I don't feel any need to get personal. You're just taking it personally. I know when someone is being disingenuous and that's what you're being.

And I'm not being defensive. I'm attempting to debate upon what HAS happened and not on these tedious "woulda/coulda/shoulda" red herrings you're throwing around.

I despise these "What if" games, but IF the situation was reversed I have serious doubts you would be supporting Obama trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. I base that upon a long and repeated history of anti-Obama posts and that makes it impossible to trust your sudden surge of sympathy for disenfranchised Democrats is based upon more than partisan mischief making.

You can shout the word FACT all you want, Amlord. I provided supporting material that even if Hillary wins every last one of the remaining primaries she would still come up short of what she needs to win.

She can't win by the numbers. The math is all wrong and all against her. Her only saving grace is changing the perception that she still has a chance of winning fair and square.

She can't. There's a fact that all your "big ifs" will not and can not change. So what if the Democratic Party used the same mechanism for choosing a nominee that the country uses to elect a president Hillary might be far ahead of Obama? The FACT (presented in your preferred format) is the Democratic Party doesn't do it that way so why waste bandwidth debating something that didn't happen? This is how the political parties choose their nominee. Not how the nation chooses a president.

You can tell the subtle, yet significant, difference between those two processes can't you? Or are you being deliberately obtuse as well as disingenuous?

She can win, it is just unlikely. It has little to due with winning the remaining primaries, although winning big in some of these primaries is a pre-requisite.

Superdelegates can change their vote. Yes, Obama has pulled ahead in superdelegates, but that change is not necessarily permanent. Hillary has a very small window of opportunity, but she must expose a weakness in Obama's electability in order to do this. Winning big in the remaining primaries (Oregon the possible exception) might expose this weakness. The superdelegates will either be convinced or they won't and Hillary's camp has said June 15th is the deadline.

I don't have a horse in the Democratic race. It is plain that I will not agree with whomever the Democrats decide to put up against John McCain. Heck, I picked McCain as the best option for the Republicans although he certainly is far from my ideal candidate.

I am simply analyzing why I think Hillary genuinely thinks she can still win the Democratic nomination. I am not being disingenuous. Maybe Hillary is. Maybe she is delusional. I've simply laid out what I think her plan to win the nomination is. I'm sorry if you can't see that Hillary has a strategy and one that has some slight chance of working.

Nice gavotte. Hope you didn't twist your ankle pivoting like that.

First it's your theory of what's Hillary strategy is. I'm sure she has a strategy all right. I just have my doubts she's going to share her strategy with a die-hard, rock-solid Republican partisan like you, Amlord. I'm far from a Hillary fan these days, but even I don't think she's that gone over to the dark side.

But yes, you are being disingenuous. You don't give a rat's rear about the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida. You aren't crying salty tears in your pillow worried about poor old Hillary being done wrong by mean old Barack.

You're just doing your own low-calorie version of Aquilla's food fight free-for-all. It's not the result that counts. It's how much drama the Democrats can go through before they finally choose their nominee.

Yet, quiet as its kept, just below the surface there are signs that the bad karma that bit the GOP in 2006, is still in full effect.

Denny Hastert seat in Illinois goes to a Democrat. A Republican loses in a Louisiana special election to Democrat. A Republican loses in a special election to a Democrat in Mississippi. Nancy Pelosi gets three new freshmen for orientation and John Boehner has three less invites to send out for the GOP Xmas party in the House.

Whether it's Clinton or Obama who stands triumphant in Denver may not matter. All that may matter is John McCain doesn't stand triumphant in November.

Two can play your "what if" game, but its so much easier when the facts are already in your favor.

I was just curious, NT. You are telling AmLord you "know" he is being disingenuous. However, I did not see a citation of authority for this statement. Very disappointing. Perhaps you could find some citation to indicate you know about AmLord's inner feelings and intentions....




I think Hillary's intent is to keep Obama from getting a majority on the first ballot, which is still possible. After that, she hopes to stage a coup and get the nomination by making a deal. That seems to be a logical, and possible--if improbable--course. This will not work, of course, if she drops out and if she doesn't sell continually the possibility that Obama's demographics (and perhaps changing demographics) will not carry him to victory in the fall.

Hey, it's another member of the "What If" crew! Get moif and you three could hit the road like Crosby, Stills and Nash.

