Why would a contest that began with Sen. Clinton having a 20% lead and ended with only a 10% lead look like positive momentum for Clinton? It is not. If she had not begun with a very big, over 20%, advantage, she would have lost PA. Maybe her overly aggressive negative campaign strategy contributes to all the voters who changed to supporting Obama.

Sent by Gary | 8:28 AM ET | 04-23-2008

Ultimately, she will continue to go negative and blur the line between reality and accusation (thank you Factcheck.org for keeping the vigil). She does this because her voter base is susceptible to this style of ad; seniors and blue collar workers.

This is most prominently why she dislikes Obama so much - she cannot understand the college educated and energetic voter base he draws. Traditional politics are based on misinformation and border-line slander...it is her "experience" calling card. Here in Vermont, many of the canidates agree to a "no negative" campaign, particularly in the recent elections (Tarrant not withstanding). Hopefully Obama will continue to try and take the high road and back off the negative retorts he used in the past few weeks.

Sent by James Cutler | 8:54 AM ET | 04-23-2008

AMEN! The sad thing is that it gets her votes. Until the American people stop voting for her and her tactics it will continue.

Sent by jen | 8:59 AM ET | 04-23-2008

I saw Hillary on ABC's morning show. When asked about this editorial, she sailed right past it with a non-response. She cannot answer the truly tough questions.

Sent by Sweetie | 9:08 AM ET | 04-23-2008

The Obama supporters seem to recognize that if the nation is going to make any significant changes in what most of us recognize as a disastrous national drift we need to be active participants each step of the way, this is reflected in his supporters' obvious willingness to contribute not only their vote but their time and whatever money they can spare, whereas the Clinton supporters seem for the most part to be suspended in an old story of " she (and maybe Bill) is going to be the best candidate to go to Washington and fight for me, etc." I have no doubt that Senator Clinton is a very credible candidate of that genre and if she were elected she would fight each step of the way for "us" and would usually fight to a mind-numbing Washington standstill that we can no longer afford if we truly wish to bequeath the promise of our nation to our grandchildren, so I will send another $100 dollars to Obama, go back to the phones and keep fresh in my thoughts the beautiful and hopeful faces of my little granddaughters.

Sent by Bill Hogan | 10:11 AM ET | 04-23-2008

You know it's clear that Obama supporters want to drown out the slow steady cadence of the Clinton's Campaign marching towards victory...you can cover your ears, bury your heads in the sand and even throw some of the sand in at the opposing view...it doesn't matter...things ARE changing for the Clinton campaign. The few voices that at times want to scream that Clinton should get out...(citing she's too negative...she's too experienced in the old politics of Washington, etc.)need to understand that people are seeing the "bigger picture" and want to do what is best for them and America as they see it... Clinton opponents seem to want her to gift the Presidency to Obama...this race is virtually tied...(Florida had both candidates on the ballot and the people spoke...Clinton about 70%, Obama about 30%?)...do Obama supporters want to bully their way to the nomination and basically say to Florida that their votes don't count...let's be real, EVERY vote SHOULD count... Obama supporters want to talk about being upset and threaten chaos...what about the other half of the Democrats that support Clinton...do the Obama supporters view themselves as the priviledged (the haves vs the have nots...) Regarding negativity...ALL political races have the element of negativity...just look at history...while the concept of "playing nice" sounds fine...how would such a concept allow for "the negative" aspects of the candidates be brought to light...aren't these issues relevant, allowing the voting public to see into the character, judgement, experience of the candidates...I'm beginning to think that this talk about "negativity" is a smoke screen to hide the biased support from the media and others to "rush" Obama to the nomination and then to the White House...I think the campaigns are doing what they need to do to gain the support of the American people and that should include having full disclosure of the candidates one way or another...even if so called "negative strategies" are used...

Sent by ard | 10:32 AM ET | 04-23-2008

I have had questions about Mrs. Clinton for quite some time. Unfortunately, her actions in this campaign has only solidified my concerns and makes me very unlikely to vote for her is she somehow gains the nomination.

Sent by James Bell | 10:33 AM ET | 04-23-2008

I will vote for the democratic nominee no matter Clinton or Obama. I am just SO SICK of men running our country that I think it is high time we gave a woman (Hillary) a chance. I dispute that that sentiment makes me a simpleton because it;s assumed that that's the only reason I have voted for her. I have voted for her because she is qualified, intelligent and tenacious AND happens to be a woman. She should not have to suffer for her husbands missteps nor should she apologize to anyone for remaining in her marriage--that's none of our business. As I said I will vote for the democratic nominee. I want Hillary to get the nomination but I want our nation to become what it once was--respected and fair--just as much and that means democratic rule because republicans have completely blown it.

Sent by Hilary Platt | 10:35 AM ET | 04-23-2008

The gentleman from Vermont said it best.. traditional poitics are based on slander and mcfacts. It is disappointing to see clinton wallowing in the trough and even more disappointing to see that voters buy it. And why is the media not examining the roots of strong anti-black sentiment in the Hispanic community?

Sent by jess | 12:48 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Ms. Platt, you are being too reasonable. Haven't you learned from the Obama supporters? The cool thing to do is state that you will never vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. You must be old, poor, uneducated and out of touch. I know this because Barack's supporters have "educated" me: all Clinton supporters are irrelevant. Now, all they have is explain how Mr. Hopey Changey will win without the irrelevant part of the party (inconveniently over half the party).

Sent by austintx | 12:58 PM ET | 04-23-2008

austintx, is that why substantially more Clinton supporters say they wouldn't vote for Obama than there are Obama supporters who say they wouldn't vote for Clinton? Or is it that the Clinton supporters simply wouldn't vote for a black man because of their working class prejudices?

Sent by Sweetie | 1:12 PM ET | 04-23-2008

The tone of many of these comments doesn't bode well for the Democratic party in Nov. nor for America after the election.

Sent by Bill Hogan | 1:32 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Why are people making the incorrect assumption that more Obama supporters will refuse to vote for Hillary than vice versa? I posted this earlier this morning. Please, check the numbers.

According to Gallup, 28% of Hillary supporters will vote Republican if she is not the nominee, vs 19% of Obama supporters who would defect.

Sent by Jenn | 2:23 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Clinton should be embarrassed and ashamed at her selfish attacks that will hurt her and her Party regardless of who the nominee is!! Her shortsightedness is as frightening as that of the incumbent.

Sent by Edward | 9:06 AM ET | 04-24-2008