Well, this Democrat can safely say that I do not care at all for the way Senator Clinton is attacking Obama. If this continues, I won't vote for her in the fall even if she were to get the nomination. I have always said John McCain would be an acceptable choice for me and would rather vote for him than for someone, namely Clinton, who seems intent in tearing down her own party, spreading untruths about a colleague, and advocating unfair means of getting the nomination. Seems she wants the nomination at any cost and I can't support that.

Sent by tim | 9:23 AM ET | 03-14-2008

why do news organizations report these extreme spin maneuvers? NPR should have journalists capable of determining whether this point is correct or within the zone of correctness that merits reporting. Simply repeating Penn's assertion is non-reporting. I recognize the attempt at "objectivity" by including contrary views, but it is too late. The question, it seems to me, is this: is there a legitimate question on the table about whether Obama is incapable of winning and whether one state's primary is a proxy? If so, do the reporting and present a story.

Sent by Frustrated with Spin | 9:23 AM ET | 03-14-2008

The clintons seem decisive to burn the democratic house to the ground if she is not to be the presidential nominee. It is regrettable. It is my first time ever to vote. I register as a democrat. But i am so turn off by her uncivilized and montreous tactics toward a fellow democrat that i can assure you that if she is the nominee, i will become a republican and vote for Mccain. That, i can guarantee you!

Sent by Frank Willer | 9:49 AM ET | 03-14-2008

NPR, I have always thought of you as a fair and balanced news program.

Will you consider contacting Senator Obama's campaign in asking them two questions that will be used as your lead for your next article:

OBAMA ADVISOR SAYS CLINTON NOT ELECTABLE

In conjuntion with this, would you consider doing the following?
Ask the Obama campaign to respond to the following:

1. WHY Do they think Senator OBAMA is more electable than Clinton?

2. What areas of strength do they see that give Sen. Obama the edge they believe he has over Senator Clinton?

3. Could they provide more substantive information concerning any matters of significane or importance to substantiate their arguements - by comparing and contrasting Sen. Obama and his record with Sen. Clinton's record?

Please, continue to uphold the public's trust by providing a substantive opportunity for the Obama campaign to be interviewed and to offer their points of view, by allowing the Obama camp the same lead coverage being granted to the Clinton campaign.

Balanced, analytical and investigative journalism should be perceived as something "good" for America and can help people to become informed, clarify their concerns, and make well informed choices and decisions on such a serious matter as choosing our next president.

For balance and truth in journalism,there has to be a commitment to investigative reporting and to an adherence to uncovering the truth.

Would you please consider contacting the Obama campaign, and asking them for some resource references regarding their ablity to back up their beliefs - that not only is Senator Obama more electable, but that he will win against Sen. John McCain, and why they feel this way as they have been stating?

Sent by Hope | 10:06 AM ET | 03-14-2008

I kind of agree with Frustrated. I mean, what if this advisor had said the moon is made of cheese. Would that warrant a news report, too? Anyway, at least thanks for pointing out just how blatantly WRONG the guy is. Just more underhanded campaign maneuvers by the Clinton camp. It's funny, the more these stories surface, the more disinterested

Sent by kopper | 10:17 AM ET | 03-14-2008

The NPR News Blogs claims it's "looking for news in unexpected place" but this story is neither unexpected nor news.

And until Florida and Michigan delegates are seated or the superdelegates abandon rational thought, neither candidate is electible.

Sent by N. Savage | 10:23 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Mark Penn is simply doing his job. In order to support his position, Penn purposely avoids talking about the enormous anti-Clinton vote that continues to exist in the Democratic party and refuses to recognize the large number of us that have been forced, by individual state regulations, to re-affiliated as Democrats for the purpose of supporting Obama. John McCain would certainly be my acceptable choice should Mrs. Clinton and her untruths, claw their way to the nomination. I think the Democratic party will surely shot itself in the foot should the superdelegates fall prey to the Clinton strategy. You will then see the "anti-superdelegate" vote in come November.

Sent by E Young | 10:25 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Obama is unelectable? Compared to Clinton??? That's rich, coming from someone with as much baggage as HRC. Just because Clinton wins swing states in the primary doesn't mean she would automatically win them in the general. Furthermore, it doesn't mean Obama COULDN'T win them in the general.

Sent by Sallie | 10:26 AM ET | 03-14-2008

FACT: Sen. Clinton has won every large state except for Sen. Obama's home state. These states represent Middle America, the heart and soul of the nation and the entire range of diversity that this nation includes. Why in hell would she stop HER campaign when she is also undoubtedly poised to win Pennsylvania as well. You people -- including so-called "reporters" right out of J-school -- are completely oblivious and dumbfounded to the point that if Sen. Obama cannot win the large states, he cannot become the party's nominee. Not only is Sen. Clinton strong enough to get this nomination; she is stronger than the media force that gives Sen. Obama a free, unblemished ride nearly on a daily basis, and she is strong enough to beat the Republican machine. Go Hillary!

Sent by Candi S. Cross | 10:32 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Too bad for Clinton that she won't be the nominee, then. And IMO, Obama will win the general election, pulling in Democrats and Independents, and quite a few Republicans that are sick and tired of the current Administration and its policies and do not want to see them continued under a McCain administration.

Sent by ron | 10:36 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Have you noticed that the more Hillary attacks that Barack guy, the more that Barack guy gets flustered.

I watched a video of that Barack guy trying to explain what he was doing in Somali war gear, and he couldn't get his words straight to save his life.

Can you even come close to imagining how flustered that Barack guy would get facing Vladimir Putin? I'd say that Putin could make that Barack guy break down and cry in nuclear negotiations.

Hillary is on the offensive. She has been since winning Texas and Ohio. That's how she won the two primaries. She has to continue on the offensive. If only to show how unstable and inexperienced that Barack guy is under presidential type pressure.

Now, as for being cool. I also watched several McCain video interviews. McCain has been using his time wisely while Hillary and that Barack guy swat away at each other. McCain's delivery is calm, good and what the people like to see. He's got a little Clint Eastwood with a little Arnold.

Hillary has some delivery catching up to do after she dispatches with the falling apart Barack guy. Of the three, the Barack guy is looking, by far, the worse for wear. Which is good. He couldn't survive four years against the dictators and rulers of the world. Got to get rid of that Barack guy soon as possible. For the good of the country.

Meanwhile, the once complacent voters are getting really tired of the Democratic Party's soap opera. They are becoming more aware of how dangerous an element that Barack guy could be in the White House.

That Barack guy is like a Trojan Horse disaster waiting to sneak its pernicious way into the Oval Office, and give America away to Russia and China and al-Qaeda.

Though it does seem as though that is what the Michael Moore Liberal Utopians want that Barack guy of theirs to do: give away America to Russia and China and al-Qaeda.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:51 AM ET | 03-14-2008

For some fun, read the Clinton press release and the Obama response.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/14/104353/568/26/475940

Sent by Jennifer Goebel | 11:26 AM ET | 03-14-2008

OBAMA AND HILLARY BOTH HAVE GOOD TALKING POINTS. BUT FOR OBAMA TO TELL HER TO ROLL OVER AND GIVE UP IS A JOKE.. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE NOT OBAMA OR THE POLLS..OR THE MEDIA. LET THE PROCESS CONTINUE.
OBAMA'S CHARISMA OBLITERATE THE EMPTINESS OF HIS MESSAGE.WE ARE ELECTING A PRESIDENT, NOT A TV EVANGELIST

Sent by ANNETTE SIMCOE | 11:43 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Hard to believe that the news media, even NPR, continues to promote these unfounded and self-serving speculative statements.

That the Clinton campaign is increasingly adopting adopting unethical tactics, including planting false stories in the press about Obama, would be a better subject for true journalistic inquiry.

I'm hoping that reporters in general will stop being spoon-fed by either campaign and start doing some real journalism...but I'm not holding my breath.

Sent by DR | 11:46 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Since reading The Audacity of Hope, I have been a commited Obama fan. I wish Clinton, along with her entourage, would think about what is best for the democrats and the country, rather than what is best for Hillary and associates. From the political commentary I have read, Obama is a far stronger presidential candidate against McCain. That is the opinion of one of McCain's chief strategists as well. I respect McCain, but I fear his policies. I believe that we need a change in direction for the good of the nation and I believe that Obama offers the best hope for significant change.

Sent by Alice | 11:53 AM ET | 03-14-2008

I typed the wrong lead suggestion earlier, NPR.

I think you should invite the Obama campaign to respond to this unfounded, biased notion of "electability" being desperately presented by the Clinton campaign, with an opportunity for responding to it by the Obama campaign, using an article by the Obama camp that leads something like this:

Obama Camp Believes Obama is better positioned to WIN over John McCain and here is why ...

Let the Obama campaign provide you with the facts and let them make their case, and substantiate it with the truth, and with the facts.

Only when you allow the public to see the truth, can they begin to examine their choices. Otherwise, this is more dishonest distortions by the Clinton campaign and there is no place in politics for misrepresenting what the public has the RIGHT TO KNOW.

TRANSPARENCY - doesn't begin with lies, misrepresentations, distortions of reality, and - oh, I forgot - yet a NEW BAR being set yet again, by the person in last place: the new bar being Pennsylvannia. And here, we are back to the alienation of those "OTHER STATES", the polarization of those ( as referred to by Clinton)as "little states", such as: N. Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, Indianna, W. Virginia where Sen. Clinton and her staff has unilaterally decided that they don't matter, they don't count.

This is exactly the kind of polarization that America is sick and tired of. This is exactly the divisive politics that people are disgusted with, that do nothing to unify this nation.

There are numerous states left who wish to speak. Interesting that the campagin of Clinton declaring that Pennsylvania is the "end all" - while splitting the other side of their tongue with declarations that Michigan and Florida should count, seem to deem ALL STATES IN OVERWHEMLING NUMBERS that have clearly voted for Sen Obama and put him in first place should NOT COUNT according to Clinton math.

This is another example of distortions of the truth, and distortions of reality.

How can you pick and choose ( thus chopping up America!) which states are "more important" and should therefore have more significance than others? I thought we were THE UNITED STATES - not, The Big and the Little States of America.

This conduct by the Clintons is so disturbing, and furthermore, it is such a distortion of how history has proven that elections go concerning the BIG states when it comes to them choosing the candidate that best models what they beleive will best SERVE America.

The chaotic, illogical conduct of the Clinton campaign not only appears to lack discipline but it appears to lack logic, facts, truth.