You're right as raisins quick. I didn't cite an authority for this statement. My bad. I did not mean to disappoint. Here is my citation as to how I am able to glean Amlord's (uppercase "A", lowercase "m") inner feelings and intentions:



Hmmm...nope. STILL seems like the biggest load of steaming bull crap since the cattle truck overturned on the freeway.

All politics is 'what if'. No one knows how good a candidate really is, or what mistakes and triumphs lie on the road ahead. Every vote cast is a guess. There's nothing comical about asking questions and any one who thinks they already have all the answers is fooling themselves. You should never trust a politician and you should understand that every vote cast is always a vote for the lesser evil.

With regards to the specific election of a leader, some one who will hold the future of your children's welfare in his hands, ALL considerations should be taken into account, especially hypotheticals because apart from election promises thats all the voter ever has!

The only thing you've demonstrated NT, is your own lack of critical thinking and no doubt you understand this which is why you get so defensive.

...and here's Nash of Crosby, Stills and Nash!

But I'm not demonstrating anything moif. I could care less what you think of my critical thinking. Some may find your blase and cavalier European disdain for American politics and racial relations part of your self-consciously cute mannerisms, but to me it's just you playing the role of the benighted foreign observer making pithy observations. I've seen this movie of yours before and it bores me. That's your thing and damned if you aren't good at it, but for those of us familiar with the act, it's just another rerun.

I understand you don't know jack about American politics and race relations. My critical thinking abilities work just fine in discerning that.

Stick to what your good at: demonizing and denouncing Muslims and wringing your hands in helpless and impotent fury over how they're taking your country away from you.

Whoa! The food fight has gone trans-Atlantic! Darn, I knew I should have charged an admission fee to this whole thing.

I am beginning to understand the reason why so many people have said Hillary thinks she can win. Obama just can't close the deal. On other threads here and elsewhere I'm seeing Obama supporters in the process of self-destructing for the fall elections. Calling people in West Virginia ignorant hillbillies? And you want them to vote for you in November? Obama doesn't even care enough to campaign with those hicks, and trust me, that's going to come back and bite him on the backside big time. He's a Black John Kerry without the resume - questionable as it is.

Well, I gotta tell all you elite liberals something. Just trying to 'splain things to you. There's one hell of a lot of hard working non-college graduates out there and they get to vote too. And, while many of you ivory-tower types may not agree, their votes count the same as yours. But hey, knock yourselves out, call them names and make fun of them. They'll have the last laugh come election day.

Hillary understands this. Barack doesn't.

Aquilla

Maybe you should stick to your new job of catering food fights Aquilla because when try to switch back to politics, you're waaaay off.

What's all this "Obama can't close the deal" jive? It was Hillary Clinton who came into this presidential campaign with all the advantages. Why can't SHE close the deal?

There are five--count 'em--FIVE primaries remaining. When Hillary wins Kentucky she'll also be losing Oregon. Even while she picks up popular votes and delegates so does
Obama. He is less than 150 superdelegates away from the magic number. Hillary still is over 300 shy. And today John Edwards endorsed Obama and one can presume most of his 19 delegates will be going to Obama as well.

Obama knew weeks ago he was going to lose West Virginia to Clinton. He knows he's going to lose Kentucky next week. Despite having the money and organization, why waste either somewhere that's not favorable to you or your message. That's called strategy, Aquilla. Put down the cold mashed potatoes and learn some.

Your are making the same mistake Amlord, quick, Ted, Wertz and other Republicans/conservatives/Obama bashers have made. You see Hillary's success with working-class Whites and Barack's problems with them and assume, "Well, this is tailor-made for John McCain." Never do you guys stop to think the people in West Virginia are choosing between Democrat A and Democrat B. The people in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the other states are choosing between two Democrats, not a Democrat and a Republican.

NOBODY outside of this board gives a damn what's said on it. America's Debate doesn't shape opinion. It just reflects it. You think people trying to decide if they can afford to put gas in their car at $3.95 (present price today in O-h-i-o) care about the 100+ Barack Obama threads here. You have an exagerrated sense of how important your opinion is.

What is John McCain going to offer those Democrats in November besides ongoing war in Iraq, a new war in Iran, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and the status quo on health costs? I like Obama's chances of winning most of those Hillary Democrats back a lot more than McCain selling those working-class Whites the bill of goods if they liked the last eight years of George W. Bush, they'll love John McBush running for Dubya's third term.

