May 31st, 2008
10:36 AM ET

The Final Argument for Hillary Clinton for President

Lanny J. Davis
Former special counsel to President Clinton, and supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

After the votes are in from Puerto Rico tomorrow and South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will be able to make a facts-based case that they represent a significant majority of grass-roots Democrats. Chances are Sens. Obama and Clinton will virtually split the more than 4,400 delegates—including Florida and Michigan—elected by more than 34 million people over the past five months.

Sen. Clinton has already won the most votes, but there is controversy over including the over 300,000 votes from Michigan, since Sen. Obama was not on the ballot (by his own choice). But if Sen. Clinton wins a substantial victory in Puerto Rico tomorrow—with an expected record turnout exceeding two million voters—she could well end up with more popular votes than Sen. Obama, even if Michigan’s primary votes are excluded.

Worst case, she could come out with a 2% deficit in elected pledged delegates. But that gap can be made up, if most of the remaining 200 or so unpledged superdelegates decide to support Sen. Clinton as the strongest candidate against John McCain—or if others committed to Sen. Obama decide to change their minds for the same reason. A number of superdelegates previously committed to Sen. Clinton later announced support for Sen. Obama, so it’s certainly possible that, when confronted with growing evidence that Sen. Clinton is stronger than Sen. McCain, they might switch back.

The final argument for Hillary comes down to three points—with points one and two leading to the third.

First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight  years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That’s just a fact.

Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the “experience” issue.

Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain’s total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama’s position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won’t challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton’s plan.

Despite the fact that Sen. Obama’s campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton’s.

Sen. Obama deserves credit for opposing military intervention in Iraq while he was running for the state senate in early 2002.

But in 2004, Sen. Obama said he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage” of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush’s position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed.

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

According to Gallup’s May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation’s voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama’s 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup’s state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points—a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states—constituting 105 electoral votes—are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses—Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half—54—of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup’s findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

*Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

*Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

*Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

*North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

*Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin—one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.

Finally, one unfortunate argument is making the rounds lately to convince superdelegates to go for Sen. Obama. That is the prediction that if Sen. Obama is not the nominee, African-American and other passionate Obama supporters will conclude that the nomination had been “stolen” and will walk out of the convention or stay at home. On the other side are the many women and others strongly committed to Sen. Clinton promising that if she is denied the nomination, they will refuse to vote for Sen. Obama.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are progressive, pro-civil rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice Democrats. Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters who care about the issues, the Supreme Court, and the need to begin withdrawing from Iraq can truly mean they will actively or passively help Sen. McCain get elected.

Threats of walkouts or stay-at-homes by good Democrats are not the answer, nor should they be a factor in superdelegate decisions.

But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008:

A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Stay tuned.

Editor's Note: This essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Democrats • Hillary Clinton • Lanny Davis • Raw Politics
soundoff (184 Responses)
  1. anna

    Donna La Pam – You did mention God, so put your trust in him – no candidate can keep you safe.

    Kim – You speak very intelligently and I agree with most of your comments.

    Obama/Clinton ticket? Although I didn't think this to be a wise idea at first, if it must happen to bring party unity, then I think it would be a good thing. However, Hillary can also be offered some other top post which she may be able to handle.

    A good example of Hillary's attitude and disposition is evident with the Florida/Michigan situation. All of the candidates agreed to the rules as put forth by the DNC, but when Hillary seemed to be behing in votes she wanted those rules ignored, thus the situation on Saturday, May 31st of which I think the decision was fair – both candidates received some of the votes which was better than not seating the delegates at all.

    On the other hand, I think the Vice President 's post should be offered to a well qualified and experienced male who would be in a better position to perform as such.

    Condeleza Rice is Secretary of State – but I don't think she did a great enough job as could have been expected of someone in that post.

    Some jobs were designed for men and some for women and when a women tries to perform in an area that's simply not her calling – it is evident.

    June 3, 2008 at 6:49 am |
  2. Audrey

    Obama plus 3 others removed their name from the ballot because the DNC said it would not be recongnized and so did Hillary Clinton. So you are not telling the whole truth. Hillary should not get any votes. She had no opponent. But the DNC did the best and fairest way possible.
    You are not a nice person.

