a breakdown of projected delegates, district by district. Some of the discrepancies may arise from the peculiar math of congressional districts. For instance, in the 16th district, Sen. Clinton received 50,056 votes; she needed about 58 more votes to get three of the district’s four delegates, but instead she split them evenly with Sen. Obama. In the 53rd district, which has five delegates, Sen. Clinton received a small plurality of the early returns, but has fallen behind, which swings that fifth delegate to Sen. Obama.

The statewide vote matters, too. On primary night, it appeared Sen. Clinton won the state by 10 percentage points. Now she’s up by 8.7 percentage points. That means she gets an 11-margin win among delegates apportioned on the basis of the statewide vote, rather than a 13-margin win.

There won’t be an official delegate total until California certifies its results and the state Democratic party chooses delegates, Bob Mulholland, advisor to the California Democratic Party, told me. But he confirmed that the party’s unofficial count is 203-167. “It’s been this way for a couple of weeks,” he said. The earlier counts, he said, were based on preliminary results, before all of the ballots had been counted. Mr. Mulholland estimates that more than one in four ballots weren’t counted on primary day: “We’re a big state. We have lots of ballots.”

On Monday, some news organizations were updating their totals. Earlier in the day, CNN showed Sen. Clinton up 204-161, with five delegates unallocated. A spokeswoman told me the site was waiting for California to certify its results before updating, but by this afternoon, the site’s California results page was in line with Mr. Dayden’s Dayen’s* 203-167 margin. The New York Times’s page for California results shows the 207-163 result, but a page listing delegate totals for each state showed the 203-167 margin. NBC and CBS still showed the 207-163 margin. An inquiry to New York Times polling editor Janet Elder wasn’t returned. An NBC spokesman told me, “Apparently, there are discrepancies between the state count and the individual county tallies.” Kathy Frankovic, director of surveys for CBS News, told me, “delegate allocation is a work in progress.” (UPDATE: Ms. Frankovic told me later Monday that CBS would update its totals to reflect the 203-167 margin. “Thanks for alerting us to the problem,” she said.)

Please, I beg this wonderful country America, to take advantage of this great "opportunity" to shine and show the rest of the world that She practices what She preaches!
We are NOT the UGLY AMERICAN...unless we CHOOSE to be!

The Democratic Party Establishment is caving!

The Democratic Party Establishment is handing this election to the Republicans!  We no longer need to blame President Bush or the conspiratorial Republicans and spineless Democrats in Congress for the bloodletting going on out there.  We can now also blame the Democratic Party Establishment!  

Even though this next presidential race is not primarily about race or gender—because it’s about the little people getting screwed by the wealthy people—the People are not about to let Senator Clinton steal the nomination away from Senator Obama either!  Keep in mind the Clintons not only believed the presidency was owed them, they also believed she’d be the nominee right after Super-Tuesday. So, now their selfish, game plan is to bring Obama down by ANY means, including playing the race card then the victim card, and then blame it all on Barack Obama.  

If her “kitchen sink” strategy of fracturing any chance for party unity is allowed to continue much longer, Republicans are sure to be the beneficiaries.   Where oh where are you, Senator Edwards, Governor Richardson, Speaker Pelosi, and Governor Dean?   If you’re working behind the scenes, it sure as hell isn’t working.

Republicans would much rather run against Senator Clinton than Senator Obama, and I know why.  She’s not only helping them, she’s so much like them.  Rush Limbaugh said as much today.  He also said, “Obama is being bloodied by Clinton.”  Many Democrats—though not despising the Clintons—at least reject them and, like me, don’t especially like them anymore. Offering more of the same, the Clintons want us to continue to be very afraid.  In their efforts, they’ve picked up the Republican playbook and are running with it.  The fight has become so ugly because Senator Clinton cannot accept the notion that a majority of Americans want real change and believe only Barack Obama can deliver.

“The end justifies the means.”  Is the ultimate goal to win the presidency by any means, Senator Clinton?  Many Democrats thought this Machevellian philosophy was Republican playbook strategy.  Were we wrong?  This country is ready for leaders we can really trust.  You are not telling the truth, Senator Clinton.  And though your deceit comes dressed, packaged, and presented as if it were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the educated People are not fooled.  You are a highly talented, manipulating, hypocritical politician.  We, the People want a real leader!

celestegip, Highland Park, NJ (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:14 AM):

celestgip:

In order for people to unite behind a Dem candidate  Hillary has to do one of two things. Get out of the race and support Obama because she cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates or the popular vote. Or if she continues on with the campaign to get out of the gutter and start behaving herself and not tearing Obama and the Dem party down. The people can unite but it is up to Hillary to allow for people to unite. The ball is in her court.  

