It's over.  Hoooray. Obama should now give a speech in Florida, calling on the DNC to give Florida and Michigan's pledged delegates full votes (punish the Super Delegates, and let them keep half, since it was party people who screwed them.)  He can recognize that it has been a difficult situation but that he cares deeply for them, and wants them to be seated in the interest of bringing the party and country together.  He'll still be up by 80-100 pledged delegates so it's not like the Supers would be giving it to him.

"I'm Staying In This Race Until There's A Nominee"
I don't think she is. I think that now that the race is over, she needs a way to raise the 11 million dollars to pay herself back.  Not to mention all the money they owe Mr. Penn.  What do you think?

Same Person?


Candidate

Dwight!

Clintons Disclose Tax Information Showing $109 Million in Income Since 2000
In Memphis, Clinton Targets Poverty

Bill Clinton says REAL DEMOCRATS want everyone to have a chance to vote.

How come on December 30th, Hillary Clinton said "It'll be over by February 5th."  Was she hoping to deny all this fine states their rights?

Hillary Clinton, great Democrat that she is, ought to be calling on her
party colleagues to get back in the race so that the people of North
Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana and the rest of the states can have
their voices heard! It's just not fair that Oregonians can't vote for
Gravel! I blame Obama and his hatred for democracy.

Silly
Obama supporters are suggesting that just because she can't win no
matter what the voters decide, she should consider dropping out. But
I'm with her that it would disenfranchise the voters whose votes won't
make a difference! Thankfully, as she has pointed out, the voters don't
actually matter anyways since the delegates they choose to represent
them are not bound to follow their vote.

Yay Democracy!

It’s time to be honest. The Florida and Michigan issue is not an issue for the Democratic nomination. It’s only an issue for the general election.

This election game started more than a year ago and everyone knew the rules of the game. I think everyone can agree that the rules ended up being pretty stupid and though it was a huge mistake, neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama bothered to make a big fuss about the rules of the game in the past.

Why was that? Clinton probably assumed she would win no matter what. (Wrong) Obama might have thought it would never matter he was so behind (Wrong) Both of them didn’t want to offend Iowa or New Hampshire (Wrong and Right, Right and Wrong) or Nevada and South Carolina by fighting for another states early primary (Right and Wrong, Wrong and Right).

It’s disingenuous now for Clinton to be making the argument based on disenfranchisement because if she wants to be a leader, she should have taken a stand before she knew the results or knew she’d be far behind. At the same time, Obama should be a little more out there fighting for the rights of Florida and Michigan.

In the end though, as I said, everyone knew the rules of the game and everyone agreed to them. Given that, if seating Michigan and Florida’s delegates from essentially uncontested primaries gave Clinton a victory, that would be far worse for the party than even the Super Delegates a nominee who isn’t ahead in pledged delegates.

What does that mean? It means the Florida and Michigan delegates are only going to be seated if it doesn’t affect the outcome of the nomination. The Clinton campaign has basically acknowledged that they can’t win without Florida and Michigan. The Democrats can’t change their rules to take the nomination from the winner. So, Florida and Michigan just don’t matter.

That doesn't mean the voters of FL and MI won't be offended. The Dems should be figuring out ways to deal with this. Obama should be saying a lot more in favor of seating Michigan and Florida, he’s won, stop worrying. For the good of the party, Clinton and Obama should come to an agreement on Florida and Michigan, that includes Clinton dropping out of the race a week or two later.

So. Now that we've been through popular vote, primary state totals, big state votes, blue state votes, wins based on electoral calendars and most recently popular vote in primary states the Clinton campaign has begun preparing rule changes for the general election, Sen. Nelson (D-FL), an avid Clinton supporter, is calling for an end to the Electoral College to be replaced by popular vote.

Just imagine Howard Wolfson on November 5th if Clinton is the nominee: "Well sure we lost according to the Electoral college, but that's so passe. Popular vote was super close, and if you don't count Alaska and Hawaii, which as you know shouldn't count for as much, since they were the most recent additions to our Union, then you'll see that we would actually be ahead in popular vote so we stand by our argument that we won yesterday."

Hillary Campaign: We Didn't Know What Was In Donors' Letter To Pelosi

I'm happy to believe Phil Singer that they were told that something was being sent but they didn't know what.

But
what I'm not willing to accept is this: A President, who, in the middle
of the most important political moment of her life, doesn't bother to
ask her supporters what is in a letter to the 3rd highest ranking
politician in the nation.

A President is supposed to be a
strategizer, a planner and a manager. Yet, Clinton and the people she
has chosen to surround her, were aware of a letter, but didn't think to
ask what was in it? Come on! She can't lead a campaign, how can she
lead a country?

