the same thing happened in texas and ohio -the boston globe reported that she got thousands of votes from republicans in those states who wanted hillary to run against mccain as they felt that he would surely beat her rather than obama in the fall. i thought the democratic race should have ended when the republicans had their nominee. come on superdelegates- support obama and end this!!!!

Sent by jen | 9:17 AM ET | 05-01-2008

How amusing that someone like Limbaugh may actually save the Democratic Party from itself...the irony!

Sent by ard | 9:49 AM ET | 05-01-2008

jen,

I agree with you completely. But, on the positive side, at least Obama is getting a lot of free face time and name recognition so he won't have to spend as much as McCain on basic advertising once Clinton's gone. From a branding perspective this might be genius. Obama will be able to put all efforts directly to 'brand image' rather than recognition. Juxtapose that to McCain who can barely get his name in the news these days. It *might* actually be a good thing.

Sent by tobloyd | 9:51 AM ET | 05-01-2008

Won't someone please give him some more Oxycontin?

Sent by P. Shears | 9:56 AM ET | 05-01-2008

The sad thing is, I think I agree with Limbaugh. Clinton is much more beatable in November than Obama. She's a one-woman GOTRV (get out the Republican vote) machine.

Sent by Ruby Sinreich | 10:06 AM ET | 05-01-2008

I think I am inclined to agree with Daniel Schorr about having a single national primary for both parties. You give the canidates 30 minutes to give a power point presentation on their policies and agenda and make a decision. No endless debates, no smear campaigns and best of all, it is done in a week instead of a year and a half.

The only people benefitting from this process are the news media and television stations who apparently need to fill dead air, as there's nothing else going on in the world! "Every four years I say it can't get worse, and it does."

Sent by James Cutler | 10:06 AM ET | 05-01-2008

I was quite surprised myself at the deep, deep intellectual dishonesty on the left and by the media over Obama and Wright; I didn't know I could be surprised by such things anymore.

The pathological progression of excuses for the lunacy of Wright from "Obama wasn't there that day" to "snippets being taken out of context" to "Wright's being truthful" to "That's just what happens in those Black churches" to "OK, Wright has turned into a bad man suddenly today" to "Obama is a brave a courageous leader" absolutely sickens me.

I genuinely fear the fascism of an Obama Presidency.

Sent by deek | 10:30 AM ET | 05-01-2008

My hope is that Limbaugh will have the same pleasure of chafing under a female president just like most of us Democrats have chafed under the war-mongering, economy-destroying "leadership" of Bush's administration for the last 8 years.
Unfortunately this guy is all over the radio in Texas. I'm listening to NPR because most other talk show channels feature Limbaugh and other dangerous, pompous characters just like him.

Sent by Kat | 10:31 AM ET | 05-01-2008

"I genuinely fear the fascism of an Obama Presidency." I'm not sure if you just don't know the meaning of the word or are simply ignorant of what Bush's law and policies have meant for the country.

Sent by James Cutler | 10:46 AM ET | 05-01-2008

LOL James, that process might be fine for a high school class president, but not for the President of the USA.

Sent by deek | 10:51 AM ET | 05-01-2008

Deek, so you "genuinely fear the fascism of an Obama presidency" but (as stated in a previous post) you will respect him because of the office he holds? That is genuinely frightening. And it's fear mongering as well. Which is weird. But I've come to expect it from you.

Sent by Drew | 10:54 AM ET | 05-01-2008

to deek http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
talk about dishonesty and liberal media - the same media who is doing it's best to ignore this? when Clinton so adamantly called on Obama to denounce Farakhan...Ed Rendell is a key supporter of Clinton's and was a major help to her in the PA primaries....gee wouldn't want to put Clinton on the position of having to denounce Rendell, now would we?

Sent by Lovenia | 10:58 AM ET | 05-01-2008

Today is starting off well. Here I'm reading about Limbaugh's desperation moves to try to save a Republican candidate that Rush has already made clear is too liberal for him. Hear that sound, Rush? It's the sound of history and political relevance passing you by and leaving you in the middle of nowhere with all your dittohead friends. Your time is fading quickly, fat man. Maybe voting for Hillary isn't really enough of a change in direction from the utter and complete disaster of the Bush Neocon juggernaut. She did, after all, vote for the war and Obama did not. Then I read a post by ol' deek talking about intellectual honesty, after all those link's he/she has posted to websites that have not a shred of 'intellectual honesty,' I get a good laugh out of that, very amusing indeed. Now that I know that Limbaugh and deek both so desperately fear an Obama presidency, I think I'm beginning to see the light. Maybe he really is exactly the person needed in the Whitehouse right now. If they and all the other right-wing fools that have acted as cheerleaders for the kind of policies that has led our country into one mess after another are so afraid of an Obama presidency, I can't think of a better recommendation. Obama should put that on his resume (feared by Rush Limbaugh and all the other right-wing nutjobs). At this point it can only help.

Sent by John R. Otten | 11:25 AM ET | 05-01-2008

I guarantee you that you would get more information out of a canidate in 30 minutes than the overly long process we have right now. These people have been in the public eye for the majority of their careers. They need 15 months to convince us they can lead because...?

Make it simple and make it cheap - what have you got to lose?

Sent by James Cutler | 11:28 AM ET | 05-01-2008

Excuse me could we please talk about the ISSUES, not the smear campaigns. The economy, an exit strategy for the Iraq situation, education reform. You know the unimportant, uninteresting stuff. As opposed to what your pastor said, how much money you have, and who you are sleeping with.
Damn it people. Don't let the media do this.