    June 3, 2008 at 6:36 am |
  3. CC

    Lanny...Your blatant spinning is an insult to intelligent Americans who actually do exist outside the beltway. The twisting and turning of facts, the denials of playing the race card, the repeated changing of the "real measure of who is winning" etc., the negative smears against Obama.., the separate "unauthorized" committees buying ads for Clinton and the mysterious blanket emails that imply he is Muslim... all have completed the picture of Clinton which lost her support she could have had and no fancy verbal footwork will change that.

    June 3, 2008 at 3:59 am |
  4. neecee

    While I do not have a PhD in mathematics, I am floored at the way HRC supporters 'spin' the math in her favor.
    Frankly, HRC could have been in a very different position today had it not been for the attitude of 'white privilege' by her and her supporters/advisors. From the beginning they felt her nomination was in the bag; the white house was hers for the taking, not because she is more experienced, but because it is her time and her right (reference her husband and his low down, dismissive, racist comments). They dismissed senator Obama and his ability to lead an excellent campaign. Actually, because they were so caught up in their house of POWER, they failed to see Obama’s train of success coming down the track. Choo! Choo!

    For all his inexperience the young senator has certainly lead a very successful campaign as the underdog and the 'under privileged' in this race. HRC with the support of her husband and all her years of experience did not. Is she experienced? Perhaps. Does she deserve to be in the white house just because she is experienced? NO.

    I sometimes wonder how all those people shouting for the DNC to seat delegates in her favor could miss the point. HRC did, did, did agree to the DNC's decision regarding Florida and Michigan but changed her mind in the middle of the play when things were not in her favor. This is being DISINGENOUS.
    Bottom line, HRC should sit this one out and learn from the lessons – 'white privilege' does not get you to the white house. Thank God most Americans have moved beyond that sort of thinking.

    June 3, 2008 at 2:39 am |
  5. nancy

    i want to know what obma ties to ayers davis and wirght that are the communist party i won't vote for him i think he has baggage rev wright . and all that other stuff. that come up if you type up communist obamo so that is why he hate the u.s. a and his wife too i will be voting for mccain . if hillary was the winner she would have got my vote at least i know what she stand on !!!!!!!!!!

    June 3, 2008 at 2:27 am |
  6. Leslie George

    Robert Zimmerman doesn't know what he is talking about. People are enraged about the undemocratic and unjust process that took place in the campaign. I have lost all respect for the democratic party. Penalizing 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan and candidate Hillary Clinton was absurd especially since it was because of the acts of state legislatures and party leaders. Read the blogs on the Hillary Clinton web site and you'll see all the people who have changed their party affiliation to Independent and plan to vote for John McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee. The democratic party and superdelegates will find that they will lose this election just as they have done in the past. Do you really think the party will be able to carry Michigan and Florida in November if Hillary isn't the candidate? And don't expect that Hillary will be able to bring her flock back into the party for Obama because it "ain't going to happen!" And don't think sticking her in as VP when she is the one who should be the presidential candidate will help the ticket. Because it won't! A lot of those 17 million people are going to turn away in disgust and vote for the maverick McCain simply because he is an experienced, competent, trusted leader regardless of the issues. Hey, he can change the direction the country is going, too. Hillary Clinton can win in November and Obama cannot. She is the experienced, qualified candidate. What is wrong with the superdelegates? Voters in the general election are simply not going to vote for an inexperienced ultra liberal. Go Hillary! If you don't win this thing, I'm going to be another one of these new Independents!

