Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

It's the Politics of Negatives -- Not Negativity -- that Matters

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is one of the few superdelegates who refuses to join the "Isn't-this-great?" chorus of smiley-face politics. Rather than extolling Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win as a splendid example of good, clean and continuing Democratic fun, Bredesen painted a bleaker and far more realistic picture of what it portends:

"This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen. They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other."

That pugilistic quote appeared in a NY Times' article whose headline -- "The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too" -- was inspired by the metaphor-invoking governor. This primary race is no longer reflective of any internal, Democratic values; it's merely a slugfest for the benefit of one.

Amid all the lopsided cheering and hallelujah hallucinations, the article's author, Adam Nagourney, pointed to the clearer light of day: "Mrs. Clinton’s margin was probably not sufficient to fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, which continued to favor an eventual victory for Mr. Obama." There are, after all, and as Nagourney understated it, "significant hurdles" obstructing her nomination -- such as Obama's delegate count, lead in the popular vote, number of states won and, by now, the little time that's left.

None of this, of course, has fazed Hillary in the least. With each passing hour, it seems, and always out of whole cloth she conjures a new argument for the urgency of her democracy-toppling nomination. Her latest is that she actually leads in the popular vote, assuming one counts a couple of major states that don't, and in no way can, count.

Yes, yes, I know, it's laughable. On the other hand, Hillary knows her target audience -- those kings of vacillation and spinelessness, the uncommitted superdelegates. They could have secured the nomination for the party's still-presumptive nominee by now, so that he could get on with the more urgent contest of boxing McCain rather than shadows, but that would be too institutionally businesslike and politically sane for these grand poobahs of Democracy. Better to wait a while longer and test the political winds once again, and again ... and again. One never knows, is their motto.

But let's try to think like a superdelegate for a moment and join with Hillary in putting aside all those "significant hurdles." Just forget about them, as Hillary and her supporters are somehow able to do. Let us assume that Obama has no real lead in any of the above and customarily decisive categories. From this artificial balancing we start from scratch; the candidates are even-steven -- right?

Wrong. Because still trailing Hillary like toilet paper stuck to her shoe is that little matter of her negatives, something you and the superdelegates won't ever hear Mrs. Clinton advertising. They are grim, devastatingly grim, over-before-it-starts grim, and which the Washington Post deconstructed last week.

To quoth the black raven sitting atop her electoral burial marker: "While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992." Pucker up, Mrs. Clinton -- as well as all you uncommitted superdelegates -- because "54 percent said they have an unfavorable view" of you.

That, right there, is the game ender, as virtually any objective political adviser would agree. No presidential candidate with negatives in the high 40s, let alone in the mid 50s, is going anywhere after an election but home. That's just a fact of political life that's also going ignored amidst all the Clintonite hoopla.

And it gets even worse. An accompanying WaPo piece noted that "Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans ... compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest."

The real killer, of course, was her Bosnia fantasy, against which Obama's "bitter" comments or guilt by pastoral association pale. There's a huge and game-ending difference between recidivist lying to successive public audiences and dropping indiscreet remarks to a few privately huddled San Franciscans, and don't think Americans -- not to mention the salivating GOP machine -- don't know it.

Hillary's verbal contortions regarding her Iraq-war vote have been bad enough; her Bosnia-war whoppers are but 60-second visuals of the final touches, encased as they are within indiffusibly negative atmospherics.

So back to reality as we reassemble things: Obama leads in the delegate count, the popular vote and states won and nothing will change these dynamics, while Hillary leads only in historic negatives. And what conclusion do the uncommitted superdelegates derive from all this? Let us, they say, wait and see.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


DELEGATES-HE WON'T WIN...TO RISKY!

We will never vote for Obama Never!!! Any man that associates with Anti-Americans can not be President! I don't care what rhetoric Obama can come up with..I say empty words! The proof is in the pudding.. Obama fell apart, the ah ah ah , the stumbeling, the stuttering was very obvious that the questions were making him a bid edgy..I wonder why? If there is nothing to these questions, WHY COULD HE NOT ANSWER? We can not put our country in the hands of a man that either had no judgement or is an idiot to have associations as the following! He is a pompos, errogant, aloof that thinks the American People are just as idiotic as he is to believe his lies. I am tired of his litanies of complaints against America and his associations with people that have hurt America, hate America, wants to hurt America and that say God'D" America! How can we vote for Obama who has the Likes of the following associates: Obama’s ‘Christian’ Connections: William Ayers - American Terrorist Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter Reverend Wright - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/Preacher Louis Farrakhan - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/ Faux Preacher Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire Rea more here: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com March in the Million Man March with Farrakhan-A radical Racist that went to Lybia with WRight to visit our enemies that want to hurt America....How can we do this to America!

