Who knew that Baldwin forsaw the rise of the super delegate?

If you could please explain exactly how Hillary Clinton is in any way more electable than Barak Obama (other than your own personal preferance) I'ld love to hear it.

She's a smart capable politician, with more negatives than you throw a dead cat at.

Obama, also a smart capable politican, with a number of negatives, none however that are particularly worse than Hillary Clintons.

Blue Collar votes are great, so are African American votes, and all the other groups who vote. Both of these candidates require the others support to win, along with the vast unwashed independant vote.

Senator Clinton has positives, don't get me wrong, but to ignore her negatives, or to ignore Senator Obama's positives is to simply be blind to reality.

Yeah, but smoke filled rooms also gave us Jackson, Grant and Taft.

So you take the good with the bad. The importance of democracy isn't that it works, but that it limits the ability of any one idiot to damage the world too much.

Sure a moron can rise to power in democracy just as in any other form of government, but in short order in democracy another moron will rise up and take his or her rightful place on the throne as well.

And as with any government every once in a while we get an actual good leader. But humans ruin everything they touch, and so the best we can hope is to limit their damage, wiht regular popular elections and the regular exchange of power between oposing idiots.

The next leader will ruin the country in a completely differnt way than the last, and the one to follow them will have their own stupid ideas.

But that's Democracy...still better than monarchy or dictatorship or one party rule!

"Isn't wonderful to find out how much the non-superdelegate vote really counts, or doesn't? We're back to the "smoke-filled" room. I hope no one inhales!"

Let's see:

Smoke filled rooms gave us Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Kennedy (and all those others).

Primaries have given us: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.

Maybe the smoke filled rooms aren't such a bad thing.

avh

Hillary or Lose the election. Seems pretty gosh darn simple to me. Even a Democrat should see the writing on the wall.....

Or just the voice of one ignorant bigot?

I have more faith in America. Therefore, Shawn ol' buddy, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to declare you null, void and irrelevant. You and people like you (not poor, deluded racists, but actual, bona fide bigots) constitute an albatross.

A plantation is missing its cracker. Gonna have to send you back to Georgia. Nothing personal, you understand.

it may not be worth a wooden nickel.

AS I read this story, it is difficult for me to feel bad for these high level government officials elected by voters. I'm a successful 46 year old white male who has always supported and worked for the Democrats. I have held my nose and voted for some real losers chosen by the NE elite in the party, and let me tell you this. We have a candidate who is tough, will fight like a dog and work like a dog for this country. What I see happening is a small group deciding who our nominee will be and I do not understand why our party does not see it.

Barrack Obama is a good candidate. He is not the best candidate. Politics is dirty and nasty and requires a fighter. Hillary has what it takes. I believe reporters and the Dem leadership is afraid to select her though because they are terrified of being called racist. How cowardly and what a mistake for this country.

I am about as average as you can get, and so let me tell you this. John McCain is NOT who I want to vote for, but I will not vote for a man who tries to explain everyone who disagrees with him as someone who has a defect. I voted for Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. I WILL NOT vote for Obama because if the race is between McCain and Obama, McCain is closer to my views. And to me....that is scary!!!

for what it's worth....

The superdelgate who yesterday pledged his support to Barack Obama had this to say:

"A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue a long, self-destructive Democratic campaign...A vote that assists this process is a vote that assists John McCain."

Andrew went on to further say:

"reject the old negative politics."

Andrew encouraged democrats to unify behind Barack Obama.

Now, personally I think African Americans will be happy to stay home, or go back to the party of Lincoln if they feel the No Negros Need Apply sign has been hung on the White House...but I could be wrong.

I say let the albatross go. They either don't vote at all, or else shared race obviously trumps everything as in the case of their trying to shove the obamateur down our throats and calling (of all people) the Clinton's racists and forgetting conveniently that while Barrack Obama was siding wiht slumlords who turned the heat off of the poorest black Chicago folk in the dead of winter, that William Jefferson Clinton's admin saw a median income rise of 17000 dollars in blacks nationally AND a 23% reduction in black poverty. Obama: nothing.

So let them go sabatoge the Republicans. In the long run, and perhaps even in the short run the party will be better for it.

On the facts because the guy is clueless about them. His war record is untouchable, which also means to a great extent his character (at least in the minds of most Americans). His knowledge of the problems we face and how to go about fixing them is slight and his Achilles heel.

Once you've shown he doesn't have a domestic policy, you go after his foreign policy. He's waffled on the war. He has talked about "victory," grill him on what that means, on his overwhelming commitment to Iraq despite the costs and the reality on the ground. Make him look befuddled, old and feeble minded, which won't be difficult.

Clinton could do this well but Obama could do it better. Obama has the advantage of being more trustworthy, which would disallow McCain to fall back on his image as an honest broker. Plus, I think Clinton doing this would just sound like nagging and pestering given that her negatives are so high and she has weak credibility, and being a woman doesn't help.

Furthermore, Obama couldn't draw a sharper contrast with McCain in age, eloquence, vitality, and charm. Clinton on the other hand is a long time Washington insider like McCain. They both have a long record of shady Washington deals. McCain can wiggle out of his because he's a war hero but Clinton will be well reminded of hers and all that hate Republicans had during Billy's term will come back like a raging torrent. The vast mindless Republican base will wake like the monster of Frankenstein, electroshocked back into life by none other than Clinton herself who in large part will be running on her husband's record. We all know she doesn't have a voice, never found it, never had it, probably never will. She is a chameleon, born in 4 different towns in this country all at the same time, dodging bullets here, waffling and pandering over there.

If the superdelegates want to be nervous, be nervous about that. And add to that a bunch of pissed off Obama supporters and perhaps more than half the black vote. Mmm Mmm Mmmm! Not good people! Not good.

Obama has a voice and a message and it's exactly what everybody wants, what the majority want--they want change.

This is the election of change people. Barack Obama is the change candidate.