We already have that poll!
They take the poll every day. Who would you vote for if McCain was against Obama (ie who would you vote for if Clinton lost?) Who would you vote for if McCain against Clinton (ie who would you vote for if Obama lost?). Guess what? They do the same. So at best, the new poll is essentially an internal poll that explains in all the recent polling that Obama loses 28% of Clinton’s voters and gains almost all of it back if he is the nominee. It’s basically the same the other way. Interestingly. You’ll notice that McCain doesn’t gain voters no matter who the nominee is. Come on people (esp. Josh Marshall) don’t fall into this stuff just because Drudge things it’s special.

Pres '08 Mar 25 Gallup McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 44%
Pres '08 Mar 25 Gallup McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 45%

Pres '08 Mar 24 Gallup McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 44%
Pres '08 Mar 24 Gallup McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 45%

Pres '08 Mar 24 Rasmussen McCain (R) 50%, Obama (D) 41%

Pres '08 Mar 24 Rasmussen McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 42%

Pres '08 Mar 23 Rasmussen McCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 41%

Pres '08 Mar 23 Rasmussen McCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 42%

Pres '08 Mar 22 Gallup McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 44%
Pres '08 Mar 22 Gallup McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 45%

FROM THE AP: Speaking this morning, on Fox and Friends,  Jon Corzine, Ed Rendell, Even Bayh, Charlie Rangel, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Ted Strickland and Jennifer Granholm all agreed that the only fair way to decide the Democratic nomination is to base it on who has given birth more times.  Upon the miraculous realization that Senator Clinton is winning that battle in a very close 1-0 match up and after further revelations that Senator Obama has absolutely no chance of catching up, the Clinton backers called on Senator Obama to give up and give the party a chance to heal.

Progressive. Liberal. Leader. Unifier.  Working for issues that matter for 35 years.

That's how the Clinton campaign would have us see her.

Yet, when it comes to a campaign. She doesn't take the high ground, as John McCain did, and suggest that Obama's preacher has no bearing on what kind of President he would be. She doesn't denounce those who would distract from the real issues.  She doesn't mention that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said just as despicable things as Obama's preacher.  Nope, she suggests that the fear of black people that the Wright controversy has demonstrated that Obama can't win and the super delegates ought to hold off committing.

She's a winner.

Why aren't clips like these played everyday day until John McCain (and Rush Limbaugh and Foxnews and everyone else) don't just condemn them, and disagree with them and separate themselves from but explain that they make everything that Falwell and Robertson every said null and void and that anyone who has listened to them preach ought to be excluded from ever being President?

Partial transcript of comments from the
September
13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system..

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God. ~~~

PAT ROBERTSON: > Amen

Let me first say that it’s classless and unnecessary for a public figure to point to Obama’s race as the reason he is where he is.  Call it political correctness or anything else you like, there are some things that are better left unsaid.  People can end up offended regardless of intention and for that reason it would have been better if Ferraro had not said anything about Obama’s race.

That being said, I’m not sure that she’s wrong.  It’s hard to control for any single variable of candidate.  Obama certainly wouldn’t be where he is if he didn’t have the ability to inspire. He certainly wouldn’t be where he is if he wasn’t so damn smart.  And he probably wouldn’t be where he is if he wasn’t so good at campaigning.  But it’s also possible, even likely that if he weren’t black he wouldn’t be where he is.  There are a lot of reasons for that,  to name a few: the excitement of his presidency as a historic first, his enormous support in the Black community, and even the formative effect his race has had on his personality and policy.

There’s a problem for Clinton that I haven’t seen anyone talk about that goes far beyond being affiliated with someone who said stupid things.  That problem is the answer to the question “why did Hillary make it this far?”

In the same way that Ferraro is right about Obama, Ferraro is also right when says that if her name was Gerard she wouldn’t have been on the ticket in 84.   But the name that matters for the junior Senator from New York is not her first name, it’s her last. Being a woman wouldn’t have gotten Hillary this far.  If her last name was Clonton instead of Clinton she wouldn’t be where she is. Hillary Clonton, the Yale educated corporate lawyer would have been laughed off the campaign trail when compared with the exciting and inspiring Barack Obama.

Therein lies the biggest problem with these remarks.  They might be right. But if they are, we have a battle of two people representing something historic. One is Barack Obama, who, by getting to where he is because of his blackness, will, among other things, provide hope to millions of Americans in a community that has experience very little to be hopeful about in its rocky history. The other is Senator Clinton, who, by getting to where she is because she is an ex-first lady, will among other things provide hope to 41 (James Buchanan never married) wives of ex-presidents, most of whom are sadly no longer alive.

I don’t think I understand why people think Michigan is
going to help Hillary Clinton so much. 
She only managed to take 55% of the vote running against Kucinich and
Gravel.

Not much of a post. But it needed to be said.