Well, Well, its...VoteIRresponsiblyIQ:08....

I bet you didn't know I'd be up working late tonight---now did you? Gratefully too, or otherwise, I'd have missed your latest offering, which is, as usual, stupid. But, I hope you're a (wo)man of your word, when you say, " Any man (or woman, I presume) that associates with Anti-Americans can not be President!"

Because when a man has made a 110 million dollars in the last seven years...OVERSEAS... making "speeches" (wink, wink, nod, nod)...I hope you'll get off your lazy ass----ask yourself 'how'---and then research it, instead of, crossing over here to spread your ignorant spiel-----AGAIN! You take your blind, inaccuate observation of why YOU think someone stutters and then, try dis-jointly, to apply that to some Anti-American association of your imaginings---you're even dumber than I thought you were.

I could list a bevy of Hillary's Anti-American activities, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. However, I recommend you purchase the following book by Bill Gertz, aptly entitled: "Betrayed"; (assuming you know HOW to read), it examines how:

"Gertz also makes the case that the Clinton administration's sale of sophisticated computer and satellite technology to China was influenced by campaign contributions to the Democrats from Chinese and American executives.....He further charges that the Clinton administration has attempted to downplay the Chinese threat to U.S. security even though "China has undertaken a steady military buildup that is directly aimed at fighting a future war with the United States."

http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Administration-Undermined-American-Security/dp/0895263173
(How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security)

But, you'll only falsely argue and whine: but thats BILL--not Hillary, need I remind you---THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ARE JOINT. But, Hillarys a piece of work on her own, for example, you think association should eliminate a candidate, we'll see, how 'bout Hill here:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/politicians/180379.html (Hillary Clinton Funding Problems And Mehmet Celebi)
((Hillary Clinton Funding Problems And Mehmet Celebi))

It ends with the interesting observation:
"Can she check everything every donor is involved with?" Apply the same standard to Obama and his "responsibility" for what OTHERS utter!

I won't even bother going into Hills association with her 'religious cult'--The Family--and its membership of many so-called Americans---who have betrayed this country.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

So when you say the above, idiot, make sure you know WHAT, and WHO, you're talking about, and also that its applied evenly. STILL WANNA TALK ABOUT 'TRAITORS'??

BTW: do you get commissions for that redundant, simple-minded ending, you're so fond of copying each and every post??

1. I think Obama is

1. I think Obama is purposely having his new superdelegates come out in a trickle. There are multiple advantages to doing that, not least of which is not to appear as if he is pushing Clinton out of the campaign. 2. Spelling flame: the word is "to faze". "To phase" is what Captain Kirk does to bad guys, and I don't think Hillary Clinton is that bad. :)

CJ GOT PROPER CONGRATULATIONS

for truth warping. Every time an Obama lie hits print, a Clintonista gets their "operative" wings.

Destruction of the Democratic party

The Destruction of the party will not be on Hillary's hands. We had it in the bag until the corporate media did fell in love with a relative unknown in Obama and set out to ridicule Hillary and Bill Clinton (the Clinton rules). "Progessive websites" ganged up and used the old worn out GOP talking points and demonized them (read the post on this site as evidence. Obama is a dream candidate for the GOP slime machine, An African-American with a Muslem name with a opinionated wife and a radical black reverand and a scandal in the making with the Resco Trial that will continue into next fall. Add to that the blocking of Michigan and Florida of a revote by Obama's campaign Michigan (Obama's 50-50 split idea is giving them a voice?). This is a recipe for disaster.

and no sense of personal responsibility....

Look at your post, no where, no, not ONCE, did you address ANYTHING that Hillary has said, done, alluded to, has responsibility for, has authority over, has an obligation to, has conspired with, or....simply, LIED about. No where is there any reference to her campaigns racist and sexist manipulations of all of you----All documented VISUALLY as coming OUT OF HER MOUTH. Later, duly reported by, and in, the PRINT media. But, in the end, YOU blame THE MESSENGERS.

