Around in circles?

Steve, San Diego — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:27 GMT

Thank you Ron Allen for this report. And thank you Domenico for posting this (not your usual style).

Around in circles?

Joe - STL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:46 GMT

Finally, someone pointed out the obvious!

Around in circles?

SUPER D's WE NEED TO KNOW. — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:41:51 GMT

SUPERS NEED TO COME OUT AND MAKE THEIR DECISIONS KNOWN NOW!!

Around in circles?

Carol, Long Valley NJ — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:42:57 GMT

In November, the very "blue" states will go to the Democratic nominee, the very "red" states will go to Senator McCain.

The swing/purple states are what matters and Barack has won more of those.

Vote with your head, vote for the economy, vote for jobs.

Vote Democratic 2008 -- don't let the corporations and their Republican stooges win again.

Around in circles?

Tired of Being Tired — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:43:08 GMT

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the revolving Clinton argument:

Seat Fl and MI delegates because to do otherwise would effectively deprive their constituents their vote, but then simultaneously calling that supers disregard the vote of the people and pick her as the nominee.

Her candidacy has no viability because she would need every rule bent her way, every toss up her way, her campaigning frame would have to rule. When ultimately, none of it makes sense.

Around in circles?

MR — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:43:25 GMT

THIS IS SO SAD AND PATHETIC. IT IS SO HARD TO WATCH A DYNASTIC FAMILY FALL FROM GRACE. PA, PLEASE SEND THEM HOME. THE CLINTONS OF YESTER-YEAR ARE ALL BUT GONE forever!

Around in circles?

sharon,fl — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:43:45 GMT

that is the only thing I disagree with Hillary on
Hillary supporters will NOT vote Obama anyways when the Republicans get a hold of him the race will be over

Around in circles?

Mark — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:44:13 GMT

Wow I am sooooo glad I don't have the warped way of thinking these polititians have! If you've blown all your money and are running in the red how can you call the other guy the "going for broke" guy. And if you win more votes, delegates and states, you're more electable. There that wasn't so hard.

Around in circles?

sean, atlanta, ga — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:44:14 GMT

First Read: meet the head of the nail....her case is hollow

Around in circles?

Cindy Lou, TX — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:44:32 GMT

Ron, you're among a handful of reporters who actually analyze the Clinton spin. Good for you! Hillary's arguments have been circular for some time now. The spin is so heavy, we need Dramamine!

Around in circles?

Mark S, NC — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:44:38 GMT

I just saw David Shuster flat out lie to your viewers, telling Janet Napolitano that Barack Obama hadn't answered direct questions about the appropriateness of Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas. Three stories down from this one is an entry which explicitly delineates answers Obama gave TODAY regarding that visit. Maybe your anchors should read their own website to stay up to date? Or maybe Shuster should refrain from being so eager to prove his "journalistic independence" after being suspended recently over those Chelsea Clinton comments. Either way, it's pretty ridiculous--and rather outrageous that I haven't heard a correction yet.

Around in circles?

Molly — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:45:08 GMT

GO HILLARY !!!! msnbc - stop twisting words and trying to spin every word of both candidates. Just STOP. Let the voters in all states decide who the best candidate will be for President of the USA - you - the media is turning this into a circus.

Around in circles?

katie, boston, ma — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:45:08 GMT

Clinton said today she need to win and she will do everything she has to to win. This is just another spin on her inability to win states, win states by low margins and her further inabiity to financially sustain her campaign. I see the superdelegates really peeling away if she doesn't have a very decisive win tonight. With democratic registration up to record levels and such enthusiams for Obama in some traditionally red states, isn't it more possible than not that many more states will be in play with Obama as the nominee?

Around in circles?

Pat, Boston, MA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:45:53 GMT

Excellent article Mr. Allen.

Someone should ask Senator Clinton if she's aware of the fact that Senator Obama is leading in the polls nationally against her.

Also, is she aware of her high negatives nationally and of Barack's low negatives nationally?

Isn't that the fundamental argument here?

Around in circles?

Steve B. NewYork — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:46:05 GMT

I loooove this analysis !
Thank you ~

Around in circles?

tee — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:46:51 GMT

When you say whatever it takes to win, it doesn't really matter that what you're saying has to be logical.

After all, one can claim to have the necessary foreign policy experience to be commander-in-chief based on an alleged landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, only to misremember about such experience in the first place, but can then turn around and blame that misremembering on late-night fatigue at 11 pm, and further turn around and use that late-fatigue as example of readiness to answer the red phone at a much-later-3 am. What's wrong with that?!

Also, why is it so difficult for the media to understand that one can support and vote for NAFTA, advocate for it, have husband and advisers working to effect it, only to secretly wish that it would fail and secretly oppose it comes election time when being confronted with its adverse on the working Americans?

Around in circles?

pgh., pa. — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:47:21 GMT

MSNBC,

Ron Allen is good. As a reporter he's thinking more analytically than Senator Clinton. Now come one Hillary supporters. She's a lawyer, and has been taught to think like one. Her arguments are clearly nothing but mindless rhetoric.

Obama '08

Around in circles?

Angry Vet, Minn. — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:47:39 GMT

Wow. I never thought I'd see such cogent analysis on the part of an MSM blog. I'm sure no one else in the MSM will pick up on this, unfortunately. This is the same method HRC has pulled since 2/5, and nobody has called her on it yet.

Around in circles?

Woman who would NEVER vote for HRC — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:47:47 GMT

Finally!!! Thank you for putting some perspective on the Clinton Spin.