Sent by Larry Jones | 11:49 AM ET | 05-01-2008

I am so tired of the ignorant calls for one of the candidates to drop out of this race, a process that was designed and destroyed by the national party leaders, NOT the candidates. Every voter should be and will be counted through the last state contest. This is "democracy," people. Only 1% separates the popular vote of Sens. Clinton and Obama, there is absolutely no reason for her to drop out. Besides, she is the more experienced and so much more tested political candidate. GO HILLARY!

Sent by Alexa Fire | 12:24 PM ET | 05-01-2008

"I genuinely fear the fascism of an Obama Presidency."

Wait, isn't fascism defined as dictatorial, bellicose nationalism? Like, "if you're not with us, you're against us"? You can let that worry go, deek. Obama will actually give you back some of your civil rights.

Sent by Michelle | 12:35 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Either O'Bama, McCain or Clinton will likely be a one term presidency. Their all senators with little or no executive experience. All they know how to do is legislate. It is sad to see but most Democrats are playing identify politics by only and merely voting for thier candiate if they are black or a woman. Those are irrelevant characteristics a person shouldn't care about when voting for the chief executive. Will a new President be pushing to increase oil supplies to bring down the price of gas? Will they be tough enough to confront terrorism? Obama and Clinton only recently were found to be "brave" enough to appear on Fox News! They are not Presidential material! They both wnat to raise taxes. That will definitly hurt the economy...even more than it's hurting now.

Sent by Daniel Roberts | 12:57 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Alexa,

"Every voter should be and will be counted through the last state contest. This is "democracy," people"

First, the US isn't a democracy, its a republic. As we've seen recently, the person with the most votes doesn't always win the presidency. Second, we are in the primaries, not the general, and the primary process isn't designed to be democratic. The primary should pick the candidate the party thinks has the best chance of winning the general election. Not to find out who gets the most votes among registered democrats.

You could argue that it should just be a straight vote counting horse race, but right now it isn't, nor is it meant to be.

Sent by Steve | 1:36 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Increasing oil supplies. Like the ones W tried to increase by invading Iraq. Which caused the cost of oil to jump 5x! And lower taxes like W., which has certainly helped the economy! Where have you been the last 8 years? BTW, it's "they're all senators" not "their". And it's "identity politics" not "identify politics."

Sent by Anonym | 1:55 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Lovenia, neither Rendell nor Clinton spent 20 years of their lives under the wing of Farrakhan. You're comparing Apples and airplanes.

Sent by deek | 2:26 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Actually peeps...

'Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State' -Benito Mussolini

Both the donkey and the elephant have shades of this, one along socio-economic lines the other over moral-ideological ones. Of the two the most devastating one is the socio-economic one IMHO, and thus I am in the GOP.

Cheers.

Sent by platonicform | 4:44 PM ET | 05-01-2008

The Biggest problem is that people don't realize that being president is not the same as being the king. after the last 8 years i really don't see how anyone can say they fear facisim. we are under a president whom everybody knows is doing a bad job and he doesn't even care in the least bit what his constituency thinks about him or anything else. If he did you definitely would not be hearing all of this nonsense about how the white house is such a pleasent place to work and how the president is so happy all of the time. What i ask you does he have to be happy about. he is our employee nothing more, nothing less but if we continue to give them the authority of a monarch for 4 years or 8 then we will continue to have a need to fear facism. the problem that people have with hillary is that even now her sucess is not real. ohio was won for her on the backs of republican voters who have no plan on voting for her in the fall her good showing in texas was the same thing. she is content to stick it out and continue this kitchen sink offense that only makes the people who didn't like her hate her that much more and creates new enemies for her while causing people to fear obama for reasons that have no affect on his ability to do the job. the president is our employee. if he is doing that bad of a job then we can fire him.

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 7:35 PM ET | 05-01-2008

fascism (as we know and loathe it) is actually the appropriation of the state powers by one "we see the shining light of truth" party and specifically the leader/leadership of that party.

signing statements and the unitary executive authority and refusal to present "privileged" information to congress. need i go on?

as for "Operation Chaos" -- isn't that a fitting description of the mental faculties of a certain drug-addled moral hypocrite trying to squeeze his way back into headlines to sell more whatever it is that the institute for advanced conservative bigotry sells.

Sent by tim in exile | 2:26 AM ET | 05-02-2008

deek wrote:
" ... neither Rendell nor Clinton spent 20 years of their lives under the wing of .."

Why is 20 years significant?

It seems to me that one day spent "under" Pastor Hagee or Pastor Parsley - especially when you already know what they represent - is bad enough.

And it is evident that Ed Rendell's racist bent was known to Sen Clinton and his campaign staff - soon after, or even prior to, the period that Pennsylvania became the focus of the primaries.
Does Sen Clinton consider racism to be evil? Maybe. [BUT she certainly detests sexism - and speaks loudly and clearly against it.]
Is Sen Clinton and her staff aware that her win in Rendell's state was partly due to racism? YES.
Is she complaining? NO.

Remember, after 4 years with Bush jr. we were ready for a change we can believe in. Finally it is here.

"Bold Deceit and Bizarre Logic" / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 5:52 AM ET | 05-02-2008

It's funny how the focus is on my fascism statement and not my statement about the excuse making. I'll post it again.

"The pathological progression of excuses for the lunacy of Wright from "Obama wasn't there that day" to "snippets being taken out of context" to "Wright's being truthful" to "That's just what happens in those Black churches" to "OK, Wright has turned into a bad man suddenly today" to "Obama is a brave a courageous leader" absolutely sickens me.'

This is dangerous stuff to throw all principles to the wind in order to support a politician at any cost.

Sent by deek | 12:49 PM ET | 05-02-2008