It's projected that Hillary Clinton will have more popular votes than Barack Obama on June 3rd.  Some news organizations have already declared her the popular vote leader.  

Yet many party officials seem anxious to coronate Barack Obama prior to the Democratic convention.  They must have short memories, and have forgotten the sense of outrage and injustice we (the Democrats) experienced when Al Gore was robbed of his election mandate 8 years ago.

"Hillary Democrats" will feel aggrieved if the Superdelegates over-turn their votes.  It's naive to assume that they'll jump on the Unity Express to join forces against Republican enemies in November.  Millions of Democrats (and some others too) -- the majority of whom belong to that key demographic called women -- are already steaming mad at how Clinton is being treated by her colleagues, aided by a misogynist mass media.

As a reminder, Hillary Clinton has dedicated decades of her life to fighting for progressive causes and Democratic candidates.  She is a 2-term Senator from the 3rd largest state in the union, and a major voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  At the end of this primary process, she will have inspired nearly 20 million people to get out and vote for her.  Millions of them are just like me -- actively campaigning and donating for the first time in our lives.

Now, this takes nothing away from Senator Obama, as he has also inspired millions of people.  But he's getting the respect due from Democratic peers while Hillary Clinton -- champion of children and sick people and veterans and women -- is being treated like a nuisance. Some have even attacked her character and dignity, such as Obama surrogate Ted Kennedy who recently said that Clinton is not "in tune with...the nobler aspirations of the American people."

In the absence of a rational explanation for this abuse, millions of women (and men too) are fuming because, frankly, it reeks of good ole fashioned back-slapping sexism.  I'm not alone in wondering out loud whether a man in Clinton's position -- that is, a serious contender for the presidential nomination who has won swing states (most recently by 41%) and built a formidable coalition needed to win the White House -- would be taunted, ridiculed, and treated like an outcast.

As a woman who has been on the receiving end of double standards, and one who happens to believe that Hillary Clinton will be the best President of my lifetime, I want to urge Senator Clinton to take her campaign all the way to the convention floor.  By earning more than half the votes cast, she has every right to make her case directly to party representatives in the proper venue, and even a responsibility to the voters.

See, this is the way it is for Clinton supporters.  If you throw Hillary under the bus, we go with her.  And although our leader would be gracious in asking us to disregard the injustice, millions of "Hillary Democrats" will be unable to do so.  "Backlash" is a real social and psychological phenomenon.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

Note:  please don't shoot the messenger.

as most know mydd is one the last few HRC friendly online democrat sites.  yet for the most part its a HRC pile on party here and all over the internet (and media)... earlier in the week there were calls for unity and sincere questioning of HRC's supporters growing anger. i diaried about this at the time.  but it seems that we are back to where we were. and i have a message to those that continue to do this, you would be well served to stop - now.

Nonetheless, Obamacans are throwing victory parties over the impending defeat of a fellow Democrat who has thus far pulled in over 47 percent of their party's primary and caucus participants. Some take a more direct approach. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers holding signs for Clinton.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, unable to contain himself, administered one last kick to Clinton's dignity by opining that the New York senator lacks the "real leadership" needed for the job of vice president. He said that Obama should pick someone who is "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."

So much for the nobility of aspirations held by his own state's Democratic primary voters, who preferred Clinton over Obama by 15 percentage points. Next door in Rhode Island, Rep. Patrick Kennedy dittoes Dad as an unwavering super-delegate for Obama -- this despite Clinton's 18-point win in that state's primary. It's as if the voters are invisible.

Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Last week's enemy was working-class white people. The Democrats can win without a majority of white voters -- as Obama strategists undiplomatically note -- but they can't win without a strong showing among them.

So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion. The fervor of their outrage suggests that some regard the mere consideration of white people, particularly white men, as a demographic needing a special message is an act of bigotry. (That's as opposed to a thousand other racial and socio-economic groups that politicos routinely slice and dice.)

snip

Weirdly, Obamacan triumphalism seems to be merging with the festivities on the Republican side. You can understand why the right would welcome what it prays is "the end of the Clinton era." Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/05/obamicans_pile_on_clinton_at_o .html

if BO wins, he can't beat JM without large chunks of HRC core constituency and "dumping on their candidate is one step removed from dumping on them -- and some of the BO people don't even bother with that step. rove must be enjoying the show."

all over the blogosphere and media we keep hearing 'IT'S OVER' even time magazine had the chutzpah to put this on their cover.  oh well.  more likely its as BC says: "whenever someone tells you you can't win, its because they are afraid you will."

and as 4justice said:

"Whether 'presumptive', 'likely' nominee, that's fine as long as we can agree right now that although likely, he is not the party's nominee until the August convention.

If his supporters are confident in him, and if the candidate is confident himself, then people might want to shift focus from beating up HRC for finishing the primary season, or suggesting she is doing this to "damage" Obama.  He can't be truly damaged by her if he is the "presumptive" nominee, or by the primary season finishing out and letting all of America vote.