    Leslie in Denver

    June 3, 2008 at 2:03 am |
  7. jan benson

    I agree with the article I just read. I do wish that the DNC would support Hillary for President & am very disappointed, as are many of her supporters. I do feel she has been treated poorly by the DNC as well as the media. I do feel Obama has been given much less scrutiny. If Hillary had attended a church such as his for the past 20 years she would have been given much more negative press. Although race & gender ate not suppose to be part of the discussion it seems that Obama has been treated with more consideration. The most recent pastor problem is totally unexceptable & even though Obama has now resigned from the church it is going to be a problem for him if he is selected to be the nominee. The whole primary process has seemed suspect with the way super delegates have been doled out in what seems to be a very staged & planned process. When Hillary wins by 30 to 40 percentage points it hardly recieves any press. When Obama carries only 26 % of the vote that too seems to be easily explained & dismissed by many pundits & party leaders. I understand people want change, but my concern is that many young & perhaps idealistic voters have unrealistic expectations based on emotion created by the rhetoric of Obama. I I remember his speech at the last convention & was impressed, but I am not sure I am ready to support him at this time. I think his wife has pros & cons but we don't hear about that. We hear about concerns of how to control Bill. What about Michelle? When asked if she would support Hillary if HIllary were the candidate she reportedly said she would have to think about that. Comments such as that cause problems in my mind if Democrats want "party unity." For all of the people that have been speculating on when Hillary should pull out & inferring that staying in the race could fracture the party, I think the group responsible for any break are the DNC leaders themselves. I think they should have thrown their support behind Hillary at the beginning. I think they should have worked to keep Obama out of the picture. He says it is his time. I disagree. He hasn't completed even 1 term in the Senate. She has & has been re-elected. She has worked harder. She has worked longer. She has been good for minorities & others. This should have been her time, not his. I see his actions as being self serving. I see him as being opportunistic. I see him as being disrepectful. If both the DNC & Obama had given their support to Hillary at the beginning they wouldn[t have to be wondering if they can beat McCain. It isn't Hillary that has caused any breaks in the party. She has worked long & hard for the party. It is the DNC leadership, Obama, & the constant media speculation that has caused the problem. Sorry to go on & on but I am just very frustrated & disappointed. This could have been a great year for the Democrats. Now I'm not so sure. If we lose we deserve to lose but I will never blame Hillary.

    June 3, 2008 at 1:44 am |
  8. AnnMarie

    I hope Hillary will not consider the VP if offered, she is the "Madame President"! Also, I continue to be flabbergasted that Obama's church affiliation is treated as virtually a non issue! A person usually joins a church to commune with people who share the same values/ beliefs, don't tell me that does not affect a person, it should.! 20 years of being mentored by "leaders" such as Rev Wright , and now add Pfleger to this, are you kidding me, lets talk about that Judgement issue!!! I am deeply offended by Rev Wright's, and Pfleger's words, add to this Obama's lack of proven experience, and there is nothing more to be said.

    June 3, 2008 at 1:10 am |
  9. PTull

    Mrs Clinton needs to admit she lost. There's no way to change that now. She needs to be a good Democrat and do whats good for the party. She will get over her bruised ego.

    June 3, 2008 at 12:12 am |
  10. Chris

    Anderson- respect your show-just tuned in and there was Bay Buchanan, commenting "if she got rid of that husband of hers which is emotional baggage- hello!!!-that husband of hers , just happend to be one of the best presidents we have had in recent history-This is why there is such a devide in the democratic party. We don't need comments like this from some tacky broad with a bad face lift. Oh did I say that!!!-oops!!-doesn't feel so good when it turned around , does it Bay.
    Seriously, after reading thousand of blog, the party has a real problem-Hillary Supporters really feel cheated, Obama doesn't have the votes needed to clinch the nomination, Bad press on Bill, can you blame him for really speaking his mind, I don't , and he is right.
    I t is really ashame how ALL reporters have there own agendas and that is how they report the news stories on the election with there own bias.
    The only solution for this hate campaign-on both sides – to stop is to have the dream ticket, because everyone is passionate about there candidat e and noone is going to give in . It has gone to far and the weekend circus didn't help matters any nor did Obamas leaving the Church on the same Sat. as the meeting , sort of transparent, don't you think

    June 2, 2008 at 11:53 pm |
  11. Ben Funk

    Keep in mind that Pfleger and Wright are not part of Obama's campaign and he has denounced their ridiculous preachings.

    On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has Sandy Berger as her foreign policy advisor. He is a criminal who has stolen and destroyed documents from the National Archives and been accused of on charges of conflict of interest when selling oil stocks in which he paid over $20000 settlement. Both him and Bill Clinton have proven themselve arrogant, above the law, and willing to lie to help themselves at the expense of the American people. The pastors will not have a say if Obama is in the White House. However, Bill and Sandy will play a direct roll. Who should we really be worried about?! Why aren't the networks concerned with her associations?

    June 2, 2008 at 11:42 pm |
  12. Elliott Holleman

    I am a Hillary supportor and there is NO WAY I would vote for Barack Obama and not for John McCain either. Again, we seem to be not electing the right person for the job. Does the country have blinders on?

    June 2, 2008 at 11:38 pm |
  13. Cuban Avenger

    I think Hillary is very selfish. She is creating a big racial stink. Obama would be an awesome leader! Not only that, but he would be good for this country. We need to allow black people to have some glory for all the pain and hardship the white americans and latinos have created.

    As a female latina, I say Hillary should step down and support BarraK Obama. I hate her. Hate her and if she wins the nomination, I am voting for McCain.

