Typical Clinton tactic. I hope she gets crushed in South Carolina.

...just...wow

Who could possibly vote for this person?

Dear TG,

Don't write "like she"...it's a ridiculous mistake and makes me doubt everything else you say.

Hoo boy. Here come the "Winning Ugly" Clintonian tactics, with plenty more to follow, I'm sure...

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan, but Hillary Clinton didn't. And now that she has won in Michigan -- she beat "uncommitted" by 15 percentage points -- she says she's going to fight to have the delegates from both Michigan and Florida seated at the convention.

That's what I don't get; it seems like the DNC's decision on Michigan and Florida rewarded Clinton's faithlessness with regard to its decisions, and the Democratic Party in general.

Edwards and Obama honored the DNC's edict, pulled their names from the ballots when the state parties ramrodded their states early in the primary race, regardless of the consequences. But Clinton stayed in and didn't campaign there, a real eating cake and having it, too approach, seems like. And bucking the Democratic Party, to boot -- so, the savior of the Democratic Party is one who wouldn't abide by the DNC's primary rules? That makes sense how, exactly? And doesn't it just pave the way for a rancorous, contested Democratic convention? All for the sake of HRC's presidential run? How much scorched earth is worth a presidency, exactly? It takes a party to win a presidency; but what will be left of the Democratic Party after the Clintons headbutt them a few more times in their thirst for the nomination?

Either Hillary Clinton's internal polls show disaster looming, or she is completely without shame.

Where is all the talk about supporting the Party? She had plenty of time to object when the DNC reached its initial (and IMHO, correct) decision to hold Florida and Michigan to the timetable they agreed to this summer.

But now, Hillary is trying to play savior to the cheating State Parties in Michigan and Florida, who, if they would have played by the rules, would be playing a very important role in this tight primary race.

I started this campaign with a preference for Edwards or Obama, but a lot of respect and sympathy for Hillary. That is just being destroyed by the cynical and dishonest character of the Clinton campaign.

One expects leaders to have feet of clay--but who knew they were feet of fresh cowflops?

"Then she reminds her competitors that they, like she, pledged not to campaign in Florida or Michigan, and that she will "expect" them to abide by that pledge."

The meaning is clear. There is nothing Her Imperial Majesty will balk at saying or doing in her quest for power. It sickens me that THIS is my party's leading candidate.

She was the only person on the ballot in Michigan, because her opponents played by the rules and Her Inevitableness did not.

She has by far the best name recognition in Florida so would win because no one else has campaigned.

She really will stop at nothing. It's like watching a hurricane, or a swarm of angry bees, or a hungry dog going after a hamburger, or a semi truck with no brakes careening down a mountain.

As much as I love one of her opponents, I'm starting to hope she wins the nomination just so she can get *stomped* in November. Many Democrats and Progressives would accept four years of McCain (who, I believe, is at heart a decent man, and much more moderate than his necessary rightward election-year pandering would suggest) in return for getting rid of this scourge on the Democratic Party, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

is the term used in sports for what Mrs Clinton is pulling in regards to the Michigan delegates.

It also reminds me of the scene in Stripes where Winger fakes like he's stepping forward to induce Ziske to take the fall for both of them going out on the town. That was funny. This is not.

This whole mess just helps make the case for getting rid of the primary system that we have. Recently, I was thinking that all primaries should be held on the same day. Now, I think we should ditch them entirely.

Red and blue - That is how we have colorblinded our political system. When the DLC fst said they wouldn't seat those delegates, I was appalled. This re-enforces the arbitrary primacy of certain states, and that is bad enough. But then, this primary system also shuts out not only less visible (read: less well funded) candidates within the parties, but also creates the inevitability of the two party system.

Suppose there were no primaries. The election would roll around, and the parties would be forced to take responsibility for deciding who would run. This might appear to favor back room dealings, but in the end, any party that put up crappy candidates would be relegated to irrelevancy. And, if there were a strong 3rd party candidate, voters could focus on that rather than on all the infighting that we have now. The billions that get funneled to the 2 parties, especially in the primaries, would more likely stay in peoples pockets.

I don't know. I'm rambling a little here. But this election cycle is ridiculous. I'd rather have the Democratic nominee leading the charge against this lame duck president, banging away at him, not kneecapping ourselves.

During the last 2 elections I've loved the candidates, but suffered as they silently let the right-wing walk all over them. Clinton is a fighter. I remember now why I named my cat after her. We picked up a stray cat, and brought it into the house to see if it could handle our three dogs. The cat sat in the middle of the sniffing, curious, large dogs and didn't flinch, or run and hide, or cower, or claw them - she wasn't afraid of the dogs. At the time, Hillary Clinton was being attacked by the media, and behaving much the same way. Thus, our cat was annointed "Hillary". I can't say she was a great cat, but I always admired her attitude - she never did back down when the dogs bothered her, and eventually the dogs stopped bothering her, for the most part.