This from a supporter of the campaign that casts accusations of racism ("video darkening" most recently) after each loss? I'm guessing I can count your lifetime on my fingers and toes.

Obama has run the most divisive, back-stabbing, hypocritical, dirty Democratic primary campaign I have seen in the ten presidential campaigns I have observed. There is no question that he is getting his money's worth out of Robert Gibbs.

Well, you're not going to be happy when she becomes the nominee. But I'LL BE THRILLED!

She has one field office.  Obama has four, I believe.

And it turns out that was correct.  Obama had 5 offices and hundreds of volunteers.  And Clinton had one office and a few paid staff.  And guess what, he beat her by 23%.  You saw that right.  

When he loses he loses by less than 10%. And when he wins, he beats her by more than 17%.  At least that has been the pattern in the last 14 states.

Hillary is losing and those who support her would rather endure temporary blindness than see the truth.  She cannot and will not overtake him in the pledged delegates and ALL the momentum for supers is in his court. Since Feb 5, he has picked up 44 supers and she has LOST 6.

I don't understand what goes on in this site.  The above number s are FACT, not spin.

Wake up Hillary supporters.  You can accept Obama as the nominee or contribute to Hillary's fast path to destroy the party for the fall and live with four more years of Bush policies.

Considering Hillary actually DOES plant questions, that's sort of an ironic post of yours.

Yes, there's been absolutely no graft in New York since Clinton's been in office, as I can attest.  The poor and rich alike live in palatial apartments that are the height of cleanliness.  Also, even though SUSA shows Obama winning more EVs than Clinton, he is the one who should drop out.  As for saying one thing and doing another - does Clinton seriously want a joint ticket when Obama hasn't "passed the threshold" to be CiC?

I'm all for criticism of a particular candidate, but these are not rational arguments.

Because Obama has a delegate lead she can't close, because he has won the popular vote, and because he has won the most states.  

Nearly all of his victories are double digits. Practically none of hers are.  

If he can keep it close (54-46) in the "big states" and beat her by double digits in the states that "don't count", there is no way she can catch him

Not to mention that he has picked up more than 40 supers since super Tuesday and she has LOST six.

This narrative that Hillary can "win" is the biggest fairy tale I have every seen.  Quoting hubby Bill on that one.  :-)

Did you put her away?

from Hillary to Obama - he's sick of the negativity and like Obama a lot - says he has "temperament" - a cool head.  We don't know what Hillary we are going to see from day to day. One day shes sweet the next she's screaming and freakin out.

MY 80 year old Grandmother is a STAUNCH Hillary supporter, as is the rest of the clan.

We will be four generations of women will be walking the neighborhoods in Indiana for Clinton in a few weeks.  I hope that my niece will remember that experience as I remember doing the same with my mom in support of the first Democratic presidential ticket with a woman in 1984.

Then it's Al Gore time!

This election will be an historic opportunity to draw millions of Latino voters into the Democratic fold for good.  Hillary is doing very, very well among this group.  This is a larger contingent of voters than AAs, although there's no question that AAs have been overwhelmingly Democratic in the past few decades.

I did not see the same disconnect when BHO was leading in the opinions polls and BHO people was posting the results on every thread.

And what exactly are her foreign policy credentials?

Read this and counter it, if you can:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experien cemar07,0,51719.story
chicagotribune.com
CAMPAIGN 2008
Clinton's experience claim under scrutiny
Hillary Clinton may have influenced foreign policy, but evidence is scant she played pivotal role

By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons, WASHINGTON BUREAU Tribune correspondents Jim Tankersley and Rick Pearson contributed to this report
March 7, 2008

Surrounded by military leaders in a Cabinet-style setting, Hillary Clinton on Thursday said she has "crossed the threshold" of foreign policy experience to serve as commander in chief.

Supporters of rival Barack Obama fired back immediately, arguing that the former first lady's trips abroad hardly constituted a practice run for managing global crises.

"She was never asked to do the heavy lifting" when meeting with foreign leaders, said Susan Rice, who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and is now advising Obama. "She wasn't asked to move the mountain or deliver a harsh message or a veiled threat. It was all gentle prodding or constructive reinforcement. And it would not have been appropriate for her to do the heavy lifting."

The debate over readiness for the global arena is emerging as the flash point in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, crystallized by a dramatic Clinton campaign commercial asking who is best prepared to answer a 3 a.m. phone call to the White House during a crisis.

Clinton says she is the answer, arguing that Obama's major achievement was his early opposition to the Iraq war in 2002. Indeed, Obama doesn't have much in the way of experience managing foreign crises, nor does Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for that matter. In fact, it is rare for any president to have that kind of experience before coming into office.

In Clinton's case, she may well have exercised influence on foreign policy that is hard to document because she had a unique opportunity to offer private counsel to her husband, President Bill Clinton.

But while Hillary Clinton represented the U.S. on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises.

Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.

Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.

'Ancillary' to process

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.

Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.

"In my review of the records, I didn't find anything to suggest that military intervention was put on the table in NSC [National Security Council] deliberations," said Gail Smith, a Clinton NSC official who did a review for the White House of the administration's handling of the Rwandan genocide. Smith is an Obama supporter.