It's a series of baseless remarks grounded in desperate rhetoric while comopletely and persistently DIREGARDING THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH.

This is troubling conduct indeed.
I seriously wonder how much longer the Democratic Party can tolerate such dysfunctional conduct and such illogical and at times bizarre statements.

VETT THE SO CALLED STATEMENTS PORTRAYING THEMSELVES AS "FACTS" WITH INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH THAT SEEKS THE TRUTH.

This balogna about "hillary won more big states" is so bizarre, particularly when you consider distortion # 310:

OBAMA WON TEXAS, NOT HILLARY!!!!

Hillary seems to have gotten a good percentage of votes, but Obama WON.
Read the delegate counts.

This is another example of how so-called "facts" purporting to have an air of competency to them, need to be verified, investigated, researched,analyzed, - so that what is being presented as "true" becomes VETTED BY THE FACTS, INVESTIGATION, RESEARCH, and CONFIRMATIONS, ANALYSIS, POINTING TO THE TRUTH.

Otherwise, it's not the TRUTH that is being presented, but rather, DISTORTIONS OF THE FACTS, DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.

Sent by Hope | 12:38 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I wish Clinton would do whats best for the Democrats and just drop off the face of the earth. Does she not know that her campaign is hurting the Democrats chances of winning by cutting down Obama. Also, it gives talking points to McCain from which to attack from. If she wins the general election, I'm not sure I will vote for her.

Sent by Mike | 1:23 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Two points: I think it is interesting the number of people, presumably Democrats, who would rather vote for a male Republican (who has guaranteed this country an indefinite presence in Iraq) than a female Democrat (who, by the way, is committed to getting American troops out of Iraq ASAP). I also find it interesting that we have in Hillary Clinton a mature, well-educated, intelligent, policically savvy woman running for president who we realized long ago would made a bid for the presidency. She is well acquainted with the political landscape here in the States, and is no stranger to those that rule other countries, both friend and foe. Why would she now just roll over and quit the race? Because there is a new "hope" on the horizon? Because someone is promising to "change" this country? I don't belive that and there are a lot of us out here that don't. This is what the process is all about, primaries, caucases, delegates. It gets messy sometimes. Let's see who comes out on top in the end. For those of you out there who are new to the political process: Do you honestly think the Republicans are going to play any nicer with the Democratic nominee if one or the other of them were to drop out of the race now?

Sent by Michelle | 1:26 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Question: Have any Obama supporters had their minds changed about their candidate by ANYTHING the Clintons have said so far? If the answer is no, none of this epic storm of spin is news.

Sent by George de Man, Rome GA | 1:38 PM ET | 03-14-2008

The one thing that will get the hard core right wing of the Republican party to hold their collective noses and vote for McCain is for the Dems to run HRC. Otherwise, they'll stay home and "wait for a real conservative". But they hate her SO much that they'd vote for the devil himself if he was opposing her.

Sent by MoM | 2:01 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Hillary and her campaign are forever screwing themselves up and tearing the Democratic Party down in the process. No wonder the Clintons are so disliked -
Keep in mind, that there is a significant percentage of voters that are voting for Obama, just because they are truly disgusted by Hillary and her Kitchen Sink - Dirty Pool tactics.

I am still waiting for her to explain IN DETAIL, what exactly did she do in these 80+ different Countries that she keeps boasting about. As well as this massive amount of political experience she "claims" to have.

The truth of the matter is that, her entire campaign is based on this "mysterious experience" and even if she manages to pull the wool over her loyal supporters eyes now and magically wins the Democratic Nomination (since the math shows it to be impossible). It won't float AT ALL against McCain : a real veteran, with real experience. I guess at that point she will select Obama to be her VEEP and alter her campaign slogan from EXPERIENCE to CHANGE !?!?

Sent by Is Hillary Bipolar | 2:20 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I think we saw in the 2004 election that a Democrat can win key large states such as California, New York and others and still lose an election. George Bush won with the support of a lot of so-called little states. Also, to clarify my earlier comment, at this point, it is not that I would RATHER vote for McCain than Hillary; I WOULD RATHER vote for Hillary (if she were the nominee), but her tactics are turning me off and, if she goes too far, I may in fact go for McCain, or just stay home. She should be building herself up rather than tearing Obama down, then let the people decide. The Clinton campaign should think long and hard about the people they are alienating with the trash Obama strategy.

Sent by tim | 2:48 PM ET | 03-14-2008

In 1993, Hillary stubbornly refused to allow her husband to agree to a compromise health care plan and thus we fight that battle today. She voted to authorize Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA, and in order to maintain the seat of power at any cost, strategized to make Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinski look like evil, sexual predators victimizing her pathetic, randy husband. On the issues, health care and war, she offers little difference between her history and John McCain. In terms of ethics, integrity and credibility, John McCain is far superior. So, what is this 58 year old, life long Democrat to do? If she is the nominee, the choices are, vote for McCain, do not vote, or make a long term investment in a message to the Democratic party that begs for a clear difference in choice, by voting for Ralph Nader. It really matters little whether McCain or Clinton take the White House as Hillary will suffer any compromise for power. If Clinton is nominated McCain, once again due to incredible ineptitude of the Democratic party,has a real shot. Hillary will not fool most of the people and will thus lose the national election.

Sent by frank driscoll | 4:05 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Hillary Clinton had a chance to show her political judgment, intelligence and her familiarity with world affairs and she blew it by voting for the war. If she was so experienced and so familiar with the world affairs then why did she buy lies and misinformation from President Bush? And what guarantees we have that somebody will not fool her again?
I guess her supporters are right. She is politically savvy and that is exactly what is wrong with her. She voted for the war looking to get some political mileage out of it for the future presidential run. Just like Bush administration she miscalculated that the war will be over quickly and she will look tough. She is guilty of same sin of starting an unnecessary war as President Bush.

Sent by Punter | 4:45 PM ET | 03-14-2008

You folks need to see the ABC story today about Rev. Wright (the pastor at Mr. Obama's church) and his ravings (ie., "sermons"). If Obama's chances of winning in the General Election weren't bad enough (and I believe they were), wait until the American electorate gets a load of this guy, who Obama describes as his "mentor".

Sent by SSmith | 4:50 PM ET | 03-14-2008

To the poster who said, "Obama will win the general election, pulling in ... Independents, and quite a few Republicans....", is delusional. Liberal-leaning "independents" will vote Democratic and conservative "independents" will vote Republican. A very minimal number of Republicans will vote Democratic. However, a significant number of moderate to conservative Democrats will vote Republican or not at all, especially if Obama is the nominee. And that's why I think John McCain will be our next president, whether I like it or not.

Sent by SSmith | 5:06 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Note how Clinton's surrogates talking about big states that Obama supposedly can't win, try to sneak into people's mind a highly unrealistic proposition that bulk of the Hillary's base - woman and low income Democrats - will rather vote for a Republican then for Obama. Why would this be so? One can assume this for a few racists in her base, but we must assume these people are minority in Democratic party. I mean, Clinton and Democrats got to reject and denounce their vote anyway. This leaves us with a majority of Hillary's voters who are decent people and care passionately for the issues. Since there is no significant difference between the two candidates on most of the core Democratic issues, one has to assume that majority of Clinton's base will vote for Obama rather then stay home or vote Republican. Consequently, the Clinton's "big states" argument is a cheap shot attempt at manupulation of the uninformed, and will not fly with super-delegates.

Sent by PDSimic | 7:49 PM ET | 03-14-2008

It's amazing that no one is questioning the potential for the US to move into "dynasty" politics. Have we considered that with the election of HRC that only 2 families would have set at the helm of representation of the US for the last 20 years? America is better than that! My concern with HRC is her sense of entitlement among other things. Her experience? Do we want her experience to lead us on the modern world? The main reason that Republicans does not want BO to win is that it would be a fight between the evidence/judgement of the Iraq War which is a central issue to the detriment to the economy. McCain does not want to go down that road. HRC cannot fight him. She sided with he and Bush and she didnt even read the intelligence. So intelligence and judgement is not important. We really need to think.

Sent by Dr. Smith | 7:50 PM ET | 03-14-2008

This Republican is for Obama! But McCaine is OK too; just more of the same. (As a VA doctor I'm wondering how much more of the same this country can take). I have been inspired by Obama's books and speeches as never before; he is a brilliant rising star. However, if Clinton should get the nomination we Republicans will unite behind McCain and will welcome disaffected Obama Democrats to the winning side. MD in Oregon

Sent by garry | 1:06 AM ET | 03-15-2008

If Hillary Clinton wins, we will loose to the Republicans, I will not vote for her. I'm all for a women Commander and Cheif but not her. I'm a Obama supporter no matter what happens!!!!1

Sent by Tamara Winfree | 8:30 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Hillary Clinton's campaign will do anything it takes to win this nomination, even it means destroying the Democratic Party and losing the election. It is what I expected and one of the main reasons that I have supported Senator Obama from the beginning. If Hillary Clinton thinks that because she was the first lady that she is entitled to this nomination, she is very sorely mistaken.

Sent by Marilyn | 10:26 AM ET | 03-15-2008

With the new disclosures coming about Obama's racial views I think white people who supported obama should think twice. The judgement issue Obama is talking about all the time is ficticious. How on earth he can be associated to a white hating churh for 20 years without knowing what what was going on. That means he had no judgment on his associations. Then about his land deal in Chicago, he says it is lack of judgment. Then about Iraq war, if he was at the Senate at that time he dare to vote against that resolution on the evidence presented by Bush to a Senate. That happened to even the most out spoken Democrat at that time. You had to give the benefit of the doubt to the President in making those suggestions. Anyway Obama is still not politically or otherwise experienced in becoming a worthwhile president.

Sent by hermann | 10:27 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Clinton, her camp, and her fans have lost my vote for life. When is the last time we've heard a positive, uplifting Clinton story? Any Clinton argument inevitably comes with venom and negativity toward the alternative candidate, Mr. Obama. Is he so bad that she would desire him to be her number 2, when he's the frontrunner for Number 1? Please try running on a clearcut platform, not this disjointed, disorganized and inevitably overtly critical campaign she seems to have wanted to perfect, but is falling far far short for someone who was deemed inevitable only a year ago. My vote is for Obama, and all the huge amount of negative press from Clinton and her camp only solidifies my vote.

