Game, Set, Match: North Carolina and Indiana Settled the Democratic Nomination
Barack Obama's landslide victory in the North Carolina Primary, coupled with Hillary Clinton's microscopic win in Indiana settled the outcome of the battle for the Democratic Nomination. The results made it both mathematically and politically impossible for her to wrest the nomination from Obama. They also eliminated the underpinning rationale for her continued candidacy. Here's why:
1). The New Math: Barack's Magic Number. Yesterday's primaries weren't the "game changers" Hillary Clinton had hoped for, but they radically changed the way success will be measured in the primary contest's final round. It no longer much matters who wins the remaining primaries. All that counts now is how many delegates each one contributes to achieving Barack's magic number -- the 2025 delegates he needs according to Democratic Party rules to clinch the nomination.
According the RealClearPolitics.com, that number is 183 delegates as we stand this morning. Barack will most likely lose West Virginia and Kentucky, but each one will contribute more delegates to the final number he needs to clinch.
In all likelihood he will achieve that number by the end of the month. Right now he only needs 26 more pledged delegates to have an absolute majority of all 3,223 pledged delegates available. Barack will cross that threshold after the May 20 primaries in Kentucky and Oregon.
Many of the 270 or so remaining superelegates intend to throw their support to the pledged delegate winner. Even without the additional delegates that Obama will earn in the final primaries in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, it is likely that enough Super Delegates will move to him by the end of the month for him to formally clinch the nomination.
If not he will almost certainly have picked up the 183 additional delegates he needs by the last primary on June 3. Even using very conservative assumptions about the outcomes of the remaining primaries, Obama would need only about 90 (or 33%) of the superdelegates remaining today to clinch.
During the difficult last two weeks, he has still managed to land two dozen more superdelegates (twice as many as Hillary). Now after the Indiana and North Carolina results -- and certainly after he has achieved an absolute majority of pledged delegates -- there will be no incentive for them to hold back. In fact, there are lots of reasons for them to get on the Obama train before it officially leaves the station.
2). Obama's performance last night destroyed the rationale for Hillary's continued candidacy. Everything rested on her argument of superior electability. After his loss in Pennsylvania, Barack faced gale force political winds. The media had turned. Hillary was on the attack. Reverend Wright threw himself into the center of the debate. But in spite of it all, Obama won an overwhelming victory in the tenth largest state.
Hillary's surprise underperformance in Indiana can partially be traced to the massive turnout of the Obama base of young people and African Americans. But it is also resulted from his success with swing voters. Every age group but people over 60 went for Obama. Independents went for Obama 54% to 46%. And in both North Carolina and Indiana a substantial majority thought Obama was more likely to beat John McCain (55% to 39% in North Carolina; 51% to 46% in Indiana).
In addition, the results in North Carolina indicate that he can actually put the state -- and others like it -- into play this fall.
3). Last night made it politically impossible for superdelegates to deny Barack the Nomination. Even if they wanted to (which most don't) a coup de'etat by superdelegates that denied Obama the nomination would precipitate a massive grassroots insurrection. The African America and progressive base of the party would go into open revolt.
4). But what about Florida and Michigan? Try as she might Hillary cannot unilaterally move the goal posts and declare that it now takes 2,209 delegates to win the nomination instead of the 2,025 majority embedded in Democratic Party rules. But it's not likely that including the Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) and Florida (where Obama abided by the rules and didn't campaign) would matter anyway.
Right now Obama leads by almost 200,000 popular votes even if you include the ballots cast in Michigan and Florida. If you allocated delegates according to the vote totals -- giving Obama the votes that were not cast for Hillary in Michigan -- it would take a little longer for him to reach the new "magic" number but the outcome of the race would not change. (Remember Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan as per party rules, but Hillary only got 55% running against "uncommitted".) Obama's lead is simply insurmountable.