It's funny the same guy who never misses a chance to bash Ron Paul and his supporters and heap contempt and scorn on them is now the one talking about ivory towers and elitism. Get real, Aquilla. Your disdain for the conservatives who support Paul absolutely reeks of ivory tower elitism.

Too many Republican politicians expend too much of their waking moments looking for new ways to rape and rob blind, "hard working non-college graduates" for anyone to believe the same people who won't support raising the minimum wage by so much as a dollar identify with the salt of the earth types. Bush and McCain want those hard-working non-college graduates fighting and dying in nation-building wars for oil and corporate profits. Their idea of guaranteed health care is the kind a double-amputee from Iraq gets in a mold-infested V.A. hospital.

Let the same John McCain, big-time war hero, who won't support a new G.I. bill try to sell that to the White folks in Appalachia. That should make for some prime-time comedy.

Yeah, on one level you are right. Watching this food fight is a whole lot more entertaining than discussion of issues which will happen at some point. As far as the "closing the deal jive" is concerned, that's the fact. He hasn't. Here we have all the talking heads on TV telling everyone he's the winner and what happens? He gets slaughtered in West Virginia. Make all the excuses you want and blame it on the "hillbillies" and "racists", but the fact of the matter is that he got creamed there. And so the food fight continues.... Much to my delight.




Into attack dog mode already are you? Your guy hasn't even sealed the deal yet, my guy has. My "distain" for Ron Paul has to do with his stance on issues and policy. It's pragmatic, not "elite". The kinds of things he wants to do just won't happen, they can't happen. So, he's promising a bill of goods that will never see the light of day. Not that it's that important, he's a non-factor but it is kind of fun to shoot back at people who have called me a liar and a moron for supporting the Swift Boat Vets and Bush. I'm a big boy and I can take the heat. I can give it back too.

So here we are. My party has a nominee and your party doesn't.


Aquilla

This presumes that Clinton would have received the same number of votes had Edwards and Obama also violated their pledge and remained on the ballot. There was confusion regarding how to deal with the situation. There were absentee ballots that were spoiled because people wrote in the names of candidates, which was not allowed. How many other voters also spoiled their ballots this way? No, I don't believe that, should Michigan delegates be counted - which is unlikely, that the "Uncommitted" vote should go to Obama and Clinton gets to keep all her ill-gotten votes.



Why?



I realize that this is what she has told people:

Clinton: Michigan, Florida Should Be Seated


...but this isn't true. She was not to campaign or participate.

Responses to Four State Pledge.


Here is the pledge that she signed:

Four State Pledge.

As I said in the chatroom, Aquilla, my mother was from West Virginia, so I'm not calling the state's citizens "hillbillies" and "racists." But let's not kid ourselves that there AREN'T racist hillbillies who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances and all the racists and hillbillies don't all live in West Virginia.

Obama would have preferred to win West Virginia, but in the larger scheme of things, winning the state didn't make Clinton any more likely to win than she was before she did. Even after getting "creamed" he still picked up four superdelegates and that was before John Edwards endorsed him. Not a bad day all around for Obama, despite losing a state he knew he was going to get "creamed" in.

But i understand, Aquilla. You're enjoying this so-called "food fight" because you need a distraction from the trouble signs for the Republicans that are big, bad and flashing "DANGER." The canary in the coal mine for the GOP is the loss of the three House seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi in special elections. The presidential campaigns draw most of the attention, but inside the Beltway, the Republicans are looking at their prospects and they look pretty doggone dismal.

The Republican defeat in Tuesday’s special election in Mississippi, in a deeply conservative district where, in an average year, Democrats cannot even compete, was a clear sign that the GOP has the political equivalent of cancer that has spread throughout the body. Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall.

Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House -- a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans' long wilderness years in the 1960s and '70s.

Things are not particularly more hopeful on the Senate side, where most analysts say Democrats have a strong chance of adding five or more seats to their current majority.

link

Karl Rove's wet dream of a permanent Republican majority looks about as likely as finding Paris Hilton at a Mensa meeting. The GOP looks like it's got a bad case of Dubya diarrhea and all out of Charmin. :lol

Five more Dems in the Senate wouldn't be enough to give Harry Reid a filibuster proof majority, but it would bring the day that much closer when Reid could tell Joe Lieberman to take a flying leap at a rolling donut.



Didn't you forget to add, "neener, neener, neener?"

Your guy sealed the deal after burning through all of his campaign's cash and after being pronounced dead, he resurrected it through sheer persistence and a refusal to quit when others would have. That's admirable and speaks to McCain's resilence.