Sent by BK | 10:28 AM ET | 03-15-2008

All the Obama supporters have it wrong. If you read the news especially about Obama's dealings with Rezko. Give me a break,when Obama said he was unaware of Rezko's ventures in real estates shake down.Obama bought a mansion for $300,000 less then the market value price($1.5 million) and the strip of land next to the mansion was bought for
$120,000.00 when Rezko paid over $400,000.00.
And how about Obama's earmark to the hospital of the University of Chicago requesting $1 million for
it's construction of a new addition.Funny that Mrs. Obama is vice prisident of the hospital( taking a leave of absence)receiving a salary of $120,000.00 yearly and suddenly was given a raise of over $300,00.00 when Barack became senator. Funny all
those interviewed at the hospital said Mrs. Obama
had no influence in the hospital behalf to request
for the earmark. Funny they are Obama supporters.
Now we have the most revered Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.; a twenty year relationship with B.O. and wife didn't know any of his rhetoric-"U.S. of K.K.K. A. and after September 11, 2001, the revered Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. said the " America's chickens are coming home to roost". This is B.O.'s mentor then and now-until March 14th after the major news network interviewed him on this issue. Do I need to say more or do you have all day to read.

ktow \10:30a.m \03-15-08

Sent by Karen Tow-Corriveau | 10:31 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Gezzz Clinton!!!!
Enough's enough!!!
you are killing hope of this country!!

Bill clinton said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk&feature=related

Sent by marry | 10:35 AM ET | 03-15-2008

I think Clinton's strategy is more cynical than people are assuming. Everyone complains that she is weakening Obama for the general election; that is the point. Clinton wants to win the nomination, but she also wants to make sure Obama loses the general if he's the choice. That would allow her to (1) run again in 4 instead of 8 years, and (2) say "I told you so" about Obama's electability. She becomes a "prophet" after making sure that her prediction comes true...

Sent by Bubba Smith | 10:44 AM ET | 03-15-2008

What is wrong with everyone??? You would support a guy (Obama) who says that Rev. Wright is his mentor??? Wow, I am worried about this country. And all you young people need to rethink this whole campaign!!!!

Sent by Kathy C | 10:54 AM ET | 03-15-2008

The Clintons are a sleazy pair; they well deserve each other. What Bill did to his wife -and not one time, but many; and not without her unconcious participation- Hillary is doing to the Democratic Party and to Obama. The difference between Obama and the the Clintons is astronomical: He has class, transparency, genuineness,judgement, true caring for people, and, above all, the uncommon ability in politics to work with people of all creeds, colors and persuasions. The Clintosn have always been, and will always be, a self-serving, narcissistic, arrogant, duplicitous pair that won't stop at anything to get what they want. And what they want always translates into money. What Hillary and her sycophants have to say is totally non-sensical, absurd and only intended to feed what they hope is the stupidity and ignorance of the people of this country. I hope we all dissapoint them! And like many above, I will also rather vote for McCain than for any Clinton- be Bill, Chelsey or Hillary-. As they say in Spanish "vale mas malo conocido que bueno por conocer" (a bad one you are familiar with is preferable to a good one that has to still probe her "goodness"). And by the way, to all of the hispanics out there, when have you heard a politician in this country mention the lack of cooncern, aid and consideration of our US governments for the countries of south of the border? I heard Obama doing it...and genuinely. So, think again about Hillary, before you cast your vote in this country for a person who is not too different from the class of polititians that often we have in the other Americas.

Sent by Leonel A. Urdaneta, MD | 10:55 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Michelle is right!

How can Obama supporters claim that Hillary's campaign is using dirty tactics by saying that winning big states is key to electability in the Fall, when his devotees have been claiming that Hillary should drop out of this race for the sake of the Democratic Party! Hillary Clinton raised 35 million in February during the hardest month of her campaign from voters who were inspired by her and didn't want her to give up. Hillary Clinton brings out more voters to the polls than Obama in most primaries, particularly the big ones. Neither Obama or Hillary will get enough pledged delegates through the primaries to clinch the nomination. Obama's delegate lead is slim, his lead in the popular vote in states where both names were on the ballot is only about 1.5%! More states are coming, and Florida and Michigan are getting re-votes. How on earth can anyone suggest that a race that close should end by one candidate resigning! People are still voting for her in huge numbers. People come to her rallies in droves. People are still making calls for her and knocking on doors for her - I'm one of them. WE DO NOT WANT HER TO QUIT! She is what is good for the Party to us. It would devestate us if she quit, and she won't do that because she knows how hard we are working.

I am constantly amazed by the arrogance of Obama's supporters suggesting that Hillary Clinton, with her huge numbers of devoted and inspired supporters should be a quitter for the sake of the Party. Be honest now. What you mean is: not the sake of the Party, for the sake of the Obama campaign. It's like all of you think we are simply invisible: the millions and millions of us who are voting for her even when she isn't the inevitable nominee. Does our voice, does our enthusiasm, do our dreams not matter? Is the only charisma that matters Obama's charisma? Is the only inspiration that matters Obama's inspiration? Is the only strategy that matters Obama's strategy? You folks act like you've got the nomination locked up, if silly Hil would just get out of the way. News flash: You don't have a lock, no way.

You keep talking about the divisiveness of Hillary's campaign making it so hard for Obama supporters to rally around her. Take a hard look at yourselves. Proclaiming that Hillary needs to drop out of an election this close and this important really turns the stomach of a lot of us. You don't think you might need our votes in November if your prince gets the nomimation? Better think again.

Hillary's campaign has every right to make a case for her own candidacy as the stronger one. It's called: running in a Presidential race. You don't run to drop out when you are competitive. You run to earn the nomination. If you think that's dirty politics, I feel for you.

Good luck, and see you in Denver.

Sent by Sarah | 11:12 AM ET | 03-15-2008

I am a writer and journalist from India and though perhaps it is none of my business to advise Americans which way to vote,had I been a US citizen I would have certainly cast my ballot for Barack Obama.I have a feeling that millions of non-US citizens from all over the world would have done the same.I would be greatly disappointed if Barack Obama lost.

Sent by Vishnu Khare | 11:13 AM ET | 03-15-2008

It's so unbelievable to me that supporters of BO will vote for McCain over Hillary if it came down to that. Such is the vitriolic condition of BO supporters who would rather do a complete 180 degree turn if they don't get what they want. I think it might be because most of them have gotten what they have wanted throughout their lives and they expect to win regardless. And of course the Superdelegates cannot go against the 'tide', it would just really disappoint them and then what would they do; what would they do? It may be time for a lesson in politics. It doesn't always go the way you want it to. At least if they don't want to vote for Hillary, wouldn't it be more in tune with their philosophy to vote Green or some other third party?

Sent by Marc | 11:16 AM ET | 03-15-2008

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON is the RIGHT PRESIDENT for AMERICA.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NEEDS to remove himself from the presidential race.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NEEDS to resign from his Senate office as well.

VOTE-HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON-PRESIDENT!!!

VOTE - "MY AMERICAN MAMA" - PRESIDENT
VOTE-HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON-PRESIDENT!!

YOU GO GIRL!!!!
YOU GO GIRL!!!!
YOU GO GIRL!!!!

Sent by Blondshag | 11:21 AM ET | 03-15-2008

It's amazing that Hillary's campaign is saying she has a better chance to beat John McCain. She is the established candidate with the "Machine" behind her and she can't seem to beat a novice politician with a funny name and no big time connections. I have no idea how she'd beat a seasoned politician.

Obama is the surprise. He's been strong enough to stay ahead of the political dynasty. It makes you think he just might beat McCain.

Sent by cpindc | 11:22 AM ET | 03-15-2008

I would not vote for Senator Clinton. If the way she runs her campaign is indicative of how she would run her Administration, it just leaves me cold. I've had that for 8 years under Bush and I was a bit chilly by the end of her husband's Administration. Senator Obama has my vote and has had it for a long time. I am just waiting to vote in Pennsylvania. Get a clue Senator Clinton. People are tired of the divisive tactics.

Sent by Jane | 11:23 AM ET | 03-15-2008

During my morning constitutional I noticed there's hair on my arm longer than the one's on my head. Though true, this is about as earth shattering as these knee jerk responses. And quite interesting it is; how we react to spoon-fed news, half truths, and now NPR's diluted intellect. Obviously we're keeping many employed who'd otherwise find it difficult landing a real job. Well folks, as much as it pains me and how my fingers do itch over this keyboard I've decided not to take my mean pill today and espouse on things that otherwise no one in the real world would pay any mind. Don't believe it, try them out face to face on a friend, a mate, and see what kind of look you elicit...get the picture (big yawn).

Sent by George Gekas | 11:24 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Obama's favorite Pastor is a far larger scandal than anything else that has happened in this campaign. This is absolutely dispecable and he won't be able to shake this language. He will lose because of this issue!

Sent by stone | 11:27 AM ET | 03-15-2008

What exactly, would you expect a Clinton campaign adviser to say. Obama is too much of a gentleman to list all of the reasons why Clinton is too polarizing to get elected, but rest assured, the
Republicans will use no such restraints!

Sent by Wanakee Hill | 11:29 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Sen. Obama's "personal real estate fairy" and good friend Antoin Rezko is on trial for dirty dealings with politicians. Sen. Obama is very close with his racist, America-hating pastor of 20 years.

Obama is, in my opinion, a very gifted LIAR and knows that most of America, unfortunately, is ignorant and parrot-like. All he has to do is give a few great speaches about hope, truth, and change, make it personally emotional to the masses, and all the little parrots are tricked. Do any of you Obama supporters honestly consider yourselves intelligent? You do not like Clinton because you are secretly sexist. You are so easily tricked.

The *TRUTH* about Obama is coming out, slowly but surely.

Sent by Obama's Little Parrots | 11:31 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Why is Clinton still in this race? She cannot surpass Obama in pledged delegates and is relying on super D's to push her forward. She has only won 14 states, then got desperate and attempted to add FL and MI after the party agreed they could not count.

Look at what people will do when they are DOWN. Clinton has pulled out all the stops when she was losing. I do not trust her to be our president. Where are her tax returns? What is SHE hiding???!!

Obama is the future. He is the only person that could turn the page on this divisive and scandal filled chapter of American politics.

Sent by Robyn | 11:54 AM ET | 03-15-2008

So now we're playing the guilt by association game.

Okay, let's play it. However, there needs to be a few more pieces on the board.

