Your well thought out post will get little notice. This is an anti-Clinton site. Post this somewhere else if you want to hear comments.

My comment is that it's naive to characterize all of Clinton's ill treatment by the MSM as sexism. I really think that many in the media didn't want Clinton to lap the field and take away their fun. If Edwards, Gore, Kerry or anyone else had been the early front runner, they would have been equally mistreated. McCarthy got it in 68, Muskie in 72, Udall and Henry Jackson in 76, Carter in 80 was so pilloried by the press that Kennedy almost won the nomination over a sitting president (unprecedented since the civil was), Mondale in 84 was treated a lot like Clinton was this year(old, career politician, been in Washington forever) while Hart was given the coveted Camelot mantle (this was the last time the Superdelegates had to step in and decide things); Mondale won because he won the big state winner take alls, Hart in 88 was the huge favorite until the press turned the Donna Rice thing into the biggest news event since the Moon Landing; Tsongas in 92; Dean in 04.

Clinton lost because of the rules changes. The requirement that every state had to use strictly proportional delegate allocation cost her the nomination. If we had used the same method as the Republicans--or the same methods the Democrats used the last 40 years Clinton would have won in February. If just California alone had used the same winner take all primary it has had for all these years, Clinton would have won easily and early.

Posted at June 9, 2008 5:32 PM in response to A Call for Leadership from American Journalism

We won't win anyway. So who cares who would have been in what cabinet position after we lose. We have a one seat majority in the senate; we need senators more than cabinet members.

Posted at June 5, 2008 3:12 PM in response to Poverty Czar Hillary Clinton in '09?

She doesn't want to be VP. She doesn't want to be seen as refusing a spot on the unity ticket. I think the Presidential Library thing offers both sides a chance to do what they want.

Like Clinton, Obama doesn't want her on the ticket. He knows his campaign has been so effective at making Clinton seem evil, the Kool Aid drunks will go absolutely bezerk if she's the Veep nominee. He wants someone who's part of the cult.

Posted at June 5, 2008 12:46 PM in response to Hillary's Congressional Supporters Back Off Plan To Push Hillary As Veep

Both sides ran negative campaigns and did dirty things. Obama supporters are mad about what they see as unfair things Clinton's campaign did or said that hurt their candidate. Clinton supporters are mad about what they see as unfair things Obama's campaign did or said that hurt their candidate.

Her presidential aspirations are over. She may have some remote inkling of making one last gasp attempt in 2016 against whoever McCain's VP is.

But realistically, she's done in national politics. She'll go back to New York and work at the one thing that's been the most important to her for 30 years, universal health care coverage. With McCain as president, it'll never happen. So even if she knows he can't win, which he can't, she'll work to help him win.

All the insiders know that if we lose this one, we're toast for 8 years. Whoever wins will seem like Einstein compared to Bush and the country couldn't possibly be in worse shape in 2012 than it is now.

So, she and everyone else in Democratic heirarchy will do everything they can to win the presidential and Congressional elections--except for one thing. We now know they'll do everything except nominating the best candidate.

And no matter what she does you Kool Aid drunks blame her when we lose in the fall.

Posted at June 4, 2008 2:21 PM in response to If Obama Picks Hillary

I don't think she wants to be VP. But she doesn't want to appear as if she refused the VP slot either. If she comes out and says that she would not be the VP, she'll be seen as scuttling the unity ticket.

All she wants now is to not be blamed when Obama loses in the fall. She doesn't want to be VP; an offer of a cabinet position is worth absolutely nothing because she knows he can't win.

Posted at June 4, 2008 1:02 PM in response to If Obama Picks Hillary

Not enought of Obama supporters like you. Too many Kool Aid drinkers.