    June 2, 2008 at 11:30 pm |
  14. Gina

    Mr. Cooper,
    Please tell your man Gary Tuchman that if he must quote Bill Clinton;it would be nice if he did not lie.He stated that the Clintons were not accustomed to losing.Please tell it honestly.The Clinton's are not used to having the nomination stolen from them would be more accurate.How can anyone have one ounce of respect for the DNC when they stole those delegates from Hillary ,and they gave them to Obama?He certainly is greedy. He wants his delegates;but he also wants Hillary's.Florida and Michigan went for Hillary,and they were just as disenfranchised by the DNC as they would have been if their votes were not counted at all.They were not counted fairly.The smug democratic party leaders are going to be very surprised this fall.They keep saying that Hillary's supporters are just mad now;but they will come together in the fall and support their hand picked candidate. Don't bank on it. Even George Bush is beginning to look good when you put him up against Obama.You cannot force people to vote the way you want .At least George Bush isn't telling people that the way to fix the economy is to,"Not eat as much as you want,don't keep your thermostat on 72 degrees,and get rid of your SUVS"Those are his words ;not mine.My grammer is better than that.If he really feels that way then why doesn't he purchase a bike to ride to his campaign speeches,carry a sack lunch,and turn off his air conditioner at home.He needs to practice where of he preaches.What a lame way to fix the economy.I will vote for almost anyone against him except John Edwards.

    June 2, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
  15. John

    I hope Hllary Clinton will run as an independent.

    June 2, 2008 at 11:16 pm |
  16. Ash

    The more that the media reports all the negative comments about the Clintons the more I feel I will never consider voting for Obama. All this about Bill Clinton. What about Michele Obama and her past comments. Give them a break already. Enough is enough. She has won the popular vote. But the democratic party already made their decision and they will never vote her in and I will never vote for them.

    June 2, 2008 at 11:13 pm |
  17. Jacpak

    I have been disgusted by the way the press has reacted to Senator Clinton. Early on in the primary process I watched a debate on CNN. I lost all respect for one of the debate moderators, an international CNN reporter, who continually bated Senator Clinton in comparison to how other candidates were treated. Later, after the Indiana primary, one pundit made comments related to her attendance at Wellesley, something to the effect that her beer-drinking behavior was not what one would expect from a Wellesley graduate. I think this has been a disgraceful attitute towards a woman running for the president, particularly when I have not heard similar gender-biased remarks about the male candidates. Initially I was not a supporter of Senator Clinton, but as I listened to her responses to question after question I judged that her answers had the most substance and that she had the strongest grasp of the issues that the US faces in these desperate times. I think the Democratic Party is making a serious mistake by nominating Barack Obama. As a voter I do not feel he has a record of service that defines him as a presidential candidate. In my first presidential election I voted for Hubert Humphrey and have voted Democratic in every subsequent election, even in the popular Reagan years. This year I will break with the Democratic Party and vote for John McCain. I feel I have better long-range knowlege to predict McCain as a president than I have to make predictions about Obama as a president. My greatest wish regarding this presidential contest is that Hillary Clinton would also break with the Democrats and run as an independent candidate. I know that I would contribute the maximum amount allowed for an individual to her campaign if such an event occurred.

    June 2, 2008 at 10:52 pm |
  18. Donald A. Baumann

    Mr. Anderson
    we no longer have a democracy in this country when the delegates and so-called superdelegates, get to decide who we will vote for in November. What ever happened to the majority rules?
    In all my 76 years I have never seen any thing like this. I am a registered Democrat, in Florida but not for long.
    The best candidate we have to try and lead this country out of its problems is Hillary Clinton. The DNC certainly showed us they have no idea what they're doing. They just handed the presidency of the United States to John McCain. At least I know that John is a true American hero, although he may flip-flop I believe he tries to be as honest as he can. He gets my vote this time around.

    Your crew does a wonderful job on keeping the public up to date on what is happening, and what you are thinking. Thank you for a job well done
    Donald A. Baumann Cocoa Beach Florida

    June 2, 2008 at 10:49 pm |
  19. Melissa

    Even if Hillary is on the ticket for V.P. I will never vote for Obama. I am an avid supporter of her but I cannot vote for Obama no matter what. I will be voting for a Republican president for the first time in my life. I laugh when I listen to your pundits saying we will all come together for the November election. They are completely out of touch to the way people are feeling.