Ask Hillary about the illegal donations by Norman Hsu - who has been indicted of fraud - on behalf of the Chinese government to her and Bill's campaigns. Ask her about how her and Bill about who exactly bought the house in Chappaqua. They didn't have any money when they left the White House. A *campaign donar* bought that house.

Ask her about Peter Paul v Clinton going on right now in California. Ask her and Ed Rendell - who was DNC chair at the time - about their role in the ongoing Federal Election Fraud case. Ask her about her sweetheart land deals.

Ask her "resume". The one she's now being caught over-exaggerating on. Ask her about her college thesis that the Clinton presidency tried to hide but how that's getting out.

For Senator McCain....

Ask him about his associations with Hagee("Catholism is a cult") and Parsley. Ask him about the Sand L scandal, Charles Keating and the roads to nowhere in Arizona. Ask him about making - what a FCC commissioner called improper - calls to the FCC on behalf of lobbyist. On how he took money from lobbyist that had business in front of the committee's he resided over. Ask him how he took federal matching campaign funds to secure a loan to his current presidental run - but now wants to illegally opt out because he's being forced to play by the rules.

C'mon Hillary wonks, if we're going to play this game, let's drag out the board on everybody. And not only on some former pastor whose words are being taken way out of context. At least play out the context of what he said instead of a few words.

A lot of people comment about Rev. Wright by only a few out of contexts thoughts they saw on television. I don't agree with everything Wright says either. However, Wright has said on more than one occasion that his church is not about black seperatist or black superiority. It's simply about celebrating what is unique about African American's, the need to solve the problems in that community.
If any of you understood liberal leaning Liberation theology started by whites, the core ideas behind it, you wouldn't be spewing off misinformed thoughts like Rev. Wright's church is anti-white. You people need to read "the truth" more.

Hillary has a *WAREHOUSE* of questionable conduct in her closet that's about to come out.

Sent by keith | 12:08 PM ET | 03-15-2008

In response to "Fred Camorra Call" ... I found it very interesting that when ever he refered to Obama he called him "that Barack guy" and it was clearly intentional because he said it multiple times throughout his post. He refered to McCain as McCain and Clinton as Clinton only to back to "that Barack guy".

This is a sensitive issue to me because in my hometown older white folk such as my grandparents refer to blacks in that way. They say "that (name) guy". I asked them why they didnt say it that way to white people? They said we used to say "that colored boy" or even worse.

This comment I'm posting may seem trivial but it cuts at the heart of history, a history of oppression in this free land of ours. Obama speaks of Hope and to many this seems like an evangelical message, when in reality no one can better appreciate this free and democratic land then a minority. Its time for us all to get over the fact he is a man of color.

You see things cant change without a "challenge" and Obama challenges us to see if we are willing to work for that great aim. The American dream!

Sent by Elvira | 12:09 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Barama is a fake and bad politician. Check out his voting record. NPR-stop censoring my message because you are lambs in his flock.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Sent by Lea | 12:12 PM ET | 03-15-2008

OK folks. Lets remember these polls and come November when Obama gets 19% of the vote, we will know once and for all that US polsters are not just incompetent but outright liars. I base this statement on 40 years of observation.

Sent by Doug Forbes | 12:16 PM ET | 03-15-2008

It's laughable who the imbecilec Clinton supporters focus on a pastor while ignoring WHO has given to Hillary's campaign. What's worse than simply having an association with a retired voiciferous pastor -- is HIDING TAX RETURNS for the fact that many CROOKED people --who would make Pastor Wright look like Little Bo Peep-- contributed to the Hillary campaign.

Sent by Kenny T. | 12:22 PM ET | 03-15-2008

The fallacy in Clinton's argument was reinforced by Governor Rendell's statement. It matters not who wins Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, or any of the other large states in the Democratic primary season. Traditionally 'blue' states will Barack the Vote when he is the nominee. I also find it regrettable that those of us who live in traditionally 'red' states are being discounted by the Clinton campaign. Democrats in 'red' states only get to be heard from during the primary season. Overwhelmingly, we have voted for Barack Obama. It should count for something. I wish NPR and other news organizations would perform similar analysis rather than quoting any blathering member of either campaign to 'create' stories. Back to the issues people, please!

Sent by James Brightman | 12:27 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Between the Clinton's dirty trick machine and the extreme right, Obama will be ambushed all the way to the White House. But I firmly believe that he'll make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the US will finally have a President who has the character and intelligence to reguvenate our country. We need his calmness and belief that Washinton politics is ruining our country and that collaboration and thoughtfulness is the only way to reignite our abilities. Lastly, his church Pastor is angry, that's for sure. And it doesn't sound good. But Obama didn't say those words and all of us have friends or associates who hold ideas we don't agree with. I would also say that the things the Pastor said are topics debated in universities and homes all over this country. He said that Mrs. Clinton didn't know what it felt like to be black. He said that our country is ruled by rich white people. He said that we have condoned atrocities and sometimes participated in them. These are true statements. How he said them was what was frightening. But then again, I have no idea what it feels like to be a black man in America.

Sent by Julie Riegel | 12:30 PM ET | 03-15-2008

GOD KNOWS WHY PENSYLVANIA SHOULD BE THE TEST AND NOT MISSISSIPPI.

Sent by Raymond Micheals | 12:37 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Hillary Clinton wanted to send Bush, Sr. to the countries of the world to trash his own son!!!
...and She was calling Obama naive!!! LOL!!!

Sent by Punter | 12:42 PM ET | 03-15-2008

It's really surprising how much people who support Obama will bash on Hillary. Have you been awake the last few days? Obama is unelectable in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright clips. He is absolutely unelectable. Regardless of your feelings against Hillary, know that the Republicans will make swiftboat and pictures of McCain's adopted daughter, etc., look like kindness compared to what they'll be doing w/ these clips. If you wake up on the wrong side of bed, is that Hillary's fault to? Go ahead and vote for McCain, as I was going to do if Obama gets the primaries. He is slowly and surely proving to be the empty suit that he is, unable to even sit on the VP ticket. He'll be lucky to hold onto the senate seat. The pastor controversy is only going to get bigger and bigger, completely beyond damage control.

Sent by Democrat | 1:10 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I am a democrat by genetics I should say. But unfortunately I will have to Vote for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. Please view these videos and you will understand why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

Walter

Sent by Wlater | 1:12 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Clinton's "strategy" is indeed questionable. If she is not able to discuss the real issues that we are concerned about, the gossip column that she is creating certainly can't lead this country back to the forefront.

Sent by sharon | 1:14 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Dear Elvira,

I hope everyone goes back and reads your sensitive observations about Fred Cammora Call's comments and what he's really saying.

thank you

Sent by George Gekas | 1:22 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I can vote for Mr. Obama. I cannot vote for Mrs. Clinton. This may make me a swing voter, but at least you know which side of the plate I'll be standing on come November. Let's hope the DNC is smart enough to figure that out.

Sent by Rick | 1:29 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Are you people that caught up in the cult like "movement" of Barack Obama that you can't see the forest for the trees? How ON EARTH can you compare shady tax records and monetary donations to a pastor OF 20 YEARS who hates America and everything about Americans and who thinks white Americans gave people Aids, drugs, etc etc etc just so black people would be kept in their place? You can't POSSIBLY believe that Barack Obama didn't hear this stuff over the 20 YEARS HE BELONGED TO THIS CHURCH DO YOU? What on earth? And Hillary's taxes are coming out in April so get over that nonsense. I'm sure people will look into those until they find something to try to burn her with because that's what people do to the Clintons, they try to burn them and then look stupid because there really isn't much there to find and the Clinton's win anyway. But to belong to a church where the preacher quite obviously has a problem with the American people and America in general is unacceptable, I'm sorry. That's perpetrating more hate and divisiveness than Hillary ever thought of perpetrating. At least she's not racist like she's being accused of as there is nothing but accusations to prove otherwise as she has done VERY MUCH for minorities, children, women, etc etc, and of course now the black people are against her for no reason other than because they heard a black man was running for president and they should go vote for him. I know this because my fiance is black and that is his opinion of it and he voted for Hillary. As for the idiot who said half of America hates Hillary, well the other half doesn't much like Barack either as take a look at the popular vote. And she did win texas as far as the POPULAR vote is concerned. And as far as democracy and electing a president is concerned THAT'S ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER. I've been saying all along that something was not right about Obama and this eery campaign he is running and everyone jumping on this strange bandwagon and I was right. There is not a chance that I will vote for this man. Not a chance. Sorry. And for him to get on television and stumble his way through the interview trying to come up with excuses for the racist hate mongering preacher was sickening. I understand he denounced it but to try to deny he heard the stuff before, I DON'T BUY IT AT ALL. I felt sorry for him as it was very sad to see. That preacher was preaching about Barack Obama not fitting the mold and that Hillary hasn't had to work twice as hard to get where she is, etc. Well excuse me but Hillary has had to work 10 times harder than any man to get where she's at and they are still giving her a harder time than they have certainly given Barack Obama. Good grief, if people don't wake up to this nonsense then I'm scared. I'd rather keep Bush for pete's sakes than have Obama as my president.

Sent by Ellie | 1:29 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Clinton is the status quo, the perfect politician and Obama is not. In my view that is a plus for Obama, because I feel he is more likely to base his decisions on what is best America and not a select few. One thing he provides which I know Clinton will not is a shift from business as usual. When this primary first began I felt that Hillary was a sure thing that is no longer the case. Its almost as if they are upset because this was suppose to be a cake walk for them and since she has some serious competition it has to get nasty. Remember its not if you win or loose but how you play the game that counts. The way a campaign is run says a lot about the politician running it notice how they answer question are they straightforward or evasive. Pay attention to their comments and the innuendos. I thought much more highly of the Clinton at the beginning of this primary then I do now.

Sent by Daniel H. | 1:35 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I agree with Bubba Smith. If Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nomination, she wants Barrack Obama to lose the election. I will not vote for her even if the Republicans resurrect Richard Nixon. After Clinton's failure to eject Geraldine's Farraro in a timely fashion, on top of the inuendo against Obama, it appears that racism is indeed a tool of the Clinton campaign. That doesn't mean that race is not a issue when determining a nominee for a contest, but reinforcing white fears of a black candidate should be left to those who are truly racist. The Democratic Party cannot accept this. There is no way I can vote for HRC, even against the worst the Republican Party has to offer.