But it also points out how lackluster and second-rate the Republican presidential field was. The last man standing was supposed to be a pro-choice, pro gay rights, anti-gun ex-mayor who turned just doing his job on 9/11 into a multi-million dollar enterprise. As for the other guys, if "Barack" is a funny name, "Mitt" ain't exactly a common one either.

McCain benefited from a really weak field and once Romney and Giuliani went toes up, there was no serous competitors left. Certainly not your boy, Fred D. Thompson, the big rumpled old man with the hottie wife. He always looked like someone who got in the race because someone else thought it was a good idea. He never got off the launchpad.

It's a nice revisionist spin you're putting on your well-established distaste for all things Ron Paul, but I really don't want to have to go back and dig up your quotes Aquilla. It would just make you look silly when you claim your differences are only based on issues and policy. Man, you took a personal dislike to Paul as if he owed you money. I've got a "search" engine and I'm not afraid to use it! Don't make me do it.

Oh, and funny you should mention your Swift Boat homeboys. Seems they're back and gunning for Obama now.

"We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy," promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry in 2004. LaCivita added: "At the end of the day, every individual has a right to participate in the political process whether John McCain likes it or not. It's their constitutional right." link

How does one "attack someone viciously on all fair issues?" Who determines what's a fair issue?

Looks like your pit bulls have gotten a taste of blood and find it tastes pretty good. Obama was not only never on a swift boat, he wasn't even in the armed forces. But once a partisan attack group, always a partisan attack group. All I can say is if you liked what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did in '04, you'll love the 2008 version. The thing is, there will be liberal 527s like MoveOn.org and the group founded by David Brock and funded by George Soros. This is just a few that we know of. Man, it's gonna get ugly out there.

Obama and McCain may try to leash and muzzle these attack dogs, but I doubt these rabid partisans care one way or another what the candidates want.

But hey, just remember: YOUR guys showed how well a swift kick to the crotch can work. Now the far Left doesn't want to miss out on the fun. Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.

To be honest I have no clue about what the Swift Boat guys would have against Obama. I don't know who this Chris LaCivita guy is, and I'm too tired to look him up tonight. The Swift Boaters went after John Kerry for a specific reason, namely his lies about what Americans were doing in Vietnam and painting them all as war criminals. He built his entire political career on those lies and it ticked off a lot of Vietnam vets - not a group that's a good idea to tick off. So, they went after Kerry in 2004 and most probably cost him the election. That is a good thing in my mind and yeah, I helped them a little bit. Maybe paid for 2 seconds of an ad on TV, but one does what one can. With me in Kerry's case, it was personal, but I don't have anything personal on Obama. He never testified in front of Congress and lied and told the world that we had a bunch of war criminals running around in Vietnam cutting off ears and killing women and children with reckless abandon. He never said that so I don't know what the beef is between him and Swifties, if there is indeed one. I do know in my case that I don't think he's the right person for the job and I'll oppose him on the issues and let the American people decide. But, this time around, it ain't personal.

Aquilla

Why is Hillary staying in the race for the Democrat nomination?

I voted "She thinks she can still win". This is entirely based, I believe, on neither candidate having a majority of delegates on the first ballot at the convention. If the nomination goes to a second ballot, all of the delegates are up for grabs - not just the unpledged PLEO delegates. I think she either believes that she has enough arguments to convince delegates that she can pull more electoral votes and more easily win the general election or that Obama's numbers will decline enough in the meantime that she won't need many arguments.

Most of those arguments have been outlined here. Some delegates may find them convincing, some won't. I would. And I expect she'll be doing heavy lobbying of delegates (and not just unpledged PLEO delegates) between now and August. Unless Obama has a substantial lead in the delegate count by the end of the primaries, with most of the remaining undeclared "superdelegates" making their preference known, Clinton could conceivably win the nomination. I have no idea how likely such a prospect is at this point, though. Until we see what transpires in the coming weeks and months, no one does. And that's why she's staying in the race.



I think you mean "everyone in the world who's not an Obama supporter".


Oh, wait - you mean one of these candidates is going to run against a Republican some day? Good Lord, I never thought of that! How Clinton or Obama might fair in a general election never even occurred to me. What was I thinking?? Thank God you pointed that out, nighttimer. I'm going to have to rethink this whole thing now.