    We have got to change the way we elect our President. The superdelegates is such an undemocratic process thanks to Dean and the rest of his cronies. I think having Donna Brazille on your panel was not fair. Everyone knew who she was going to vote for.

    June 2, 2008 at 10:33 pm |
  20. Linda

    Try a nightmare.......

    June 2, 2008 at 10:30 pm |
  21. T.L. Beasley

    I understand what Lanny Davis is attempting to do here with this message. Hilliary did not get the number of votes everyone thought she would get so her having more popular votes is simply not going to happen. I strongly believe all her attempts to discredit Obama was an attempt to strong arm her way onto the demo ticket. Initially I would have supported that, but at this point I don't think it will work because she or no one else can control President Bill Clinton. The republicans know how to get next to him by talking about his affairs and his marriage, and in some intances his wife. As usual he will blow-up and cause the ticket to loose. Hilliary needs to announce that she is quiting and that she stands firmly behind Obama. Otherwise, the democratics stand to loose all the black votes in November!

    June 2, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
  22. Tess

    When given the opportunity to state my opinion, as to who would be the better vice president, if Senator Obama were to become the nominee, my first thought was Jim Webb, whose credentials are off the charts! Then, I began to think: "What would be the honorable choice?" "Who is already a known quantity to all the people in every state of our Nation?" "Who has given a new meaning to formidable opponent?" Who has worked her heart out to become the presidential nominee and pledges to do the same for the prevailing nominee?" It is my sincere opinion that Hillary Clinton should be on the ticket as vice president. Goals of equality and life-long dreams are being manifested in this campaign. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton... we need both! I feel privileged to experience the evolvement of this phenomenal history in my lifetime! HALLELUJAH! (Let us praise).

    June 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm |
  23. Chuck

    what i find disturbing is
    Die hard Clinton supporters feel that Hillary was cheated in the decision yesterday even though

    1. Hillary entered this race knowing that it's on a delegate system, not a popular vote system, but when she lost her lead...wants to change that rule
    2. Agreed that Mich. and Fl. wouldn't count because of the rules they broke. but when she lost her lead. she wants that rule changed.
    3. When the DNC made their decision about what was fair ( including members that supported her). now she wants that ruling changed.
    4. Hillary knows the reason why Obama, Edwards, and the others took their names off the ballot (something she agreed to do as well but didn't) wants to claim that now it's their problem that the took their names off and she should get all the votes from a state that was disqualified...see no.2

    I also find it disturbing that the die hard Clinton supporters know this and yet still wanna cry foul. and they are saying that Obama cheated.

    June 2, 2008 at 9:16 pm |
  24. Steve, Du Quoin, IL


    Do us all a favor and quit whining about Clinton. She ran a bad campaign and lost. Listen to Donna Brazille. She's wiser than a dozen Clintons and the woman I want to see in the White House. (After Obama finishes his second term.)

    June 2, 2008 at 9:03 pm |
  25. Martha

    There is no way I’m voting for Obama . Anyone who can sit in a church for 20 years and listen to hateful raciest comments must at least agree with it somewhat. Also his church of 20 years thinks Farrakhan is a great man, he is a raciest Muslim. Martin Luther King was a great man not Farrakhan, Martin Luther King had a dream, this was not Farrakhan dream. Obama also supports Farrakhan that is why I can not support Obama. God help us if Obama wins.

    Count another vote for McCain

    June 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm |
  26. martin ohalete

    As a foreigner in America,am so much bemused by the level of hypocrisy in a country that prides itself in the freedom of expression. Expressionisms as a mainstay of American ideal spells out things the way it is . there are overtly jobs that has very few blacks as intakes -simply based on the idea that their personae doesn't fit into an ideal worker status ,some white folks just won't hire a black guy -vice versa. similarly ,some whites can't even stand the idea of a man of color dating their daughters , there is simply all kinds of discrimination , yet when this glaring truth that walks the street is being put on the spot light , in the way wright and some other tough talk uncompromising whites do, people act surprised and create an air of unfamiliarity. Can someone stop using electablity crab as an excuse and spell it out blantantly- OBAMA I CANT VOTE FOR YOU

    June 2, 2008 at 9:00 pm |
  27. Uma

    Hope she announces, she is going run as an Independent candidate. Never give up your supporters, we will back you as long as you keep fighting.