Start working for the candidate, not against HRC, again, especially if you truly believe Obama is the nominee. Start working FOR, not AGAINST"

that is the point my friends.  while it seems that bashing has become a sport, in continuing to contribute to this divide - you are helping to ensure a republican wh come november.

all over the media and blogs, the pundits and BO supporters are calling this primary over and after reading the latest LA TIMES/BLOOMBERG poll i feel like i have entered the twilight zone.

here's a summary:

National numbers:
Obama 46, McCain 40, undecided 9
Clinton 47, McCain 38, undecided 11
Dates conducted: May 1-8. Error margin: 3 points.

Among voters 65 and older: McCain 47, Obama 41. Clinton-McCain matchup essentially tied.
Among voters 18 to 44: Obama 55, McCain 35. Clinton 48, McCain 35.
Among African Americans: Obama 79, McCain 3. Clinton 60, McCain 9, 23 undecided

as Ellen R. Malcolm, the founder and president of Emily's List wrote today in the washington post:

So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary* is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished? Democrats need not be so fainthearted. Both of the party's remaining candidates have raised tens of millions of dollars. Both have the respect of Democrats nationwide. Each has a progressive agenda that stands in stark contrast to Sen. John McCain and his adherence to Bush administration policies.

So why are some Democrats so afraid? We simply need to count every vote, let the remaining states have their say and see the process through to its conclusion.

Hillary Clinton certainly has the right to compete till the end. But I believe Hillary also has a responsibility to play the game to its conclusion. For the women of my generation who learned to find and channel their competitiveness, for the working women who never falter in the face of pressure, for the younger women who still believe women can do anything, Hillary is a champion. She's shown us over and over that winners never quit and that quitters never win. We'll cheer her on until the game is over. And we hope that when the final whistle blows, we will have elected the first female president and the best president our country has ever had.

since the DNC created a nonsensical methodology for nominating its presidential candidate that in no way reflects the realities of the GE (ie. winner take all), i say:

go HRC go!

i checked my facebook and got a lovely update.  thought i would share.

A Special Mother's Day Message from Chelsea!
5:13pm Friday, May 9
You and I both know my mom will make a great president. I'm so blessed to have her as the best mom I could imagine -- at 8, 18, and 28. As we approach Mother's Day, I want to share a few memories of my mom with you.

Take a look.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/mothersday

Thank you again for your support of the person I am so proud to call my mom.

Happy Mother's Day!

Chelsea

HillaryClinton.com - Wish Hillary a Happy Mother's Day
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/mo thersday
Official Site of Hillary Clinton for President

what part of 'im not quitting' do you not understand?

HRC has made her postion clear - yet all we hear from the media and in the blogoshpere is the continued pile on of her or discussions of her quitting.  i am not saying that she is going to win, and as much a i like to play armchair politics, i have no idea what strategies she has up her sleeve.

and frankly the continued calls for her to get out sort of remind me of a chess game i played a while back where i was killing my opponent and the only pieces they had left were a pawn, a queen and king.  i on the other hand, was in great shape - you know what?  

i ended up losing.

you know when its over?  when HRC or BO say it is.

the closely contested primary is still going on....  but no matter who wins the democratic nomination, HRC and BO won a victory for the american people.  what this contest has exposed is a gap in the democratic ideology, which ironically arose from the differences in the candidates' supporters rather than in policy differences between the two. the result - bringing the US one step closer to the inception of a 3-party system.  

let me begin by stating why i think this is a good thing and a victory for the american people.  back in 2004 i was in california discussing the upcoming election with some family who were really psyched to get bushy out of office.  however what they expressed was a lack of enthusiasm for john kerry - 'what we need' - they said - 'is another party.'  at the time, i thought this was crazy talk seeing as how nader, a third party candidate pretty well helped gore lose in 2000, but then it occurred to me - i, as a canadian have a choice of 3 parties - shouldn't they?  

in canada, we have a similar parliamentary system to the UK - and have several parties (as does the US) but the majority of seats in the legislature are held by 3 parties:

conservatives (formerly the progressive conservative) right to centrist
liberals - centrist to liberal
new democrat party (ndp) extreme left

in practice, the position of prime minister goes to the leader of the political party that has the most seats in the house of commons. on several occasions in canadian history no party has had a majority in the house and thus one party, usually the largest, forms a minority government. as of now, the conservative government has a minority government and really needs bipartisan support to pass bills.  the canadian governmental system is just as flawed as any (its certainly not as exciting as the US) but is certainly encourages support from across the spectrum.

so... i believe that this primary brought the US closer to the inception of another party being developed.  even though both candidates have very similar positions, through the nomination process and the concerns of voters have pushed HRC and BO to the center and left respectively.  having choice in a 3-party system would immensely benefit the american people and i believe help to push through legislation through forced bipartisanship.  thoughts?

i have been thinking alot about last nights results.  for the record - i am not stating that HRC cannot win and should concede.  but it go me to thinking about the 'electability' issue and decided to put it out there and see what everyone thought about the hypothetical.

lets say BO does win the nomination, it will a by a nose and he moves on to the GE.  and lets say we see what HRC and many of her supporters fear/suspect could happen to BO.   which is a repeat of 1972 where mcgovern was humiliated like no loser had been humiliated before.  

so as democrats i ask both HRC and BO supporters, g-d forbid, if this were to happen - what will you be thinking?