Last night any question of who would be the Democratic nominee was settled. The only questions that remain are when and how Hillary Clinton will bow out, and how she will then move to help unify the party.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Indiana and North Carolina primary results
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary is moving the goal post to 2209 delegates because it will take longer for Obama to reach the goal. And why is this good for Hillary? Not because she thinks she can actually win, but because she needs more time to raise money. Her campaign has over $10 million worth of debt. She's personally lending money to her campaign. According to FEC rules, she can continue to raise money for her campaign until the Democratic nominee is named. THAT'S the real reason why she won't bow out (gracefully or otherwise) and keeps trying to move the goal posts. It always comes down to money with that greedy woman.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190880
Mr. Creamer stated,"Barack will most likely lose West Virginia and Kentucky." Further, he notes,"Right now Obama leads by almost 200,000 popular votes." I offer only two questions. First, with six contest to go, why are Obama supporters calling for Senator Clinton to step aside? Second, why are Obama surrogates sooooo anxious to end this race? Do the people in the remaining six contest not have a right to participate in this process? Or is there another hidden agenda within the Obama camp? For example, IF HILLARY WERE TO WIN WEST VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY does Obama's electability come into question?
"I offer only two questions. First, with six contest to go, why are Obama supporters calling for Senator Clinton to step aside? "
Because, unlike Clinton's supporters, we can count. Obama only has to win about 15% of the vote in every remaining state to win the # of pledged delegates needed. Hillary needs to win 85% of the vote. You think that's gonna happen? The number of delegates available to get from the remaining 6 contests aren't enough for Hillary to get a majority of the pledged delegates. She's too far behind. But if she wants to continue this, that's fine with me. She's still in the race to keep getting more donations to pay off her debt. If her supporters are stupid enough (or generous enough) to keep donating to a losing race, that's also more than fine with me. Stay in the race, Hillary. It's fun watching you speak after the election results come through.
I guess that you don't understand how an election works, Grizzlies. The continuance of the campaign of HRC , and her continual insistence that BO is not qualified and cannot win the general election IS hurting the Democratic Party. Her bankrupting of her campaign, after almost being annointed the nominee before any votes were cast, leads those of us that have concerns on how to manage a country bankrupted by Bush/Cheney in the next difficult years to think that she cannot manage a more complex problem such as this. Personalities aside, she has not demonstrated the leadership needed, nor the strength of character to be president. Barack, on the other hand, when things turned sour, rose to the occasion, showed his character and upheld higher standards.
Your question of don't the next six states count is a good one. Unfortunately, the last states never have much, if any effect on the vote. It sucks to be them. But if you have suggestions as to how to make the system work better, please get in touch with your local delegates, your Superdelegates, write letters to the rules committee and get your system to be in place for the next election cycle.
Welcome to the world of politics, you can make a difference!
Actually, Virginia settled it. Obama's lead in delegates was insurmountable in February; the "horse race" where anyone can win is a construct of the media (with a vested interest in seeing as much rancor as possible) and the wishful thinking of Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Even before Ohio and Texas, the math was frankly insurmountable by conventional means, and after Pennsylvania, she should have conceded. We are not Republicans, with winner take all results, we allocate our delegates Democratically, which means that "winning a state" is not really the metric, so much as margin of victory, and Obama's margin of victory in the February primaries, combined with Clinton's wins being fewer and closer, gave Obama enough of a lead by March 1 that any credible analyst could see the race was over then. Thanks for coming on board now, only two months late.
Sadly, for me, this story of Obama's certain nomination is correct. Much more sadly, the story continues in the same vein that has assured Hillary's defeat from the beginning. Like the military/industrial complex of which Dwight Eisenhower warned the country half a century ago, the idea that the media has a chokehold on the electorate will be relegated to the category of unfathomable in America until America has slipped out of democracy. Nothing but a crackpot phobia from the likes of the crackpots who protested an immoral war in Vietnam and a president who has sold calculated lies to us from day one.
Notice that the writer describes Hillary's win in Indiana as "microscopic." That she won by a narrow margin is the unvarnished truth and the choice of "microscopic" is no accident. It's calculated. Calculated to assure the Senator from New York's defeat the second she threw her hat in the ring. Little by little, day by day, the press and broadcast media have conned you, ladies and gentlemen, conned you into believing that a likable fellow with limited credentials is the instrument of change for whom you have prayed.
Sorry...I don't feel conned. Well before Obama announced he was running for the Presidency, I had read both of his books ("Dreams of my Father" & The Audacity of Hope"), and studied his impressive record of achievement, both as a community organizer for the down-trodden of Chicago's south side and as an Ill. state senator. His keynote address at he 2004 Dem. Nat'l covention was both unifying and electrifying. No, I don't feel conned at all. When you compare how he has managed his campaign (built a tremendous grassroots organization, flush with small-donor cash) and how she has managed hers (drove it into near bankruptcy while falling hopelessly behind in both delegate count and popular vote (despite the smear and fear tactics against Obama), it's clear who is better qualified to manage the Nation.
