Did Erica kill herself afterwards?

"Clinton partisan?" What does that even meeaaaan?

It's kind of like a 19 percent GWB deadender, TG.

Thanks for catching up to the rest of us. She's been done for a long time. But, hey, at least she helped to tarnish any lingering good feelings we had for Bill.

It really doesn't matter. But Clinton has to hang in there on the chance that somebody puts a bullet or two into Obama. Didn't Bobby Kennedy get whacked right after the Indiana primary, oh, about exactly 40 years ago?

Hey There,

Three disclaimers first of all:

I am a Republican (who can vote Democratic. I voted for Dem. Sen. Cantwell) and voted for Bush two times. Whatever one may think of his administration including that it is a failure (I don’t think so), does not make the following administration a success. Change isn’t necessarily good. Contempt for Bush or a party in power does not a President make. Just look at the 1968 Presidential election.

As a result of the first disclaimer, my opinion could be irrelevant but it could be very sound as well.

Finally, I have profound and equal respect for all three US Senators McCain, Clinton & Obama.

That said it will be Sen. McCain vs. Sen. Obama in the general election in November. McCain will be elected President. As one German magazine put it, at this point (this was written before the Indiana & N. Carolina primaries), NOT having Obama on the ticket would unequivocally anger African-Americans who supported him and thus cause more not to vote in the general election. The results of the Indiana primary slightly surprised me. But, Clinton won it. Obama’s N. Carolina victory in retrospective wasn’t a surprise. I hadn’t known demographically that N. Carolina’s African-American population is 20%. One out of three Democratic voters are black. So, the margin doesn’t surprise me. Apparently, they are voting in droves for Obama and as a result, Rev. Wright’s rhetoric is a non-factor. Many agree with him anyway. And, I don’t necessarily think that voting for him just because he’s black is foolish or wrongheaded. Many African-Americans will unambiguously express pride and awe that an African-American will be nominated on major party ticket for the American Presidency in their lifetime. Fair enough. It is to be commended.

But, part of me thinks it’s shallow as well and unequivocally problematic for the Democratic Party in this election. Obama can’t win what are known as BCEC (blue collar ethnic Catholics & other Christians). Hillary has a point and has every right to be angry. Obama should never have run this year. I believe the press has been unkind to her and tremendously generous to Obama. Ferraro was correct. That and the Democratic rules (i.e. punishing Michigan & Florida) probably will ensure her not being on the ticket. I highly doubt she’ll run as VP with Obama.

I like Hillary. She has really matured. Should she have won the nomination and the general election, the country would be fine. The world wouldn’t end. And she wouldn’t carry the baggage her husband has. She works well with Republicans and isn’t strident in her views. She’d be a tough Commander-in-chief.

As for Obama, he simply is too green of a US Senator. He has won one election at national office. Granted, he is young, dashing and smart. But, he has yet to exhibit seasoned political compromising. He spent a brief tenure in the Illinois Senate. Before that he was a practicing lawyer and a “community organizer”. I’m not sure what that is? And, one fatuous statement annoyed me. He declared he visited Pakistan for a few months and chalked that up to some “foreign experience”. Excuse me, but my own experience of three years in Africa, visiting 70 other countries and having spoken three languages does NOT even come close to making me qualified to be a US Ambassador let alone using that as experience to be President.

Obama is correct about one thing the worst and hardest part is yet to come. Finally and fairly (?), the press and others will highly scrutinize him. This needs to happen. McCain will be formidable. He is a known maverick and compromiser. A good friend of mine reminded me of the McCain-Feingold bill. That, plus being a war hero usually is an asset.

In sum, one should ponder this about a US Presidential candidate’s fitness. When JFK ran in 1960, he had graduated from Harvard, saw combat, attended Stanford for graduate studies (I’m not sure if he acquired an advanced degree), was elected three times US congressman and twice US Senator all before the age of 43 years. And, even that didn’t assure him of election to the Presidency. Being a Catholic was a handicap then. W. Virginia & Illinois’ voter antics (In Illinois, there’s a catchphrase “Vote early and vote often”) arguably gave him the victory. Sen. Obama has some large shoes to fill.

Cheers.

Larry

PS One jibe at some overzealous Obama supporters: Remember he is human. Be cautious of the “cult of personality”. I’m baffled at his popularity. As another good friend reminded me “What Kool-Aid did you drink?”☻

PSS. Oh, one other thing. You will notice from now until the election in November, Messers. Jackson, Sharpton & Wright will keep their mouths shut. In fact, they MUST keep silent if Obama is to have any chance. I find it extraordinary that much is being done NOT to affront African-American voters vs. women voters in this election.

Wow, thanks Larry! You've proven that no matter how much you write, you can still come off like an unintelligent, out of touch, middle-aged white man.

Get over your pre-dispositions, and think long term. OR, hey, feel free to ride this sinking ship of a country all the way to the bottom.

@6

'68 Election: bad analogy. Doesn't apply at all. Even if you're thinking of the '72 race, it doesn't fit.

Let me get this straight: voting for Obama simply because he's African-American is "not necessarily foolish or wrong-headed". So, voting exclusively for or against someone solely on the basis of their skin color is okay? Would it be "bad", then, for me to vote against him because I'm white and he's not? I have to congratulate you, sir, for catching up to the middle of last century...

I'm running out of motivation to keep this going, but I just have to say that the bit about Hillary not having Bill's "baggage" is literally INSANE. You have to be six types of delusional to read that paragraph without laughing...

@6

tl;dr (too long; didn't read)

Have you ever been on thee inturtoobs before?

Hillary is the commensurate strategist (which is something I have always liked about her -- she is always looking to pull out some kind of victory even in defeat).