As intense as our dislike of the Obamabots is,
I think most Clinton supporters are even more upset at the MSM who, like they've done in countless democratic nominations in the past, scuttled the front runner because it wouldn't be any fun for them if the contest was over too soon. They did it to Dean, Tsongas, Hart, Muskie, McCarthy and tried to do it to Clinton after he became the frontrunner. Gore and Kerry won quickly because of the huge conglomeration on Super Tuesday and the prevalence of at-large delegates awarded directly to the primary winner as well as key winner-take-all states like California. If we'd used the rules of the last 40 years this time, Clinton would have clinched a long time ago.

Posted at June 1, 2008 4:15 PM in response to The Understandable Anger at the RBC Meeting

Warner's a great choice, but he won't accept. McCaskill makes more sense than Sebelius. McCain has an unbeatable edge in Kansas and Missouri and Virginia are our best hopes for a flip.

Posted at May 30, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Obama's VP: Out of Sight, Out of Mind and Outrageously Obvious

Being hopeful is good, and there is reason to be so, but being delusional doesn't help and could lead to a wasteful allocation of resources. At the Nadir of Kerry's 04 campaign, they thought Edwards would bring NC and help in other southern states. Kerry is sitting in the White House now if he'd picked Graham (Florida) or someone from Ohio instead of Edwards.

There is hope. We're within the margin in Virginia (Clinton is losing outside the margin) and a few small western states look good for us. There is also hope in Ohio, which would be huge.

We are not, however, going to win in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and other southern states. McCain has 14 to 16 point leads in the latest (albeit a couple of weeks old) polls. Moreover, he is well about 50% already. It's one thing to be trailing 42-28 and another to be trailing 54-40 (Georgia 5/14), 60-38 (Alabama 5/29) or 54-39 (Mississippi 5/23).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html#

The biggest problem, though, is the "Obama would be able to hold on to the Kerry states," assumption. If we lose Michigan and Pennsylvania, we can't win, period. If we lose just one, we can't win without huge flipping elsewhere. Two recent polls show McCain ahead in Michigan by 4 points, but with a lot of room (44-40 and 41-37). Pennsylvania seems to be moving our way, but there is only one poll I could find and it showed a reasonable lead for Obama.

The problem is that our candidates spent six weeks and millions of dollars campaigning in Pennsylvania while McCain was off on tour somewhere. Every Pennsylvanian has our ads, heard our candidate and still we're only in the mid forties. On the other hand, Obama hasn't campaigned in Michigan. If we seat the entire Michigan delegation for the convention and start campaigning there our numbers may improve. In the end we might lose both, win one or win both, but it'll probably be a close call. I've projected elseware that we would lose Pennsylvania and Michigan would be a toss-up. I may have been overly pessimistic.

Posted at May 29, 2008 4:48 PM in response to What's Obama's Route To The White House?

You won't get many comments or recommendations on this well researched and important post because it doesn't finger Clinton. I, for one, appreciate your effort.

Posted at May 28, 2008 3:21 PM in response to Obama & NAFTA-Gate - Republican "Dirty Tricks"

She just doesn't want you Obamabots blaming her when he loses. Obviously, though, you guys are already preparing to blame her when he loses. How pathetic.

She knows that the perfect storm will be over in 2012. The economy has to be better; the gas price situation will have improved or at least not be so shockingly aggravated. After Bush whoever wins will appear to be Einstein, Roosevelt and Washington rolled into one. If we lose this, she will not even consider running in 2012. Remember where you heard it first.

I'm sure she'll do what she can to help Obama win, but really, the losing candidate becomes irrelevant pretty quickly (unless s/he becomes the Veep choice). She have no money, no support infra-structure, no bully pulpit, nothing.

It's been pointed out over and over again that the anti-Clinton vitriol and hatred you see here, on other blogs and even the MSM is scaring Clinton supporters away from your candidate. It would help your candidate if you would stop accusing her of being the Anti-Christ all the time.

I made a deal with Ben and a couple of others. I said I'd volunteer (as I always have) to help your candidate in the general if they'd promise not to blame Clinton when he lost. It would be nice to her one Obama supporter promise not to blame her when he loses.

Posted at May 28, 2008 2:46 PM in response to Hillary’s preparing for an Obama loss in November.