Here is a repost from any earlier blogger that helps to reaffirm these comments:

HRC and the MSM have this narrative all wrong. HRC wants to show that her winning PA proves she is the stronger candidate and recently is asking "why can't he close this out if he has all this money?" These are the wrong questions. She has been in public life for (repeat after me) 35 years. She and her husband have built a national political machine going back twenty years with organization, supporters and financing. The Clinton Brand has been the Democratic Party brand given that he is the last Democratic President. All of this is worth hundreds of millions of dollars that she has been spending in every state.

Barack Obama? Let's use HRC's and MSM's narrative: an unknown person, brand new on the national stage, no experience, no organization, no BRAND, no DEM support, no money. But....in 15 months this unknown person has made it impossible for the BRAND CLINTON to close this out. So ask, who is the stronger candidate? One who, with 35 years of experience and 20 years of running a national juggernaut or an organization but is in second place?? Or some unknown, brand less guy who in 15 months built the single most impressive organization, grass roots network and financial machine American politics has ever seen and has ridden that right into first place?????

To all of you Clinton supporters: do you have any answers as to why this coronation candidate with everything behind her has managed to lose to a somewhat unknown upstart??? If Clinton had ALL old Democratic support; ALL of the money; her husband's name and record to tout; ALL of the advantages but is still losing, doesn't this say something about HRC herself??? I would like a rational explanation by just one HRC supporter as to how this could have happend.

Around in circles?

PS, LA, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:47:47 GMT

Ron, only to those of us who think clearly. :)

Around in circles?

Kevin,Fl — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:48:38 GMT

You Go Girl!!! We as Americans are learning about Mr.Obama and it is not going over well. The honeymoon is over. Hillary will win the White House and start solving the problems that we face today. She is tough and strong and will be an excellent commander in chief. Obama has ran a good campaign but the whole bumper sticker stuff is wearing thin. Hillary will win tonight by a huge margin. Good Luck Hillary!!!!

Around in circles?

P, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:48:41 GMT

It's a valid point, Ron. But just watch for the blowback. Clinton supporters won't like what you have to say, and the fact you're calling her out on it IS biased reporting.

Nevermind the fact that I feel like you're right. Clinton isn't making herself look too good, is she?

Around in circles?

donna darko — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:49:07 GMT

Why does the argument cancel itself out? It's the truth. If he spends 3-to-1 and 5-to-1 and can pull off PA, he CANNOT win PA and the general.

Around in circles?

Mike STL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:49:31 GMT

Ron, NBC. MSNBC,

If this is the case, why don't you snf the rest of the media pose this contradiction to her and her spin team? This is why she doesn't have to spend or even need money...she and her team throw anything your way and you guys run it for days in all of the media channels and try to make sense ot it...and in the end confuse many of the viewers.

What am I missing here...??

Around in circles?

Nashville_fan — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:49:39 GMT

*Rubs eyes*

What? Someone in the media notices the complete and utter HILLARY-OUSNESS of the Clinton campaign spin - "I am broke" turns into "He's outspending me" . . . "He's so weak" turns into "Why so negative?" and on and on and on.

Thanks for noticing - finally!

Around in circles?

donna darko — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:50:48 GMT

Here's the full argument. If he puts more money into the PA primary than anyone in history and still cannot win, he cannot win the general:

But after the Obama campaign's "go-for-broke" Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't Sen. Obama win?

Sen. Obama's supporters - and many pundits - have argued that the delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?

Around in circles?

James, No More Money for HillBilly — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:50:58 GMT

She a dill pickle for brains...Obama had to spend alot of money to make her spin her money right into bankrupt court... I was all part of Obama master plan... She cant keep up with his spending patterns and now shes in debt...NIIIIIIIICE ONE OBAMA..
Keep running circles around her.....

OBAMA 08 PA Voters of America

Around in circles?

DemNPL, North Dakota — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:39 GMT

Hillary's electability arguments are all fraudulent. The widespread belief among Democrats is that she would be a drag on the ticket nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter in 1980. That's why elected Dem-NPLers in North Dakota first supported Edwards and then switched en masse to Obama. We'd like to win, thank you. Hillary polls 20 points behind McCain here, and Obama polls in the lead, or in a statistical dead-heat. That is replicated in Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Montana and all of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West. Probably most of the South and Northwest, too.

She'll win today in PA, maybe by 20 points, but it won't matter. The nomination is Obama's. The superdelegates come from all the states and all politics being local, they will support the candidate who runs best in their areas. Almost everywhere .. that's Obama. And the second reason they'll back him is politicians know instinctively who they can take for granted ... in this case, it's the votes of Democratic women. Those youngsters Obama has inspired are a different story. We don't need to give them a reason to stay home in November.

Around in circles?

Jeff Katzman, New York, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:42 GMT

This is one of the more intelligent posts today. Keep this up MSNBC. This is the kind of analysis we're seeking!

Around in circles?

DrK — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:51:44 GMT

Let's cut to the real political numbers. Senator Clinton needs to win 64% of the votes in all the remaining primaries to win the nomination. Failing to get 64% of the vote in the "PA Primary" means she increases the number she needs to obtain a winning margin.
It's like watching Willie Mays play that last year with the Mets. Bad baseball and bad for Willie.

Around in circles?

Independent in TN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:52:01 GMT

Welcome to the Clinton spin zone . . .

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

The Clintons have proven over and over again that they will say ANYTHING . . . they are liars

Around in circles?

