News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[mheslep]

Yes, I have met many converts over the last couple of years. Even my relatives in Orange County [notoriously conservative and Republican] are considering a vote for Obama.

In the end, the price of milk and gas speak louder than Limbaugh.

Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.

 

[Art]

I'm surprised the Democrats haven't made more out of this or perhaps they have and I missed it.

McCain aides quit over Burma ties

Two aides to Republican presidential nominee John McCain have stood down over ties to a lobbying firm that has represented Burma's military leaders.

Douglas Goodyear, who had been chosen to run the 2008 Republican convention, said he was resigning "so as not to become a distraction in this campaign".
snip
Newsweek magazine revealed on Saturday that DCI was paid more than $300,000 (£150,000) by Burma's military leadership for lobbying work to improve its image in the US.
snip
The BBC's Jamie Coomarasamy in Washington says the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr McCain's campaign was already controversial, given Mr McCain's frequent pledges to fight against the influence of special interests in Washington.

That two of those lobbyists were linked to a special interest currently facing worldwide condemnation should give cause for reflection within Mr McCain's inner circle, our correspondent adds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7395773.stm

Also anyone any thoughts on how the following will affect the vote for McCain come November?

Ex-Republican aims for presidency

A former Republican congressman, Bob Barr, has announced he hopes to run for president of the United States - for the Libertarian Party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7397377.stm

 

[Art]

No, I'm not. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas? Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now that the primary season is well underway, I am ready to make my predictions. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Bush will switch party allegiance one week before the election. McCain will be swept into office on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic incumbent.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.

No, that would be McCain and Hillary that have promised a nonsensical reduction in gas prices.

 

[Astronuc]

Now that the primary season is well underway, I am ready to make my predictions. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Bush will switch party allegiance one week before the election. McCain will be swept into office on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic incumbent.

I'm waiting for the Jimmy Snyder Show on Comedy Central, starting Nov. 4, unless they can start on Memorial Day. Can't wait for the special on Inauguration Day '09.

 

[turbo]

I'm betting that the next president of the US will be Dick Cheney. Bush will pardon Cheney and the rest of his staff for any and all crimes, then resign before the Inauguration. Cheney will take over as president, then pardon Bush, and as the Brits say, "Bob's your uncle". They will all have to stay in the US to avoid being invited for a vacation trip to the Hague, but where's the inconvenience in that? There are plenty of things for millionaire neo-cons to do once they've cashed in.

 

[chemisttree]

lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas?

Here:

Most of Hamas' funding comes from Saudi Arabia who western leaders meet with regularly

The original comment referred to Obama meeting with governments (Iran and Hamas). Did you intend to take the discussion off topic and refer to western leaders meeting with individuals? That's a bit of tortuous logic... might even say 'strawman'.

Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.

But Obama does... if it will help him win Jewish votes.

 

[Art]

Here:
The original comment referred to Obama meeting with governments (Iran and Hamas). Did you intend to take the discussion off topic and refer to western leaders meeting with individuals? That's a bit of tortuous logic... might even say 'strawman'.

But Obama does... if it will help him win Jewish votes.

I'm trying to understand your position here. I was under the impression you thought Obama should not meet with Iran because you thought they were the main backers of Hamas. According to the article I referenced Saudi Arabians are the main backers of Hamas which the Saudi gov't allows to happen openly (and according to some Jewish sources actually contribute to directly themselves) and yet it is okay to meet with the Saudi gov't but not Iran?? Why?? One could also point out that Iranian aid only went to Hamas when they were the legitimate gov't of the PA whereas Saudi backing began when they were in opposition. So if meeting with Iran is supposed to show some kind of support for Hamas why isn't the same true of meeting with Saudi Arabia??

Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.
*

Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.
*

It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.
*

Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm

Anyone who thinks the Saudi gov't isn't up to their necks in financing Islamic extremists is deluding themselves.

Again from testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.

Well into the war on terror, Saudi Arabia continues to serve as the capital of international terrorist financing. Through groups such as the Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Organization, and the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, as well as through Islamic affairs bureaus at Saudi embassies and consulates worldwide, Saudis continue to fund radical Islamic groups that support or engage in international terrorism.

Some cases are both clear cut and extreme. For example, after his arrest in Indonesia on June 5, 2002, Omar al-Farouq, al-Qaeda's operational point man in Southeast Asia, told his interrogators that al-Qaeda activities in the region were funded through a branch of al-Haramain. According to al-Farouq, "money was laundered through the foundation by donors from the Middle East." In another case, Italian wiretaps monitoring members of a European al-Qaeda cell overheard a senior operative reassuring his subordinate about funding: "Don't ever worry about money, because Saudi Arabia's money is your money."

