I think one of the big issues that Hillary has to overcome is the war vote. It did not help that the 600,000 pages study that showed no connection between Al Quiada and Iraq came out. It was just another point to why the war sucks big time.

For a progressive lefty leaning Democrat, that vote and the Kyle-Lieberman amendment was her Senate resume. Even though I was leaning towards voting for her at the beginning of this primary, it was not based on her Senate work, but on the sympathy that she had gotten from me during her time as First Lady and how strong I thought that she was during the difficult times. It was a woman to woman thing.

So it may have been good strategy for her to use her First Lady experience more than her Senate experience because of the war and her First Lady experience was more sympathizing.

But this did not accure to me until I read your post :) So I hope I made a little sense :)

Janeo

Howard, thank you so much for your post!

I didn't read your post past the rant about Florida and Michigan.

So that you know...

The rules were established over a period of many months. Michigan (Sen Levin, and Debbie Dingell) and Florida (Meek) both had representation on the core commission that crafted the rules. They interviewed dozens of other Democrats. The rules were then finalized by yet another committee before finally being ratified by nearly 450 Democrats from acroos the nation.

The common voters of the states voted their representatives to state office of their own volition, if those same representatives make a stupid choice - so be it. The states brought their misery upon themselves.

This is a Democratic Republic - you lives with the decisions of the folks you voted in to speak for you on a myriad of issues. The voters of both states therefore - did get a chance to vote.

The decision to strip Michigan and Florida was done by committee, and on that committee sat several big guns from the Clinton campaign, including Harold Ickes who cast to strip.

So you know - your argument dies in the first paragraph. I cannot trust - given your apparent lack of knowledge pertinent to the first argument - why would I waste time on the rest of the post?

Good work showing the bias of the media slants. If anyone is unsure of the media bias towards Clinton, take a hard look at MSNBC, CNN or ABC blogs on any given day (Jake Tapper is the most vapid pseudo-journalist in my book). The only criticism I'd make is your assumption about the caucuses. I agree that they are less democratic but how can you count them out at this point? Is there a serious move to eliminate them in the future? Anyway,I hope that the whole system is reformed, standardized and pushed in to as democratic a direction as is practically possible (starting with the super delegates).

Howard, face the facts,Obama's got it in the bag.I know it's not easy to accept, particularly when the clintons are trashing the party and thier reputations while cribbing from Rove's playbook. It's a real shame Bill and Hill have endorsed McCain as part of their kitchen sink attack, as there was the possibilty of a unity ticket before they got truly ugly with the fear and smear stuff. To quote Bill "in the primaries you fall in love, in the general you fall in line" Take some time, deal with it, then let's send McCain back to AZ.

Please explain to me how caucuses are undemocratic? I recommend you define democratic before you make that broad brush statement.

democratic: pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Many residents of less populated states love caucuses because it is free speech and political debate in the public square. Caucuses are also great for building committed grass roots leaderships and party activists.

State party leadership decides how they select their nominating delegates based on DNC rules.

Work to change the system (organize a group to bring about that change!) and what you perceive to be unfair or inappropriate. Right now we have a process in place. Like it or not that is what we have.

I am against the DNC dictating too much to the individual states about how they select nominating delegates. Too much national control is NOT good. Each state has unique needs. The more state and local control, the better the process works at addressing those needs. Call me a Blue Federalist if you will.

Don't forget the Obama-Coburn Transparency Bill - it's the reason why we have access to earmarks and information on gov't spending.

Also, PLEASE don't diminish the good work he did in Illinois. The comparison to Bush's work in Texas isn't quite apt - Illinois, for all that Chicago pushes it Democratic in National elections, tends to be a pretty red state. Just about every county outside Chicago is conservative-leaning. When Obama was in the state senate, we had a Republican governor (the recently convicted George Ryan) and a Republican legislature.

Not only did Obama cross the aisle to get a lot of great legislation passed, he made friends with his colleagues - Republican and Democrat alike. The legislature here can be extremely partisan, but Obama was universally known as an honest, collegial, hardworking guy. To just dismiss his time in Illinois as "insignificant" is not only wrong, it is Penn-tastically awful.

Here's a link to a list of the bills that Obama sponsored and passed in Illinois.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

I'll let you all in on some inside information.

This Primary is over for Clinton!

This race is not going to PA. you are going to see a massive shift in SD in the next 2 wks. You can take that to the bank!

"no caucuses, which are un-democratic, and will likely never be used again"

Please explain why the caucus is un-democratic?

I argue for caucuses.

1) It is the only chance grassroots voters and regular voters, who are not party insiders, have the opportunity to become a delegate and have a voice in the elections.

2) According to Texas law voters have the right to take off work from work to vote without reprisal or punishnment from their employer. I do not know if other states have similar laws, but I would tend to think so.

3) It gives voters a chance to discuss the candidate and why they support him or her. Caucus goers are generally more informed about the issues.

