Hillary = Toast

Sent by Christopher Brown | 2:54 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Maybe Hillary could be McCain's veep? He makes her look young, even at 60, where she might only forget where the red phone is at 3 a.m.

Sent by Christopher Brown | 2:57 PM ET | 04-17-2008

How disappointing that being a Politician is more important than being a man of your word...what a man will do for political gain...the 83% vote he wants to support, is it the black vote...if so, would this indicate racism on his part...what about representation for the rest of the voters...curious that supporters condemn Clinton for "changing her story" and worse...however, the Obama campaign doesn't seem to be bothered in the least when a Superdelegate "tells a story" to Clinton then switches to Obama...how amusing.

PS: I wonder if Obama Superdelegates switched to Clinton would there be some knee jerk reaction professing that Clinton Supporters are stealing Supers from the Obama Camp...

Sent by ard | 3:07 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Voting for Hillary is like voting for your nasty Ex-wife.

Sent by Mark Schad | 3:22 PM ET | 04-17-2008

YES!

When you have it, you have it.

When you don't, you go to bars and drown your bitterness in foreign moonshine.

Sent by chokora | 3:48 PM ET | 04-17-2008

The "bitter" taste of defeat?

Sent by Gary | 3:56 PM ET | 04-17-2008

To Mark Schad - Bill Clinton is lucky to have her. Nasty ex-wife? On the other hand, for some of us, patient to a fault. But nasty ex-wife analogy doesn't work.
I had been split 50-50 until I started to read the chain emails that a black friend of mine (I can say that, she would call me a white friend too) forward to me. They were hateful, uninformed, malicious and threatening toward Hillary Clinton and white women in general. Holding her responsible (hatefully) for all the wrongs of people who lived and died before she was born.
I wrote back to my friend, who was so hot under the collar with her 'people' another term she herself would use btw, that she could not be objective or reasonable. Rather than doing her own fact-checking or looking to objective resources for fact-checking, she just bought the 'stories' that others had written about Hillary Clinton and 'whites' without question. Some facts were indeed wrong.
I have to wonder if these emails are influencing people like my friend and her friends and relatives and igniting passions that are not consistent with what Barack Obama states openly . . . and whether these delegates are making any efforts to explore the bases of their consituents believes and passions, before making commitments.
Its tough to be elected as a delagate I guess. But when I vote for elected officials, I vote not just for people who agree with me - but for people who I can trust to make educated decisions when the voters' thoughts are not available. Sometimes this has been done by famous leaders and its one thing Barack Obama has in his favor (i.e. his vote against authorizing Bush to have the power to start a war with Iraq).
That's what worries me. Will these delegates lead or will they follow even if their consituants might choose differently if not flooded with populist hate-email that feeds into their (often justified) anger.

Sent by Anon | 4:11 PM ET | 04-17-2008

I am sorry to say that I am not surprised. Listeningto her go on and on last night I wanted to scream. I was longing for her to say "I am here to talk about the issues and why people should vote for me" she would have won changed the whole toneof the evening and won my respect. I think last night was the saddest thing I have ever witnessed in the guise of a "debate"

Sent by Jnae Kratsch | 4:22 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Notice how so many of the anti-Clinton posts are sexist personal attacks? Does that attitude reflect Sen. Obama's views of women?

Sent by Susan | 4:37 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Racist or Sexist? Sexist or Racist? It's so hard to choose which to be. Either way I'm a jerk.

I think labeling people as this or that type of bigot based on their political preference says far more about observer than the observed.

Sent by Thewsio | 4:38 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Wow, it's like a perfect storm of failure.

Put all of your eggs in one poorly constructed basket and toss it over the fence into the wolves den.

Brilliant!

Sent by deek | 4:42 PM ET | 04-17-2008

I've voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1984. If Obama is the nominee, 2008 will be my first vote for a Republican candidate.

At this point, what I'd really like to see happen is to have John Edwards emerge from a brokered convention as the Democratic Party presidential candidate. I'd commit a vote for Edwards in less time than it takes for your average NPR 'driveway moment.'

Sent by Mike in Tucson | 5:01 PM ET | 04-17-2008

ard,
I'm guessing that since Harry Thomas Jr. is a city council member, the 83% he is talking about is 83% of his consitiuents (people who voted in DC). It is the way democracy is supposed to work. The "leaders" bend to the will of the people. When it is the other way around, "leaders" doing whatever they want regardless of of the will of the people, we end up with what we have had the last 8 years.

Sent by merritt | 5:21 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Is Ard out of touch? May be he is too "elitist".

Sent by Leonel A. Urdaneta, MD | 6:00 PM ET | 04-17-2008

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Obama campaign has a cache of committed-but-unannounced superdelegates, waiting to dole them out as needed.

As an Obama supporter, remarks from news outlets (like Tom's lemons-into-lemonade) catch my eye. I think it shows a different kind of political savvy, one that characterizes his campaign. This is most apparent in this case when compared with the haranguing Hillary Clinton's camp leveled at Bill Richardson in pursuit of his support.

Sent by ashur | 6:03 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Clinton going down the toilet .... a beautiful sight. She deserves it.