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668

 

[Astronuc]

Well Clinton won WV with a handy (significant) margin, so she is still in the race, and she claims to be the more qualified candidate for the Democratic party.

Next week is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Apparently Clinton is expected to win Ky, and perhaps Obama will win Oregon.

 

[BobG]

Well Clinton won WV with a handy (significant) margin, so she is still in the race, and she claims to be the more qualified candidate for the Democratic party.

Next week is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Apparently Clinton is expected to win Ky, and perhaps Obama will win Oregon.

She makes some good points. West Virginia doesn't matter because Clinton wouldn't win WV, either. But, the demographics show why McCain has a real shot at either Ohio or Pennsylvania. And, if Michigan isn't eventually seated at the Democratic convention, will that create enough backlash to bring that state into play, as well? Not resolving Michigan and Florida has been the DNC's biggest blunder.

I don't see any way this gives her any shot at actually winning. Besides, she ignores the fact that even if Dems win Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they still have to win some states where Clinton is pretty weak.

Republicans hold a natural advantage that Dems still haven't adjusted to. In 1968, the Great Lakes states (NY, PA, OH, MI, IN, IL, and WI) were worth 170 electoral votes. Today, they're worth 131. In 1968, Texas, Florida, and Georgia were worth 51 electoral votes combined. Today, they're worth 76. In 1968, the Southwest (CO,NM, AZ, UT, and NV) were worth 22 votes. Today they're worth 34. That's a net change of 75 electoral votes from strong union states to more conservative sunbelt states - mostly in the 90's, but still continuing.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My source, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229239" , gives Obama 26% of the vote in West Virginia yesterday. That's bizarre. It doesn't change the race for the nomination, he's still going to win. But it should give the Democratic party something to worry about. The fact that 13% of the voters didn't even vote is an even bigger problem in my opinion. Given the demographics of these primaries, I expect education is going to be a big plank in Obama's platform. Also, there has been some talk about Obama sharing his campaign funds. Can he really give money to Barr without legal ramifications?

 

[chemisttree]

Anyone who thinks the Saudi gov't isn't up to their necks in financing Islamic extremists is deluding themselves.

You persist in your claim that wealthy Saudi donors (including members of the Saudi royal family and the government) are actually the Saudi government. You haven't yet shown that the Saudi government is directly funding Hamas as is Syria and Iran's.

 

[chemisttree]

Also, there has been some talk about Obama sharing his campaign funds. Can he really give money to Barr without legal ramifications?

I don't think that is legal. Where did you hear this?

 

[turbo]

Clinton beat Obama by 41 points, about as expected. Surprisingly, John Edwards got 7% of the vote and he's not even running.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think that is legal. Where did you hear this?

It's been in the air. Here's an example story: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14-2008may14,0,1137125.story" .

 

[mathwonk]

It seems to me the attacks on obama, including by clinton, have turned racist in tone.

quite explicitly, here in marietta, georgia we have a tavern owner, in a scenario right out of the 1960's, selling obama t shirts depicting him as curious george the monkey, eating a banana, in case you missed the story.http://www.cbs46.com/news/16250318/detail.html

 

[chemisttree]

It's been in the air. Here's an example story: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14-2008may14,0,1137125.story" .

Oh, that. What Obama can do is ask that his supporters donate to her (defunct) campaign to eliminate her debt but only after she has quit the primary process and agrees to say nice things about him, asks her supporters to vote for him, etc. I think that's legal.

I hadn't heard anything about Obama helping the likes of Barr, though...

 

[chemisttree]

It seems to me the attacks on obama, including by clinton, have turned racist in tone.

quite explicitly, here in marietta, georgia we have a tavern owner, in a scenario right out of the 1960's, selling obama t shirts depicting him as curious george the monkey, eating a banana, in case you missed the story.


http://www.cbs46.com/news/16250318/detail.html

Ain't it awful! It's also sad that the uber left has continually referred to Bush as http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/30/151828/389".

This is offensive to chimpanzees!

 

[mheslep]

Ain't it awful! It's also sad that the uber left has continually referred to Bush as http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/30/151828/389".

This is offensive to chimpanzees!

Hey there's some hate speech on those sites. Must be fronts for Limbaugh or Savage. They're tricky bastards.