Again, margin of victory matters. Obama won several states by 20 percent or more, whereas Clinton's victories, even in "big states", have been much more closely contested, by and large. Other than New York and Arkansas, Clinton simply has not won a single state by an overwhelming margin, whereas Obama has won 13. And with proportional delegates, winning Georgia and Maryland and Washington and Minnesota and Virginia by 20+ delegates is a better result than winning Pennsylvania by 12, or Indiana by a "microscipic" 4. It's not the media that minimizes Sen. Clinton's victories, it's the Democratic voters.
Funny. I've been pretty convinced that Hillary has gotten a free ride from her friends in the media (i.e. Campbell Brown, Andrea Mitchell and George Stefanopolis to "name three") and her corporate friends at Disney, Time/Warner and GE.
I guess it depends on what prism you view the world through.
The gist of your comments is that Obama supporters have been conned by a media biased against Hillary. You're implying that people you disagree with are naiive or stupid. This disrespects them.
More important - it reinforces the image of your candidate as a put-down artist.
Here's a sports analogy. The other day, a Colorado Rockies runner tried to take an extra base on a hit to the outfield. It looked like a gimme. Instead, the St Louis Cardinal centerfielder threw a "strike" and nailed the runner with a perfect throw. After the game, the Colorado manager observed: "Don't blame the runner. It was a great throw. Sometimes you just have to tip your cap."
Hillary has inspired a strong base of voters; including women and blue collar voters who prefer her over Sen. Obama). But over an extremely long, grueling campaign, Sen. Obama (who has fired up many of his supporters; including a base of Afro Americans, younger voters and newer voters) has won more contests, votes and delegates.
Stop putting him down. It says more about your candidate than it says about Sen. Obama. Sometimes you just have to tip your cap.
You're making an awful lot of presumptions about Hillary's backers. The biggest is that we will vote for McCain over Obama. That's nonsense. However, there are other candidates out there that would be as good a president as, or BETTER than Obama. I am against Ron Paul because of his stance on Social Security but he would end the war immediately. I know you all like to pretend he flew away in a puff of smoke, but he hasn't yet. There are also Cynthia McKinney and maybe Ralph Nader, though Nader is a joke. Still, there are others and we may just hitch our wagon to a brand new star and chuck the Democratic Party in the pit. Hillary Clinton WON more votes in Michigan AND Florida than ALL other candidates COMBINED and yet Howard the Ditz Dean will throw US under a bus for HIS GUY and that stinks. This ONE fact is constantly ignored in the race to get rid of Hillary. Obama was not FORCED to keep his name off the ballot in MI and even if you give him ALL votes that were NOT for Hillary, Hillary STILL WON. Also, since the Democratic "leaders" themselves broke the rules by making an exception for some OTHER states to move their primaries UP then the rule no longer COUNTS and MI and FL should rightly COUNT.
However, since NOBODY who's not the nominee for either the democratic party or the republican party will EVER get elected, NOT voting for the democratic nominee is the same as voting FOR the republican nominee!
It' so scary to think that a novice like Obama might be leading this
country. His tax hikes to corporations will result in more layoffs and
the tax hike on capital gains will further stall the housing market.
Not to mention his real beliefs about Jews. My friend was so upset she said
she feels she could end up in a concentration camp. Which
is probably an exaggeration, but how sad that a person like that would be
leading our country.His wife is also a hater.The statement she made
about being an American is exactly how she feels about this country.
Well, it wasn't a fair fight. In fact, it wasn't a fight at all.
As far as your vote goes, if you don't vote for Obama or McCain, or Hillary or McCain, what's the point? To express your conscience. You certainly have every right to do that. But if MCain gets in and the War goes on and on and on, will it have it have been worth it?
the other side of the equation is ubl....he started this and when will he end his side of it???
anyone for realism?
Senator Obama is also the only one who broke the rules and ran ads in Florida.
No, he didn't break the rules. The rules did not require candidates to stop NATIONALLY run ads from running in FL, nor should they have. He had paid the cable providers for time, and they ran the ads in EVERY state!