Sent by UrbanHillbilly | 1:41 PM ET | 03-15-2008

the "kitchen sink" politics is not what I expect in a statesman, let alone a president. I will vote for Obama in Novemeber -- and I still have the privelege of a write-in vote, should that be my only option

Sent by sharon | 1:45 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Obama unelectable? I don't think so:

...snip

Obama is viewed favorably by 67% of Connecticut voters, McCain by 58%, and Clinton by 54%. Connecticut is the only state surveyed in 2008 where all three candidates have favorable ratings over 50%.

...snip

In Connecticut, Barack Obama currently leads John McCain by twelve percentage points, 50% to 38%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that Hillary Clinton leads McCain by just three, 47% to 44%. Last November, a time when Clinton was still the Democratic frontrunner and McCain was an afterthought in the GOP race, the former First Lady held an eight point lead over the Arizona Senator.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/connecticut_presidential_election

Sent by Harry M Pierson | 1:46 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Tim hit it exactly. I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances, but I might well withhold my vote from the erstaz Republican, i.e. Hillary. Her tactics are reprehensible, and I wholeheartedly agree with Tim when he says she wants the nomination at any cost. I, too, cannot support a candidate like that. As for electable, of course Senator Obama is very electable. He is also probably re-electable, which Hillary is not. If she were nominated and made it to the White House (a far more doubtful outcome than if Obama were nominated) we can expect fresh Clintonian missteps, disasters, static, and bad judgement during her term, I have no doubt. That is what happens to the Clintions in all that they do, outweighing the good. That is what happens to tacticians with ambition that exceeds wisdom and an understanding of other people.

Sent by Lynn W | 1:52 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Most politicians are prepared to bend the truth a little if it helps them get votes. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton does much more than bend the truth--she breaks it. I believe that her ethics permit her to say whatever she considers useful in helping her gain favour, regardless of the truth. There are numerous examples of this. I'll provide you with two examples which are likely not well-known in the US but are irksome to Canadians. Shortly after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton claimed that the hijackers came from Canada and she lashed out at what she said were lax security measures in my country. When it was pointed out to her that she was wrong about the Al-Qaeda terrorists--they entered the US (legally) from other countries (in most cases it was Saudi Arabia)--Hillary refused to back down. Two years later she claimed that 5 Pakistani terrorists had entered New York State from Canada and were planning to blow off bombs in New York City. She again attacked Canada for having poor security. When it was revealed that the story was a hoax Hillary refused to back down. she refused to apologize to Canada. "It could have been true", it what she said.

To many people this would be small potatoes. But I was brought up to tell the truth and to admit my mistakes.
Personally, I find it very difficult to vote for a person who does not abide by this basic ethic. I hope that John McCain is not elected. I strongly disagree with his position on the war in Iraq. But at least John McCain is honest in his approach to politics.

Sent by Canadian observer | 2:03 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Obama's electibility quotient is much higher than Hillary. I for one will not vote for her in November and I have always been a die hard Democrat. I am finally witnessing and understanding the comments on "divisive" Hillary is. I am sick of slash and kill campaigning by outright lies or innuendo. I don't trust them (Bill and H) because of the lies and deceits in their public condemning or her acceptance of women Bill has used and then demolished to save his own skin. Obama really does give me hope that my country can come a lot closer to redeeming itself of the many things we have been wrong about and help us truly create a nation "indivisible and equality for all." He is truly electible. A white older woman for Obama. And a PS, I understood Rev. Wright when he said Hillary does not know what it is like to be black - sure he prolonged his case but he is right. Just like a man can never understand what it is like to be a woman. What did Bill do to be called the first Black president - I cannot remember anything special beyond a lot of lip service - one cabinet secretary????

Sent by Geraldine Brown | 3:05 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Differences:
Mrs. Clinton mainly represent a group of women in their 60' and above just like Mrs. Ferraro, people who fortunally or unfortunally is about to start a life of retirment.
Senator Obama represent a population that is the power horse of the country, not only that he is a powerful influences your young votes and young non-voters, my son who just turned 13 wants to vote for Senator Obama. We the 21 century generation and our children are going to be taking care of the elderly with our present taxes, our children will be prepared with a strong citizenship mentality to be there for us.
Mr. Mcain represent the nursing home population, who sadly many stay in vegetative state absorbing lots of health care finances due lack of education about hospice or progressive mentality.
We need a young president for the century 21 the probems that Mrs Ferraro Faced 60 years ago are not the same my son is facing now, we are in times od information revolution. Old deceiving tactics are oudated. American people not even the youngers swalow it.

Sent by Alma Ludivina MD | 3:10 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I believe, the Clinton Campaign Doctrine can be summed up as follows:

If she can't be the Democrat Nominee for President, no one can.

Sent by wolf | 3:11 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Mrs Clinton came to Texas hungry for the latinos voto, she manipulated the mind of people with no reading skills who reacted fearful of terrorist, and confused after her campaign released a picture of Senator Obama with a Kenia attire, She also remain very silent about her campaign involvent with Canada with NAFTA issues, she ridiculized Senator Obama in National Tv "why the first question is for me trying to look cute" and and then like a Trojan horse left an the latino voters abused clueless and regretful, that is the reason she win in Texas. It took Mrs Ferraro 60 years to become politician, It Took Mrs. Clinton 35 years to become politicina, It Took Barry 1 campaign to become politician and with high levels of organizacion and disicpline. American Stop the denial and be aware of the "prejudes shame syndrome" overcome the syndrome and vote for Senator Obama. He is representing for first time in history 40% of minorities that represent USA population. Claro que se puede

Sent by Alma Ludivina MD | 3:26 PM ET | 03-15-2008

"I trusted him (Rezko)," so Mr. Obama says according to yesterday's Chicago Tribune interview. Well, so much for his superior judgment skill, which, beside his ability to stitch big words together, has been the only selling point of Mr. Obama's candidacy. Apparently, in spite of his newly proven ability for poor judgment, Mr. Obama still wants people to trust him. Indeed, if Mr. Obama has his way he would have us be to him as he was to Tony Rezko; that is, naive, clueless, and blind. Needless to say, so far Obama admirers are living up to his expectation. They are well advised to stop projecting their hope and yearning on a man they hardly know, especially a man coming out of Chicago ward politics that runs on graft and kickbacks as its fuel.

Obama is a pushy, cocky, imperious character who will use these attributes to the detriment of the country (and himself in the end) if he were to become the President of the United States. Much of Obama's vaunted legislative record (all accomplished in a single year) in the Illinois legislature came about as the result of the Democratic Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones Jr. assigning most of the high profile legislation that other legislators had been working on under Obama's name. And Obama was brazen and duplicitous enough to take the full credit without sharing any of it with the originators of the legislation.

This is real Obama, the harbinger of new politics and future hope of America. Democrats, nay, all Americans, should be warned that it is not Florida and Michigan voter disenfranchisement (which Obama, true to his form, is working hard to ensure behind the scene, as if he is back in his good old days in the Illinois legislature) that will be the train wreck, but the Obama presidency that will be.

Sent by George Snyder | 3:41 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Stop listening and reading NPR. NPR should stop hiding in the shadows, because I see who you are really supporting

Sent by KSB - ALABAMA | 3:53 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Message to Hillary: The ends do not justify the means.

I'm amazed that she - and yes, I use the term "she" here, because anything her campaign does is in her name and thus has her approval, whether she denies it in public or not - I'm amazed that she would even think of trying to label someone who keeps winning elections as "not electable." Huh? That doesn't even approach making sense.

Obviously she is trying to smear and destroy Barack's public image, but by doing so to such a vehement degree in such a disgusting manner, she is also causing the public to turn against her.

If she keeps this up, she'll cause McCain to get elected because by the time she is done, no one will like *either* of the democrats.

I started out as a Hillary supporter, but began to see her true colors as the campaign progressed. Now I think the sooner she is out of this race, the better off the country will be. Because either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the next president and Hillary is trying the make it the latter.

Sent by Tor | 4:15 PM ET | 03-15-2008

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. ???Carpe diem??? (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see???s a beautiful world of plenty, and comfort for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it???s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children???s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don???t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama???s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON???T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton???s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama???s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. But the time to act is soon.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton???s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton???s. Only the Clinton???s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

???This is not a game??? (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Sent by jacksmith | 4:32 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Mark Penn, the employee of Blackwater, the man who didn't know a meal he could not devour in seconds, the man who was outmaneuvered in primary after priamry and nearly all the caucuses, says he knows that Obama can't get elected? Who is he trying to kid. After alienating African Americans, alienating those of us that pay attention to to transparency (where are your tax returns? where is the documentation of your meetings), Hillary and NO you had nothing to do with S-CHIP). This is a ploy. In fact, Hillary Clinton is now unelectable. In Michigan, she barely beat Uncommitted!

Sorry, only a fool would fall for this overeater and overstater. If McCain takes Colin Powell for his VEEP, then bye bye Hillary and the Dems for years to come.

Sent by LXG | 5:06 PM ET | 03-15-2008

A woman president is wanted
It is not about race or gender, I am a latin American woman physician, single mother, and I consider myself a feminist. Yes a woman president is welcome of any race, but it seems Mrs. Clinton background is not as progressive as it should be, there is a lot of weakness in her character that make her not to meet the criteria. She has over-rated her achievements, she shows a constant sense of entitlement.
She is incapable to refrain from intimidating ridiculizing, denigrating, demeaning, Senator Obama, She uses others ie. Mrs. Ferraro as an outlet to all expresse repressed emotions and vicious behaviour patterns.
That is one of many reason that I prefer this time Senator Obama

Sent by Alma Ludivina MD | 5:20 PM ET | 03-15-2008

After reading the Chicago Tribune
article and thinking about Obama
as a Harvard graudate, one-time Editor
of their Law Review, Illinois Senator and now US Senator and candidate for
the Presidency, Obama's characterization
of his long-term association with
Rezko just does not wash clean AT ALL!
This is one, creepy fellow and I think
of Dickens' character, "Pecksniff"!

