todayslies

We're supposed to get excited about this? I'm sorry, Lawrence, but that was not a concession. The official was saying "there will be a nominee by June 15". All that means is that Hillary will continue to campaign through each of the remaining primaries, in the hope that somehow she is able to convince the superdelegates that they should pick her. That won't happen, but it does mean that we now have to face over a month more of this nonsense.

She should drop out May 15, not June 15. posted 05/07/2008 at 14:20:51

So shameful. They admit that they know they lost in February, and yet they dragged it out another THREE MONTHS, draining the nominee of desperately needed money, time, party healing, and positive news coverage. They should be collectively banned from Democratic politics forever. posted 05/07/2008 at 14:44:10

"The writer is OBVIOUSLY making this up as there can be absolutely no proof of what he says until the votes are counted. "

He's using the same methodology the networks make when calling an election. They don't wait for all the returns to come in--the elections would be called much later if that was the case. They hire political scientists to secure the turnout rate in various districts, line that up with the demographic profile of the district, and that tells them whose voters turned out more. In this case, if black turnout is skyrocketing in pro-Obama areas, that's a good sign that he'll win N.C. The writer is not making up anything. posted 05/06/2008 at 14:59:01

What I want to know is this: Tom, rumor has it that you were slated to play Bill Clinton in Primary Colors, but turned it down because you were then close with the Clinton family. If this is true, how does your endorsement of Obama today jibe with your friendship with the Clintons, or lack thereof? posted 05/04/2008 at 01:12:46

"The more optimistic Obama backers point to Bill Clinton as the best example of a much admired, effective political leader who rebounded from a scandal and attacks and whose popularity ratings soared to the stars. That's true but there are some big differences. Clinton was a battle tested, second term president, the economy was booming, there were no major foreign policy crises, and millions of supporters including many Republicans saw the GOP assaults on him as nothing more than vindictive partisan politics."

Earl, we're not talking about the Lewinsky scandal. We're talking about the Flowers scandal Clinton survived before he even became president. posted 04/29/2008 at 23:55:29

I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree with the author's thesis that the Illinois senator does indeed need to "let Hillary go" by denying her a debate platform to merely throw more mud at him. However, I disagree with the assertion that this was somehow a "hard" choice for Obama. He's no angel, and for good reason--angels don't win presidential campaigns. Getting rid of her is the best thing for his candidacy, and the Democratic Party--period. No other reason need apply.

Also, comparing this decision to Sophie's Choice? A bit much, my friend... posted 04/27/2008 at 13:27:41

I can't believe I actually watched that clip. I want those 30 seconds back, man... posted 04/26/2008 at 19:06:28

Go Alec! posted 04/21/2008 at 23:46:41

Not to mention that the defeat of the Spanish Armada under Elizabeth likely slowed and muted the expansion of the Spanish Empire into North America. posted 04/20/2008 at 23:23:27

"So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd."

Sorry, Taylor, but dragging out Wright, flag pins, "Bittergate", and Ayers wasn't "going for substance". Just because the opposition research Gibson and Steph unloaded on Obama helped your favored candidate, doesn't make it substantive.

Justifying it by saying the GOP will do the same thing in the fall, doesn't make it substantive. Honestly, won't the GOP take their cue and say, "Obama's Democratic opponent introduced this in the primary, so it's fair game". Please. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:25:56

How is a 45-minute nonstop barrage of attacks by the debate moderators a "level" "playing field"? posted 04/17/2008 at 13:34:05

Agreed. posted 04/15/2008 at 00:52:57

This is beyond disgusting:

It's beyond disgusting that Joe Lieberman is still called on by moronic right-wing talk show hosts to offer a "Democratic" point of view. It's beyond disgusting because anything "far to the left" of Joe Lieberman at this point is still likely far to the right of "mainstream America".

More than anything, it's beyond disgusting because when Joe Lieberman was at his greatest political peril, facing Ned Lamont in the run-up to the midterm elections of 2006, he begged Sen. Barack Obama to vouch for him at Connecticut's Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Obama, having received some mentoring by Lieberman upon his entry to the Senate in 2004, obliged.

