PLEDGED DELEGATES CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS.!! WHICH AFTER HILARY'S BIG WINS THEY JUST MAY DO THAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS LIKE A WINNER WHEN THEY ARE UP. AND REMEMBER MR OBAMA, PEOPLE WANT CHANGE............

Sent by KATHY BOLES | 4:09 PM ET | 03-05-2008

Typical Clinton tactic -- trying to claim the top position whether the people have voted her into it or not. Remember, she is still behind. Obama has still won 12 of the last 15, and the next two look good for him as well. Nice try, Hillary.

Sent by Marla | 4:27 PM ET | 03-05-2008

Pledged delegates certainly could change
their minds, but they wont. They most certainly wont all the negativity we've seen (and will continue to see) from Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton realizes the only way she could win the general election would be with Obama on her ticket. Without him, she can't win.
Obama would likely decline the offer. He wont want his reputation tarnished by a failed Clinton presidency. If he loses this primary, we'll see him again soon.

For the sake of the party, I hope Clinton looks at the numbers and concedes sooner rather than later. In addition, I hope she allocates some of her funds to buy new caps lock keys for all her online supporters....

Sent by Alex Gates | 5:07 PM ET | 03-05-2008

So the people of Ohio clearly said they want Clinton at the top of their ticket? I wonder what the people in the 20+ states Obama has won would have to say about that.

Sent by Sallie | 5:10 PM ET | 03-05-2008

I'm glad most of the people commenting here are aware that Obama leads in the count that matters-the delegate count. Most of the media is making a big deal about who "won" each state and either ignoring the delegate count or treating it as an afterthought, when in the end it is the delegate count that matters.

Sent by Nancy | 5:49 PM ET | 03-05-2008

Wow, it sounds as if Hillary's recent victories have ruffled a few feathers there. From our point of view here in Texas, substance has outshone glitter. Not enough kool-aid drinkers down here! Give us straight talk about issues, not a feel-good sermon.
As far as Hillary conceding the nomination just yet? We certainly "hope" not!

Sent by Texey Dem | 6:30 PM ET | 03-05-2008

If Clinton wins the nomination and adds Obama as VP, she'll win over McCain based on her supporters PLUS Obama's fans and his lack of political baggage.

If Obama wins the nomination and adds Clinton as VP, McCain will take the White House. There are just too many people out there who like the candidates in this order

1) Obama
2) McCain
3) Clinton

and won't hesitate to vote for a close-to-centrist Republican over a Democrat with a running mate who has Clinton's history.

Obama would be a good choice for Clinton, but not vice-versa. I think Clinton could only damage Obama's chances.

End of the day analysis: They're all so close to middle of the road that they're nearly interchangeable, but Clinton and McCain both have the added element, be it curse or blessing, of having a longer time in the public eye.

The thing that bothers me is that, although I identify more as a Democrat, I have no idea which of the three I'd vote for if the election were to be held next week. Usually I'd vote the lesser of the evils, but there's not a clear one of those this time.

Sent by Wolf | 7:04 PM ET | 03-05-2008

This is clearly an attempt to patronize Obama and suggests that if people vote for her in the future, they will also be voting for him. At this point I am so thoroughly disgusted by their under-handed and manipulative tactics, that although I am a lifelong, committed Democrat, I would not vote for her under any circumstances.

I hope she doesn't turn this thing into a horror show, although I have little doubt that she will.

Sent by Suzi | 7:15 PM ET | 03-05-2008

Wolf,

When one votes for the lesser of two evils, one invariably elects devils.

Sent by Jody Sol | 9:19 PM ET | 03-05-2008

Okay, I can stretch the imagination about as far as pigs can fly and beyond.

And there was a time when I said that a Clinton and Obama ticket was worthy of serious consideration.

BUT, after all that has transpired between Hillary and Barack....especially after last night in Texas and Ohio.....and by the time Pennsylvannia rolls around in April.....stretching my imagination to include Hillary and Barack on the same ticket is about on par of my trying to imagine Miami Cubans would volunteer to be pall bearers at Fidel Castro's funeral.

Then, again.....Democrat Liberal Utopians seem to swallow most any fantasist's idea that has absolutely no credibility other than, well, it's totally unbelievable.

But that's Liberal Utopians who might be able to accept a Hillary and Barack ticket. That doesn't mean anyone with common sense will accept such a November ticket.

Still, I got to admit. Democratic Liberal Utopians never fail to amaze me in their perception of logic.

So, I can't really predict what you Liberal Utopians will come up with next as an idea.

All I can say is that you Liberal Utopians are entertaining, if you are anything. And that's because I've always been a Fellini fan.

So, I say go with the idea. No telling how many Miami Cubans will serve as Fidel's pall bearers.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:41 PM ET | 03-05-2008

LOL I think Miami Cubans have been vying if not dying to be Castro funeral pall bearers for nearly 50 years.

Sent by Brad Hessel | 12:10 PM ET | 03-06-2008

I disagree with the suggestion that Clinton would be bad for an Obama-lead ticket. She helps him in two major ways: [a] if she were on board the base would be solidified and [b] she insulates him against his most telling weakness: lack of experience.

For this to work, the candidates should mutually agree to serve as each other's VP, and negotiate a solid role for the VP now, before the delegates decide who gets which slot, so they both have an interest in making the arrangement viable for the VP. They should enlist an honest broker with the moral authority and smarts to fashion such an arrangement that would serve not only them but the nation...Al Gore, based on his experience serving as VP for Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Here is a blog post on this topic from a month ago:

http://intelledgement.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/clinton-obama-win-win-win/

Sent by Brad Hessel | 12:23 PM ET | 03-06-2008

I hope clinton does NOT choose obama as her vp running mate after all the unfair fawning and fussing over him by the media and the dem "establishment"! As a female voter, I DEEPLY resent the way she's been mistreated by both, and their easy dismissal of all the many thousands of women who enthusiastically support her. The dem party has trivialized and ignored women's support of clinton...if they choose to ignore the TRUE function of their own superdelegates to choose a candidate who can actually WIN the presidency and nominate obama, I will abandon the dem party. They have abandoned women...after women have proven to be a very large, loyal voting block for dems (even when they were running a sorry male candidate for the office). Dems had better think about the effect of disenfranchising women in their pell-mell rush to exclude hillary!

Sent by Jan Farris | 3:43 PM ET | 03-08-2008