Sent by csb in Indiana | 6:33 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Perhaps the most widespread misconception about Barack Obama that has been forcefully expounded by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is that because he is younger than both of them he therefore must be too inexperienced to be president.
Senator John McCain is 71 years old, Senator Hillary Clinton is age 60 and Senator Barak Obama is 46 years of age. But America has had both younger and older individuals who have served with great distinction as president such as Theodore Roosevelt who became president at age 42, John Kennedy who assumed the presidency at age 43, and Ronald Regan who was sworn in as the Commander in Chief on January 20, 1981 at age 69.
Bill Clinton became president at age 46 after having served 12 years as the governor of Arkansas, but without having had any experience whatsoever in Washington. Before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860 to become our 16th president he had previously served 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Congress, which incidentally just happens to have been precisely Barack Obama???s experience. If Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009 he will have served 12 years as an elected legislator which include 8 years as an Illinois State Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Senator and he will be 47 years old.
In the 1960 Democratic primary election Senator John Kennedy was also told he was too young and inexperienced to be president, then by such notable members of the "old guard" as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK won the 1960 Democratic primary and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too young and inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Voters should evaluate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not simply on the basis of their respective ages of 60 and 46 but look closely at how each of them approaches politics and consider their individual life experience, compare their respective judgment, character, vision, intelligence, imagination and creativity, and assess each one???s ability to unify America and actually bring about significant changes in Washington.
Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials he could have joined any number of prestigious law firms but instead felt compelled to give back to his local community, so he returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights and civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his landslide election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator as mentioned earlier, Barack Obama is currently serving in his 12th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale law school in 1973 and has been a very active spouse of the governor of Arkansas and as the First lady of the United States before being elected to the US Senate from her adopted state of New York in 2000. She is currently serving in her 8th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama???s judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war.
When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike his opponents Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama???s judgment that the next President of the United States should be elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else.
Barack Obama???s opponents ridicule his inspirational rhetoric, such as his belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things. ???Just high sounding words??? and ???big talk from a pied piper??? they say. But when 1 million ordinary Americans use their credit cards and each give $25-50 dollars with the click of a mouse to raise $25-50 million dollars for Obama???s campaign without the help of, special interests, political action committees, lobbyists, $1000 a plate dinners, or huge contributions from American billionaires most of us think that???s pretty extraordinary.
Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose on November 4, 2008 the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.
Furthermore suppose this idea of raising money for a political campaign directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done, and those who don???t and still accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected or reelected.
That???s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents and which seems to concern so many in Washington who don???t seem very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the money peddlers who currently offer huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they judge to have a good chance of winning and whom they can then ???work with??? later.
We are at a historic moment in America when ordinary Americans can begin reclaiming their democracy.

Sent by Robert | 6:50 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I HOPE to God that Obama wins the nomination and the presidency. I am tired of the Clinton machine and all their phony supporters. Clinton has taken Democrats for granted too long. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

Sent by MJ | 7:33 PM ET | 03-15-2008

McCain. Clinton. Obama. Three different generations. This election is unlike any other. We really don't know how this one is going to pan out. If the Democrats don't work out the Michigan-Florida situation to the satisfaction of the masses, no telling what Democratic voters will do.

This is a defining moment in history where the ordinary voter has real power--not the political party machines. Young people of voting age have the power to tell this nation what direction we need to go. People all over the world are closely watching this election. They're waiting to see if we really are serious about a change, or will we chicken out and go back to business as usual because it's "safe". This is more than just about us. And this may be our only chance to show the world that we actually practice the diversity that we preach to others.

Sent by Cecily | 8:24 PM ET | 03-15-2008

People wake up!!!!! How is Obama good for our country???? His wife just recently became proud of her country, what is that?? His story changes way to much and he should do everyone a favor and drop out of the race, because if he if the one running in November then we might as well not bother wasting everyone's time and just put John McCain in there now...

Hillary is our only hope of the party winning.

Hillary 08!!!

Sent by JMB | 8:31 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I agree Obama is unelectable.To me he seems like an opportunist, who has been attacking Hillary all the time, and at the same time, he claims she is attacking him. His campaign seems so contrived and based on Advertising principles that if you say something enough times people will believe it.

Obama had been calleing for Clinton to step down before she won OH, TX, and RI and I felt that was cowardly and underhanded.

For a long time Obama was making the most of his support from Old Boys and insiders like Kennedy, and Hlllary seems to be protecting his image because he is another Democrats. As soon as she started letting loose and letting people know who he really is she starting winning. I wishe people had known more about Obama earlier, and that the whole Fiasco in FL and MI had not happened and this would have been a more fair campaign.

I want Democrats to win. Now Pilosi is saying whoever is ahead in delegates should win regarless of the popular vote because that is whu the delegate system was created. This reminds me of why Gore lost, and Obama reminds me of Bussh, the way he tries to appear nice while he gets his Press agent and people on blogs to do his dirty work and mudslinging, and says one thing and does another.

If Pilosi is respecting the system, the weren't super delegates created to make sure the public was not lead astray? Obama seems like a very polished con man to me and I don't trust him, and these days kids hang out in very big rooms, and vote in collective blocks, and Black people, are proud to see a Black candidate and are voting in blocks in the primaries, but in a General elections their numbers will not impact the same.

I think the fact that Hillary has won all the Big States that a Democrat needs to win is a significant factor as is all the news we learn about who Obama really is every day, and I agree that Obama can not win in a General Election with Mccain. I read so many polls before TX, OH, and RI, that said Obama could win, and he didn't, so I'm looking at the historical evidence and Obama does not seem to be a winner to the Democratic Party to me, and I feel Hillary can face McCain and win. I hope she get's the chance, because Hillary is not Billary, and that comes from mudslinging, and she seems new and diferent to me, and I have faith that she is the only candidate who truly will work he behind off to serve the people of the USA and restore US to peace and prosperity. Obama has the "cool" factor, but he does notseem to be offering us much we can count on that will change anything.

Sent by Steve | 8:44 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Cliton's negative campaign has so turned me off, that I could never vote for her. I wouldn't want someone who uses her tactics to represent me.

Sent by Kent Duffy | 8:58 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Can HRC truly represent that historic advancement of us as women in American politics? Indeed she cannot. She rather solidifies the stereotype that women cannot break the so-called glass ceiling on their own merit without a hand from men. In this case, it is the former president husband of HRC. Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain did not attain preeminence on the coattail of a former president husband, neither did Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, and a host of other trail-brazing female presidents around the world. Argentina is the only exception, and the reason is clear - America is not Argentina.

If we women really wish to appreciate how far we have come in American politics, HRC will be the wrong choice to field. We should field someone who should not be construed as running on the coattail of her former president husband, or any man for that matter.

Sent by Jan | 9:15 PM ET | 03-15-2008

To quote: "Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."
***************************************

And that is precisely why Clinton continuing her campaign, instead of stepping aside for the clear frontrunner, is so very destructive for the Democratic Party. There almost seems to be an attitude of 'If I can't get the nomination then no Democrat will'. There is too much at stake here to indulge one person and let this happen. Of course they say Penn is the test of his elect-ability - because they know they will win it - but it is only true if the public buys it.

Sent by Jay | 9:17 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Sent by LXG: If McCain takes Colin Powell for his VEEP, then bye bye Hillary and the Dems for years to come.

My, my. But there are occasional words of wisdom from the Liberal Utopians.

In fact, Colin Powell would make an interesting president, thereby dispelling the myth that a black man can't be president.

Now, let's compare Colin Powell to Barack Obama.

Colin Powell is, well, experienced. In fact, very experienced. I wouldn't miss a night's sleep knowing that Colin Powell had the launch code to America's nuclear arsenal.

Barack Obama is not experienced. He is a disaster waiting to happen whenever his name is mentioned along with a nuclear arsenal launch code.

Colin Powell is willing to bide his time in the political arena, until his time is right.

Barack Obama is too inexperienced to think in these terms.

Colin Powell has the self-confidence that he ride out the bad times, until the good times arrive.

Barack Obama has no self-confidence. He sees no future. He's too immature.

A McCain/Powell ticket?

Hmmmm. Interesting. Very interesting.

Good insighter, there, LXG. Though you meant it in an apocraphyl way. What you present is quite enlightening.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:22 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I AM TIRED OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS BASED ON DIRT AND NOT ON ISSUES. If CLINTON CONTINUES TO SLING THE DIRT, THE REPUBLICANS MAY WIN AND, ONCE AGAIN, THE DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE WHAT SHOULD BE A SLAMDUNK ELECTION.

HILARY, STOP GIVING THE REPUBLICANS SOUND BITES FOR THEIR ADS. ELECTING A DEMOCRAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU BECOMING THE PRESIDENT.

Sent by Carol | 10:06 PM ET | 03-15-2008

At this moment, nobody can be sure who is going to win the general election. While Senator Obama is leading in pledged delegates, it appears that most of his winning comes from republican states that will be captured by John McCain at the general election. A lot of republicans cross party line in the Primary to vote for Senator Obama for the purpose of eliminating Senator Clinton. Once the republicans make sure that Senator Clinton is eliminated, they know that it will be easy for the Republicans to defeat Obama at the general election because all of the republicans will vote for John McCain and most of the Asian and Latino voters (independent or democrats) will not vote for Obama. While Black Voters account for a large portion of the Democratic Primary, black voters only aount for less than 13% of the total voters at the general election. It would be very difficult for Senator Obama to win the Presidency.

Sent by Jay Yuan | 10:48 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Why Hillary will not release her TAX RETURNS. What's in there that she does not want us to knwo?

Sent by Punter | 11:11 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Oh please, you guys think Hillarys tough .. Just wait till the Republicans get hold of him. I guess this is the point at which I should say I won't vote for him and his "Monstorous tactics" even if he is the nominee but I'm afraid I just can't stoop that low.

Sent by Tim | 11:12 PM ET | 03-15-2008

What if 2 teams came to the world series and One had a bit better record, so far. Then picture the team that was considered the front runner telling the Press that underdog team should STEP DOWN. People would laugh them out of the Ball park and know it is cowardly, and unfair, and not a repectable way to play.

The Obama supporters are Thugs. They use the same slogans all the time. Hillary is NEGATIVE, Hillary should step down for the sake of the party, Hillary is nothing but Bill Clintons wife. They travel around the internet in packs of mudslingers espousing slander and spreading lies, and drowning everyone out.

They say Obama is nice, and stop speading hate against Obama, but Obama does not seem nice at all and his supporters are the most hateful people I have ever seen in an election. They think just because Obama is 46, Hiillary is ancient, and say anything and do anything to make her lose.

It get's worse when Obama confronts his scandals. That's when their nasty crowd mentality surfaces, as if they want to draw and quarter Hillary to get the attention off Obama. These people come in angry packs to websites like this, and seem so angry and intent on "killing the competition" to free the way for Obama to suceed and become President. This is scary pack behavior lacking any respect for right and wrong, showing no morality. Since Obama is leading them in what feels like a Holy war, I feel he has no soul or conscience. The Obama supporters remind me of the most angry factions of Muslims launching a Jihad, and acting like they want to destroy anyone who gets in Obama's way. I've never seen anything like this before in the USA accept when I watch video of Muslims that hate Americans.