That's a good take on it, Wertz. Certainly it clears up all the foggy hyperbole that the news people like to do. Basically, it ain't over until the convention is over, and nothing is certain at this point. So it's logical to stay in the race.

I'm just wondering when people will get tired of the media always trying to get their tights in a tizzy. Hyperbole is completely lost on me. It's no longer if the media is right or left leaning, but that the various outlets have lost credibility.

Oh well, back at it . . .

Are you calling me elite liberal? ...better than being called blasé I suppose

I'll happily join a good food fight, but in this particular case, and despite what NT might suppose, I am not really bothered who wins the presidential election. I can't really see it making an awful lot of difference to me one way or the other.

I think your right that McCain could beat Obama on issues, but I also think Barack Obama looks increasingly like a winner, since I don't think the election campaign is going to be about issues. The legacy of GW Bush is going to over shadow McCain to so great a degree that its going to utterly obscure anything coherent he has to say. Obama's campaign is already based on pure popularity, the dream of multiculture, 'change' &tc.

John McCain, by comparison is looking pretty dead in the water to me. I know... I know... the real election campaign hasn't started yet... but given the enormous build up in popularity all this 'food fighting' is giving the fresh faced, representative of change ™, its looking like he might just steam roller right over 'Old Man McCain' when the time comes.

It appears now that she is staying in the race, simply to be able to say that she finished the race.



Obama has almost negated Clinton's delegate gains from W. Virginia with the further backing of seven superdelegates since the W. Virginia primary. And now that Edwards has endorsed her, it will soon be time for the "lady in the pant suit" to say she's done. If she ever held a desire to be on the ticket at all, I think she's blown it - unless Edwards declines the VP offer. Even then, Obama may go with Gov. Sebelius - a much better ticket for him at this point than an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Not only did Edwards endorse Obama, but so did the United Steelworkers Union, which should have been solidly Clinton. It really and truly looks over, as Clinton's attempt to get superDs now looks even more unlikely, and Obama's chance at a first ballot win have grown much better from both the Edwards' delegates and what surely will now be more SuperD's following the prevailing winds.

Good luck to you, Hillary. One Dem down, one Dem Socialist to go in November....with any luck.

It was highly unlikely that it would've gone beyond the first ballot anyway. A simple majority is all that is needed. In order for it to go to the second ballot, they would both have had to have the exact same number of votes at the convention. Just not very likely. Now, perhaps Edwards will accept a VP position. That would really help Obama in the fall.

I heard a discussion on C-SPAN this morning about the Supreme Court and how the next nominee will either be a woman or a Hispanic, later it was mentioned that a US Senator would go unchallenged to fill a seat on the USSC. I thought of Hillary in a position with more power than Obama, should he be elected and gears started coming together.

Zack, I don't think you have expressed yourself very well. It may be that the next president will have as many as four USSC appointments to make. I don't see how Clinton would have more power than Obama if she is elected president. Either would make appointments quite different than Roberts and Alito. Both would probably include a second woman and the first Hispanic.

Should McCain be elected he will not be able to pull any Bush like shenanigans with his appointments if the Democrats retain control of the Senate - no more Bill Frist bullcrap nuclear option.

If you really think Clinton is going to be the nominee, you are living in la la land.

Oh, I was implying that if Obama were elected president he would appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court for being nice to him after he is nominated.

Did you know Senator Obama is blocking a Bush nominee to a court position right now? It seems the judge supported voter ID earlier in his career.

Bob Novac has an article out today that has a different point of view that should give Obama supporters cause for concern.

Read the entire article here. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertD...llarys_spending

I think McCain and his club of 14 puts Obama in a dim light if he or others bring up how the Democrats are blocking Bush nominees to the court. If news comes out that Obama isn't reaching across like McCain is willing to he loses his talking point.

No, I didn't know that, but all I can say is "good for Barack Obama." Where is Bill Frist when the current regime needs him. I hope Democrats block every Bush appointment for the remainder of his miserable term.

Your earlier post makes the assumption that Clinton wants to be on the USSC. I think she's more interested in Senate Majority Leader. With your horrible record of predictions, I find little reason to be concerned.

I have little doubt that Hillary will be the next president of the United States. I brought up the Supreme Court discussion to see how Democrats would respond to such a possibility.

As for the Democrats blocking judicial appointments goes I think they will be punished by voters if the Republicans squawk loud enough about it.