Read our lips (you too superdelegates). If Obama ends this race with the majority of pledged delegates and/or the bigger popular vote and Hilllary somehow steals this nomination you can forget uniting. Thousands of delegates will walk out of the Dem convention and tens of thousands of people will turn against the Dem party.    

Boo-Kitty, no surprise. Over 90% of blacks are for Obama. But not just because he is black.

Obama/Biden: Experience the Change!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPev5sEdTjg

Thank you Frank, Medina, OH!  To me, this would be the dream ticket.  Obama/Biden - Biden/Obama  Either way.  Let's hope Hillary dries up and blows away.  Instead of uniting the Democrats, she's tearing the party apart.  After 8 years of criminals in the White House, let's unite for real change, Democrats!

You talk of the "The Limbaugh effect" for HRC but nobody talks of the same thing happening in the beginning in the "Red States" with Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama to eliminate HRC.

Republicans have been screwing arround with the Democratic Primaries and Cacuses since day one.

I, for one wish no crossover voting was allowed.  Shouldn't Democrates be the one nominating a Democratic Nominee?

TO: J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY

"Message to the super delegates; If he can't win at least one of these states...NY, Tx, Ca, Pa....then he probably can't win the general election."

Guess what? Just because Clinton won them in the primary ( a contest between two Democrats, with no Republicans in the contest) does NOT necessarily indicate she would win the in the General. By the same token, Obama's losing these states in the primary does not necessarily indicate he would lose them in the General. Look at the states Bill Clinton won: in the General election he picked up states he lost in the primaries, and actually lost some of the states he had won. He still went on to win two terms as President.

Your argument is not solid, especially given the history of CA & NY, states which are historically BLUE. They will probably go to either Democratic nominee regardless.

OBAMA '08!

'... Legacy watch: Bill Clinton’s legacy has taken a real hit in the last year. In March 2007, his fav/unfav was 49%-35%. Now it’s a net negative: 42%-45%. His numbers have gradually gotten worse as the campaign has gone on...'

Slick Willie was a MEDIOCRE President who was IMPEACHED
He DESERVED IMPEACHMENT !

Slick Willie sold out the American people with NAFTA and WTO

All those corporations he sold us out to  are now contributors to his 'Presidential' Library

Slick Willie was corrupt and incompetent
He was a DISGRACE to the Democratic party

He makes eliot Spitzer look like a piker
What just ONE WOMAN ?

Slick Willie had more black women than Barack Obama according to Andrew Young....

Was that before or AFTER he married Hillary ?

"Until there's an actual swing of Republicans voting for Clinton in a state without culturally Southern tendencies, then assume this so-called "Limbaugh effect" is nothing more than an urban myth."  

My mother taught me to never assume anything.  There was an actual swing of Republican votes for Clinton, don't ignore that fact just b/c your scared you might find out that Mississippi Republicans are racists.  I don't look at it that way, the Limbaugh effect clearly did work.  Republicans didn't vote for Clinton with racially driven motives, they did it with tactically driven motives.  It happens in southern states because those states hold conservatives that actually listen to that douchebag.  I believe this happened in Texas too but because the GOP wasn't officially wrapped up, I think the Limbaugh effect couldn't take full effect there.  The more you ignore this, the more potent it becomes.  Florida Repub.'s can't switch over for their primary can they??

So Clinton leads on all areas of policy over Obama, but he's leading in the popular vote.  Why not tell the American people what this really means Chuck, et al:  the American electorate may be stupid beyond hope.

Hillary has really made me second guess being a Dem these days.... if not for Obama, I think I would have sailed to the other side by now, or just not voted at all. The nasty political stunts her campaign has been throwing to us in the public is down right un-inspiring. I actually am starting to feel as if someone is trying to beat up my spirit for this election, will be so glad once Obama is declared the nominee and we can go back to a kinder gentler race. It will be Obama and McCain and they both have class to keep it real and clean... THANK GOD!

The very sentence that stood out in your entire, and well-informed poll numbers was about Al Gore and John Kerry who in 2000 & 2004, and like Hillary, were so much more versed and knowledgeable in the general election debates.   We all know how far that got the Democrats.  McCain -- if he wins, it will be because as some of these very poltitical sites pointed out, has some liberal issues and that appeals to a lot of voters who, are not liking this long, protracted, Democratic Primary fight.