You can bet she is looking at negotiating some other power position or concessions from her pledged delegate, from Obama, from Howard Dean and the DNC, etc. to drop out now and not take this through until June.

It might be an ask about the VP position, it might be a pledge to give her the Senate Majority Leader position, Secretary of Education, Secretary of State. Who knows?

Anyway, she is in a power position as the probable loser but b/c it is not yet over she has a short window to find he victory in defeat. And, in my opinion, I think she'd be great in any of those positions.

She is a bad ass!

@6:
"Obama can’t win what are known as BCEC (blue collar ethnic Catholics & other Christians)."

Big fucking deal. They're not the only people in the US, and their numbers are dwindling rapidly. I fail to see why our nation should be chained to the past by this demographic.

@6,

Obama is gaining among Catholics. But go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

I like Obama but hate 95% of the Obama supporters around here. They are less gracious in victory than they are in defeat. If such a thing is possible.

Is there a point where you assholes are going to stop using vinegar and try using honey? Cause, you know, your has an actual election to win this fall?

i've said it before but obama has alot of the vote from indian country. the indian vote in south dakota kept daschle around until the republicans started voter intimidation tactics. this will help in alot of western states.

@13--by honey do you mean naked political pandering like HRC's gas tax holiday?

or by honey do you mean not pointing out that HRC has no shot at winning yet won't drop out, thus making it clear that she values herself over the good of her party?

No, brett@15, by "honey" I mean telling us Clinton supporters all the reasons why your candidate is so great that we should jump ship, rather than the "vinegar" of telling us the candidate that we LOVE is a devious cunt.

If you people are going to rebuild a unified party (HALF the party supported the other candidate), start fucking now. Act like the winners that you are, not like whiny dipshits.

Sven, do you really need other people to tell you why you should vote for someone? DO you even base your opinion on the supporters of a candidate?

#6: That is only true in the Rust Belt states (and the Deep South states that were never in play in the first place for the general election).

In states west of the Mississippi Obama does much better among working-class whites than Hillary Clinton. The future of the Democratic Party is not among rural white voters in a select 5 states in a declining- and aging-population Rust Belt. It's the urban vote, the educated vote, the under 45 vote, the minority vote.

Regarding gender: that's only true with white Baby Boomer and older women. Under 45 women have been 2 to 1 for Obama in most polls.

Wow...was going to comment on @6...but can't help but address @10 instead...

@10...
This is why I dislike HRC. I have no reason to believe that she isn't pandering to whomever it is she views as a potential vote every single time she's in front of the media. Regardless of how "authentic" her fake crying might have been, the truth is that she utilizes emotion in order to bolster her strategy. From shady dealings in the past, falsifications of events (jesus, did this Bosnia sniper-fire debacle really come as a result of SINBAD?!!), and that plastic smile which I can never quite buy...I just can't help but think that she has her agenda totally planned for the next 5 years and that everything leading up to her potential election is equally as calculated and merely means to an end...

That post was so fuckin' long I had to go take a wizz in the middle of it...

Larry @6: An excellent analysis which sums up my feelings very well. Sven, don't let these assholes get you down. They've been insufferable shitheads for the last 3 or 4 months, and they're not going to change now - even if it means pissing off half the party. They're young and stupid. Hey, so were we once. I just hope their stupidity doesn't drive so many Dems off that it costs them the election. But I'm not holding my breath on that.

@6 - not only was it long, it proved why McCain is so out of touch with America.

Sven, the Democratic primary was split between two similar candidates. Now it's a presidential election between Obama and McCain. How much explanation do you need to make up your mind on who to vote for? The choice has been made a lot more clearer to you.

Have to agree with JC @23, BS @16.

You need to stop whining about being courted. We already told you what we stand for, you know who McCain is and will be (*cough* Bush II *cough*), so stop complaining and deal with it.

Sven, if you're an adult as you claim to be, you don't need to be given a conciliatory bottle.

5280: older and still a tactless asshole

hillary should stay in the race until she gets a promise of secretary of state, which is where she can shine, where her skills can be best used outside of commander in chief.

hillary for secretary of state!

@27 - she's already shown she lacks the chops for that. Besides, Richardson's got that locked down.

A Sec. of State who wants to obliterate Iran and voted for the debacle in Iraq? You are out of your gourd.

sven, i find it peculiar that you demand a higher standard of behavior of obama's supporters than of the very candidate you LOVE.

'devious cunt' is beyond harsh, but the fact is that she, her husband, and many of her supporters have spent the +past few months dishing out more vinegar than most commenters here could ever muster* (and correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't her ability to play rough and dirty one of her main selling points?). fact: she and many of her supporters have gone out of their way to alienate many democratic voters because they chose to vote for obama (elitists, kool-aid drinkers, etc etc etc). if you have the stomach for it, take a spin over to noquarterusa.net if you want to see some hot, nasty hillary supporter action, then let's chat about who's got more vinegar.

people can be passionate about politics, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the process has left supporters on both sides a little, uh, bitter. anyway, one thing we both can agree on: sore winners suck.

(*i am in no way excusing or condoning the vile garbage spewed at erica yesterday after she graciously "conceded." but it's not fair to attribute the behavior of a few morons to 95% of the obama supporters here.)

OK, brandon, I'll admit it- "95%" is unfair of me. Way unfair.

HOWEVER...

It's not me you have to convince. I'm going to vote Dem- duh- no matter what happens. My point is that the kind of smug selfrighteousness that *some* Obama supporters have around here- rubbing Clinton supporters noses in shit the day after she lost any hope of taking the nonimation- is not going to win over the "swing" voters that WE need to get to win in the fall.

So will Josh Feit be next?