It is a long time between now and the general election and so many different things could affect the outcome of the election. I think Republicans could take every seat up for grabs if they paint the Democrats too green. Someone is to blame for high gas prices and the economy, yes some can be linked to speculation on Wall Street but most can be pinned directly to the environmental lobby that supports the Democrats.

I hope president Bush holds a special Joint Session of Congress and gives a state of the Union prior to the Farm Bill veto he will sign and dare those politicians to sell out their constituents. He should ask the voters to fire them all regardless of party that support it. On the war funding Bush should tell the congress to send him a clean funding bill! To add anything to the war funding is a disgrace to the troops fighting the war and that includes a new GI Bill. War funding should be a vote of confidence that the war is just, we can win and we support you troops and don't need to add Immigration, unemployment, time-frame for losing, or any other side bar to allow a vote up or down on the funding. If the funding can't stand alone for the war then end the war. If the other wanted side bar items are just then let them stand alone on their merit.

Let me say first and make it plain to quote Malcolm X, I do NOT believe Hillary Clinton wants to see anything bad happen to Barack Obama.

Clinton misspoke. She chose her words poorly. No harm was meant when she made this remark in an interview with the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I don't understand it. And there's lots of speculation about why it is."

Those remarks were not well received and after first saying no harm was intended by Senator Clinton, her campaign later released an apology from her:

"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever."

The editorial board of the Argus Leader also weighed in, "The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

As it turns out as Jake Tapper of ABC NEWS point out in his blog, Hillary was in error about the timeline of when her husband secured the nomination.

All serious competition to Bill Clinton had dropped out in March 1992, and party leaders began rallying around him in April.

Yes, he literally did not secure the nomination until June 1992, but by then it was a foregone conclusion that he would be the nominee. Serious competitors -- Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, then-Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass -- had done the math and dropped out.

Moreover, the timeline doesn't square because the first real contest in 1992 was the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 18. (No one competed in Iowa because Harkin was so favored.) This year's contests began on Jan. 3, 2008. Meaning this race started earlier than ever. Bill Clinton competing in June then is more like her competing in April today.

For his part, Obama seems to be giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

"I have learned that, when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here," Obama said during a Puerto Rican radio appearance. "Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

Remember when Hill and Bill did a spoof of "The Sopranos?" Does anyone really think they're going to start whacking their opponents? Conspiracy geeks need not reply.

So it's just another poorly received phrase made by a weary candidate enmeshed in a tough fight she never anticipated in a campaign that has dragged on, right?

My problem is this is just another in a long series of Hillary and/or her subordinates and surrogates, "misstatements." Hillary does not surround herself with stupid people---with the possible exceptions of Mark Penn, Geraldine "I Don't Like Black Men Running for President" Ferraro and Bob "I Love Big, Juicy Butts" Johnson. It is hard to believe time and again they say these brain-dead things over and over again by accident.

Even the suggestion of "assassination" during a campaign where the leading Democratic contender has had Secret Service protection since last May is unseemly. To bring up the murder of Robert Kennedy the same week where his brother Ted Kennedy has just been diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer is macabre and tasteless. The fact that Hillary has said the exact same thing before makes it no better.

As a SLATE reader quipped, what Hillary seemed to suggest was, "Nice nominee you got there... sure would be a shame if anything happened to him."

A vicious misrepresentation of her remarks? Yeah, cry me a river. Jeremiah Wright could tell you all about what it feels like to have your words mercilessly spun against you. Obama will probably never again let the word "bitter" fall out of his mouth if there's a microphone within 100 miles of him.

Former TIME columnist Jack E. White wrote in The Root.com:

The television analysts and politicians who spent the Memorial Day weekend exonerating Clinton from the spurious charge that she secretly expects some campaign-ending calamity would befall Barack Obama are missing the point. No one believes that she harbors such dark thoughts. The real issue is that Clinton, once again, has betrayed herself as a politician who will say absolutely anything to press her case.

Sometimes she lies, as when she repeatedly bragged about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sometimes she obfuscates, as when she explained her vote in favor of George Bush's invasion of Iraq as an endorsement of strong diplomacy, not war. Sometimes she whines, as when she suggests that her failure to win the nomination is due to sexism instead of flaws in her campaign strategy. Sometimes she panders, as when she dismissed the views of every economist who has studied the matter and endorsed a temporary repeal of the gasoline tax.Slips of the tongue during the course of a long and arduous campaign are not uncommon, and Obama has made blunders of his own. Perhaps thinking of the grilling from the press he suffered over his use of the word "bitter" to describe economically depressed blue-collar voters, Obama said, "I think that when you're on the campaign trail for 15 months, you're going to make some mistakes. I don't think Senator Clinton intended anything by it, and I think we should put it behind us."