*** " The Limbaugh effect: Want more proof that the liberal blogosphere has turned into a big-time ally for the Obama campaign? "
-----------------------------------------------------

It is one thing to deny the credibility of this theory...but to say that it is "proof that the liberal blogosphere" loves Obama?????   Really??  I can't believe you just 'reported' such a pro-Clinton bias.

Secondly, although Obama has been reaching many independents and 'cross-over' voters, there has been no evidence of that happening for Hillary...but all of a sudden, in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi she has a large voting block of republicans that are 'crossing over' to vote for her.  Now,hmmmmm...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The "Limbaugh" effect would be easy enough to discern in all future states.  Just have exit pollers ask if they're planning on voting for the same candidate in November.
...Or do you already have that number?  (I thought the Ohio stats already pointed this out.)
...Then, do share!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who has the gravitas in the Democratic Party to sit the Clintons down and draw a line in the sand?  It had better be done soon.  

Senator Clinton's wide eyed belief in herself belies her history.  The Universal Health Care law that she made herself the sole driving force behind was a debacle.  This idea that she is putting forth that she was more the President then her husband was is laughable by anyone of any intelligence.

It is time for the leadership of the Democratic party to step in.  Who will take the lead?

J. Merle Stanley:  He DID win Texas

TO: J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY

"Message to the super delegates; If he can't win at least one of these states...NY, Tx, Ca, Pa....then he probably can't win the general election."

Guess what? Just because Clinton won them in the primary ( a contest between two Democrats, with no Republicans in the contest) does NOT necessarily indicate she would win the in the General. By the same token, Obama's losing these states in the primary does not necessarily indicate he would lose them in the General. Look at the states Bill Clinton won: in the General election he picked up states he lost in the primaries, and actually lost some of the states he had won. He still went on to win two terms as President.

Your argument is not solid, especially given the history of CA & NY, states which are historically BLUE. They will probably go to either Democratic nominee regardless.

OBAMA '08!

Concerning the Limbaugh effect---
The newscaster on the evening news (WCPO) in Cincinnati commented on the fact that precincts ran out of ballots because Republican voters had crossed over because they thought one candidate would be easier to defeat (Hillary) and they wanted to keep the race going. An urban legend, yeah right!

'...Does this mean Obama voters have taken this campaign a lot more personally than Clinton's supporters? Or does this mean Obama's voters are more intensely loyal to their candidate than Clinton's?....'

No, it means that Billary has used dishonest and divisive tactics.
It means that Billary has repeatedly 'race-baited' Obama.

Hillary's cmapaign workers were caught sending 'Muslim' emails to smear Obama
Bob Kerry and B Shaheen smeared Obama prior to New Hampshire
Slick Willie tried to categorized Obama as a 'black candidate' prior to South Carolina
Bob Johnson smeared Obama

Hillary has LIED about Obama''s record
Hillary said Obama wasn't qualified for CinC

Maybe THAT'S why Obama supporters don't like Billary


THROW THE BUMS OUT !

DON'T BRING THE CROOKED BUMS BACK !!

Obama brought in race to this. Can you sit there and tell me it was in Clintons favor to do that. The record shows Both Clintons have spent there lives helping all races and this Obama comes in and turns it around. Blacks want to believe in him so bad(I understand that too)they will turn away from all they know about these people .Hillary said she understood.Obama did it again Ferraro is about the most not racist person but you can take anyones words twist them and whine race.Obama did that and did it again. It does not help Hillary at all.It is a double for Obama. People feel sorry for me they are callin names.gather around me cause its us against them. I heard his wife use almost those words.shame if you dont back my husband.To have someone curse your lifes work as Hillary has had done to her isnt a help for her trust me.I think People better wise up before its to late.
I think Obama had to run this time when he said he wouldnt.Thats getting to be th enorm too.He thought oh a woman i can run over her. I will have the menfolk and use race I am a shoo in.Well I am a woman and proud to stand by Hillary too.Obama has really messed this all up. I resent him takeing race back decades.He was living a fine white life while we were working to bring equality here and he comes in and throws it all out for his own greed. I am offended and I am white.

it is evident that obama can bring everyone together, all clinton brings together is the geriatric feminazis from the sixties and the segment of the white population that are afraid to vote for someone who is black, the superdeligates and leaders of the democratic party best force hillary out or all will be lost

HOW DID HILLARY AND JOHN MCCAIN BECOME SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT LEADERSHIP AND THE PRESIDENCY?