So when I hear them say Hillary is Negative, she is doing her job to win, Obama's team are like manics and its downright scary.

Sent by Cass | 11:16 PM ET | 03-15-2008

I am a foriegner and I live is US. I have come from a country lead by one of the worest dictators of the world. Believe it or not " Since your guy OBAMA surfaced in the us poltics , he has changed my world....He has made me love this country more and more" I am fired up to join the strugel for freedom in My country. I love obama supporters for their positive energy. About clinton supporters.... though i understand theor fear to elect the new guy....but I do not understand their negative reaction against hope ...I love this country ...and I do not think it it right to be ruled by two families for decades....It is time for the world to change ...and it is time for America to lead again...."We are the world" I am fired up and ready to GO.

When it comes to NPR and election report they are against hope agians obama.

Sent by Frank | 12:43 AM ET | 03-16-2008

Talking about spin...it's very apparent that a number of these responses are written by the same person. Obviously the Obama supporter is trying to spin the response of the article to read negative for Clinton. Well if you have a brain and have done any homework about Obamas's nefarious dealings with Renzic and his very scary and powerful money source Auchi you won't be voting for him. He has already been bought and paid for! He didn't want us to be in Iran because as an agent for Iraqi national, Auchi, who bought $100's of thousand in Chicago realty lately, was making billions there. US intervention would disturb his very lucative dealings there. Google Obama, Rezko, Auchi if you dare!

Chicago Sun Times March 15 2008
Obama Says Rezko Played a Bigger Fundraising Role Than Previously Known

Saturday, March 15, 2008
In a just published interview with Sen. Barack Obama, the Chicago Tribune reports:
Indicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko was a more significant fundraiser for presidential candidate Barack Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known. Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, the senator told the Tribune on Friday.
Obama also said for the first time that his private real estate transactions with Rezko involved repeated lapses of judgment. The mistake, Obama said, was not simply that Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. "The mistake was he had been a contributor and somebody involved in politics," he said.
Repeated lapses of judgment. The Tribune says that's how Obama views it.
The interview raises another question: Obama's naivite.
Obama said that when he questioned Rezko about news reports of his questionable political dealings, his friend assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.

He relied on his "instinct" and didn't do anything to verify it. [More...]

Then there's this:

Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was definitive. "No, precisely because I'd known him for [many] years and he hadn't asked me for favors."

Again, this isn't some unfamiliar contributor (like Norman Hsu, who contributed to both Hillary and Obama's campaigns without having a relationship with either.) Rezko is a man allegedly engaged in corruption at the highest level of Illinois politics. Obama had an ongoing relationship with him for 15 years -- since 1991 -- that included the time periods when Obama was serving in the Illinois legislature, running for U.S. Senate and serving as U.S. Senator. His real estate transactions with Rezko's wife occurred in June and December, 2005, after a year of serving as U.S. Senator.

The Tribune notes:

Though Obama insists he has answered all inquiries, his campaign's piecemeal written statements have left lingering uncertainties about whether the up-and-coming senator exchanged favors with the target of a federal probe.

Rezko helped "bankroll" Obama's 1995 and 1998 state senate campaigns, his failed congressional bid in 2000 and his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

I've consistently maintained there's no indication Obama did anything legally improper in his Rezko dealings. Rezko is presumed innocent -- his criminal trial is only a few weeks old and scheduled to last months. Obama is not a player in any of the alleged misconduct.

But it's hard to say he didn't exercise poor judgment and it's fair to ask whether it might happen again, whether he's too naive and whether personal loyalties might again impair his judgment on some issue.

Also, on Monday, the jury questionnaire was unsealed in the Rezko trial. There were three pages of names (pdf)that prospective jurors were told might be witnesses at Rezko's trial. Barack Obama's name was one of them, for reasons unknown. Rezko's lawyer has since stated he has no plans to call Obama. I have written before I doubt it will come to pass. But, the lawyers for either Rezko or the Government at one time thought it a reasonable enough possibility that they submitted his name for inclusion. It's unlikely it was because Rezko helped Obama buy his house...that's neither here nor there in the criminal trial.

Sent by Concerned @ US | 12:50 AM ET | 03-16-2008

I'm an Black American Male who believes that Obama should stop his campaign and go home, America does not need a President who is associated with a known racist and bigot for over 20yrs and than having him work in his campaign, Obama is a undercover racist and bigot as well, there is no way he can convince me that he truly did not know what his Pastor's teachings stood for, Come on please don't insult my intelligence. Obama beleived and stood by this man's teachings or he would not have stayed in his church or made this man his mentor, Obama's smooth talking should be over for convincing voters he's the best candidate to be President and to beat McCaain they will eat him alive, come on people, let's get real here, Obama must go.

I believe now that the truth has finally came out will still come out about Obama's past, America is going to be even more shocked, so people put your seat belts on and fasten them tight, because a steep roller coaster of Obama life is going to be revealed before you even faster, now that the news media his finally got some guts to start sharing with America all of Obama's deep dark secrets that he thought would never come up and out, before he was mistakenly nominated for Presidency.

I recommend that the mature voters lead teach and guide the younger voters in a different direction from Obama, because they have tremendously been brained washed by Obama's occult like speeches, it's going to be hard to get them to accept that Obama is not good for America, but if the older voters stick together and really mentor our young people, they will begin to fall away from Obama's campaign and grip hold on their young minds one by one, some of these young people really don't know the election process, and many have voted for the first time in their lives, Obama's campaign rallies to them where like going to a late night rock concert, they begin to follow Obama like he was a popular rock or Rap star, so many of our young people's minds has to be purged and reconditioned away from Obama's compelling grip, it's like being on a ill-legal drug and have to go through drug detoxicifican in order to come down off it, this is how far some of our young people his been deceived and brain washed by the Obama campaign.

I suggest that all Americans begin writing letters by the millions to the media and the DNC Chairman Howard Dean to pressure Obama to step down, and if he refuses, do not vote for him anymore throughout the rest these primaries, this will send a strong message that we do not want a liar, a person that was associated with a known racist or bigot Pastor for over 20yrs, and now Obama tries to denounce the Pastor to dupe the American people into saving his political career, it's over for Obama now, no turning back for him, If this happens, the Super delegates and voters will start switching to or back to Hillary's side because it would be the most popular, politically correct, and safest thing to do now, I believe if we don't denounce and get rid of Obama now, America would have made a grave mistake in the long-term, Democratic Party and America as a whole will suffer for not stopping this man in his tracks before he divide this country up even more.

As a Black voter for Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro was right on the money, if it was not for the black vote, Obama would not have gotten this far in the first place, her statement is not racist to me, she was only stating fact by looking at the high percentage of blacks voting for Obama in the primaries, this is very obvious, this is not rocket science you know. So, the voter's and super delegates who voted for Obama needs to reject those votes and vote for Hillary before it's too late, Obama is definitely a liability and political death for the Democratic Party and America as well, and the Democratic party will lose the election if Obama is the nominee.

Sent by Darrell | 1:30 AM ET | 03-16-2008

I am tired of people believing that Hillary Clinton is attacking Barrack Obama. We the People are raising the standards of transparency. He has not yet met our standards. That is what you are seeing: U.S. the people.

Sent by Jodi B | 2:09 AM ET | 03-16-2008

As a black man, it is quite the interesting note that everyone seems to be thinking that I only have the impetus of my color when I am voting. It is also interesting to see the " you owe me" politics that the HRC campaign is pulmulgating. The Black community is a diverse group of thinkers that do not simply base our vote or allegiances to the last "persons" who thought about us or marched with us in a struggle for our freedom. Obama, to me, is the right choice because he literally will change the dynamics of politics as we know it. If we are voting only on experience, McCain is the clear choice because be outranks both of the Democratic candidates. It is also amazing that HRC runs on her "experience" but as soon as her "platform" pertaining thereto is challenged, she cries foul. Obama is the only which has had to prove himself on race, religion, and policy simply because he is a black man. That too is not fair. Nobody is asking JM or HRC to prove how black or white they are and are not being marginalized when their surrogates spew hatred against Americans, but Obama is. The day of "dynasty" politics must come to an end. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. We must stop this madness of the 20 year baffoon rule.

Sent by Dr. Smith | 9:33 AM ET | 03-16-2008

Hillary cannot beat McCain, And, she has lost my respect. She will say and do anything to get nominated, including destroying the Democratic Party. With her, it is politics as usual and always will be.
Barack is our only true hope. Get past the media sensationalizing, distortion and look at the real person. He is the only one who will promote change and try to bring our country, politics together. Forget race, gender and vote for the true person. That is Barack.

Sent by katiec | 10:52 AM ET | 03-16-2008

Sent by Darrell: Ferraro was right on the money,

Sent by Jodi B: He has not yet met our standards. That is what you are seeing: U.S. the people.

What I am seeing here is that the Liberal Utopians have been dominating this blog.

Until now. Now liberals and moderates and conservatives are beginning to express their opinions in these blogs.

This is good....and more balanced.

The truth is coming out.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:29 AM ET | 03-16-2008

One more thought.
Are you McCain supporters aware the National Deficit now amounts to
$455,000.00 per household???
What a future the republican party has given our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Sent by katiec | 11:36 AM ET | 03-16-2008

Hillary has received nearly 10.3 million votes among Democrats so far while Sen. Obama has received 9.2 million.

with that said, one must take note that while Obama's primary strategy (taking the not very democratic caucuses in red states) has been exceptional in putting him in the delegate lead, it does not bode well for the general election.

His lead is a lot of hot air that will not translate in a general election.

Further, this man is just now getting vetted. They've been kicking the crap out of Hillary for a score of years and she's still ticking folks! I fear there is much, much more to come out on Rock Star Obama that the media gave him a free pass on month after month. Obama hasn't seen even the tip of the iceburg that's coming to sink his ship.

If you check out alternative news sources, they've been raising these questions about Obama for a year! The mainstream media just refused to share them with the generally uninformed and clueless American public.

Obama's 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright is the end of any hope of Obama winning in a general election. Those moderate republicans he's been counting on...count them out. Those independents he "claims" he's attracting, they'll be gone too once the Republican spin machine kicks in.