Frank, Missouri — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:52:15 GMT

You won't get a straight statement out of the Clintons and their campaign over the course of a week.

A new metric, a new 'logic' everyday to deny the simple truth : She thought she was unbeatable. She mismanaged her campaign. Her campaign is in debt. She lost the nomination.

Obama won 29 States, Clinton 14 (not including Clinton's victory in the State of Denial)

Around in circles?

Pete - Albany, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:52:56 GMT

...and, thus, we see the precarious position Senator Clinton is in having to play catch-up.

She's got to argue that he can't win to better her chances but she's also got to keep folks from voting for McPottymouth for sake of the party.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Around in circles?

Roger Kissimmee — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:05 GMT

Regardless of if Hillary wins big or small in Pennsylvania, she still cannot win to become the next Democratic Candidate in the General Election, so why are all these Hillary fans voting for her when realistically and statistically speaking her chances of winning are less than 10% ? The media makes us think she can pull this off, but they are just playing the ratings game. Its not close, it hasnt been close in some time, and frankly after Pennsylvania tonight they will say Indiana and NC are do or die wins for Hillary. The goal post just keeps moving both by the media and by the Hillary Campaign, as Hillary like Huckabee waits for her miracle. Tonight we will see how many Pennsylvanian's vote for a statistical loser. I mean come on, enough already.. Her do or die moment was in Feb, she died, her ghost is the only thing that haunts us right now. Boo !!

Around in circles?

Anne/Ohio — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:12 GMT

Oh Please PA voter put that woman out of her misary!

Around in circles?

MK,MO — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:40 GMT

hopefully hillary will be in jail soon for rigging the PA primary today and we can all concentrate on getting obama elected president

Around in circles?

Ben, Chicago IL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:54:15 GMT

A politician talking in circles? No way!

Around in circles?

MBM Chicago, IL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:54:16 GMT

I just got done contributing to Obama's campaign. Want to make sure he has enough funds to finish the job. Trying to follow Hillary's logic is making me dizzy, so I wanted to complete the contribution while I could still type.

All you Hillary supporters, make sure you also contribute. Mark Penn and Ickeys have to get paid yet.

So what is the consensus from Bill's radio experiment of yesterday? Did the memos he read make him issue the stupid statements in SC? Or did Bill not say what Bill said? See Hillary and Bill are the same. They can both talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

Around in circles?

Jim, Austin, Texas — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:54:38 GMT

"(W)hat difference does it make who wins the big states during the primary season? Clinton seems to believe the nominee will have the full backing of the party.

Did the media JUST figure this out? Man, I fear for this country.

Around in circles?

Sal Kilmister, San Diego, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:55:29 GMT

Great post! I agree with the circular argument. I am a political junkie, but I can't wait until this is all over.

Around in circles?

news — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:55:36 GMT

The Obama campaign website is reporting that 29 state legislators from North Carolina have endorsed Obama today. Any news about this and of those 29, are any superdelegates. I know it's PA's day but how 'bout a little info? Thanks!

Around in circles?

John McCain, The White House — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:55:55 GMT

Obama needs to go home ans eat his waffle in peace.

Clinton 08

Around in circles?

sg, michigan — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:56:20 GMT

If Hillary Clinton is so much more electable, then why is she behind? In summary, she has fewer votes, money and delegates.

She may get a slight advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania, but she'll remain in second place until the bitter end.

Is she just stubborn or foolish?

Around in circles?

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:57:51 GMT

I-I-I, I'm hooked on a feelin'
High on believin' that you're in love with me

Old song about wishful thinking.

All they way to June 3 and Montana if thats what she needs.

Obama '08

Around in circles?

Delores Rose-Kennedy in TN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:05 GMT

Hillary is electable. Obama is not. Not in November. First the Republicans will stir up a little dust, then a little dirt and then MUD. Obama will fold like a lawn chair.

Around in circles?

don, PA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:36 GMT

I voted this morning in a Pittsburgh suburb. A few observations
- The polling place I voted was busy but not crowded. No lines
- Did not see any young folks. Most were middle aged women.
- Not enough Hillary supporters on the ballot for the PA Dem convention. People can choose 5 names but there are only 4 Hillary supporters. In contrary, there are 7 Obama supporters on the ballot.

Around in circles?

Mister Anderson (The Matrix) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:49 GMT

I've been arguing this since February.

First, Obama (or any other Democrat not named Lieberman) isn't going to lose New York or California anymore in the Fall anymore than Clinton will win Texas.

Second, a large chunk of Obama's supporters are not Democratic party members. They're supporting the Man and his Message the same way NBA fans would support Michael Jordan and his game. Just because they bought Bulls' tickets and watched Bulls' games, that didn't make them Bulls' fans. Clinton's supporters are diehard, card carrying, Democratic members.

If you had to bet which one would stick to their word and not turn out in the Fall or support John McCain, I guarantee it will be Obama's supporters since most of us weren't loyal Democrats to begin with.

Around in circles?

Carter, Jacksonville, FL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:57 GMT

Wow, what a great point!! If the Dems are going to unite in the fall then Barack will win all of those big states if he is the nominee.

Around in circles?

Jim, Minneapolis, MN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:59:34 GMT

Chuck- you are one of the smartest in the business. Can you point out more in the future that one will not get an unbiased answer from Rove and other Republicans on "who will be easier to beat in the fall". Of course they wont tell what they really think. It is after all in their best interest to say Barack is the easier one to beat - because if enough Republican talking heads repeat that they hope that either superdelegates get cold feet and vote for Hillary, or in the least Obama is bruised by a lengthy nomination process. So I think it is not very useful to ask Republicans for their opinion unless someone points out why the answer may not reflect what they REALLY think deep inside. They will tell you what they want you to beleive. Of course Hillary is the easier nominee for them in the fall.

