Katherine10:40AMMay 6th 2008

I disagree with:

"The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton can't win the Democratic nomination."

___Yes, she can. Superdelegates can choose whichever candidate they want at the convention. Florida and Michigan may still be counted. Anything can happen.

"If he were to endorse Senator Obama, it could bring to a close this incredibly damaging primary fight..."

___It's not damaging to the party in the sense that there is a record amount of Americans registering as Democrats, and a record number of Democrats voting. Also, the longer the race, the more America can see who is presidential material.

"If he was going to endorse, it is possible he would endorse Hillary Clinton, but I doubt it. If he did, it would run counter to everything he said on the campaign trail."

___Hillary Clinton is passionate about healthcare and the middle class, working class, the poor, and minorities, and none of that is a secret.

TJ11:08AMMay 6th 2008

AS NORTH CAROLINA COMES AND GOES, SO DOES THE POWER OF EDWARD'S ENDORSEMENT.
HIS SPEECH ON POVERTY STANDS OUT AS THE BEST SPEECH OF THE PRIMARIES SO FAR, IN BOTH PARTIES.
IT HAD THE LOFTINESS OF OBAMA SPEECH BUT CONTRARY TO OBAMA, THAT SPEECH HAD SUBSTANCE AND THOUGHFULNESS.
NOW THAT I KNOW ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF JEREMIAH WRIGHT, EVERYTHING OBAMA HAD SAID WERE IN KEEPING WITH THE PRICIPLES OF JEREMIAH WRIGHT.
IT GOES TO WHAT GERLDINE FERRARO SAID, WHY DID EDWARDS FAIL AND OBAMA, SUCCEEDED SO FAR, OBAMA IS BLACK AND THE CONCEPT WAS APPEALING UNTIL WE FOUND OUT OBAMA WAS EMPTY..
BLACKS VOTED 90% FOR OBAMA.
EDWARDS IS A SMART GUY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN UP THERE WITH HILLARY.
HILLARY WILL WIN THIS NOMINATION, TOMMY
REMEMBER THAT.


OXOXO
TJ, THE OBAMAMANIA BUSTER.

Gary11:11AMMay 6th 2008

Hillary Clinton cares first, second and always about Hillary Clinton. You only have to witness the growing legions of people who know her well and desert her...Like Bill Richardson, robert Reich and Joe Andrew (there are many more). She and her husband have kept this race going by trying to destroy what had been a transcendent candidate - not by building up her credentials.

She keeps certain supporters and superdelegates frozen through threats (Judas?), promises, deals and kepps voters by saying whatever she feels will play well. It's pretty interesting that her support is from the less educated and most likely less informed? Those who listen and are more educated in the facts know her game. This ultimately is what will cost her the superdelegates regardless of whether she wins IN and/or NC. People just do not like her ways and are relishing the chance to knock her out. Obama appears to be a truly good man trying hard not to join her in the gutter and unfortunately this costs him votes. In the long run it will gain him respect -here and around the world.

Leslie11:16AMMay 6th 2008

Edwards will endorse Obama, as well as be his running mate. Obama/Edwards'08!!

M2D511:20AMMay 6th 2008

"It's not damaging to the party in the sense that there is a record amount of Americans registering as Democrats, and a record number of Democrats voting. Also, the longer the race, the more America can see who is presidential material."

It is amazing how rationalization can be used to justify any action.
The democratic party will take a long time to heal itself. There are a lot of fences to be mended. The result of one group's fanatical expectation of "entitlement" to the nomination. Just hope that with all the bridges that were burned , there are a lot of good swimmers.

JOHN11:22AMMay 6th 2008

Trinity United Church of Christ



Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the 'Trinity United Church of Christ'.

It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their Web site, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is America even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church? Does this surprise anyone?


Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his Muslim upbringing. This guy wants to rule America while his loyalty is totally vested in a black Africa !

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all our family and friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency is really scary.