    June 2, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
  28. Debra Yannelli

    "The Obama Factor" It is a movement simular to the Hippie revolution of the 60"s Peace Love & Obama
    "Peace Out Obama"
    Obama will never be my president. I have not fallen under the Golden Boy's spell. All you Obama supporters wake up. Stop smelling the poppies!!

    June 2, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
  29. CE Chamberlain

    It's not surprising that those in most positions of power would be nervous that a woman could be calling the shots in the highest office in the US. The status quo seems very threatened. After all, it would be terribly embarrassing if our new president were a person that actually could guide our country to new levels of success without it always being a "my stream can flow farther" contest. It's not new news that most women have a different method of resolving problems and implementing solutions. I believe our DNA stats would reveal that a good deal of the time male solutions include destroy and conquer while female solutions tend to lean more toward resolution through contemplation and negotiation. It would be a shame if our fears keep us from having the most competent president.

    CE Chamberlain, registered Independent

    June 2, 2008 at 7:13 pm |
  30. Sherry Milligan

    Without a Democratic doubt in my Democratic mind, Hillary Clinton is the ONE AND ONLY ONE who can beat John McCain for the Presidency! Barack is not wanted by the majority of the people. He isn't wanted by the popular vote. He's only wanted by "Super Delegates" who want jobs when Barack Obama is elected President!
    And he's only wanted by many of his constituents who sit among the many DNC "voting committee people" who are voting not just for their candidate of choice, but for a candidate of their race. It is so obvious to the average American voter watching the "political farce" that imploded on our TV's on Sunday. Does the DNC think we are stupid?
    We average Americans out here in "voter land" think the DNC can expect a huge loss in November if Barack Obama is at the top of the Democratic ticket. WITHOUT A DOUBT!! ONLY HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEAT MCCAIN AND WIN THE WHITEHOUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS!!!

    June 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
  31. Emma

    This sounds like the 2000 general election all over again. The candidate with the most votes doesn’t win. So much for “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

    The dumb democrats will be sorry that they bought into the Obama charade come November. They are too dull to see that ever since the media started treating Obama the same way they have treated Clinton for months, Obama’s favorability and appeal has dropped remarkably. And now he sure looks like every other politician, even though he claims he is different. Hmm, started wearing a flag pin & left his church, only after they became issues for him in the election. That sounds like the same old politics to me – what a sell out Obama.

    Good luck dems, you will need it. Here is hoping Hillary sticks around for a while, cuz they just might come crawling back to her before November, after the next Obama firestorm breaks….

    June 2, 2008 at 6:57 pm |
  32. Angie Beaudion

    I think it is wrong to let pledge delegates and superdelegates decide who ends up the Democratic nominee for President. By leting the delegates put their votes to any candidate trying to win the nomination it makes it to where the american peoples votes do not count. You say how does the american peoples vote not count by not forcing the delegates to put the votes to where the people voted for the candidate of thier choice and the one who won in each state. Futhermore, I think the american system for electing a president should be simply this way let any person who wants to run for president do so and let the american people have one time of voting and count up all the votes and the one who got the most votes should be the winner and get to be president. Also electoral college is wrong also because it lets them put their votes where ever they choose and not with how the people voted. Let the american people decide the next president. Thanks

    June 2, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
  33. jana/NY

    So what does Ms Clinton want. from us? Is it to give her the election based on popular votes. It will not and canot happen.
    The votes are not counted the way she would like them to count in the first place.
    Puerto Rico was not and is not a factor.
    By the way find out what taxes Puerto Ricans do not pay that Americans must pay.
    The only way Hillary can win, is if the election is stolen.
    What she wants is still not a factor, but certainly willl not get the VP.
    Actually Many of us don't really care what she's thinking or wanst at this moment. But we all need to watch for her and Bill's crap.

    He seems very angry on a constant basis

    June 2, 2008 at 6:38 pm |
  34. JudyAnn

    I am here to ask a question that I have yet to have heard ask. Why does the DNC have the right to tell any state when they can hold thier elections. Sure we need rules but this should not be one of them. All americans have the right to vote and no one has the right to take that away from them. If the DNC is trying to show America how strong they are they have failed and really look rather bad in the eyes of most voters. I hope that in the future this helps to weaken thier influence on the voters. It is not thier place to tell a candidate to quit running for office so the party can be united. Forget that one. Its not going to happen if Obama gets the nomination. There will be more Independent voters then democrats after this election. Thats a promise not threat. Just listen the the voters around you. There are some really upset people out there.

    June 2, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
1 2 3 4