Second, thanks for posting this. Come on. This myth that winning a states primary has anything to do with who will be the better candidate against in the fall is just that. It is not even statisically valid. The result of a race between A versus B, tell nothing about how A+B will do against C. That depends on how many A+B is out there compared to C, as well as how many A's drop out versus B's.

Around in circles?

James, Wichita, KS — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:00:11 GMT

Thank you Ron... why is it so hard for people to understand this?

I can only chalk it up to good ratings for newspapers, and TV to give her more credit then she deserves. If she stays in then ratings stay up because of all the interest.

I think if Obama were in the reverse situation the "noise" from the Party and media would be unbearable for him to get out.

In short, it is a "Clinton" thing. They have been a spectacle and continue to be a spectacle. Problem is, we have huge issues to address in this country and the last thing we need is "spectacle".

It really is time for everyone to call her bluff and ask her to leave.

http://laststopmidwest.blogspot.com

Around in circles?

Sue, Bloomington, IN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:00:21 GMT

Clinton reminds me of my dog when he chases his tail. He just goes around and around and around. Obama has already won Pennsylvania by forcing her to spend so much there. He has 42 million to play with in NC and IN. She, at best can only compete in one, Indiana. She can't afford to contest NC. She also has vendors threatening to go to collection agencies. How can she run a country when she can't even run a campaign.

Around in circles?

Michael — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:00:23 GMT

How biased of you guys. Why haven't any of you pointed out that both IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE violated the rules too? Could that be because it is not favorable to your candidate Obama? Are you not ashamed of what you have turned journalism into -- advocacy?

According to the rules, no primary or caucus was to take place before Jan 14. The Iowa caucus was on Jan 3. According to the rules, New Hampshire was supposed to be third in line, they ended up being second. So the next time you blurb out your advocacy in the name of journalism about how Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated because of the rules, this should remind you of how intellectually dishonest you bunch at MSNBC are.

I know this will not be posted just as you've deleted my other posts but I don't mind because this is for you to read not the public. You bunch are a disgrace to journalism.

Around in circles?

Bob from Va — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:00:24 GMT

Wow! This is the first intelligent analysis I've seen on this issue yet. Thanks for saying what others have been ignoring, or were not quite bright enough to get.

Around in circles?

shemajo — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:25 GMT

I hope Democrats will be smarter than stick with Hillary. Republican will love to have her and bring back all the mud they though during the 90's. I was very undecided but Hillary's playbook showed to be not better than the Republican's. Obama will beat McCain but I have my doubts about Hillary. What upsets me about her is that she does not seem to care to drag the party, she feels entitled to the nomination and cannot get the fact that she is Not the most viable candidate and if she can't be the nominee she would rather let the country stay in Republican hands, never mind that a McCain presidency will drive this country into a third world country status.

Around in circles?

Dr. Ashok, Post falls, Id — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:26 GMT

Why can't MSNBC reporters understand their bias in favor of Barack is doing them no favors--they look silly and sound silly--first of all, for heaven's sake there are 6+ months left for general election, super delegates are supposedly independent agents; if hillary wants to stay in race as the game sys until June 3 and delegates-super can oly vote in August--who cares---The potential nominee can start planning right now

Do you know how many states Bush won vs Gore 30 over 20--Bush didnot wait 6 week for supreme court to decide before went into motion to plan his presidency

You may not like it, but son a Muslim is Muslim even if he changes his faith afterwords. Like jesus was a Jew till he died --you call him a christ.

Around in circles?

Evan, Atlanta, GA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:45 GMT

What are the most important "swing" states in recent elections? Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Clinton will end up winning two of those three, and can make a strong argument that she would have carried Florida had it counted. For the sake of argument, we'll throw out Florida. Clinton still takes Ohio, PA, CA, NY, NJ, and MA. The only surefire big blue state that Obama has won is Illinois (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). So, Clinton has won or will win every major big blue state, except for Illinois. Furthermore, Clinton leads Obama in those crucial swing states (OH, PA, and FL) against John McCain. It seems logical to me that Hillary's road to the White House is much simpler than Obama's, which depends on him basically fighting for every state in the union. Hillary just needs to win the big blue states along with OH, PA, and FL. Am I missing something? It just seems so obvious to me that the media and Democratic strategists are completely dropping the ball on their analysis here.

Around in circles?

jp,michigan — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:55 GMT

Michigan looked like a hard sell for Obama, so he took his name off the ballot. The idea was to have it work against Hillary. She remained on the ballot. Now the DNC will not allow the primary count and Obama and his supporter did every thing they could to not allow Michigan a re-vote. He has once again shown how calculation a politician he is. He felt he had a better chance in Florida, so his name remained on the ballot. (http://www.wzzm13.com ) If he thinks Michigan will vote for him in November , He better think again.

Around in circles?

Kim, Pasadena, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:25 GMT

You are correct. There are more circular arguments from the campaign of Senator Clinton than the ones you set forth above.

Here is my favorite: Senator Clinton's campaign says we need to count all of the votes (referring usually to MI and FL) and all votes should count. But to win this nomination by votes (unless Senator Clinton gets 65% of the vote in all remaining contests) Senator Clinton needs to get 78% of the superdelegates to ignore the votes and make her the nominee. Even with MI and FL added "as is", Senator Obama has a 119 pledged delegate lead. To defeat this lead, Senator Clinton would need to win 62% of the vote in all remaining contests which is also highly unlikely.

