Posted By: Gregory Wiseman  on Thursday, May 01, 2008

What evidence do you have that there is "mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November"?  This is not reflected in the polls where Obama is tied (statistically) or ahead.  She is continuing to gradually lose the superdelegate race and has already lost the elected delegate race. She will likely lose the popular vote as well unless you decide to exclude the caucus states and add Michigan/Florida.   I have yet to see the alternate scoring system that would allow the person with the most delegates lose.  It is like at the end of the Alabama and Old Miss football game where the team behind by 3 points would say that touchdowns should be worth 8 points instead of 6 because they are much harder to make than field goals and besides they had more yards on the ground.  Take it to the NCAA for next year but play by the rules this year.  Stop whining!!!!  Obama has won.  Now get on with the general election.

Posted By: Wesley Dyer  on Thursday, May 01, 2008

1. The proof that Hillary is emerging as the stronger candidate against John McCain is right in the article: not only does she beat McCain in the AP-Ipsos poll while Obama merely ties with McCain, but Republican strategists and congressmen are flat out saying that Hillary is a tougher, more challenging opponent than Obama. Obama is a young politician; the skeletons in his closet are not yet completely known, while everybody already knows the Clinton skeletons. Unless Clinton makes a huge blunder within the next few months, there are no new attacks the Republicans can make against her that we haven't already heard. Obama, on the other hand, as a fledgling politician, is quite vulnerable to the typical brutal attacks from the GOP. On top of this, Clinton fights back against attacks with much more authority and determination than Obama does, making her the Democratic candidate that the Republicans will have to fight extremely hard to beat.



2. Obama has not won. In order for the Democratic nomination to be clinched, a candidate must have 2,024 delegates; neither candidate has reached this mark, nor will they reach this mark based on the remaining primaries and caucuses alone. Superdelegates hold the key to the Democratic nomination this go-around, which means that the nomination can only be secured by back-room dealings to get enough superdelegates to throw their support behind one of the two candidates. So, yes, it is entirely plausible that the candidate with the most delegates at this point will not get the nomination, and that could very well be what has to happen if the Democrats want to have the best chances for winning the White House.

Posted By: Joe Nolan  on Friday, May 02, 2008

Cokie/Steve;



I thinkg you guys have hit it right on the head, referring to Hillary's strategical blunder of taking certain states for granted, and is now paying for it in less popular vote and less elected delegates.



For example Illinois, with a population of 12 approx million, had almost 2 million people voters in the Demo primary. New York with a population of almost 20 million had 1.7 million vote in their primary. Each of the candidates beat the other by approx 2:1 in their home states. If we extrapolate the New York Vote to have the same proportions as the Illinois vote, Hillary would have gotten 700,000 more votes.

Amazing..................Joe Nolan

Posted By: ethel lee  on Wednesday, May 07, 2008

If it is true that super delegates cannot bring themselves to deny the nomination to the first black American man, then I as a woman, am outraged.  Apparently, the women who make up 54% of the democratic voters are second class citizens.  Women who  have worked for and supported the male candidates for the last 40 years are now  disposable when making the decision for the nominee.  It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton is the first serious female presidential candidate . The male candidate takes precedent over the female.The super delegates have no problem denying the first serious woman candidate for president the nomination. The glass ceiling exists!  Perhaps all those disposable women voters should stay home in November and not vote for the Democratic male nominee.  Or, they should vote for the Republican nominee.

Posted By: RGV  on Thursday, May 08, 2008

The bottom line is that the people in this country are far more sexist than they are racist. History repeats itself. Just as women at the turn of the century had to wait their turn to vote "after" the black men got theirs..We are second class citizens and we can thank many of the

"Obama mamas" and the like who voted for Obama for keeping us this way. Maybe we deserve what we will get-another Republican Presdient.

Posted By: len  on Thursday, May 08, 2008

It looks very much like the Democratic Party is on a death march to the sea in the one contest they said they could not lose, so they took the biggest risks.  Sometimes even with the odds in your favor, long shots don't pay off.  



If Obama is the nominee, inevitable at this point, the numbers of defects already logged are enough to sink him given he has no base of solid support in the critical electoral math states.  If the investigations into Rezko/Auchi and the Blackwell payouts show indictable offenses, the bottom goes out of his campaign in time to give the Republicans four more years.



The ghost of Ronald Reagan must be having a bar-b-que.

Posted By: ethel lee  on Thursday, May 08, 2008

Reply to RGV

In this Year 2008 I don't think that women need to or should wait their turn.  Women have been the soldiers in the trenches and carrying the water for the Democratic party far too long  to be complacent  and accepting of  the unfair treatment that they have been receiving from the men. Such treatment of women in the Democratic party is utterly ungrateful and egotistic.

Women should show that they have the backbone to resist and throw off the shackles that the male Democratic party leaders wish to impose on us. Whenever a group of people feel that they have been mistreated and disdained, they usually revolt against the disdainers.  I think that a women's general strike against the leaders of the Democratic party would send a message to the party. If women are serious about letting the super delegates know of their resentment,they can announce and participate in a one-day strike for women's rights. All women working for the Democratic party in whatever capacity should take a day off.