I have always liked Bill Clinton, but if this is the case and Obama gets the nomination and is defeated, i am leaving the country. McCain would just be like replacing Bush. Wake up people. Barrack Obama is not black, he is interracial and he grew up in a white household. To get off the subject for a minute, stop referring to the black population as african americans. They are not all descendents of Africa. What about people of other nationalities, for ex. if you are polish, should we refer to them as polish american? We are black or white.
What difference does it make, this country is at the bottom of the list in every aspect. OUr government is not for the people, they are for corporations and insurance companies which by the way run the country anyway. I could go on and on....

Sent by Carolyn | 10:26 AM ET | 04-25-2008

"In an interview with Reuters, Clyburn 'also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.'"

Not to toot my own horn, but I first floated this rumor on Daily Kos last week, although few seemed to take me seriously:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/18/95555/3462/82/498242

Sent by George de Man | 11:07 AM ET | 04-25-2008

Really, NPR you have lost all credibility as a journalistic organization. The non-stop series of anti-Clinton stories are stunning because they come from an organization once considered the most ethical and neutral. I can't even read or listen to NPR any more and certainly won't renew my membership.

It's sad. You should do a story on Clinton-derangement syndrome and why once great people and organizations have now completely lost their professional perspectives.

Sent by Ann | 11:10 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I read your post at DKos, but what do you think she'll do to damage Obama? It certainly would have to be covert.

Sent by Peggy | 11:20 AM ET | 04-25-2008

Sen. Clinton is the only candidate with a chance to win the general election. Sen. Obama has failed to put together a winning coalition. His voters -- black, young and liberal elite is not sufficient. Plus his regular condescension to whites as gun and bible clinging bigots, or Axelrod's statement that Obama doesn't need the white working class voter, or Sen. Obama's twenty-year pastor and mentor, anti-American, anti-Semitic Rev. Wright, will further decrease Sen. Obama's favor in the all important white vote.

This article and Sen. Clyburn's thoughts are designed to, again, inflame race relations just as Sen. Obama's campaign did before South Carolina. We can only hope that the voting public is able to see through the divisive and painful strategy in a way that NPR seems unable to.

Sen. Obama has set race relations back 40 years. While running as a unifying figure he's systematically torn the Democratic Party and the nation apart.

It would be said if some of the members of the Black Caucus decided the Democratic Party was no longer for them when Sen. Clinton wins the nomination. Sen. Clinton will work for economic equality and social justice just as she always has. Regardless of what you say, many in the Black Caucus will stand with her on inauguration day, and proudly so.

Sent by Ann | 11:23 AM ET | 04-25-2008

In your dreams Ann.

Sent by Omeje | 11:34 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I disagree. I don't believe Hillary is staying in the race to undermine Obama so she can run again in 2012. I think she knows that her huge sense of entitlement, her grotesque selfishness (even by the low standards of politicians), her slash and burn tactics and her willingness to hurt the party for her own benefit have so alienated such large parts of the Democratic Party that it would be impossible for her to ever get the nomination again as a non-incumbent. Even if she runs in 2012, there is so much bitterness in the party against her (which is why Obama is beating her by about 15 points nationally among Democrats) that there will be huge demand for a strong challenger to stop her. So I think she knows this is her last chance so she's going for broke.

Sent by Brian | 11:44 AM ET | 04-25-2008

Cads! Scalawags!

Good Day Sir!

Sent by deek | 12:57 PM ET | 04-25-2008

We who support Obama will need to change the terms the media has been using so that we are not repeating the 'talking points' of the Clinton campaign which the media has been seduced into using: that Obama has 'failed to score a knockout' against Clinton.

We need to point out that, like Huckabee and Thompson in the Republican fold, It is Clinton who has failed to score the 'knockout' against Obama. Like Huckabee did, Clinton has chosen to remain in a race she cannot win for reasons other than a fair win. Unlike Huckabee, she has decided to remain far, far past all reasonable expectation that she can gain anything (other than perhaps the theory floating around the blogosphere that she may want to harm Obama as much as possible to force a McCain win, thus setting herself up for a successful run in 2012).

Let's review reality above and beyond the voodoo math of the Clinton campaign: though she is LOSING the popular vote, the primary count, AND the superdelgate count, Clinton has remained in the race. She CANNOT win, she can only obscure the reality of the math with her rhetoric and her 'talking points'. Only by carrying out a coup against our primary structure and procedure can she even possibly gain the nomination: she will have to turn delegates againt the candidate Americans have decisively shown they want to carry the standard of the Democratic party, and/or she will have to bring into play the previously excluded delagtes from Michigan (my state) and Florida. Neither tactic is acceptable, and neither tactic will enhance the legitimacy of the party. Either tactic, as part of a coup against the system, will weaken the party's chances of putting a democrat into the White House. I WOULD VOTE FOR HER IF SHE WERE THE NOMINEE.

But we must ask: does she care about the party or only about her own personal campaign for power?

