OK, here's one...
They both get to the convention with good reasons for expecting it to go their way. The party is so split at this point that there is only one way out...Al Gore accepts the nomination, with Edwards as his VP. Hil and Bar go back to the Senate where they both continue to do exceptional work for our country, even working together on important bills for the good of the nation. Probability 35%.

I'm a staunch Hillary supporter, but I'd buy it happily if it happened.

Posted at March 18, 2008 11:09 PM in response to 7 scenarios on how the Democratic nomination ends.

Sorry, I saw his speech as more fancy rhetoric to cloud the fact that he participated for years (and only now has "distanced" himself for political reasons) in a ministry that in and of itself is divisive and racially driven.

Posted at March 18, 2008 2:59 PM in response to Odds Shift Toward Clinton

This is so true. And I think the Superdelegates want to win the war.

Posted at March 18, 2008 2:42 PM in response to Odds Shift Toward Clinton

OK, I have just one question:

CNN reports that just under 44,000 people caucused. Will someone explain to me how that 44,000 turns into 1,000,000?

My friends in Texas (Obama supporters) say the 1,000,000 is "unfortunately for Obama" very inaccurate, and that the actual numbers are less than 100,000, as seen in the CNN results.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

Posted at March 18, 2008 2:26 PM in response to Texas Dems to Hillary: No deal. Also: Put up or shut up.

"No wrong doing" doesn't mean "no stupidity." Obama seems to surround himself with questionable types. Rezko, Wright...20 years going to a church with this man as a leader, and now, suddenly, he is "distancing" himself from him? I don't buy it. Bad judgment all around, for a man who is running for President. Even pulling his name from the Florida and Michigan ballots. Bad judgment.

The war in Iraq? I could have read the same statement because I have always opposed the war. That doesn't make me Presidential material. There are other litmus tests, and he's failing lots of them.

Posted at March 16, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Chicago Tribune: No Obama/Rezko Wrongdoing

C'mon folks. Listen to what she said. Given the information she had at the time, she, along with Kerry and Edwards and the majority of the Senate gave power to the President to take action if necessary so there wouldn't be another unprepared 9/11. It is vitally important that a legislature give their President a modicum of trust. Just because GW turned out to be a lying crook doesn't make their initial decision wrong.

I opposed the war, vehemently. Does that make me Presidential material? Of course not. And the use of this argument about HRC from BO is really getting old and stuffy. It's the main reason I gave up supporting BO at the beginning and turned to HRC.

Posted at March 12, 2008 1:30 AM in response to Nancy Pelosi: Clinton Made Shared Ticket "Impossible"

True. And if you'll go back and watch the first debate, you'll see that BO is the one who started all the negative attacks o HRC. And later on, he threw her the barb about her sitting on the board for Walmart (during the days, by the way, when the big guy himself was still alive and running the company with integrity--it was his sons who screwed it all up, long after HRC was gone); HRC finally had enough of BO's BS and slapped him with the Rezko comment.

HRC was good enough to campaign for BO so he could get into the US Senate. I wonder what BO would have said about HRC to anyone who attacked her credibility back then. No, he needed her credibility and name back then, but now he wants to play President so he knocks her down. If she is so unworthy of the Presidency, then I guess her initial judgment about BO being a US Senator was really wrong, too.

Posted at March 12, 2008 1:15 AM in response to Nancy Pelosi: Clinton Made Shared Ticket "Impossible"

Yes, and let's not forget that in the 8 years Bill was in office, he was hounded by the Republicans about his personal life, constantly, aggressively, incomprehensibly, to the point that I am in awe of the fact that he managed to still be so effective a President that he left office with the highest rating (I think it was around 65% favorable) since WWII.

I can't help but wonder if he would have succeeded in getting Osama Bin Laden if he had not had to continuously meet with his lawyers over his sex life. Granted, he was an idiot around that, but one would think that even Republicans would realize that their very personal attacks upon him for this ridiculous reason could end up being harmful for the country—and it was. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Republicans are idiots, too, only in a much more dangerous sense. Don't forget this about them if Hillary ends up the nominee.

Posted at March 12, 2008 12:45 AM in response to Hillary's VERY REAL Foreign Policy Experience

8 years in the Senate, 8 years living in the White House, observing, learning, participating, working with the President, 12 years living in the Arkansas Governor's house, observing, learning, participating, working with the Governor, and having direct influence over many policies, both in Arkansas and the United States. Also to mention her professional law experience before and during all of that. Bill Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and Hillary left the White House to be immediately elected a US Senator from New York. She must have done something quite right all those years, and she's earned her democratic and republican supporters with hard work, determination and many successes over 35 years.

Posted at March 8, 2008 4:04 PM in response to Let's Get Real About Hillary

You're kidding, right? Try asking some of her black supporters, like Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer, former Denver mayor Wellington Webb, and congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, just to name a few. Call them and ask them. They'll give you an earful.

Posted at March 8, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Let's Get Real About Hillary