JOHN MCCAIN HAS NEVER BEEN PRESIDENT AND IS A WAR HERO WHO SPENT SEVERAL YEARS AS A PRISONER OF WAR.  HE WAS NOT A HIGH RANKING MILITARY SOLDIER WHO LEAD MEN -- SO HOW DOES THAT ENTITLE HIM TO BE A GOOD LEADER?  HOW DOES THAT ENTITLE HIM TO BE PRESIDENT - HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS, PROTOCOL, ETC?

HILLARY HAS SLEPT WITH THE PRESIDENT -- DOES THAT ENTITLE HER TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENCY?  MONICA LEWINSKY PROBABLY HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE THAT HILLARY.  HILLARY WAS ALWAYS TALKING RATHER THAN LISTENING TO BILL -- MONICA WAS ALWAYS LISTENING RATHER THAN TALKING TO BILL!

LOOK AT HOW HILLARY HAS RUN HER CAMPAIGN -- DISORGANIZATION AND MIS-MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS, FIRINGS, ETC.

THE NEWS MEDIA TENDS TO BLOW THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION BECAUSE HILLARY IS NOW THE "FAIR HAIRED CHILD" TO THE MEDIA SINCE SNL!!

SINCE WHEN DO WE SELECT A PRESIDENT BASED ON A SKIT FROM SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE?!!!

TRICKERY IS EVERYWHERE -- DON'T GET PUNKED!

So, regarding Limbaugh, what about this, from the 3/11 Village Voice.  You really didn't think all those Republicans voting for Obama were voting for him because they liked him, did you?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

"Right-leaning pundits for months now have very openly not just called for Hillary Clinton's head, but also coddled and promoted Barack Obama, salivating over the prospect of facing him in November. Meanwhile, voters have been echoing that program: Barack Obama has been beating Hillary Clinton in part because Republicans are helping him."

This whole argument about experience and style is moot.  There is no argument!  One can say that they are this and that, but as Hillary loves to mention, they are only words.  So, what does the average voter use to compare the candidates?  What should they look for that makes the most amount of sense, and cannot be obscured by rhetoric?  The answer is simple;  their campaigns.  It is easily the biggest undertaking that either of these two senators have done in their lives.  It show cases their skills, their ability to manage finances, manage underlings, communicate with the public, direct the conversation, juggle alliances and  make concessions.  Basically, everything that we would expect them to do if elected.  So, using this basic indicator of what one could expect from each candidate by how the manage and conduct their respective campaigns, (and this includes McClain too), the choice becomes easy.  Anything else is just words.

I'm 49, white, female, and I support Obama.  I don't believe Hillary is evil; I just prefer Obama.  It's that simple.  Their platforms are similar except in a couple of respects, and on those issues, I like Obama's positions.  What I truly don't like is some of the names I've been called by Hillary supporters, but then I've seen some Obama supporters act in ways he'd be ashamed of.  On both sides, there's lots of guilt in that regard.

We face some real problems and we need to come together on them.  Calling names like "cultish" and "racist" is NOT helping a single American.  My son is in Iraq and I want him home.  Calling me a "latte sipping, Birkenstock wearer" is not ending that war.  I have severe health problems and cannot afford the cost of HIPPA and no other company will take me due to pre-existing conditions.  Calling your rival a "dumb kid" or an "old lady" is not making insurance premiums more affordable.  I had to sell my home to stay afloat, but millions more Americans are losing theirs in the mortgage crisis.  Arguing about religion, race, and gender will not keep these Americans in their homes.  

The list goes on people, you know the real issues we face.  Yet, here you are, calling each other names and, yes, YOU are being "divisive," not your candidate, not the political rival, but YOU, every time you call someone a name, sneer at them, or run them down.  Get over it and get on with it.  America is hurting while you play schoolyard games.

I don't understand your logic regarding the Limbaugh effect. It sounds like you're suggesting that we should examine exit results in places that aren't listening to Limbaugh.

