I look at this primary and see that Obama has done more to bring in hoards of new voters for the Democratic Party. I see his campaign has energized young voters and brought them into the process. Obviously the Clintons have the following from years in poltics, Bill's presidency, etc., but she can't even hold onto those voters, let alone bring all these new voters.

But she's decided at this point that she's either going to be the candidate, or she's going to tear the whole house down trying. She's even suggested many times that she AND MCCAIN are the only two that are worth voting for. What kind of a Democrat hints that the Republican rival is better than Obama? That proves to me that she's willing to tear the party apart if she can't win.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, Clinton were to somehow con her way to the nomination, like including delegates from states that Obama wasn't even on the ballot, it would completely deflate the momentum of the Party.

All those new voters Obama brought in are likely to drop right back out. She wouldn't deserve their vote anyway, after suggesting several times that MCCAIN would be a better choice than her rival.

So go right ahead Hillary, tear the house down. After all, it's only the country and our way of life that is at stake in this election.

This is a perpetuation of a fantasy on the presses part that Hillary can blow into a town on her train to the White House only to stand at the back and watch the people running after her, with their hands stretched out, shouting in desperation for truth, desperation for Change. To sit in silence and listen to the of the accounts of the past and of the things to one day accomplish, to promote promises throw out like candy to the masses that are running after this train to nowhere. The press is in fear of itself, either it can not report the truth or doesn"t have the ability to do so; report anything negative about the Clintons, they too may be out sourced. We can handle the truth can you handle reporting IT.

For every story that seems positive about Obama, I could show you at least ten that are spinning for Clinton (CNN does it all day, especially as Blitzer gets 3 hours.)

Howard Kurtz himself had a ridiculous piece a couple of weeks ago about how the Clintons were right, and she was criticized so unfairly for her hair...her clothes....etc. etc. Scrutinized in ways other candidates aren't.

Really? What channel is he watching? All I hear on CNN is pro-Clinton spinmeisters delivering their spiel to an encouraging Blitzer all day. Yesterday, for example, he had on James Carville, and agreed with every word, concluding, "Yes, if Obama can't handle competition in an election now, how will he ever hold up in the general election?" (Well, who SAYS he can't handle competition? That ISN'T the reason people are asking her to get out. And what Carville was talking about was pure anti-Obama spin and he was given a free pass, even encouraged, to do it.

The media isn't fair, isn't unbiased, doesn't have any editors holding it to the highest standards of journalism. We just have to learn what that means and how to deal with it without losing every good candidate in the process

HMMM?

Let see, Obama is 750,000 votes ahead with 10 contests remaining.

There are 4 million registered dems in PA. If half show up, that is 2 million voters.

If she wins by 10 points? Nets 200,000 votes

By 20 points ? 400,000 votes.

Oh yeah, it is IMPOSSIBLE for her to catch up....lol

Don't over think this. The root cause is journalists are mathematicians.

Excellent article. The biggest indicator that the MSM is not biased against HRC: they haven't taken the lid off and factually demonstrated and declared the truth about Hillary's chance. The word on the street is that it's "close," when in fact it only seems close. In reality, thought, it's not.

If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/

Obama win appears big in Texas delegate battle
By Anna M. Tinsley, Aman Batheja and Sarah Bahari | Fort Worth Star-Telegam
Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008

Barack Obama appeared to have scored a clear victory over Hillary Clinton on Saturday in the second step of Texas' multi-tiered process for selecting its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. With results available from about half of the district conventions held statewide, the Associated Press reported that Obama had won 59 percent of the delegates headed to the state party's June convention to Clinton"s 41 percent. That translates into 1,858 delegates for Obama and 1,270 for Clinton.

That result made it likely that when the delegate selection process is finally completed, Obama will have more Texas delegates to the national convention than Clinton, despite Clinton's having won the March 4 primary vote 51 to 47 percent. Under Texas' delegate selection process, 67 of its 206 delegates are selected by the June state party convention.

Tens of thousands of Texas Democrats turned out for Saturday's district conventions in a chaotic day in which many of the meetings in Texas' large cities lasted late into the night. Some delegates " confused and frustrated by hours-long delays, disorder and disorganization " gave up on the process and left, still not sure if their vote counted. "Please move a bit faster," urged delegate Whitney Larkins, who attended the largest senatorial district in Fort Worth gathered at the Will Rogers Coliseum. ".....

The press, like old Wolf on CNN are always showing the Wright clip, the ones who are Jewish want Clinton because they don't think Obama will make Israel a top priority. It's also because a good many of them are beholden to the Clintons who have long arms and a whole lot of money. So there are some who's agenda's are clear.

As I understand it the Clintons are calling in their Markers with the MSM's Sponsors and keeping their coverage alive in this manner. That would fit with their Modus Operandi. It just makes me sick to watch Joe Scarborough (guessing on the name spelling) talk about her as if she is being cheated out of the nomination and Joe is a Republican. I think it"s very likely the Clintons are intimidating the MSM in some fashion or the media corporations simply prefer a Hillary candidate.

I like candidates who piss off the press. I want them to treat the press with bold disregard.

Well, that was weak. I thought there would be a story but I watched the video. Not much there.

I think it's a combination. The media loves a horse race, and on the road with the candidate, they're seeing the enthusiastic rallies. Hillary does have her die-hard supporters, who will turn out and be wildly enthusiastic at a rally. If that's all you're seeing, day-in and day-out because you've been assigned to cover her campaign, of course you're going to think she's still got a chance! It's only when you pull back that you realize that her chances of capturing enough delegates and popular votes to win or make a viable case for the nomination are slim to none. Even counting Michigan and Florida still won't help her much. Her "big wins" for Ohio and Texas actually didn't dent Obama's delegate lead, and it's looking like Obama is going to end up with more delegates in Texas than she is. Then you add in the blunders she's making. The press is finally starting to do the math, and state what was obvious to many observers a while ago.

This is more proof of the self-destructiveness of the Clinton campaign. It is really baffling to think of how the campaign got into this mess. She started off with the name recognition, the fund raising machine, the political contacts across the country. If she had simply kept to the high road, or even the middle road, she could have coasted to victory. Instead, her campaign had a take no prisoners attitude like threatening retribution against anyone who donated money to other candidates. Then the drumbeat of Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Bill Clinton, Bob Johnson (?, the guy from BET). I thought Sen. Clinton was off-putting during that "Shame on you" weekend in Ohio and was startled when she won there. But that seems to have caught up with her along with the exaggerations on foreign policy, SCHIP, FMLA, etc. She has no one to blame but herself. James Carville's vindictiveness to Gov. Richardson is another sympton. Most telling, I think, is the inability of anybody to recognize what wasn't working and try something else. Instead, the attitude seemed to be, they (the voters) didn't hear the first time, so we need to be louder.

If the Clinton campaign has been cool to the press it may be because the press has been brutal to her. The print media, along with the cable talking heads, have villified, demeaned, and held her to different standards than what McCain and Obama have endured. He may have the Rev. Wright mess but tune into MSNBC in particular and the babble is endless regarding her hair, clothing, laugh, clapping, tears, etc, are discussed ad infinitum. Instead of being considered as a viable candidate she has been treated as if she had no damn right to stand in the way of "Mr. Change We Have Been Waiting For". Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Frank Robinson, Andrea Mitchell, Chucklehead Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Kos, Huffington Post blogs, all call for her to step aside and let the coronation begin. If there is wariness on the part of the Clinton campaign to cozy up to the media a la John McCain it is understandable. If Obama does become the nominee he will have a lot of unifying to do with the female voters because he has not once stepped up to the plate and made it known that he is not a female basher.