Around in circles?

Karen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:35 GMT

No worries what Hillary says or does, the story line will change in a matter of minutes. Those senior moments are getting the best of her.

Bill on the other hand... well, I just think he's bitter.

Around in circles?

Chitta Nirmel — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:36 GMT

Ron Allen's lean toward Obama comes through in his choice of words in discussing the two candidates. Why is Sen. Clinton the one who "pushes back" ( a term suggesting desperation) when Obama's position HAS to be the same - that come November the Democratic party and voters will calm down and will support whoever is their nominee?

The "smaller" and more numerous states where Obama won over Hillary are mostly "red states" which are very likely to go to McCain anyway. So Obama's victories there in the Democratic primaries is a lesser assurance of victory in November than is Clinton's dominance in the large states that Democrats must carry to win.

Sorry, Ron! Its okay to favor a "brother" in subtle ways, but you are being a little to obvious. Try to be a good jounalist please!

Around in circles?

July Garcia, New York, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:51 GMT

I have lost all respect for Hillary.
Her "kitchen sink" mentality, meaning whatever it takes to win, leaves me profoundly disgusted.
If Hillary somehow steals the nomination, McCain will get my vote.

Around in circles?

Jim, Austin, Texas — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:57 GMT

"(w)hat difference does it make who wins the big states during the primary season? Clinton seems to believe the nominee will have the full backing of the party."

Uh, yeahh. Did we all just figure this out? THat "big state argument? It's called spin.

Around in circles?

BIGOLDTEXAN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:03:13 GMT

In this last week’s debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her “baggage” has been “rummaged through” for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.
Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.
In 1996, the first lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in The Wall Street Journal “Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations.
"A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate.’”
Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996.
Emerson says that its leaders “have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad.”
The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the '90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that “Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s . . . White House reception.”
Alamoudi, Emerson says was “the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads.” Marzug took “credit” when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug “had never been involved in terrorism” and called his arrest “an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he “elicited contributions fro Marzug’s defense fund” and called him a “political prisoner.”
Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said “we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart.”
Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” But alert observers weren’t fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.
But by then, a few weeks before the election, she had abjured the use of soft money in her Senate campaign, so the donation was, in practical terms, useless, since it was well over the limits for hard money contributions.
The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view. WorldNetDaily.com reported on Oct. 7, 2007, that leading terrorists have publicly called for her election. Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily’s Jerusalem correspondent, wrote, in his wonderful book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group said “I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.”
And what about Hillary’s service on a board that gave money to a terrorist organization? And her hosting of a terror supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from that group? And the statements of terrorists that they are hoping for her to win?

Around in circles?

SK, Buffalo, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:03:40 GMT

Remember throwing jello cubes at the walls and ceilings in high school? Or maybe it was college, hard to remember that long ago. You flipped up the cubes and some of them stuck and some of them didn't. Sometimes they stuck and then dropped down and hit you on the head when you walked under them.

Same thing.

Around in circles?

COL[retd] A.M.Khajawall MD — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:03:56 GMT

This is called shifting goal posts and raising bar. In this process Clinton hurts herself and her party and American dream stays unrealised. Clintons care only about themselves. She is deviod of graciousness and greatness. An angry politician is an dangerous president.

Around in circles?

Thanks!! Pensecola, FL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:04:25 GMT

Ron Allen, congrats to you for upholding the public's trust in media reporting. My thoughts exactly.

Go Democrats! Just please stop tearing each other down so that we may have a chance to win in Nov.

Around in circles?

Campdog — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:04:48 GMT

Mantanaro... Stick to Journalism.

Even if the Dems do come together they will need the help of the middle to win the election and Obama is not the guy to appeal to the middle.

Obama has been given contributions averaging around 100 bucks so what does that mean? He has about a million contributors? Let's say 2 million and double it for fun. Ok. That's 4 million votes. So what?

Determining the number of people that have contributed to a campaign has nothing to do with a majority of the votes one might receive in a general election. We already know that the Obama supporter is wealthier than the Clinton supporter so why should it amaze anyone that college educated folks have more to contribute financially than lesser educated folks.

Around in circles?

Tired of Clinton's lies — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:06:02 GMT

"Just words" Hillary. Barack has the nomination. You're a bug in his soup, a fly in the ointment, a schoolyard bully that got ditched.

Around in circles?

Kevin Hough — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:07:07 GMT

Obama supporter's donations do not reflect the reasons for his lead. Obama's small States caucus wins are not a true reflection of actual registered Democratic voters. Most of his money is from repeat donors, who actually have set up automated monthly donations for Obama. Outspending Hillary throughout this whole campaign, and still not able to "seal the deal"? Ron, you down play that too much. In the General election, Obama won't be able to spend as much money, so if he's spending 3-1 just to maintain where he is now, how's he going to maintain in November?

Around in circles?

Moderate dem — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:07:51 GMT

Ah, I'll bet he's getting millions at a time from Oprah and the ultra liberal Hollywood crowd, who have tons of money. Us regular folks only have so much money to give to our candidate, Hillary Clinton. The phoney and the rich are giving to Obama.

Around in circles?