Let's be honest here. Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all had ads on CNN which is a cable station which is in every market in the US (and several cross over markets in border areas in Canada and even Mexico).
The restriction for no campaigning in FL. was based around any advertisement that targets the state or region specifically. It also discouraged fundraisers and public appearances, since it concluded correctly, such activities are themselves a form of campainging. Senators Clinton and Obama both had some fundraising activity in the state prior to the rule going into effect. Sen. Clinton however was the only one to have fundraising activities after the fact, though she was exploiting a loop-hole by not appearing herself. She was also the only one of the three to advertise to the South East region specifically... which is to say she chose to advertise through a small company based in Southern Georgia whose main market was in FL. Again, not specifically breaking the rules, but without a doubt exploiting loop-holes to get around the spirit.
If you want to throw away your vote then go ahead.
Rush Limbaugh thanked his fellow Republican's for voting for Hillary and causing so much infighting amoung Democrats .He was proud that his party corrupt as they are voted for a candidate they will not vote for in the general election but only did so she would either 1.win the nomination and lose the race to McCain 2.cause so much infighting with Obama supporters that it would take away the time Obama could have been addressing McCain instead of Hillary.
So you see folks a lot of the nasty stuff thrown around these blogs was Republican's hoping to divide the party so McCain could win .Saying something against one candidate or the other to cause infighting. Now you don't have to believe me just go check out what Rush Limbaugh on CNN .
If your truly a Democrat then don't let the Republican's win at this game they have been playing.
Very well stated, quest44.
A Republican win in the general election = 4 more years of Bush politics under John McCain. Some who know McCain personally have confided that he is ill-tempered and they're not comfortable with the idea that there is a very real possibility that he could become the next President of the United States of America.
I have campaigned vigorously for one of these two candidates and I must admit that the infighting among Democrat supporters has been, at times, demoralizing. It's no secret that there are few differences in both candidates’ positions on foreign and domestic issues. Either candidates will support the other and encourage their supporters to do the same in the general election. I will campaign for my candidate's opponent, should they win. It both angers and amazes me that there are supporters on both sides who would vote for McCain or stay away from the polls if the opposing candidate wins the nomination.
You who would do so are allowing smokescreens to blind you so that you cannot see. It's not about a candidate. Both have said this. It's about what they stand for. When there are few differences in what they stand for, then what's the problem?
We should not lose sight of the fact that we cannot afford another four years of Republican rule.
Every American who supports either Democratic candidate in this historic presidential race should flood the polls in support of whoever the nominee is come November.
weslenforever
You really don't have a clue do you?
1. All the canidates signed an agreement not to run in FL/MI including Hillary.
2. Only Chriss Dodd and Hillary broke the rule, it dosen't matter who was on the ballott or not.
3. MI/FL where warned a year in advance not to break the rules, they ignored them anyway.
4. Even if you give Hillary MI/FL at a 65/35 split she would still not catch Obama.
5. Hillary new when she signed the agreement what the cost would be and she put her name on the ballott anyway, she new what she had planned months before the Primary, that's why she was on the ballott in the first place.
6. Also, 700,000 voters in MI. Didn't vote, they all wouldn't have voted for Hillary.
7.The other States had gone through the proper channels to change their primaries and where given approval by the DNC - FL/MI did not follow protocol.
8. Florida was a Republican Congress and Senate, with a Republican Gov.
Please don't through your vote away, even Hillary says she will support Obama if he's the nominee. A vote for anyone else is a vote for McCain. If you through your vote away how many young Americans will die because of that decision? Can you live with that?
Anyone that would open up her (or his) purse and peel off ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS in an attempt to gain a 4-year tour in the Oval Office needs to have her (or his) head examined.
The vast majority of us that live out here in the real world are trying to eek out grocery money, gas money, and money to keep the lights on in a house we're about to lose to the wolf on the front porch.
Hillary Clinton has absolutely NO CLUE ~ or she simply doesn't give a damn ~ what is going on in the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Regular Folk. None. For that reason alone, she does not meet the qualifications to lead this country. She doesn't know the people that live here.