 

[mathwonk]

its all relative of course. one of my old teachers, a traditional hindu yogi, always took it as a great compliment to be compared to a monkey, since hanuman the monkey god, was his favorite deity and a great warrior.

 

[lisab]

Edwards endorses Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html

Timed to blunt Clinton's WV victory, perhaps? So after Kentucky, maybe we'll see Gore get on board...? Idle speculation...

 

[turbo]

Edwards for VP? I'd like to vote for that ticket.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I did a quick calculation and found the following. Take the states and D.C. that have voted already (excluding Florigan) and give to Clinton the electoral college votes from the states that she won, and give to Obama the electoral college votes from the states that he won. I get:

Clinton 256
Obama 207

I worked very fast and I might have slipped up somewhere, but if not, then perhaps the delegate distribution is by population, whereas in the electoral college it is not. Clinton has a strong case here, but she needs to see it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

delegate distribution is by population, whereas in the electoral college it is not. Clinton has a strong case here, but she needs to see it.

Oh, she sees it all right. Her allies have been making this argument for a while. Probably ever since she fell behind on the whatever the last metric they told us to use was.

I don't see the relevance here. Does anyone seriously think that Massachusetts will go to McCain over Obama because Clinton beat Obama there? For that matter, does anyone seriously think Utah will go to Obama over McCain because Obama beat Clinton there?

 

[Gokul43201]

I did a quick calculation and found the following. Take the states and D.C. that have voted already (excluding Florigan) and give to Clinton the electoral college votes from the states that she won, and give to Obama the electoral college votes from the states that he won. I get:

Clinton 256
Obama 207

I worked very fast and I might have slipped up somewhere, but if not, then perhaps the delegate distribution is by population, whereas in the electoral college it is not.

Did you give Texas to Clinton or Obama?

Clinton has a strong case here, but she needs to see it.

There is no case here. The primary season is decided by delegates, and if it were based on something else, the campaigns would have changed strategies accordingly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The entire argument depends on the notion that democrats will vote for McCain rather than Obama, and some will, but not many. Passions are high now but that will pass, and far more Reps will vote for Obama than Dems that vote for McCain.

This race is over.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an interesting twist: Most pundits say that a terrorist attack will help McCain, but I think not. If we don't see an attack, it helps Obama because it helps to focus the race on the economy. And since the terrorists know this, and attack must mean that they want McCain to win, so an attack helps Obama as well. Of course it doesn't really matter because Obama showed today that he can blow-out McCain on foreign policy as well.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did you give Texas to Clinton or Obama?

There is no case here. The primary season is decided by delegates, and if it were based on something else, the campaigns would have changed strategies accordingly.

I gave it to Clinton because that's how the popular vote went. I was trying to emulate the general election. But no matter. If you give Texas to Obama, then present the same argument in Obama's favor.

I don't agree that the decision will be made by the delegates, but rather by the superdelegates. Clinton's only hope now is to persuade them and her argument up till now has been that she is more electable. So far, that hasn't worked for her.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

At any rate, the result in West Virginia shows that Obama needs Clinton to stay in the race. After all, what would it have looked like if she had dropped out before WV? Do you think he could have broken 50% running against nobody?

 

[BobG]

I did a quick calculation and found the following. Take the states and D.C. that have voted already (excluding Florigan) and give to Clinton the electoral college votes from the states that she won, and give to Obama the electoral college votes from the states that he won. I get:

Clinton 256
Obama 207

I worked very fast and I might have slipped up somewhere, but if not, then perhaps the delegate distribution is by population, whereas in the electoral college it is not. Clinton has a strong case here, but she needs to see it.

The distribution of delegates are determined roughly by how many Democrats are in the state, not the total population. Likewise for Republican distributions.

Dems have 4050 delegates (not counting MI & FL) while Rep have 2382. With penalties, this doesn't give a perfect idea of the difference, but there's about 1.7 times as many Dem delegates than Rep delegates.

In Texas, there's 228 Dem and 140 Rep delegates - a 1.6 ratio because the state is more Republican than Democratic.

In New York, there's 281 Dem and 101 Rep delegates - a 2.8 ratio because the state is heavily Democratic.

In Wyoming, there's 18 Dem and 14 Rep delegates - a 1.3 ratio because the state is heavily Republican.