I find it amusing that when you did get around to blaming someone--it is Obama. Your justification for this "destructuion"? He's "An African-American with a Muslem(sp) name with a opinionated wife and a radical black reverand(sp) ...." See? Hillary's racist and immoral campaign HAS A VERY OBSERVABLE EFFECT----not on anything you all argue---YOU CANNOT, AND OFTEN DON'T, ARGUE THE INDEFENSIBLE---but, with every word you type, with every post you make, with every thought you think pertaining to this........you demonstrate every delusion we're all burdened with......by you.

You Know!

Those that bring up race is a racist in the closet.. We proved very little racist since Iowa..That Obama has used his card...absolutely! But ist not about race, its about Hatred towards America from his associates. Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers I feel very sad, thinking that Obama has brought us back 40 years! Did anyone see the interview of Wright? I ask all the people..What is it that we do not understand whether its before or After about: GOD'D'AMERICA-THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST...WHAT IS IT THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THOSE WORDS...DOES WRIGHT AND OBAMA THINK WE AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS??? AS HE EXPLAINS AND LAUGHS AND SAYS HE FEELS IT WAS UNFAIR...WELL SAYING GOD 'D' AMERICA IS VERY UNFAIR, SAYING THAT WE DESERVED THE TRAGEDY OF 9/11 WHERE MANY OF OUR BELOVED PEOPLE DIED..IAM SORRY THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND OBAMA AS HIS CHILD THAT HAS BEEN MENTORED BY WRIGHT IS ALSO UNACCEPTABLE.!!!

YOU DON'T....

VoteIRresponsiblyIQ:08....

"Those that bring up race is a racist in the closet.. We proved very little racist since Iowa..That Obama has used his card...absolutely!"---WTF?!? Two words:

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE-----It'll help you understand the disconnect with Hillary and her campaigns actions. You say 'those who bring up race is a racist'...OK, well lets look at WHO "brings it up"...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/03/11/olbermann-ferraros-statement-clearly-racist-are-we-south-africa
(Olbermann: Ferraro Statement 'Clearly Racist)

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/01/hillary-clinton-shows-her-racist.html
(Hillary Clinton Shows Her Racist Underbelly)

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php
(Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email)

http://obamain08.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/racism-hillary-clinton-chats-with-barack-obama-in-08-elections/
(Racism: Hillary Clinton Chats with Barack Obama in 08 Elections)

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/18861/if-hillary-clinton-cant-run-a-campaign-then-how-can-she-run-a-country/

and I've got at least, twenty more on file I could cite. Give it up, voteIRresponsibly----YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE--live with it!

PA voters

Obama outspent Clinton 3 or 4 to one and still lost. Clinton lead among white men and white women, union members, senior citizens, Jews and Catholics, blue collar workers, families with incomes of less than $100,000 and non-College graduates. Obama received 92% of the Black vote. What does that mean?

IT MEANS.....

That the propaganda of racist dissemination and disinformation, and the politics of primitive, tribal fear-raking have WON. It means that the Clintons took note, and learned most astutely, HOW the Republicans acquired power and have been the SOLE power brokers of this infant millennium.....At the expense of everything that should STILL MATTER..and the deep-rooted beliefs we USE to stand for.

It means that there are those who fearfully believe, that although they are drowning beneath water levels above their noses---alls well--as long as they're made to believe that they are standing on the shoulders of someone else.

It means that those who possess the least sense of self-esteem among whites, those 'denied' their 'entitlements' (as they see it), those who are feeling overwhelmed by 'enemies'--all about them---real or imagined----"Anti-Americans" that can be kept at arms distance----because they still possess their guns; ITS US versus all those "others"------you know, the ones...in urban centers of black lawlessness, in barrios of latino illegalities--those taking 'their' jobs, 'their' taxes, 'their' benefits; those 'Commies' in halls of higher learning where 'Liberal Arts' and largess bestow THEIR taxes, THEIR sweat, THEIR childrens bread and future, TO ENRICH ALL THOSE OTHERS...those Black minority 'elites', those sneaky Asians, those terrorist Arabs, those greedy Jews, and ALL THOSE OTHER 'FURRINERS'----who are not for some reason, from THEIR neck of the woods.