I am sure most informed readers are aware of this site. If not enjoy the journey to the parallel universe of hillaryworld olympics.
http://www.peterfpaul.com/2008/04/27/judge-munoz-saves-hillarys-presidential-bid-in-la-court-action/
stalkervision - good name for you. Do you really think anyone with a brain would be affected by this stuff? When will you people learn that the TRUTH is the most effective weapon of all!
schmuckwithearlaps - we are not dismissing Hillary. She is a brilliant woman and against anyone else probably would have been "inevitable." We know that individuals like Barack Obama only come around every 100 years or so. He is the real thing. Believe it - he will fight for you.
She surrounded herself with the wrong people (Mark Penn, Harold Ickes) and Bill Clinton should have been invisible. Hillary could have done a better job just being herself! But Obama has won fair and square while her team is still trying to find a way to alter something that is unalterable.
It's time for us to UNIFY and beat the Republicans in November!
GO DEMOCRATS!
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
Please let us forget about the conflict between the votes of Michigan and Florida. Let us close that book and bury it in history...
For the rules remains in our hearts and minds. We are true democrats by virtue and by our principles. A rule of the party must be obeyed that's why Senator Obama abides that rule and strike his name out of the ballot and did not campaign in Michigan.
And in every violation of this laws or rules of the party has its own consequences and that is the result of not counting or including the said votes of the two states.
Now is the time to take sole responsibility to support and solidify a sole nominee of the Democratic party. the Party of Jefferson and Kennedy, the Party of the People...
replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive
Yes, it is not as though Florida and Michigan's votes will be important in November. Cast them aside! Who needs 'em?
If Obama is the party nominee, he must unify the party, not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or any of the others who also ran for the nomination. The race has been very close, and the Obama camp has done much to alienate many Democrats who supported other candidates. If Obama wins the nomination, he will have not only the challenge of effectively countering the Republicans, but also of winning back the alienated Democrats.
Many of the Obama supporters who post on this site verbally abuse Democrats who do not "fall into line" and support Obama. We are charged with being racist, or ignorant, or secret Republicans, or demeaned because we are menopausal or out of touch. Our candidates (mine was Edwards) are harshly and needlessly maligned because they do not drop out of the race when the Obama partisans declared that they should. I have had it with this kind of unwarranted abuse. Currently, I am thinking Green in more ways than one
At the begining of the primary Hillary held a commanding lead . Only one person is responsible for this loss, Hillary. She chose to run a negative race and lost.
Get over it. Americans are tired of the mudslinging.
It's obvious you have never been proud to be an American
That's why you applaud Obama and his wife that hate Americans
almost as much as they hate Jews.Do you think they protested when
their church gave Faracan an award? They protest only now because
it is convinient.
Hillary didn't have a problem with the rules in the beginning because she won the first state. After Super Tuesday didn't turn out in her favor, then she had to whine about Michigan and Florida and she has been changing with the wind her entire campaign. In addition she had to reorganize the members in her campaign several times, which is the sign of a poor leader who can't get things right the first time. What the Michigan and Florida voters should do if they feel disenfranchised is vote their elected officials out of office for alienating them from the process. Florida need to be getting their voting machines right while they are in the process of griping and whining.
I agree with you a thousand percent.
Once again I will say .There really were Republicans stiring up contention between Obama and Hillary supporters !
"the Obama camp has done much to alienate many Democrats who supported other candidates. "
Okay you said it, no back it up. What has the Obama Camp done to alienate many Democrats? The votes are in and they say he has gained traction with every single group. I can even post a link to a graph which shows this.
As to supporters of Sen. Obama... since when does a handful of passionate lay people count as his camp? When does a handful of passionate Clinton supporters who post on Blogs and call into radio shows constitute many Democrats (when we are talking millions)?
This is the problem with the politics of personal attack. Sen. Clinton unfairly, unjustifiably, and without any factual support, attacked Sen. Obama on a number of character issues and claimed he was unfit for the office. All of which she knew were untrue. She is about to officially lose the nomination and is going to have to go around and retract all of that and hope her supporters have not gotten too emotionally invest in her statements, in order for us to win in November. This and this alone is why so many of her supporters are talking about not voting for Sen. Obama, they really believed her when she said things which were patently false (as any research would show).
Heartlander wrote:
"Many of the Obama supporters who post on this site verbally abuse Democrats who do not "fall into line" and support Obama. We are charged with being racist, or ignorant, or secret Republicans, or demeaned because we are menopausal or out of touch."