Katherine11:33AMMay 6th 2008

None of what Hillary Clinton is saying is the honest truth coming from her mouth in this campaign. She is only saying and doing all of this just to get a vote be elected, and get back in the White House. She can just feel the van moving she and Bill back in. It is so funny that EVERYONE voting for her is believing what she says....just like they did by voting for GEORGE "W" ("WHATEVER WAY THE WIND BLOWS") BUSH and put him in office for "8" I don't have a clue years...and he still does not have a clue. We are so easily fooled and we are being hoodwinked again by the Clinton's!!!!! Wake up American voters.

ChaChaCha11:54AMMay 6th 2008

...and the dance goes on...and like any good dance there must be a leader and there must be a follower.
THINK DANCE TROUPE, not couples. Same applies here and it isn't about the mostly perceived male leader in dancing couples.
OBAMA opens with The Dance of Change. He is winning early on. Hillary follows with The Dance of Change and her vote results increase. In the process each Dancer has their solos and their lead spots. Each may have a mistep or two, but the dance continues.
One is LEADER and One is FOLLOWER. OBAMA HAS LEAD THE DANCE of CHANGE and Hillary continues do dance along, following his LEAD.
Edwards is in the audience. He is a LEADER in his own right. He will see who EMERGES with the most applause, ie: votes, and will "hang with the winner" of the LEAD POSITION. Don't we all want to "hang with the winner", the BEST of the BEST? He will learn and contribute then. OBAMA/Edwards 2008! LEADERS OF THE DANCE OF CHANGE.

tedman1811:57AMMay 6th 2008

Tommy

Please explain and or make the case as to why you said the below - if Edwards waits for post IN and NC and thinks that NOW BO is easier to beat and thinks that NOW BO is the more divisive candidate why say

""""If he was going to endorse, it is possible he would endorse Hillary Clinton, but I doubt it. If he did, it would run counter to everything he said on the campaign trail. """"

Thank you in advance --- I saw nothing in what Edwards said or stood for that suggests that endorsing Clinton runs counter to everything he said on the campaign trail ----- TODAY (when most people would say BO is also a politician with all the negatives it carries - negative ads - half truths - no truth on the RW story (he knew from the Rollng Stone article what was ahat way back then - and that the so called looped snippets were not just small pieces but a major theme of RW) - guns and his five positions - deal with the teamsters at least the same as Clinton and maybe worse - no tax on Elderly up too x dollars sort of giving the same break most have already - if most of income is social - and IS CLEARLY PANDERING)

I understand why early in the race Clinton stood for much of what Edwards wanted to attack - but now we know BO stands for much if not all of the same and may have a "unique" view of rural small town white USA not in line with Edwards supporters

So - in all tht context I really do not understand your comment

Thank yoo
(Yes my bias is showing for HRC first - but I will never vote for Jones University and otherwise sell out Mcbush - its HRC or BO whoever carries the DEM torch)

JV11:59AMMay 6th 2008

Mr. Christopher-

Wow…yet another completely bias and outrageous article. Not only are you sounding desperate, but uneducated, regarding the DNC’s rules and regulations. First, your comments and “hunches” regarding which candidate Edwards will endorse are ludicrous. It truly doesn’t matter at this point who he endorses- didn’t you get the point here on AOL Polls- the majority of Americans could care less about endorsements and they (the endorsements) show to be moot when making a decision to vote! Secondly, this is not a race to see who gets the most delegates… The DNC’s guidelines would have worked had this not been an unorthodox primary season. Why can you not state the facts? Neither candidate will be able to meet the criteria proposed by the laws of the DNC. So, just because he is ahead (marginally) you want Senator Clinton to bow out? You are so far away from reality. It is the job, it is the responsibility (if in the event such as this one) of the Super Delegates to make the final decision. Like it or hate it…It is what it is. Inasmuch, this hoopla regarding the direction the Super Delegates must take (to vote according to popular vote…etc.) is absolutely crazy, and completely untrue. They were given this title and responsibility to vote according to their own personal choice.