Sent by LNAB | 12:11 PM ET | 03-16-2008

I fear we shall lose a vast number of Democratic votes to McCain if the superdelegates within the Democratic party contradict the popular vote, whichever way it falls. Giving more value to a few "large state" wins over a majority of "small state" wins, regardless of overall voting numbers is disenfranchising the majority of the US.

Sent by Shirley Atkins | 12:31 PM ET | 03-16-2008

Sent by katiec: What a future the republican party has given our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I've been giving this philosophy some serious thought lately. I finally came to the conclusion that we don't give our children and grand children enough credit for figuring out their problems.

Each generation amazes me with their technological adeptness. We do worry about the Dumbing Down of America. But I see each generation adapting to a world that is very different from the previous generation's world.

We tend to view our future generations from the perspective or our own generation, and that is fallacious. I grew up on the five ball pinball machine. When I sit down to play video games (or stand up to play WII), I'm immediately reminded that this generation works on a part of their brains that were dormant in playing the pinball wizard.

We've gotten into this guilt-trip mode on whatever we do. Probably because some feel guilty with their affluency, while rest of the world lags behind.

If America is so bad a place to live, why aren't there more illegal American immigrants invading other countries?

This guilt-trip episodes many Americans are on tends to make them suspect the ability of their children and grand-children. "We screwed up. Ergo, there's no chance they have a chance."

Well, your DNA doesn't always pass along that kind of information. Your DNA is more likely to pass along adaptability and other survival methods.

But the point is, too many Americans are on self-imposed guilt trips that should not be passed onto our future generations. If anything, they'll look back and say, "You didn't leave us any problems we can't figure out. So, quite giving yourselves so much credit for being massive screw-ups."

If some Americans weren't so guilt ridden, they might be able to accept that the sacrifices made in Iraq and Afghanistan can be worked out by our future generation of young soldiers.

The economy is rough in Japan and lots of other parts of the world. The world's economy fluctuates. Nothing remains static. This concept that we have to panic because the economy is in a slump exhibits a weakness and lack of belief and an extreme void in self confidence.

I, for one and many, am getting fed up with all the negativity the Liberal Utopians have been spouting the past seven or eight years.

I just don't associate with negative people. I tend to siddle over to the side of positivity. I sleep better at night that way.

If you get into the habit of impatience and not giving something a chance to work, before you scream for change, then nothing will work. Not even change.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 1:32 PM ET | 03-16-2008

The polls have been wrong in favor of Obama for almost this entire election cycle, why should we trust them now? The media in it's Obama-love-fest continues to undervalue and underrepresent what Democrats are saying -- a large majority of us will never vote for Obama. Not because we are racist, but because he has used race and gender to divide a party that once stood for equality for all. And, because we're pissed off that the Democratic party has shown itself to be dismissive and denigrating to women. If Hillary is the nominee we may come back -- but, we'll never support a nominee who has gone to a church which has treated leaders of the Democratic Party with such disgrace. Never.

Sent by Ann | 1:39 PM ET | 03-16-2008

IF you believe that a progressive agenda is the only hope to restore America to sanity, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, you will have to vote for them.

If Obama or Hillary voters stay home because their candidate doesn't get the nod at the convention...then I hope you'll enjoy at least another 4 more years of the Republican Corporate States of America economic plan.

of course, 4 more years of this and the point will be mute because the republicans will have done away with our constitution and instituted the autocracy they have always desired.

Sent by LNAB | 2:44 PM ET | 03-16-2008

Obama will crunble. He has no substinence to his speeches, and always looks intimidated. I am a woman and can tell this man has no B*LLS. Especially after serving in the US Army myself for 4 years from 2002-2006, I would HATE for fellow soldiers to salute Obama as Commander In Chief. They say behind every great man is a great woman. SO what exactly is so great about Michelle Obama? Besides the fact that she JUST NOW loves her country. She needs to take a walk in my combat boots.

Sent by Sarah Flowers | 2:57 PM ET | 03-16-2008

Re: LNAB's comments about Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. . .not so fast, my friend. More thoughtful heads will put the relationship in perspective. Obama's experience as a mixed race male growing up in America was vastly different from Rev. Wrights and many others of that generation. Obama has said as much. Rev. Wright has every reason to still feel bitter and angry. What he says about the stain of racism on the American fabric is absolutely true. Yes, parts of his message sound threatening and ugly; other parts are true and many in our country don't want to acknowledge the truth. Meanwhile, let me know if you hear of his congregants being inspired to go out in the streets to riot against the system. I haven't heard of any such thing happening as a result of his sermons. Have you? Did you ever consider that Obama may have been inspired to work towards unity and healing in this country partly BECAUSE he has been exposed to other's residual hurt, anger, and disappointment caused by discrimination????? Obama is a thoughtful and measured man. I trust that he, like many other people in this country, can be exposed to controversial outbursts and still walk away intact and continue to think independently.

Sent by lars | 3:44 PM ET | 03-16-2008

With reference to LNAB's comments concerning Senator Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, this is the double standard to which those who are watching this nomination unfold are concerned with. As an independent, I am completely perturbed that the credibility of Obama's campaign is NOW very suspect because of his 20 year relationship with his pastor. No one is talking about the history of relationships from HRC and JM. This is exactly the action that I believe infuriates a portion of the African American community. Obama has had to prove himself AMERICAN like none of the other candidates. He has had to defend his ETHNICITY like none of the other candidates. The man is biracial and was raised by his Caucasian mother from Kansas. This is a political ploy that says for all of its advancements, America is still not ready to have a African American lead it. I am an educated black man who has never been called a nigger (at least not to my face). But my parents were shot at, bitten by dogs, put in jail, and denied basic civil freedoms. They have trust issues with White America. AND THEY SHOULD!!! So now because I have known them for all of my life, I can't run for public office? Sarah Flowers, has HRC served in Armed Forces? Did Bill? Michelle Obama "just now" love her country because as a black woman, she has had to face DOUBLE DISCRIMINATION of which you have no Idea. Yet you would fight for another country's freedom? America, are we still the land of the free, and home of the SLAVE?

Sent by L. Smith | 8:09 PM ET | 03-16-2008

Time for Hillary to get out!

Sent by James | 8:18 PM ET | 03-16-2008

Whether Clinton is electable or not is merely speculation. She is the smartest of all the candidates and makes her decisions based on reason, while Obama appeals more to emotion. I for one am tired of elected officials acting on emotion and faith rather than reason. I hope reason wins out this time.

Sent by Karen | 11:45 PM ET | 03-16-2008

To those of you in the Clinton camp arguing that Obama's lead in delegates and popular votes is slim: I wonder if you were making those same arguments back in 2000.

I am aware that nomination contest is not the same as a general election, but ignoring the will of the voters, however narrowly it is expressed, and allowing a relatively small number of powerful people to decide an important election has an unpleasant ring to it. It would be a hell of a burden to carry into the general election. I'm not saying she has no case; if the party wanted to automatically give the nomination to whoever won a plurality of delegates and/or votes, it could. Still, it's not a case that could be easily made to me were I a superdelegate.

Sent by Matt Weiss | 11:48 PM ET | 03-16-2008

This is an election about integrity, wisdom, compassion, ad justice. Barack Obama has all three. Even with all the mud slinging, he has maintained these qualities. In the end, World leaders respect us as a power because of our integrity, compassion, and wisdom. These past 8 years we have had none! Hillary Clinton has shown a lack of integrity on many occassions. Here are just 3 examples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

In the end, he is the one to guide us into the future. Fearless, with compassion, and justice.

Sent by Jenn | 12:15 AM ET | 03-17-2008

So Karen, HRC crying in New Hampshire wasn't emotion? HRC's complaining about always getting the first question was not emotional? Here is the point: There is a difference between being a leader who can inspire emotion and an emotional leader. I, for one, do not want to have someone answering a phone at 3 AM when they complain about answering a question "first" at 9 P.M. Come on, America. Clinton is much of the same that we already have.

Sent by L. Smith | 9:59 AM ET | 03-17-2008

Hillary Clinton cannot be ready on day one. She would need a therapist as she enters the Oval Office. The picture of Monica Lewinsky crawling under the desk in front of her would drive her nuts. She will be distraught for a long time.

Sent by Al Sinnokrot | 4:13 PM ET | 03-17-2008

Sent by Al Sinnokrot: Hillary Clinton cannot be ready on day one. She would need a therapist as she enters the Oval Office. The picture of Monica Lewinsky crawling under the desk in front of her would drive her nuts. She will be distraught for a long time.

Now, why isn't someone yelling sexist at this guy Al.

Cause if I said Barack needed a therapist, there'd be all kinds of Liberal Utopians screaming that I'm a racist.

Thanks, Al. This is another beauty I'm sending around the email channels. You Liberal Utopians are a hypocritical piece of work.

But it ain't art work.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 6:28 PM ET | 03-17-2008

NOBAMA

I'm a Dem, and I have to say I'm appalled at the stupidity of so many Democrats. Everything that goes wrong for Obama is Hillary's doing, even though Obama's team has been playing the same game.
Do you people no remember the constant barrage of negative attacks on the Clinton's. Are you so naive to assume that this is all Hillary's doing?? How exactly is Hillary responsible for Obama's lack of judgment? Hillary has earned her right to the White House, Obama has not. There's no telling what dirt there is on this guy because know one knows who he is. If Obama voters don't support Hillary, the Republicans will win the presidency. No end to the war, no change, no Universal Healthcare. The Republican's are already laughing.....

Sent by J | 9:39 PM ET | 03-18-2008

Democrats must choose another candidate, for now it???s between a terrorist and a bitch.
It will be an easy win for McCain.

Sent by benjamin baena | 9:13 PM ET | 03-31-2008

The people who say they would not vote for Clinton because of a statement by one of her supporters were not going to vote for her anyway, no loss, no gain.

Sent by Shogun | 9:51 AM ET | 04-02-2008

What is an undecided to do? I'm offended by Hillary's repeated sttement to get mileage by playing her heroic "Cammander in Chief" card and implying her life was on the line while ducking from sniper bullets in a war zone. That boldface lie was an affront to all the thousands of courageous men and women who have died and been wounded ny 'real' sniper bullets in a 'real' war zone. I'm also concerned about Barack's association with a pastor who occasionally went off the deep end.As for McCain, will his temper cause problems down the road? What's left? Ralph Nader. I may not vote this year.

Sent by Robert Morris | 7:18 AM ET | 04-03-2008