I don't agree with Obama for sticking up for Lieberman in the congressional primary of '06 (in the general, he endorsed Lamont). The entire Democratic leadership failed in properly backing anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, who still managed to secure the Democratic nomination.

That said, for many years, anti-war progressives like myself have attacked Joe Lieberman for being in the wrong party, for having the wrong principles, and for believing in them too strongly. I now realize the mistake I made was in assuming he had any at all. posted 04/15/2008 at 00:55:24

"SO which is it Obama!!!! Did you got to church fro 20 years??? or were you not really there???lol"

Actually, it's more like which is it, AjicNYC? You guys have blasted him for being a member of Trinity for 20 years--now you're going to claim he's not even religious? Ridiculous, obvious, and a loser move. posted 04/14/2008 at 00:24:39

"Get off it already, that ship has sailed!"

Yep: with 4,000 dead Americans on it. posted 04/13/2008 at 01:35:33

Let's put this one in the category of "Worst Articulated Intelligent Thought Since John Kerry Last Opened His Piehole".

Yes, I get it. People vote on these social issues, because neither party is assisting with the economic crises that have afflicted them. Therefore, they end up voting against their economic interests, since the Republicans are at least offering them some red meat on guns, religion, gays, and immigrants. It's the Thomas Frank argument, and it's true.

That said, where to begin with your formulation here, Senator? Did you have to tie "guns" to "religion" to "anti-immigrant sentiment" to "anti-trade sentiment", all in one frigging sentence? Do all gun owners in Pennsylvania hate immigrants? Do all of these small-town folk "cling" to religion merely because of their economic problems? Are the steel workers' problems with trade policy just some emotional diversion?

These aren't the arguments Obama was making. But the extremely poor choice of words, now available in audio, certainly makes it easy for his rivals to hammer home that impression. It will come off to many as the height of condescension.

Here is this young, urbane, highly educated, wealthy black politician from Chicago\Hawaii\Kenya, explaining to even wealthier liberal donors in California the kooky ways of the 12-gauge loving, bible-thumping, 'spic-hating hicks from the sticks of Pennsylvania. Thank God this at least didn't take place in San Francisco. Oh shit, it did. posted 04/13/2008 at 14:13:44

No offense to Mr. Lowe, and no judgment offered as to the facts in the case, but really, he is just offering one side of the story. And he's a famous celebrity who gets to post his side of the story on Huffington Post for millions of readers, unchallenged.

Such a megaphone, obviously, has not been extended to his accuser. People should wait and see before congratulating him on "outing this golddigger" before they know a single solitary fact about the case. posted 04/07/2008 at 17:05:42

"The reason McCain and Hillary don't come off sounding so arrogant is because they have earned the right to boast, if you want to call it that. Obama has not. Yet he acts as if he has."

What would constitute "earning" this right? I'd say defeating the Clinton machine at almost every turn gives him a pass, wouldn't you? posted 04/07/2008 at 16:49:23

Wayne Barrett is a personal hero of mine, probably the best investigative journalist in America, but this piece is riddled with bad journalism, transparent bias, and willful distortion of the facts. Please don't lower yourself to Sen. Clinton's level, Mr. Barrett. You're far better than that. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:18:21

"Take my word for it Florida was well aware of Obama".

Unfortuanately, it's the Internet, so I can't take your word for anything. Nothing personal, just reality. You could live in Singapore, for all we know. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:12:46

If Hillary dropped out, no one's saying these people won't have their votes counted. Just like in past primaries, the election will continue as scheduled. It just won't have her actively campaigning. I remember a flood of primaries continuing long after John Kerry sewed it up in '04. No one cried about how their votes weren't being counted because they were a Dean supporter, or an Edwards supporter, or a Gephardt supporter. And people continued to vote for their guy, even if he was no longer in the race. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:15:17

Looks like Richardson agreed with Hillary, and endorsed with his conscience... posted 03/21/2008 at 16:45:57

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think Jane nailed Richardson on this one. posted 03/21/2008 at 16:36:29

Wow, I'm blown away. Hurray for Kilmeade and Wallace! I've never seen anything like that on Fox News in my life Some actual independent thinking, even internal criticism. Amazing! posted 03/21/2008 at 16:16:26