RDP, Chesterfield, MO — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:08:15 GMT

Thank you for finally bringing up the absuridy of the Clinton arguments. Her campaign claims that Obama is whining about the negative campaign she has waged and tells everyone "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Then she and all of her supporters whine that Obama has outspent her 3-4 to 1. That is not a negative or an excuse. She has had the Pennsylvania state democratic machine helping her, the state leans heavily to her core supporters and she had a 25% lead in the state 5 weeks ago. If she only manages a single digit victory today...it is virtually over. Let all the other states vote, but she cannot catch up with the delegate count, the popular vote or number of primaries won. She says everyone should have the right to vote...fine, but she cannont throw all the other states votes away that did not vote for her. Today she said "a win is a win". Well when we get to the end, I hope she is still saying that because Obama will have won the delegates, popular vote and total states. Senator Clinton, " a win is a win".
One other thing I would like to see the press pose to Senator Clinton. If this was turned around and she was sitting where Obama is today and will be by June 3rd, if the nomination was taken away from her would she be good with that. No way, she would be screaming that "a win is a win" and her nomination was stolen from her. Please media, put this shoe on the other foot and let's see what she says.

Around in circles?

Julie Harris — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:46 GMT

Everytime either Clinton opens their mouths, I have an overwhelming desire to leave the democratic party. All I know is that if Hillary gets the nomination with neither the popular vote or elected delegate majority, I WILL leave the party. And I have been a democrat since 1976.

Around in circles?

Fred Couples, Lewiston, Maine — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:10:57 GMT

Well circular logic is at least better than the out and out lies. Maybe she'll get dizzy and decide to lie down ... hopefully for the rest of the presidential primary season.

Around in circles?

McCain Clinton 08 — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:11:43 GMT

Clinton's campaign had a cause?

Around in circles?

Sandycs1953 Texas City, TX — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:14:54 GMT

She the top in her spinning class, I'll give her that. A win is a win, he's not electable, etc. etc. Give it up already. Bow out now, step back and let the party unify behind who WE have chosen as the nominee. Get over it already, Hillary! Go Obama! GO!

Around in circles?

S Ward, FLA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:15:50 GMT

Hillary has made her case: forget about numbers and tell supedelegates to just 'feel' that she is the right candidate. In fact why have an election at all if the numbers dont count? Just feel....

Around in circles?

dbarker — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:15:52 GMT

I for One will never vote for Obama if he wins the nomination - I'd rather see a third Bush term!

Around in circles?

Thomas, Gainesville, Florida — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:15:59 GMT

Thank GOD...FINALLY...an article from a major news source that calls the Clintons out on their nonsensical claims.

Woflson and Clinton keep moving the goal posts and the networks keep buying in. I don't blame y'all...after all....a protracted race is good for ratings. But enough is enough.

By the way, you left out the "a win is a win" argument that they make today. Notice how that flies in the face of the "we win BIG states" position? If a win is a win, then the DNC should count all of the states the same and no stat is more important than any other state. After all, a win is a win.

The Clintons love to qualify Obama's wins, but expect you to not qualify their wins.

And for the record, Obama won Texas.

Around in circles?

Ed G — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:16:25 GMT

i voted for the war before i was against it.

states that start with the letter "N" count double, except for North Carolina.

i can manage the economy, but not my campaign or my budget.

i am for all the thinks Bill said, except for anything you don't like

circular? nahhhh

Around in circles?

Terry, IN — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:16:28 GMT

She's done so much spinning, she's lost her equilibrium, and senses.

Around in circles?

George, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:16:51 GMT

Let Hillary keep running... Barack has it in the bag already. Hillary will need a Miracle in order to win.

Around in circles?

FORMER Hillary supporter, Salem Oregon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:16:56 GMT

This is very typical Clinton logic. Heads I win, tails you lose. And lies are truth!

Around in circles?

dante m tpocono pa — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:17:45 GMT

im getting dizzy please stop the spinning .clintons have no shame or morales.after countless lies and misinterpertations of the facts how can anyone still support her

Around in circles?

think — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:18:04 GMT

I disagree with you. Even if the party rallies around the nominee, she still would be a better candidate against McCain than Obama. He won't answer questions people want the answers to. He's not even speaking to the press now. He's refused to debate in NC now. He's weak; he can't take it. He's poor in debates because it's not scripted by a great speech writer.

Around in circles?

don matson — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:18:37 GMT

Nope. Clinton wins tonight by 11.

Around in circles?

Sem, VA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:19:28 GMT

look, let's be realistic. Obama was 25% DOWN in pennsylvenia. clinton had an establishment spanning 15 years, and has support of Gov and mayors. Hillary has support of a former president, Bill. So it was an uphill battle for Obama, If clinton wins by less that 10%, it will be a moral victory for Obama.

Around in circles?

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:19:30 GMT

Isn't it in her own interest that her voters turn out for Obama if he's the nominee for the good of the Democratic party?

Around in circles?

OQ, Sin City, NV — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:19:48 GMT

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y....HRC winning would amount to nothing short of disfranchisement. Period.

Around in circles?

Tony, Dalton, GA. YES WE CAN!!! — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:20:03 GMT

+1 Ron!!

Very concise and hard to refute.

Clinton "Logic" (so soft...and fuzzy!!), seems to leave out the fact that she would not be in the GE Race!!

I think she actually believes that the voters would actually prefer to go with McWar for another 100 years...

Around in circles?

Eric, Philadelphia, PA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:20:32 GMT

Ron thank you for pointing out yet another Clinton confusing argument. You could also point out that when she touts her speech in China as part of her politial experience, that she too is all about speeches and not about solutions...especially since Women's Rights in China isn't quite resolved yet...