Do you truly sit there at your home/office (or wherever) and honestly think before your write? I understand that you have the right to your opinion, BUT, when you purposely leave out the “meat-and-potato” facts (check the DNC rules) you fail to back up any of your points. Considering your covering of the Edwards campaign and the friend you made in Joe Trippi, you should know the DNC rules. Shouldn’t you???

ChaChaCha12:05PMMay 6th 2008

CHURCHES ALL OVER THE WORLD SUPPORT AFRICA, so where in the world have you been?

Obama is not Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright is not running for the Presidency. UCC is not a dictatorship Church.
It is mainstream USA Protestant. Noone is forced or even expected to THINK AS THE MINISTER THINKS! Your comments remind me of the days everyone feared JFK would "run America" via the Pope.

Diana12:20PMMay 6th 2008

Tommy......sorry, but you are placing way too much responsibility on the (strong and broad) shoulders of the mighty John Edwards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen him donning any blue spandex jerseys emblazoned with the letter "S" or dodging any kryptonite. How about picking on Al Gore for the same reason?

I also think very highly of JE and his policy platform and causes, but I believe that Hillary's policies are more in line with them than are those of Barack. JE & HRC were the only Democratic candidates to proposed truly universal health care plans and who hold overwhelming appeal to the 'bitter' blue-collar (and other disenfranchised) voters which the Democratic nominee will need in order to win in November. What I took from the above quotes was that he leans toward Hillary. That belief is supported by that story that came out a few weeks ago, in which one of JE's close advisors divulged all those negative remarks he said about Obama. Should he really commit political hari-kari in order to save the Party? (BTW--whatever happened to Elizabeth coming out to stump for Hillary in NC?) I think he is wise to not back a horse in this race and to not fall into the trap of being yet another Hillary backstabber, despite the impact you rightly believe his endorsement would have on Obama's chances. If this protracted nomination process is already damaging our Party, then what is another month going to do in the grand scheme of things? She should hang in there until at least June 3, until all Americans have had the opportunity to cast their ballots and have their voices heard.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, that Obama MUST tap Hillary for the VP slot in order to win the general election. That is the only viable solution for our Party, NOT her dropping out and conceding the race at this time. She'd be a fool to do so, IMO (after all, what if another BO scandal surfaces or if Michelle commits another gaffe?).

Diana12:30PMMay 6th 2008

Katherine11:33AMMay 6th 2008

None of what Hillary Clinton is saying is the honest truth coming from her mouth in this campaign. She is only saying and doing all of this just to get a vote be elected, and get back in the White House. She can just feel the van moving she and Bill back in. It is so funny that EVERYONE voting for her is believing what she says....just like they did by voting for GEORGE "W" ("WHATEVER WAY THE WIND BLOWS") BUSH and put him in office for "8" I don't have a clue years...and he still does not have a clue. We are so easily fooled and we are being hoodwinked again by the Clinton's!!!!! Wake up American voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW who's the sock puppeteer? So clever.....not!

Tommy Christopher12:51PMMay 6th 2008

Diana,
your assessment is fair, and I agree 100% about the dream ticket, but her dropping out now would not preclude that or her stepping in if some cataclysm befell Senator Obama.

As for Al Gore, I do not have the level of respect or admiration for him that I do for John Edwards, so while what I say holds true for him as well, my expectations are different.

Tommy Christopher12:56PMMay 6th 2008

JV,
I am acquainted with the DNC rules. My assessment, as my article makes clear, is based on political reality. The Supes could also decide to nominate David hasselhoff, but that ain't gonna happen either.

Funny, though, how you're so concerned with the DNC rules when it benefits your candidate, but not so much when it comes to abiding by the agreement ahead of time not to count Michigan and Florida for violating those rules. So, who's biased?