It means that it becomes far more important, to them, every four years or so, with each passing election----that ALL recognize its their time to get THEIR RINGS KISSED; that ALL recognize THEIR wants, THEIR needs, THEIR priorities-----how THEIR deserving of this attention, this adoration, this....pandering. After all, they feel, the politicos have screwed them for the intervening three years....so The Politicos cannot disappoint them; and every election descends into an orgy of values re-examined, and irrelevant heart-rending over gay marriage, the American flag, flag pins themselves, abortion rights, border protection, so-called Democratic mis-deeds, and all else that might disturb the sensitivities of this group.....all with the ultimate purpose being, to persuade these Reagan Demos, these 'closet' conservative Repubs, cloaked as Democrats--and who will JUST THAT--WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. But, what history has proven, time and again, is that THEY WILL BETRAY THEIR OWN INTERESTS , if necessary, if made to feel "secure"...Politicos, knowing this, prey on their fears and insecurities, all with the monolithic thinking of..., and the ultimate goal being: ......SO GOES THIS DEMOGRAPHIC--SO GOES THE NATION....AND DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY THEM---EVERYTIME---LIKE A BRIDE LEFT STANDING AT THE ALTAR.

What does it mean?--What has it wrought? --Fear-based politics of muck-raking mirages; Fear-based policies of first-strike initiatives; Fear-based fomentations of imaginary enemies, Fear-based screeds of 'obliteration' of nations; Fear-based actions of fearful isolationism and xenophobia; and fear-based fears of religious intolerance.

It means that for 28 years, or so, of Republican under-financing of, and pillaging from, educational programs and budgets has engendered a less-informed, less-prepared, less inquiring, and frankly, a more stupid, dumbed-down American populace--who sit there, barely cognizant of the mind-games played upon them by arrogant, self-absorbed, no-nothing 'experts', and 'strategist', and 'pundits'--who, are often more wrong than right..yet, we still listen to them and their lies---as if they warrant (or merit) attention. This is what has become of the sons, daughters and grand-children of 'the greatest generation'--we have devolved to a population that can't read the mortgage contract they just signed, the degree they just earned, the diploma they just received, and the homework their child just handed them. Nor, can they decipher the subtle distinctions between the nuances of Hillarys tabulations and the soundness of real-world mathematics....it means...that this is how you set the table for Fascist dictatorships.

It means that VISUALS become TRUTHS, and DELUSIONS become REALITY, and MYTHOS becomes FACT. It becomes why we believe a Connecticut blue-blood is a Texas cowboy; a multi-millionaire is a gun-totin' assembly-line worker; the abuses of a septenarian war victim are certifiable credentials for leadership. It becomes why we fall for false images of Katrina restorations, 'mission accomplished', and 'Bosnia-sniper missions'.

It means, that we can be told 9.4 is a 'double-digit' blow-out,..and believe it is so. It means we can be told that a Black Man---running for president of the U.S.--with a bulls-eye on his back---is, somehow, FEARFUL, A COWARD AND WEAK--for refusing to descend into the mire with a woman of little principle...and believe it is so. It means that HRC's camp can twist and distort, ANY fact, ANY point, Any rule, to serve whatever is expedient for them to win...at THAT moment...and believe it is so.

It means it is why we cannot see....that the removal of that same woman...will allow that man to heal the rift with all you listed. It is why we cannot see....that without her disruptive presence he could soothe the latent anger of Michigan and Florida before November. It is why we cannot see....what a lack of Hope---under the guise of false 'experience', and cleverly stolen slogans, and gross managerial skills, and arm-twisting in smoky back-rooms is, somehow, an apt substitute for the much-scorned ideal of Hope.

It means, finally,.....all will be everything it was...times three.....of what you have been complaining about, and hoping for....before you sought solace in "YES SHE CAN", and before you abandoned Hope.......just a short half year ago.

Math

Did Hillary get 92% of the white vote? What dos that mean? And the only reason Obama outspent is because she doesn't have any money. In fact, some of her debts have gone up for collection.

bettysdad

You said....."And the only reason Obama outspent is because she doesn't have any money." What in the world does her not having any money, got to do with him outspending her 3 or 4 to one???? What kind of logic is that?? It doesn't change the fact he out spent her. And if she didn't have any money, how in the hell did she whip his butt?? If she beat him with no money, you guys have a big problem!!!

Toxic stew...

...that's your recipe. Your logic has turned on itself (and on the entire effort to unseat the GOP). If there are "Hillary Rules" as you project, then you've stumbled on your own points. But Hillary (and you) have done wonders making the GOP's arguements, so Hillary is really nothing more than an assistant trainer, hitting Fungo flyballs to Barack's campaign before the real game. Oh and I quote from the mouth of the goddess..."I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything." You know, parents, teachers, coaches, and all responsible adults always say: You can't change the rules cause you don't like 'em!!