It helps balance out the race. Winning the Democratic primary in Wyoming is meaningless because a Republican will win the state in the general election. Of course, winning New York is almost as meaningless since a Democrat will almost surely win the general election in that state regardless of who the nominee is.

 

[Astronuc]

Interview with Jesse Ventura, third-party candidate and former Gov. of Minnesota.

Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!, May 17, 2008 · Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90548512

Ventura makes an interesting observation that three senators are running for president, so they are getting paid for a job they are not performing.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no case here. The primary season is decided by delegates, and if it were based on something else, the campaigns would have changed strategies accordingly.

Yes, Clinton is trying the same change-the-rules-in-the-middle-of-the-game approach that Gore supporters used to use when he "won the popular vote" against Bush in 2000. If they want to change it for next time, fine, but to circumvent their own rules now would be a very bad thing.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

to circumvent their own rules now would be a very bad thing.

I can see it now:

They can't stand up to Iran and North Korea, they can't even stand up to Florida and Michigan. I'm Jon McCrane and I disapprove of this farce of a party.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

72,000 people showed up to see Obama in Oregon yesterday.

 

[lisab]

72,000 people showed up to see Obama in Oregon yesterday.

I saw that on the news - the crowd was crazy-huge! Did you go, Ivan?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw that on the news - the crowd was crazy-huge! Did you go, Ivan?

No, I've been buried with work so I haven't made any of the events. I was tempted to try for Eugene a few weeks ago until I saw that the lines were forming at 5AM for a 9PM speech.

 

[chemisttree]

Here is an interesting twist: Most pundits say that a terrorist attack will help McCain, but I think not. If we don't see an attack, it helps Obama because it helps to focus the race on the economy. And since the terrorists know this, and attack must mean that they want McCain to win, so an attack helps Obama as well. Of course it doesn't really matter because Obama showed today that he can blow-out McCain on foreign policy as well.

An attack could also be construed as yet another Republican failure. Of course the non-attack could be seen to help the Republicans. Obama could blow-out McCain on foriegn policy if only he could somehow negotiate a peace accord with some particularly nasty terrorists, say like Hamas. Yeah, that's it! He could have someone close to him negotiating with Hamas and spring the peace deal on the public in late October. Quite an October surprise that would be.

Boy, let's hope that if someone close to Obama is negotiating with Hamas, that it doesn't leak out!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An attack could also be construed as yet another Republican failure. Of course the non-attack could be seen to help the Republicans. Obama could blow-out McCain on foriegn policy if only he could somehow negotiate a peace accord with some particularly nasty terrorists, say like Hamas. Yeah, that's it! He could have someone close to him negotiating with Hamas and spring the peace deal on the public in late October. Quite an October surprise that would be.

Boy, let's hope that if someone close to Obama is negotiating with Hamas, that it doesn't leak out!

I was talking about his list of Republican failures, which shows that the current approach of cowboy diplomacy doesn't work and has made Iran stronger, Al Qaeda stronger, created Al Qaeda in Iraq, weakened our own military to near the breaking point. A policy that has put unprecedented demands on our soldiers, decimated an entire country, lead to endless miscalculations and alienation with no WMDs, with no end in sight, no end of spending in sight, the price of oil skyrocketing, and a much more dangerous world than we had when we started.

 

[chemisttree]

I was talking about his list of Republican failures, which shows that the current approach of cowboy diplomacy doesn't work and has made Iran stronger, Al Qaeda stronger, created Al Qaeda in Iraq, weakened our own military to near the breaking point. A policy that has put unprecedented demands on our soldiers, decimated an entire country, lead to endless miscalculations and alienation with no WMDs, with no end in sight, no end of spending in sight, the price of oil skyrocketing, and a much more dangerous world than we had when we started.

You forgot global warming and polar bear angst.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The sub-prime crisis has a new victim in its sights. Another borrower that took advantage of easy credit and loaded up with no hope of paying back. Now the percentages have changed for the worse and the bill is coming due. Poor Hillary.

 

[Art]

The sub-prime crisis has a new victim in its sights. Another borrower that took advantage of easy credit and loaded up with no hope of paying back. Now the percentages have changed for the worse and the bill is coming due. Poor Hillary.

lol btw hasn't she only until the end of the primary season to reclaim the money she lent to her campaign? IIRC after that she can only get back a max of $250K. I wonder will that push her to concede after tonight's results. Obama may then have the majority of pledged delegates which might be the push she needs to bow out in return for a deal with Obama to help her pay off her campaign debts including the money owed to herself.