Tommy Christopher1:04PMMay 6th 2008

Tedman,
if you watched the debates, you know what I am talking about, he went on and on about ending politics as usual.

I have said from the start, I don't care much which candidate gets the nomination. All 3 were excellent choices. If I "Quantum Leapt" into a universe where Hillary was leading Barack at this point, and Barack was running a GOP-style campaign against her, I would be saying the exact same thing.

As to pandering, I guess I don't see your point there at all. Maybe we're using different definitions.

Tommy Christopher1:07PMMay 6th 2008

Md25,
I agree, and I wonder who all these "Democrats" are who are attacking another Democrat from the right on gun control, choice, national security, and being "elitist."

JV1:14PMMay 6th 2008

Mr. Christopher-

Let’s get the hysterics out of the way- No; the Super Delegates cannot nominate David Hasselhoff. The Super Delegates must nominate one of the Senators. As for political reality…the only true political reality is that we are in the current state of affairs- Neither Senator will “steal” the race according to the DNC’s rules. That is the only true reality…let’s omit the one you have decided to live in.
Let’s discuss my bias as you so backhandedly stated. Here’s a reality check for you-
Fact- Both Senators decided not to campaign in either state.
Fact- Senator Obama campaigned (on local television) in Florida and Michigan. Fact- Senator Clinton did not.
Both Senators were on the ballot in Florida (even Senator Edwards).
Fact- Senator Clinton got the popular vote in Florida.
Fact- Senator Obama called it a “beauty contest”.
Fact- Senator Obama removed his name (his on free will) from the Michigan ballot.
Fact- He then pleaded with Michigan voters to vote undecided.
Fact- Senator Clinton won Michigan.
Fact- Senator Obama got what he wished for and those who voted for him, voted “Undecided”.

Bias? No, just honesty, true, and something you choose to omit- the facts. Before you “think” that you are above anyone on this post, please do your due-diligence. We are smarter and more educated than you think. So your weightless, argumentative, and vapid response is expected.

CONCERNED2:18PMMay 6th 2008

WILL OBAMA REALLY TELL MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THEY DON’T COUNT?

MICHIGAN HAS ANOTHER ELECTION IN AUGUST --- THE DNC NEEDS TO PUT OBAMA AND CLINTON ON THE MICHIGAN TICKET!

IF OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE TO THIS --- HE WILL BE TELL ING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT THEY DON’T COUNT!

OBAMA ONLY CARES ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS.

HE WAS ON THE FLORIDA BALLOT. COUNT FLORIDA’S VOTES.

IF OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE TO THIS --- THEN HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN.

WE HAVE 50 STATES. LET ALL OF AMERICAN'S VOTES COUNT.

COME NOVEMBER, WE'LL SEE A NEW SET OF RULES --- THE BIASED MEDIA AND THE DNCCAN'T PROTECT THE GOLDEN BOY FOREVER!

IF OUR DELEGATES IGNORE OUR “VOICES” AND DON'T SPEAK FOR US --- VOTE THEM OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CLEAN OUT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO DON’T DO THEIR JOB!

VOTE COUNTRY --- NOT PARTY --- WE ARE AMERICANS FIRST!

IF THE DNC HAD VETTED OBAMA, HE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS RACE --- EDWARDS WOULD BE.

Tommy Christopher2:24PMMay 6th 2008

JV,
lol, how am I the argumentative one?
Look, if you want to engage the central thesis of the piece, fine, but I'm not going to spend my day hacking through a thicket of campaign talking points. If you can't accept that
a. Hillary can't catch Obama in pledged delegates and b. She won't catch him in the uncontested popular vote, and might not even including those votes,
then ther's not much for us to talk about. Whether Fl and Mi should be counted is another animal, the fact is those votes are at best contested.

Now, knowing those 2 facts only, you tell me under what scenario the Democratic Party would award the nomination to Hillary Clinton? If the situation were reversed, would you tolerate that?