But behind the scenes, Obama's campaign was calling attention to a passionate diatribe from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in which he declared that Clinton's remarks were "unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination."

Olbermann's frenzied remarks are clearly over the top and Obama's staff was obviously trying to have it both ways; allowing their candidate to take the high road while they twisted the knife, to mix a metaphor. Nonetheless, the commentator's screed tapped into the skeptical feelings among voters that have given Clinton the highest negatives of any candidate in history. Voters believe that Clinton's relationship with candor is as tenuous as her husband's. They do not believe that she can be trusted. These feelings will be especially inflamed among black voters, whose fears about Obama's vulnerability are palpable. Some newspapers and Web sites have featured images of the candidate in the crosshairs of the sights of a rifle and of his wife had been depicted hanging from a lynching tree. (It's true--and it came from a LIBERAL blog no less. Bad taste has no political affiliation.-NT)

Her untrustworthiness makes her unfit for the presidency, which has been so deeply tarnished by the mendacity of its current occupant. She needs to get out now.

And when she is fatigued and feeling desperate about the dwindling prospects of achieving her glorious dream, she, inadvertently but no less painfully, invokes a specter so offensive, so incendiary, so malicious in its implications, that it raises questions about her temperament and fitness for the White House. If she will say something like this in the course of a campaign, what might she say in a moment of genuine national crisis, when the stakes are infinitely higher than in a political contest? In other words, would she shoot her mouth off when the phone rings at 3 a.m.?

Accidents happen. Mistakes are made. Smart people say dumb things.

But you can't hold Barack Obama and his surrogates/supporters to one standard and Hillary Clinton and her surrogates/supporters to a different one. Or none at all.

Why is Hillary staying in the race for the Democrat nomination?

I had leaned more towrads she thinks she can win and she wants to pay off her campaign debts better.

I now think that she is using her remaining campaign as leverage for getting out of the campaign with a political future outside of the senate. This is based on rumor and punditry and comments by her husband. I wouldn't have thought that she was as worried about this. It's not like she would be completely without a public political forum like Al Gore. Plus, Gore found an outlet and won a bunch of hardware.

I must say that nighttimer's points about Senator Clinton's mis-speaking I find to be valid. At the same time however, it would be useful to remember that she has caused far too many a self-inflicted wound to raise the specter of "sexism" or any ther aspiration to victimhood (as recently offered by her surrogate-in-chief, Bill Clinton). In short, Senator Clinton's default mode seems to be blaming others when things from her own lack of eloquence cost her. We must not get bogged down in too much speculation though and over think her being random was intended as some vain hope of assassination...still, I think "Hilary: In it until somebody gets shot." has a certain ring to it.

I think this campaign has worn her down, slowly but surely. However, the reason I believe she's staying in right now is to pay her campaign debt. The writing is on the wall and whatever talk we may have about reconciling things, first and foremost, we should remember money matters, especially where campaigns are concerned. Senator Clinton's naked, machiavellian will-to-power may very well keep her going, but if she really wants to maintain any legitimacy for another run in possibly `12, she first must eliminate her debt.

Just a parting thought as to the current tone of the race: Am I batty or is the media just morphing into a barely concealed cheering section for Obama? I'm seeing articles in the New York Times whose general submission to Obama's inevitability just seem to pour it on. What's more whereas, this mood is heightened by the idea that Obama has this wrapped up, it's accentuated that Senator Clinton's return to the Senate will be an "uneasy" one. I'm getting this feeling that for as much as conservatives--I myself unabashedly one--her own collegues are far less enthused than even we.

Why is Hillary staying in the race for the Democrat nomination?

I don't think I've heard anyone bring these up, but here are the reasons I think she is staying in.

1. She thinks or hopes that Obama says or does something that will make him unelectable so the superdelgates come crawling back to her. Remember last week when she refered to the RFK assasination? She was saying that anything can happen on the way to the convention.

2. Maybe she hopes for a brokered convention. Maybe, she hopes to fight it out on the convention floor for superdelegates. Being from Arkansas and knowing the Clintons so well. (Not personally.) This option wouldn't suprise me.