 

[turbo]

Obama cannot legally transfer money from his campaign to hers - the best he can do is host fund-raisers on her behalf and ask his supporters to help bail her out. The only way I can see his supporters giving her money is if she concedes soon, steps away cleanly (no wrangling for a VP slot) and campaigns earnestly for Obama.

If she continues her dog-in-the-manger campaign, she deserves to wallow in her debts. She can write a book about her failed campaign and recoup the money eventually, anyway, so she may not be as motivated to drop out as one might expect.

 

[Astronuc]

It looks like Clinton will win Ky and Obama will take Oregon with a substantial margin.

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Barack Obama is poised to hit a new milestone on his path to the presidential nomination in today's Oregon and Kentucky primaries by securing a majority of all the pledged delegates to the party's convention.

Both campaigns say they expect a split decision from today's round of voting. Clinton leads polls in Kentucky, which has 51 pledged delegates at stake, while Obama is ahead in Oregon, with 52 delegates apportioned based on the vote.

The way the delegates are awarded will give Obama more than the 15 he needs to surpass 50 percent of all the 3,646 pledged delegates awarded in Democratic primaries and caucuses beginning Jan. 3 in Iowa and ending June 3 in Montana and South Dakota.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080520/pl_bloomberg/apgmlt95lhwi;_ylt=AqqNpC9K_8P7J4yWpxXDNF9snwcF

 

[BobG]

Having Clinton still in the race, at least until today, might save Obama some embarrassment. If Clinton had dropped out after the Indiana/North Carolina primaries, would Obama have won West Virginia and Kentucky?

Dropping out of the race doesn't necessarily get a candidate's name off of the ballot. Huckabee is routinely pulling in around 10% of the vote two months after he dropped out and Edwards is still pulling votes in the states where he is still on the ballot.

Clinton might have beaten Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky even after dropping out of the race.

 

[turbo]

Well, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI and she managed to beat "undecided" and crows about what a great victory it was and how those votes MUST be counted. There's a lot of spin in this primary - most of it from the Clinton camp who keep re-defining the metrics by which she is "winning" the nomination. She has lost in pledged delegates, states won, popular vote, and the super-delegates are steadily breaking for Obama so her last gasp is a not-so-thinly-disguised appeal to race, as she and her surrogates make the case that Obama is unelectable.

 

[BobG]

Well, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI and she managed to beat "undecided" and crows about what a great victory it was and how those votes MUST be counted. There's a lot of spin in this primary - most of it from the Clinton camp who keep re-defining the metrics by which she is "winning" the nomination. She has lost in pledged delegates, states won, popular vote, and the super-delegates are steadily breaking for Obama so her last gasp is a not-so-thinly-disguised appeal to race, as she and her surrogates make the case that Obama is unelectable.

Right before the primary, Clinton held a 46 to 36 lead over Obama and Edwards combined in opinion polling. In the primary, she beat uncommitted 55 to 40. Instead of beating her two other major opponents by 10, she beat uncommitted by 15. (Of course, that was eons ago and Clinton and Obama poll about even in Michigan now).

And, she did beat uncommitted. That's a lot less humiliating than losing to uncommitted or losing to a candidate no longer in the race.

I'm not sure at what point Clinton should have dropped out - maybe between Ohio and Pennsylvania. But, at some point, she'd stayed in too long to be dropping out.

 

[chemisttree]

The pundits say that she is only staying into continue to degrade Obama's chances to beat McCain which, if successful, will give her a better chance to run as the Democrat choice in 2012. I don't think so. I think she is actually staying into make her friends either support her or stab her in the back.

Well, the long knives are unsheathed and Hillary is taking names. I wouldn't expect that Hillary's cabinet would be as 'diverse' as Bill's... and she certainly won't be credited with being the first black woman president. This rift in the Democrat base will have consequences that will be felt for a generation, especially if http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-argue-1.html"

 

[Gokul43201]

I think she is actually staying into make her friends either support her or stab her in the back.

Any friend that doesn't support her nomination over Obama's is stabbing her in the back?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This rift in the Democrat base will have consequences that will be felt for a generation, especially if http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-argue-1.html"

The headline in the link says:

Clinton Argues That Obama Can't Beat McCain

The story begins:

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser in Ft. Mitchell, Ky., tonight and went a bit further than she's gone before in explaining why she believes Sen. Barack Obama cannot win in the fall.

But there is nothing in the story that supports these two statements. Well actually, she did hold a fundraiser.