Around in circles?

she'lia tallahassee, fl — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:20:36 GMT

Hillary is delusional to think that people will actually vote for her with her negative and lying self. i saw her on the faith & politics episode she was looking in the sky for a sign from God to help her explain what encounters she has had with the Holy Spirit and i could see that she has had none she cant remember a specific time. so when i saw that she is fake and a phony. I want to see a change for Good come to america and if Obama is the man the let it be.

Around in circles?

Tommy, Austin Tx — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:20:44 GMT

It is strange, she stated in the debate that Obama can beat McCain. I do feel that her staying in the race now is important in the sense that Democrats are registering and this will help in the long run. But she should run more like Huckabee did. Push her own credentials and take the loss. I know this was hard fought but numbers don't lie. The fact is that she lost. Someone has to come in second.....

Around in circles?

Jessica, PA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:21:37 GMT

Stop being so biased !!!

I swear MSNBC you really suck big time on your news coverage, I always have to watch FOX to get the truth.

Around in circles?

Mike STL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:21:45 GMT

All Media,

What I just don't understand is this spin by Clinton and her spin machine is totally BS and you know it, so why don't you call them on it, or in the least quit running with it and spinning it yourself trying to make what they say seem believeable.

She doesn't need money, which is a big reason why she is still in the race, because she whinned a while back and all of you have now jumped on their bandwagon and now spin for them.

WHY...??

Around in circles?

Beetlejuice, Salem, MA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:22:12 GMT

Hillary has crossed the line between stubborn and delusional.

Around in circles?

Mike STL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:22:37 GMT

Around in circles?

CP — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:22:55 GMT

Obama can outspend her because he's raised so much more money, from many more supporters, supporters who are responsible for giving him the lead by every viable measure of the race.

EXACTLY!

And yet again, she proves that only the "big states" matter to her. The rest of the states, in her mind, suck canal water.

Around in circles?

Dana Sutton — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:23:19 GMT

In watching this Democratic soap opera, I can't help thinking back to 1968. Suppose Hillary wins the nomination by some behind-the-scenes superdelegate deal. Obama's supporters, and especially his Black ones, would very likely see racism and might well take it to the streets. Would Hillary like to see her campaign launched by a chain of coast-to-coast race riots, like Humphrey saw his campaign kicked off by the street violence in Chicago? (And the long-term damage this would do to the traditional Black support of the Democratic Party might be profound). Worse yet, there is a big difference between Hillary's campaign and Barack's. Hers is campaign meant to do little more than slake her personal ambition (and that of Bill's). But a number of reporters who have covered Barack's have used the word "movement" to describe it because of his great appeal to a new generation of voters. Well, okay, it may be a movement with very little actual content, but it's an authentic one anyway. The last such generational movement was in support of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and when Humphrey got the Democratic nomination very few of McCarthy's supporters dutifully returned to the fold and voted for him. They either voted for McCarthy's third-party effort that November or simply stayed home. And this gives very cold comfort to any theory that this November all of Barack's supporters would happily roll over and let Hillary scratch their tummies. The danger that Democrats would lose Black support is real, but an even greater danger is that they might lose the support of this entire generation of young voters. So Hillary is playing a dangerous game for very high stakes.

Around in circles?

tom, san francisco — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:23:34 GMT

it ends up weakening her case because she has no case! her case is to lie, deceive, spin, and then she circles back to lying! she is the one who has made this campaign negative, and has looked for every attack and dishonest statement she can find.

obama has taken the high road, and not attacked her character, unless he was defending an attack that she made on him.

this is ridiculous, and needs to stop after today! and president clinton should be ashamed of himself... but i guess it just goes to show that they care about nothing but themselves.

Around in circles?

Al, in LA, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:24:49 GMT

The main reason she will win tonite is that PA politicians have groomed their electorate in a way that the old politics still work. Despite claims their state is doing well, by Rendell, they are fearful of their economic situations. Clinton's brand is strong enough to weather a repeated falsehood because Obama did not react with old style vitriol, that would have put him over the top there. It is more than just PA's demographics working for her, it's their political culture working against Obama. PA is the antithesis of Obama's message, it will be double digits.

Around in circles?

Capt. Smash, Salt Lake City, Utah — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:25:02 GMT

4:07 pm - Voter Machine Problems in West Philly

With record numbers of new registrants for a primary election, voter-protection groups have reported some glitches at polling places around the region.

More than 100 complaints - several about malfunctioning machines - have been lodged so far, according to Watch the Vote 2008, a Washington-based coalition of voter groups.

Relative to other primary elections in the nation, "my sense is that the machine problems are high," said Kathryn Bookvar, an attorney with the Advancement Project, also in Washington.

She said that voters at a polling place in the 49th Ward near the Fern Rock station had to wait two hours because of machine malfunctions. Machine problems also were reported in West Oak Lane; Elkins Park, Montgomery County; and Upper Darby, Delaware County.

In addition, "numerous" registration snafus were reported to the Committee of Seventy, the Philadelphia election-watchdog organization, said John David, the election coordinator.

The bulk of those complaints have come from voters who switched parties and whose names did not appear on the rolls of the new party. The city has been inundated with calls, said David, adding: "It's swamping the voter-registration office."

Source: philly.com via politisite

Around in circles?

Brandy, Woodbury, Minnesota — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:25:24 GMT

If HRC is going to talk about how Obama should win PA based on his spending there then she will have to talk about how she has fallen into second place.

Around in circles?