Imagine being a conservative and having this thrown at you every single day by people who are supposedly rational, calm, resoned, well-educated, compassionate, and all the other things neo-liberals claim they are. When the heat is on, the real human emerges. Behold the reality.
watch this before you believe in Obama anymore foolish people..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7OFLl3asg
OK, I watched it. Now what's your point? That he's borrowed campaign slogans and rhetoric from others? So what?
I would have liked to have seen Kucinich or Gravel as the Democratic nominee, or Ron Paul as the Republican nominee. Now THAT would have been real change. If not them, at least Richardson was talking about withdrawing ALL troops from Iraq.
Do I think Obama is going to bring real change? Not unless We the People drag him kicking and screaming. But he's at least marginally better than Clinton or McCain. At least Obama had the good sense not to vote for Kyl-Lieberman. He hasn't threatened the PEOPLE of Iran with "obliteration". He says he wants to change the mindset that got us into Iraq. I don't think Clinton or McCain could be dragged to change even kicking and screaming.
This is old shit so your point is? You forgot that Obama is a Muslim and Rev Wright.
Calling some one foolish because who they chose to support is like calling them foolish for not liking vanilla ice cream.
I suggest you grow up and realize that people are allowed to believe in whom or what ever they chose.
C'mon Larry. You sound foolish. Everyone knows that Obama is a Christian and Reverend Wright is a narcissistic, self-absorbed guy who Obama has run away from in every conceivable way. Leave it alone.
Just do the right thing in the fall and vote Democrat, alright?
Hillary's biggest mistake was dismissing the African-American voters. After Super-Tuesday she said she wasn't going to try for the African-American votes. She didn't need us.........Well duhhhhhhhhhhh she did need the African-American votes. So in her Face
Ewwwwwwww . . . Wowee! The TENTH largest state! Can you imagine?! Since you're talking about "large" states, what about California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida & Pennsylvania? How do they fit into your metric?
You Obamabots sure wrote the book on hyperbole. It's far from over--get a grip.
The supper delegates will decide this and they have already said they will go for the one with the most pledged delegates. It is nearly imposable for Hillary to pass Obama in pledged delegates. Neither can win the general without the others supporters. If either ones supporters vote for McCane he wins then you lose a womans right to chose and you get more wars. If they stay home it's the same result I guess the question is what do the Hillary supporters want. What Hillary supporters need to do is listen the fat lady is starting to sing.
Let's see: California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania. How exactly is the democratic nominee (whoever it may be) supposed to LOSE any of those states? And Texas, how are they supposed to WIN that state (even though Obama won the primary.......) Ohio and Florida, those are swing states, and they really could go for whoever, but as long as the democratic nominee doesn't muck it up, they will take BOTH of them, WHOEVER they are, Hillary OR Obama!
I have been a HRC supporter throughout this nominating process. I believe, respectfully, that it is time for HRC to throw her support to the duly elected nominee in order to solidify the Demo Party for the general election in November. The ultimate goal of nearly all Democrats, many Independents, and some Republicans, is to change the course of this country from the current road of foreign policy and economic disaster it currently goes down. Never believing that one party has all the anwers, Democrats offer the best chance to steer the Country to it's rightful place among the nations of the world. Cowboy politics has been a dismal failure and it is time to understand ours is not always the RIGHT path when considering world-important problems and solutions. We have lost much respect around the world under the Republican Adminisration over the last seven and more years. Many regard us as bullies and ignorers of our own liberities and justice. It is this reader's opinion that this Administion's corrupt practices and pandering to corporate greed has made the job for the next President difficult at best. Now is the time to unite all Democrats and others to bring about a new sense of promise in America. John McCain and the Republicans offer only the same old solutions, none of which cares one wit about the Middle Class and those on the bottem end of the Darwinian economic policies of the Republicans.
happyboy--Great post! You are absolutely RIGHT!!! Let's pull together and get this thing done in November!!
After last night there is no logical reason for Sen. Clinton to stay in the race! If she continues, she will only hurt the party. Sen Obama is going to be the nominee and we need to all get behind him! Obama has weathered the storm and has his grove back! Go Democrats 08!
Hint, hint. Hillary cares more about her own ego than the Democratic Party. It is obvious her stance is if I don't win then he won't win either. I can't see her supporting Obama genuinely because it isn't in her. She reminds me so much of the current President. When things doesn't go his way, he engages in scare tactics and threats. She is the same.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