Congratulations.

You spelled some words correctly.

Obama should stick to his message...

...and continue to build the party's down-ticket candidates; in the process demonstrating his presidential demeanor. Let the Hillary show continue as the top rated psychodrama its proven to be. After all, we Americans are fixated by crazy people on reality shows. If she keeps this up and doesn’t alter her downward spiral, her reputation and campaign will go down like the Wicked Witch of the West after her famous drenching...As Barack stays on message, the party’s ‘grown ups’ (superdelegates) will see his steady leadership and will assure he gets the 2015 delegates needed to win. Barack’s supporters, bloggers, etc. should do the cleaning work and highlight Hillary's growing insanity and lies, if the MSM isn't smart or brave enough to do that job. “Gone, gone, oh, my beautiful wickedness….”.

The superdelegates who aren't coming to dinner

There is a good reason why Hillary has gained a mere handful of superdelegates since Super Tuesday, while Barack has gained dozens. Superdelegates are, for the most part, politicians, and as such, they do not want to back a sure loser. Aligning themselves against the ultimate winner is not likely to boost their political careers. So, Hillary can appeal to superdelegates until she is blue in the face, but they will not be swayed. As I have previously stated in this forum, I do not believe that Clinton is running to win the nomination at this point. Rather, she is running to do as much damage as possible to Obama, while McCain and the Republicans wait in the wings for the general election campaign to begin. In essence, she is acting as a surrogate for McCain. But in the process, she is destroying her own standing in the Democratic Party. At the party's convention next summer, it will take great discipline amongst the majority of delegates to contain their anger at her for her shameful and traitorous behavior.

Blind Ambition...

is the basis of your theory. It may be right, because any sane person would realize that this type of gamesmanship will weaken her reputation within the Party, thereby ruining any future ambitions she has to lead in 4 years. And we know that she's loosing that basic attribute of competence called sanity.

Molly Ivins Knew Better

Rigel Those readers who remember Molly Ivins will recall that her insights were always spot on. When George W. Bush was running for president, she warned the electorate against voting for him. The electorate didn't listen, and the result was a disaster whose effects will be felt long after Bush is back in Crawford happily clearing brush full time. Molly Ivins also warned the Democrats against supporting the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, and every day Clinton's behavior is proving Ivins right. To continue to ignore what Ivins wrote about Hillary Clinton is to invite further disaster--to the Democratic party, to our chances of recapturing the White House, and to the country.

Stick a fork in us....

...we're done. We needed a leader this time around. We needed Al Gore. Oh well, learn how to eat bugs; we'll need this skill after McSame takes the oath.

Al Gore?

Other than the environment Gore sucks. He's wrong on almost everything.

Al Gore? Leader?

What, we want to watch him roll over again?

Hillary Rules

Hillary Clinton is queen of the universe. She knows all, down to the tiniest details of how the machinery in DC works, and which wheels need OIL. She sees you when you're sleeping, because she's up at 3AM answering the phone. She knows the taste and texture of Right Wing Slime, because she still carries it with her in the eyes of over 50% of the voting public. She is so familiar with the Right Wing's tactics that she boasts of her facility in employing said tactics against those who would obstruct her path to power. She is the queen of the universe, this sad, demented surreality, where pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations are condoned, where the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations are fine and dandy, where the FEAR of terrorist attacks justify any and all actions.... in this Universe, Hillary Clinton rules!

The politics of negativity

When you look at the title/caption associated with this article on the main page ... "The superdelegates should do their job and end the delusional failed campaign of the Hillary bots who are bringing the Democratic Party down as she runs a Karl Rove campaign based on fear, dishonesty and race." ... it shows Buzztrash has the Politics of Negativity down cold.