Jason, Rochester Hills, MI — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:25:57 GMT

Stop talking to her. She sucks and that is sad!

The woman is TOXIC! In my personal opinion, I must add!

Around in circles?

ST Laudee, Eden, KS — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:26:02 GMT

With Obama getting more money then Clinton, his supporters expect him to win. But yet, he isn't. More money doesn't necessarly mean your the better candidate, that's why there are superdelegates. When the SDs realize Obama can't close the deal, either against Hillary or McCain, they'll start moving in Hillary's direction.

Around in circles?

Tony C. SA TX — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:26:02 GMT

I am an Obama fan (white southern male 51) that voted for Bill twice; but I must say the Clinton's cannot seem to get a handle on the current internet analysis environment. Bill and Hillary both seem to think their statements will be taken at face value with no criticism; and they would be if they were just played on network news channels -- But on the Internet we have group-think in a good way, and the compelling holes and contradictions and falsehoods and false premises in their arguments are exposed in moments and laughed off. It is another reason she does well with the older school over 60 crowd; they don't spend 18 hours a day online and communicating with friends and strangers in five different media. They can't stand the focus. Bill and Hillary are running a campaign out of 1990. Obama's campaign is modern, but he would do well to presume he is being audio and video taped every second he isn't in the restroom, and whether he does that or not, he has the advantage of being authentic and that keeps him out of most trouble. Hillary and Bill have proven they will just lie to your face, and even though they could get away with that most of the time in the 90's, it is a losing strategy in 2008.

Around in circles?

Inez, Seattle — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:26:56 GMT

Surely the party realizes that Obama's financial support is an indication of his overall support from Democratic voters. If Clinton has nowhere to go because she has come close to tapping out her donors ... it stands to reason that Obama leads her by virtue of his supporters who are still contributing every payday or two to his campaign.

The completely different way these campaigns have been run should also be an indication as to how the goverment would be run by our next Commander in Chief. If we are going to have a fiscally responsible government, we need a fiscally responsible leader. There is no question at the moment which candidate that points to.

Obama '08

Around in circles?

CJ, LA, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:26:57 GMT

I find it so frustrating, this argument that she's being outspent, so if she wins that means something. She's been a national figure for 16 years! Obama had to outspend her just to catch up in name recognition and begin to let people know who he is. I don't think this is a valid argument. Of course it will be made anyway.

Around in circles?

Amy, Baltimore, Md. — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:27:14 GMT

I have to point out that Senator Obama, while outspending Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania in the last six weeks, has to play catch-up to compete with the exposure and branding with which Senator Clinton came in to this race. Senator Obama's funds have been bolstered significantly by online donations from individuals, a source a Clinton advisor recently was quoted as being "unreliable." So, as a virtual unknown especially in rural PA, he outspent her, overcame decades of exposure and branding, and significantly closed the polling gap. Whose campaign is in trouble?

Around in circles?

Denny, Chicago, IL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:27:54 GMT

I wish this had been said weeks ago when the Clinton campaign started making these assertions. I thought it was pretty obvious glad the mainstream media has finally caught on to this illogical argument.

Around in circles?

Jim Shortts — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:19 GMT

The Democrats are hopelessly split this year. Too bad, because they had a real chance in this election. Whose idea was it not to have winner take all primaries? You just know that will change next time around.

Around in circles?

Michael — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:19 GMT

Is Chris Matthews utterly unable to see the difference between

1. Obama played the race card
2. Obama is playing the race card

Around in circles?

Tommy, Austin — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:22 GMT

She's running out of states, and a slight variation on a John Adams quote "number are a stubborn thing".

Around in circles?

Zulu One — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:50 GMT

The Democrats are chasing their tails.

Around in circles?

Daniel, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:53 GMT

Check Campaign Diaries's full guidelines for tonight's elections here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/04/setting-tonights-guidelines-will.html

In this trenchware warfare, the slightest weakness in either candidate's core groups have cost the candidates greatly (Clinton in Wisconsin) but unusual displays of strengths have yielded great rewards (Clinton in NH and OH, Obama in SC). If Clinton blinks again, it could prove fatal to her campaign; but if she keeps her groups mobilized today it could be very damaging to the Obama campaign.

Around in circles?

Ann, Sacramento — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:29:40 GMT

Good points about her arguments. I think Clinton says anything that fits the season. It's too bad. She is more interested in getting this nomination for herself than for the country and the Democratic Party. Too bad.

Obama '08

Around in circles?

RCM, NY, NY — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:30:44 GMT

If you GO back on most of the arguments she has been making, she has been talking in circles enough to make anyone dizzy. I am surprised she has not collapsed. she spins and respins and then LIES about it. SHE IS TOTALLY CONFUSED.

Around in circles?

Michael — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:31:29 GMT

Chuck Todd, Are you intimidated by Chris Matthews? I saw you trying to speak the truth but holding back.

You know that Obama's campaign issued a memo before SC playing the race card http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

You also know that Bill Clinton said "played the race card" NOT "playing the race card", which is a mis-characterization of his statements!

Around in circles?

Alicia — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:31:43 GMT

Yes, Hillary you're more electable because everything you've ever managed has been such a smashing success:

A campaign that's in the red and is a blaring debacle?

A failed healthcare proposal?

Claims of Chief Executive experience because you were First Lady?

Talking tough by threatening Iran with nuclear bombs?

Hiring a strategist that consults for something you're supposedly against?

I wouldn't vote for her as dog catcher. Although, you could say she already has that title since she's still married to Bill.