Copied and Pasted from Daily Kos:

Clinton is losing
by kos
Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

Let's count the ways that Obama is winning:

1.) Pledged Delegates: (Using AP's numbers, with Obama's count in parenthesis)

Obama: 1,390 (1,411)
Clinton: 1,248 (1,250)

2.) Popular vote: I updated this post with results from Mississippi. I took out the Texas caucuses just to give this the best pro-Clinton spin possible, though I still think the caucuses are a separate contest and need to be accounted for. (Obama ended up winning Mississippi by over 100,000 votes.)

Obama: 13,614,204
Clinton: 12,801,153

3.) Primaries Won: There are 37 total primary contests. All Obama has to do is win three more and he notches the lead in these contests. He can do that easily with just three out of Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina.

Obama: 16
Clinton: 12

4.) Caucuses Won

Obama: 14
Clinton: 3

5.) Overall contests Won: It's a 2-1 Obama advantage (includes territories and Democrats Abroad).

Obama: 30
Clinton: 15

6.) Red and Blue States Won (including DC, not including territories or Democrats Abroad):

Obama: 16 Red, 11 Blue
Clinton: 8 Red, 6 Blue

8.) Money Raised (through February)

Obama: $168 million
Clinton: $140 million

"So that leaves the Clinton campaign with what, exactly? Big states! Big states! Big states! I addressed that one yesterday.

"Team Clinton has nothing except schemes of coup by super delegate, which they apparently think they can do by insulting entire Democratic constituencies and most of our nation's states.

"But really, what else do they have? Their campaign is losing by every metric possible."

Read my Comment lower down in the comments. I list a number of bills Obama authored or co-authored of great import, and required working across the aisle.

And yes, throughout his 8 years in the Illinois Senate, he was brilliant at working across the aisle, BUT -- and here's the important point -- for progressive issues. It's one thing to cave to Republicans and call it bi-partisan. It's another thing to listen to all sides and craft progressive legislation that even makes Republicans understand, like the videotaping of interrogations. It's not just that Obama got it through the state legislature; it's that when he had used his effective skills, the law and order people saw that such legislation was in their best interests as well.

THAT is what Hillary cannot do, has never done, and will not be able to do as president.

Well done. I too (a tepid and inconstant Clinton supporter) was peeved by the Politico and NYTimes articles. Nothing wrong with the Obama folks trying to peddle his inevitability - that's politics - but it's shocking how eager the punditocracy has been to bury Hillary. Ever since Iowa, we have been serenaded by a constant chorus of columnists and talking heads urging Clinton to drop out of the race. If I were a superdelegate, I would think long and hard about voting against the candidate who won New York, California, Ohio and is likely to win Pennsylvania by a wide margin. Many of Obama's wins came in States that he has no chance of winning in November. His victories in caucuses may not be a true measure of the depth of his support in that they favor a candidate with a strong organization and motivated supporters. It is not clear if he would have won nearly as much support in a true primary. Yes, this is the deeply flawed, crazy quilt of a system we have for selecting the nominee. But this insane system also says that if a candidate does not meet the required number of pledged delegates, he/she needs superdelegate support to win. So Obama supporters who trumpet his lead in pledged delegates should accept that the Supes may not believe he is the strongest candidate. There is certainly a strong argument to be made for both sides. However, the fallout if Hillary should win would be enormous and might cripple her in November.

Caucuses are very very undemocratic. Your a working mom with 3 kids. You have a great job that you work 9 to 5. 5 you get off and get by the babysitter and get the kids home to do homework and into bed. Tell me when she is going to be able to get a caucus that is held during the workweek and at night? Please. You people call yourselves Progressive when all you seem to be is snotty nosed elite. Live in the real world for a change

The electoral map from 2000 was same for every election going back to the 50's bar none. And, no, sorry Idaho/Wyoming,ND/SD/UTAH/ALASKA/SC/MS/GA/MS/AL don't matter to Democrats. We ain't going to win them with any candidate. Look at the polls here of McCain versus either candidate in those states. The Dem.loses handily. We want to WIN. Not lose again. Course losing is in our bloods...so maybe we should.

"PLEASE don't diminish the good work he did in IL"

800 bills sponsered and passed in 8 years, 100 per year, 2 per week. Is this really possible? Could he cross the isle that many times, talk to enough people of the other party and convince them to support his bill, then

Maybe he can walk on water.

By the way, there didn't seem to be much substance in any of the bills.

Would you happen to know how many were actually implemented?

Here's a link to a list of the bills that Obama sponsored and passed in Illinois.

The sample shows that 10 of 16 passed..62.5%

Give him the benefit of the doubt, 823 sponsered,
62.5% passed =514 passed = 64/year, 1.28/week on a 50 week work year, and another 309 sponsered, but not passed. Do you think IL Gov is in session 50 weeks/yr.

Sorry, I still don't think that it's possible.

By the way, isn't sponsered/passed but not implemented, like a speech with no action?