Sent by Professor Rayfield Waller, Wayne State University, Detroit | 2:39 PM ET | 04-25-2008

In all respect, and to each person their own opinion, but I must say there is a point to the idea that Obama's rhetoric has proved him to be a rather immature problem magnifier, rather than a seasoned problem solver. As magnetic as his "philosophy" of government, religion, and all things Obama-esque may be to some, he has not directly addressed HOW he plans to achieve his lofty and magical goals. And directing the electorate to a website to get clarification (that he cannot articulate) is not what one would call a complete campaign strategy.
One can respect his ideals, but few can deny that we are now living in a financial and very tangible era of crisis. He comes across as a man lost in the beautiful aroma of his own cologne. This denotes immaturity, and only more political experience will teach him that the shine and pallor of one's words is not enough to win an entire country's trust in a time of recession and war.
Hillary's no-nonsense, nuts and bolts appeal speaks to many that are not sitting on college campuses, in a cushioned poetic coffee shop, or in the other racially fed demographic that Obama is going after.
The racial issue in this campaign is a distraction from the true nature of this election.
Obama cannot "heal", for the president is not a healer, but a doer. He needs to come to terms with his own projection of this strange image, for this is exactly what draws some to him, ready to be "saved", and keeps others at bay, who are ready to have a leader that "works" for them. And that is Hillary's strong point.
He has leaned a bit too hard on the ideology, and has waxed poetic to the point where he is sounding redundant. Republicans use this same strategy, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, with a totally different ideology. But the promises are somewhat the same--appeal to the religious & spiritual-disregard for separation of church and state, preservation/restoration of the true "soul" of America, the speeches sounding like Preaching, using the familial "folks" speak, and the promise to change the total nature of all government (in 4 years?). Yet with little talk of actual policy.
This election is about what is best for the next 4 years, and like all elections, ego becomes a major factor. But for Obama, I do not think that his is working for him. And Hillary, although she may be deemed agressive, is simply more experienced. There is no doubt that the competition with the Republicans will be the real mudfest, so a thick-skin and an understanding of policy will matter. She is simply the more experienced, more knowledgeable candidate.

Sent by Al R. | 5:14 PM ET | 04-25-2008

The problem is simple...there really are few truly "Uncommitted Superdelegates"...they deceive the public and themselves...in this particular case Mr. Clyburn as well as others such as Donna Brazell (?) have been subtly campaigning for Obama(via innuendo, indirect statements, etc.)...and now that Obama's campaign is imploding, Mr. Clyburn seems to want to deny that this is a political campaign for the Highest Office in the land...THE OVAL OFFICE...with that said, the Clinton's and McCain have shown a determination to compete for this office(anyone that seeks this office should be willing to do what it takes to get there, not have it "given" to them via a noncompetive challenge...the winner's of this type of campaign is the American People allowing a greater chance of getting the RIGHT person to that office...to imply that Bill Clinton is not worthy of minority support shows that Mr. Clyburn may be guilty of the same flaw he sees in the one with whom he finds fault...not to mention that NO Elected Official speaks or can speak for all the people (though they may believe they do)...no doubt there will still be minorities to support Clinton and to imply that your race represents/reflects the level of a person's desire to serve the masses(all races) demonstates a shallow perspective and indicates that Mr. Clyburn may hold himself in too high esteem in my opinion. Whoever manages to win the White House, hopefully, will remain humble and serve the People that put them there, no matter what the race or gender...America needs a person who can think and see from a larger lens then the many who see things in simple terms of black and white...situations like these force me to remind myself that this is 2008.

PS: Once again...an African American Leader keeping the Train of Racial Divide moving down the track...

Sent by ard | 5:58 PM ET | 04-25-2008

Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

Quite plausible. Time is not on her side: Should Sen Obama win the presidential elections, a Pres Obama will most likely seek a second term. And the advantages of incumbency will work against Sen Clinton.

Thus when Sen Clinton's good shot at the presidency comes next in 2016, she will be about 68 years old !
(Say, 70 years old - using the rounding math the Clinton camp gratuitously uses)
By then she will have younger and even more feisty male and female upshoots to contend with in the primaries! By then, her rural moonshine-guzzling 'Yeltzin-like' escapades, her lies and tales of a persecution complex in Bosnia may not appear so cute even to her ardent cheerleaders.

And does the gaffe-prone aging Monica's Bill want to go through this wringer all over in 8 years time?
And will a more human Bill Clinton - now perceived to fail - command such high fees in speaking, consulting and arm-twisting engagements all over the world ever again?

If African-Americans decide that she took away the nomination from Obama unfairly, they could desert her at the polls in the fall
Crafty charmer Bill is banking on being able to mold the African-American mind to his view. He has worked wonders so far - to the extent of being dubbed an honorary 'black president'. After all, the civic minded "must vote" African-American will have no better option.

Clinton 'Values' / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 6:11 PM ET | 04-25-2008