You are so right

Every time Clinton opens her mouth she sticks her foot in it. The kind of rhetoric she spews is a lot like Bush. Can't believe a word. She comes off as a greedy delusional crazy lady and can't tell the truth for the life of her! I see no redeeming qualities and more of the same old corporate greed in Washington. My hope is that Obama will focus on McCain, pound away at the issues and deal with Clinton as insignifigant. The media is shaping the campaign as we constantly see. They LOVE to create nastiness between the Democrats and I can't bring myself to watch their propaganda. It's not even entertaining any more. The debate was SO typical of the spin masters. Why don't we have a Democrat like Keith Oberman as moderator? Someone who will focus on the many, many problems facing Americans? It was so bad I swore off all but PBS TV. The media then say folks are tired of this dragging on. They are the ones dragging this very important election through the mud, for the benefit of the Republicans, at a very critical time in our lives. It makes me ill. The Superdelegates should stop this crazy lady from continuing now. The Republicans need to be dealt with and the huge mess we have in fromt of us. McCain is a joke and this should be the time for Obama to be bringing out the huge failures of the Republican party. Clinton is passe. Put her behind and show Americans what CAN be done to get us back to normal. The worst thing for Clinton is to be ignored as insignificant. Maybe she'll finally shut up if Obama's not listening to the hollow distractions or reacting to them. I know most of us are not listening to them anymore. If we let her rant, she screws herself more and more but she brings down the party as well.

No, it's the destruction of the Party

Weeks ago, I asked in a comment, on this website, where the party "grown-ups" were. My conclusion is..... The Democratic Party doesn't have any grown-ups. If you haven't seen the new ad the Republican Party is going to run in North Carolina, go to HuffPost, or MSNBC, and watch the racism, that will be played out all over that state in the days ahead. I'm going to go with Whoopi Goldberg on this one. Her remark about "kinda hoping John McCain did win, because Republicans should clean up their own mess." (I'm paraphrasing her remarks on a recent episode of "The View.") The Republicans made this mess the country, and indeed the world, is in, let them clean it up. The Democrats are no longer entitled to my vote. They have found yet another way to snatch "Defeat" from the jaws of "Victory." Hillary's goal all along was the destruction of Senator Barack Obama, and along with him, the destruction of any glimmer of hope of a progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. She has accomplished both.

It's the money, stupid

yeah, yeah -- she raised all this money after PA. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. Of all the scandals that stick to the Clintons, campaign finance is the gift that keeps on giving. Obama added over 55,000 new donors in the 24 hours after PA. You'd think the cowardly supers would at least recognize the money issue -- we have never in our lives seen anything like the outpouring of small donations to a candidate. The dirty little secret that should be a secret to no one: that money will not be transferred to Hillary. That money will dry up. Obama would guide his supporters to down ticket races and the DCCC, which would make a huge difference in building a working majority. The Clintons are notorious for being stingy with time and money to any candidate who hasn't shown them the proper fealty. Obama's intent is to build a strong, enduring Democratic party. You'd think THAT would get their attention. I'd go so far as to say, even if he lost the GE (which he won't), we would give McCain a Democratic majority in Congress that could stop any odious right wing plans. The other dirty little secret that God Forbid the press should report: Obama makes inroads in her support. He did better in her demographics in PA than he did in OH -- with older voters, women, less educated, etc. Hillary makes no inroads with Obama's supporters AT ALL. And she has squandered the black vote. Squandered it beyond recognition. They may still vote for her in the GE, but not in the numbers necessary and they ain't giving her a dime. Hillary's financial support is flowing into the GE because her donors are maxxed out. So that means -- less money to flow into the GE when we get to the GE, right? But then again, there's never been a nefarious donor or shady way to raise money that the Clintons haven't thought of. Of course with Obama, it's just raised on small donors like me. Who aren'y vying for government favors (other than a well-run and functioning government) or a night in the Lincoln bedroom. We do it because we believe in and trust our candidate. And over 55,000 new people decided to join that cause after he LOST PA. What does that tell you? So I'm stumped: I can't understand how the supers don't see this. I don't get it.

Fdcgjc

You said......."it's just raised on small donors like me." You are naive if you don't think big money is behind Obama. He's got you thinking the way he wants you to think!! This was reported way back in October. No telling how much it is now. Barack Obama's network of big-money fundraisers continues to expand and more than 300 people have now each raised at least $50,000 on his behalf. His number of so-called bundlers -- those who ask friends, family and business associates to contribute -- grew to 305, according to a list on his campaign's Web site that included 54 new names since the last update. Shortly after the end of each quarter, the campaign for the Illinois Democrat and presidential hopeful voluntarily discloses the names of those who have collected at least $50,000 for him. In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute's Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: "He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different. . But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists." The Capital Eye reported that "[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama's top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007." Obama's no stranger to being influenced by those campaign donations, either.