Thanks, Frank Medina Ohio, for the youtube video.  That, for me, would be the dream ticket -- hope and experience -- Obama and Biden.  Two leaders we can trust, two leaders of high character.  In my 63 years there would not have been a better team in the White House -- no lying Bush/Chaney, no slick Willie, no trickie Dick, no Iran-Contr Reagan, no incessant-Vietnam Johnson, no Bay-of-Pigs Kennedy.  Obama-Biden; what a concept!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPev5sEdTjg

I am really tired of hearing people say that Obama is playing a "race card" just because he carries the black vote.  His message does not contain any reference to appeal to blacks more than any other racial group.  The bottom line is that since the South Carolina primary, the Clintons have done EVERYTHING they can to alienate the black vote, and therefore Obama's numbers in this group have grown.  After Ferraro's comments, I think we can expect a 95% vote in PA, but this is not because of Obama makes any special appeal, it is because the Clintons have driven their black support away deciding that an appeal to rural voters in TX and OH was more important than the black vote.  

Bill, please make Hillary stop. She is decimating the Democratic party. If the delegates give this election to Hillary against the popular vote there will be hugh repercussions and the Republicans will win the election

thank you for the you tube prob those that should see it wont look but I thought it was very informative.

To paraphrase Richard Wright in the closing chapter of his book, "Black Boy"; "I fear that one day, all of us, black or white will find ourselves being flushed down the toilet".

It seems that the Democrat party is doing its best to dive into the toilet and Hillary has her hand on the flusher. It is getting sickening and disgusting. Why is not obvious to the party leadership that they need to step in and bring some sanity to the process?

I am tired of the false standards, false criteria and class warfare that Clinton is subjecting this party to. If the voters in the remaining primary races don't overwhelmingly repudiate Hillary's cynical and selfish tactics, we all deserve to go down the drain together.

H I L L A R Y C L I N T O N . C O M .

"Want more proof that the liberal blogosphere has turned into a big-time ally for the Obama campaign? It has really begun to push the “Limbaugh Effect” story to explain why Republicans, per exit polls, have begun to break for Clinton in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi. But let's not get carried away on this issue since all three states have Southern tendencies (yes, you Southern Ohio), meaning identity politics is more likely to trump everything else. Until there's an actual swing of Republicans voting for Clinton in a state without culturally Southern tendencies, then assume this so-called "Limbaugh effect" is nothing more than an urban myth."

Chuck,

I guess you are saying that racist Southern white Republicans are crossing over on their own to prevent a black man from being the Democratic nominee, and these same Southern Republicans would be fine with Hillary. Come on, don't you think that most Southerners who hate the idea of Obama as President would also hate the idea of a women, let alone Hillary, who most Republicans unfairly despise? And prior to Rush urging Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries there were Southern states that had voted, and yet the cross over Republican vote was overwhelmingly in Obamas favor. It's true many of these Southern primaries occurred when the GOP race was still wide open, but if Southern Republicans were voting for Hillary, they would have done so in the earlier Southern primaries as well.  

Even if the number of cross over GOP voters in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi wasn't related to Rush's push to bloody Obama, the bottom line is most of the cross over GOP voters weren't voting to support Hillary, but to hurt the Democratic party, by prolonging the process.

Given your identification as a "numbers man" I'd love to see a breakdown of the GOP cross over vote in all Southern states to date, the percent of the total Democratic vote, the increase or decrease from previous elections, and what the exit polls show regarding how these votes were split.

MSNBC reported that 25% of Hillary's Mississippi vote came from cross over GOP voters, what is the highest percent of Obama's total of  GOP voters from any state. I'm quite sure it's never been in double digits. Even when high numbers of Republicans voted for Obama (SC- a Southern state-while the GOP race was still very much open)the overall % of his total vote wasn't that high.  

All this silly infighting is just helping Tailhook John.  Hillary and her supporters just have to realize she ran an arrogant, ignorant, losing campaign and she would have lost in November had Obama not exposed her campaign for what it was.

This slash and burn kitchen sink strategy is one of desperation as Hillary no longer wants to keep to the issues that really need to be addressed.  She isn't interested in the Democratic Party, she is only concerned about herself and her place in history.

It's way past time for the superdelegate wimps sitting on the fence watching which way the wind blows to make a stand and commit to supporting the candidate who has an insurmountable lead.  It's time for them to side with Obama and get our party unified before it's too late.

The longer this useless infighting continues the more fractured our party becomes and the less likey it will become united again to fight the true enemy, Tailhook Johnny and his four more years of repugnant one's rape, pillage and plundering of our nation and our economy.

I ment Michael's you tube

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):