Prudence Bushnell, a retired State Department official who handled the Rwanda portfolio at the time and has not allied with a presidential candidate, confirmed that a U.S. military intervention was not considered in policy deliberations, as did several senior Clinton administration officials with first-hand knowledge who declined to be identified.

Clinton has previously described her role in the Northern Ireland peace process as meeting with women's groups to encourage them to build a political climate for peace.

Former Sen. George Mitchell, who was the lead U.S. negotiator, said Clinton's visits were "very helpful."

"She was especially involved in encouraging women to get involved in the peace process," which was a "significant factor" in the agreement, Mitchell said in an interview.

But Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady's visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland.

"It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women's groups. It helped, I suppose," Coogan said. "But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics.

"There were all kinds of peace movements, women's movements throughout the 'Troubles.' But it was more about the clout of Bill Clinton," added Coogan, who said Clinton administration decisions to grant visas to leaders of the Irish Republican Army's political wing and appoint a U.S. negotiator were the keys to changing the political climate.

Beijing speech

One of Clinton's most noteworthy forays onto the foreign stage came in 1995, when she delivered a speech at the United Nations' women's conference in Beijing. That speech was widely noted and hailed as a bold call for women's rights, especially because Clinton explicitly spoke out against forced abortion and other practices of the host country.

"In the years since, I have met many women from many places who tell me they were at Beijing, or had friends who were, or who were inspired by the conference to launch initiatives," Albright wrote in her 2003 memoir.

The speech might never have happened if the first lady had not pressed for it, said one former Clinton administration official sympathetic to her candidacy who traveled with her and Albright to Beijing. The administration was conflicted about whether Hillary Clinton should go to Beijing at all because of the regime's record on human rights.

"Yet she was determined to go and was convinced that her going would send a very strong signal of support for human rights," said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named. "Everyone at the end of the process almost certainly would have said, 'How could we be so foolish to question the wisdom of the trip?'"

Still, Rice questioned whether that trip amounted to the kind of preparation for a global crisis that Clinton has claimed.

"How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage," Rice said.

Macedonia visit

In 1999, Clinton visited Albanian refugee camps in Macedonia during the NATO bombing campaign to force Slobodan Milosevic's troops out of Kosovo. Macedonia had sealed its borders in an attempt to stop the arrival of refugees but, under Western pressure, reopened them the day before Clinton visited the camps.

A former Clinton administration official sympathetic to her candidacy said her presence "played a very important role in helping to shore up support for the Kosovars."

But Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton NSC official with responsibility for the Balkans and author of a history of the Kosovo conflict, said the border opening had nothing to do with her negotiating skills.

"It was her coming that helped. But she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations," said Daalder, an Obama supporter. "This had nothing to do with her competence."

----------

mdorning@tribune.com

cparsons@tribune.com

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

Lack of long-term planning has been a defining feature of her campaign.  

Yeah, we gotta support the team.  I reserve the right to be angry for a while, though.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for her. I said I wouldn't work for her campaign, as I have for every Democratic nominee since 1972.

I'll never vote for McCain, that much I can tell you despite what I've mean told about him getting over the national security threshold.  

I really feel dizzy watching her shift from one to another so easily.  

Wow, that's a pretty nasty thing to say. And you know this how?

All human beings are made up of complex emotions.  We're all able to be, at different points, nice, sweet, mean, angry, happy, loving, snide, appreciative, respectful, thoughtless, etc., etc., etc.  Obama has shown many of his own sides as well.  I don't hold it against him - it simply means he is human.  It doesn't mean he has shifting personas.  

It's just amazing to me how many Obama supporters think that Hillary has no values.  Both of them have values and both of them are capable of being inconsistent.  Neither one has multiple personalities.

border on KY or IN.  

uh.. you mean like democrats in every general since carter?

You didn't get the memo about the states that matter?

Now I feel like I belong.  

Or else Obama could leave and find a party where he can take some criticism and hits and deal with them like an expert. If he wants to play pattycake and then take a nap through the campaign without someone  pulling his hair, maybe he just isn't ready yet.

The reason we have open primaries and causes is because it prevents a nonviable general election candidate like Clinton from being nominated. Independents would flock to McCain in droves if she won.

Democrats already dilute their platform by trying to predict who is more electable in the fall.  That's why Kerry beat Dean.  Your argument doesn't bear out even accepting your initial premise, because in closed primaries Democrats would simply internalize the argument about which candidate would best appeal to independents.

Many of his wins have been small wins in states that have open elections, but which are red states.  We never win those states, and never will win those states in the general.  In the large states with the most electoral votes, many of them having closed primaries like PA and Florida, it is important to have the nominee as the winners from those states.  Losing with Dems, but winning with indies and repugs in  red states--What the heck good is that?

Let's see reliable data that says they do vote for us.  I am going by statistics and exit polls which say that Obama is losing among true party democrats. His edge in many of the states is from other than Democrats.  Repulicans who already have a candidate, don't really get any fun out of voting for McCain so why not mess with the Democrats in the primaries.