Sent by John Lowe | 6:08 PM ET | 04-17-2008

How could you not switch after seeing Clintons slash and burn campaign.

Sent by C.D. Kendeall | 6:32 PM ET | 04-17-2008

I believe most politicians who switched to Obama from Hillary are using their constituents as a scapegoat to legitimize their reasons for switching. The voice of the constituents did not play a part in their original decision since the results were always public record. They are switching now because the tides are turning and nobody wants to be on the losing team. And the way its looking....a Hillary win is not likely.

Sent by DW | 7:11 PM ET | 04-17-2008

ard,

representing the will of the people is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than supporting your friend. If he wanted "to be a man of his word" he should have stayed in the private sector -- not run for public office. It's not about him trying to win reelection, it's about him doing his job -- representing the people!

"the 83% vote he wants to support, is it the black vote..."

What's that supposed to man? When all you angry Clinton supporters cool down you're gonna feel really ashamed about how much you have belittled Blacks in America. Of course he should represent the Black vote if they are his constituency, what kind of 3/5 compromise would justify him supporting the 17% pro-Clinton White vote over the 83% pro-Obama Black (and White) vote? Your racism is coming unveiled -- might as well just switch affiliation to the Repubs and go all the way with it.

Sent by tobloyd | 7:33 PM ET | 04-17-2008

If Hillary = toast

We in 2009 = toast

Sent by Marstar | 7:43 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said that ANY delegate, pledged or super, could switch his/her vote at any time leading up to, or during the convention? Why, then, should any politician's integrity be questioned for doing so?

Sent by sem | 7:54 PM ET | 04-17-2008

According to the "ard" posting, it is disappointing when a politician is more concerned with representing the overwhelming will of his constituents than his own political loyalties. I am reassured by the Superdelegate's decision to shift support. We don't need political insiders selecting our candidates. We need citizen representation, particularly in a year of record breaking voter turn out.

PS: "ard" may be tipping his hand and revealing his prejudice when he refers to the black vote and voices concern for the horribly disenfranchised 17% white vote. Let's get serious.

Sent by Geoff | 8:20 PM ET | 04-17-2008

@ard:

Superdelegates have complete autonomy to vote for whomever they want, for any reason...some base it on how their constituency votes, some base it on who they think is best. And until the convention, they're allowed to switch their previously-stated allegiance, even if some people think it means they deserve to have biblical insults hurled at them. There isn't a "no-takebacks" rule here.

Six months ago, I thought Hillary was okay, but that her very high negatives would make it difficult for her to do well in the general election. She wasn't my first choice, but I would have been happy with her as president.

My opinion of her has changed. I now see that she will try to change the rules mid-game, that she will say whatever she thinks it takes to win (including lies and wild accusations) and that she will fight dirty even when her opponent doesn't.

I have but a few simple wishes that will need to come true in order to avoid what will effectively be a 3rd Bush term:

Before November, I hope Hillary's supporters will be able to admit to themselves that she was beaten fairly.

I hope they will see that the attacks on Obama that they have celebrated were just politics--ugly and cynical politics, at that.

Finally, I hope they will understand that if they want the progressive politics Hillary has campaigned on, they should vote for Obama.

Sent by Ryan | 8:55 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Dear Obamanites,

Actually, I thought the Superdelegates role is to aid in the selection of the BEST nominee for America when the outcome of the Primary Race cannot make that determination...which means in my view, that despite the pressure of the "people," Superdelegates are tasked with making that final decision...what I don't understand is why the Superdelegate should determine their endorsement/vote based on being "squeezed" by voters (as has been suggested)...I would assume the selection process for a Superdelegate would be quite stringent (it should be a person who can make the tough decision, even if it means going against the voters in your state)... this person is tasked with potentially making a very difficult decision that requires wisdom, logic and courage...therefore, yielding to your consitiuents places into question your role as a Superdelegate...and if the decision is based on the peoples vote, why do we even need Superdelegates? I'm glad my comments have created some "heat"...I don't mind, (unlike Obama, I have to stand alone and defend my point) and I don't take it personal...all of us have voices that should be heard...however, Obama supporters seem to want to drown out any voice that is contrary to supporting Obama...well, this Independent voice will continue to question and truly believes if Superdelegates make Obama the nominee..we all need to get ready for a McCain victory because the unknowns of Obama, his obvious lack of experience and liberal platforms that could even appear radical to some...makes it so much easier for a McCain White House.

PS: Regarding the 83%...my statement was speculative regarding the demograhpic breakdown of the vote. After all it's been widely reported that Obama has received about 90% of the black vote during these Primaries...I didn't think my speculation seemed a far stretch on this issue...racist I am not...logical and realistic I am...

Sent by ard | 10:14 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Folks are just getting very tired of Hillary's dirty tricks. It's time for Hillary and her band of pranksters to move on.

Sent by Adrian D. | 11:33 PM ET | 04-17-2008

Obama does NOT qualify for an entry level job with the FBI, CIA and Border Patrol due to his relationships with Farakhan, Wright and Ayers. Per their websites they do "extensive interviews with former and current colleagues, neighbors, friends, professors, etc."
HE CANNOT be our next President!!!

Sent by Darla Johnson | 10:52 PM ET | 04-23-2008