Here's my favorite image from that video:

http://www.rumorsdaily.com/2008/04/25/i-pray-at-the-hillary-clinton-temp...

I didn't vote for her and I look forward to not voting for her again in November, but it seems a bit anti-democratic to call for her to drop out of the race. She is entitled to compete. Actually, I'm pretty psyched to anticipate the first competitive convention of my lifetime.

I've been rooting for a real convention for months now. I'm desperate to see someone try to pull the stunt suggested by Joe Klein in Time a few weeks ago: get 100 superdelegate who prefer neither Obama nor Clinton to sit out the first vote. Because of how close it's going to be, 100 would probably be enough to deny either side an initial victory. Suddenly all the delegates would be unlocked for the second vote and we'd have an old-school style back-room deal-making convention!

Klein is pitching Gore as the force that could rally enough people in the first vote to make that happen, but really anybody with enough support/respect among the superdelegates could pull it off... especially if people see the fight between Clinton and Obama as causing a deep enough rift in the party to cause either candidate a defeat in November.

Lorelei, neither I nor Jon Stewart was calling for Clinton to drop out of the race. In fact, I think it would be foolish for her to do so before all states have voted, even if she can't catch up to Obama with elected delegates. The point of the video was to point out her nonsensical and somewhat offensive justifications for staying in the race, whereas she should just say: "Neither of us will get 2,025 delegates, therefore it behooves me to stay in until the superdelegates make up their mind." End of story. Not this bullshit of what if's and what states count and whether to count the popular vote in a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

However, I do think the idea of this going to the convention will be suicide for the Democratic party, as entertaining as it might be. Thankfully, I think it is highly unlikely that it will go there. I expect that after June 3rd, there will be enough backroom pressure to force most if not all of the superdelegates to endorse, and one of the candidates will then drop out.

One more thing: you say that she is "entitled to compete." Sure, that she is, but she is doing so knowing that she is hurting the Democratic party's chances in the fall. Yes, she's entitled to compete, but I'm entitled to call her a douchebag for doing so. No other candidate could have held on for so long in a losing situation, except one with the institutional name of Clinton. If she hangs on even after enough superdelegates put Obama over the top, then you bet your bottom dollar I'll be calling for her to drop out (and so will most of the Democratic establishment).

The Gore scenario is a joke.

Earthquake: I felt it, as it was a 4.4 with an epicenter only 5 miles from my house. Nothing hugely notable, except that it was short and moderate enough to be more exciting than scary.

It's the Michigan thing that raise my ire against Clinton. Fine, bring up Florida if you want. But stop with the Michigan. It doesn't count. She was the ONLY person on the ballot and still only got 53 percent or so (too lazy to look it up). The way she is conducting herself on this campaign makes me hate her. She disgusts me. Not because she is still running, but the way she is running.

The point of the video was to point out her nonsensical and somewhat offensive justifications for staying in the race

Isn't that implicitly saying she should drop out? Or maybe the message is that she's a hypocrite, but yaaaawn. Most of us don't labor under any illusions about politicians and honesty.

I think you're overstating both the harm to the Democratic Party and Clinton's tenaciousness. It's not like she's Mike Gravel; lots of people voted for her. However, I agree that she'd be wrong to hang on after the superdelegates commit. I'd be surprised if she did, given the huge cost of running a political campaign.

BTW, I was in Berkeley last week and saw like 20 Obama signs or stickers and one sticker for another active candidate: Ron Paul. Makes me wonder who IS voting for her, not that Berkeley is a microcosm of America.

Old People. And they vote.

Am I the only pessimist who thinks that neither Obama nor Clinton can beat McCain? Suicide to go to convention--yes. Foregone conclusion already--perhaps. I'm not happy about it; in fact I'm leaving the country (albeit for a different reason).

Ron Paul got 16% in Pennsylvania. Huckabee got 11%! What are the Huckabee people doing?

Just so we're all clear on the Clinton thing, the only reason she's still in the race is on the off chance the Obama punches his grandmother, announces he really was an undercover muslim or does something else that makes him completely unelectable, giving the superdelegates a chance to swing the other way, right? There's no other scenario that gives her a win. If that's not her goal, I don't understand what her objective is at this point (unless she just likes campaigning).

"Isn't that implicitly saying she should drop out?"

No, it's not, hence the justification I gave above that she could use ("Neither of us will get 2,025 delegates, therefore it behooves me to stay in until the superdelegates make up their mind.").

Berkeley is precisely not a microcosm of America. As Anthony says, it's old people. Obama wins <40 handily, Clinton >40. People who are exactly 40 vote for Mike Gravel. But that's why I find this Obama-is-like-Kerry argument bullshit -- the younger generations were *never* excited about Kerry, except as a means to defeat Bush.

"Am I the only pessimist who thinks that neither Obama nor Clinton can beat McCain?"

Probably not the only one, but I believe that Obama can beat McCain handily. Look at the poll of polls (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php) -- he's beating McCain right now after his worst month of the campaign, and McCain is a definite nominee! Clinton I'm less confident about.

RumorsDaily, Clinton is certainly hoping for another scandal, but that isn't the *only* reason she's staying in. She's staying in because she is the Democratic establishment, and as long as Obama doesn't have 2,025 delegates she has a chance. What's another 5 weeks of campaigning anyway?

If the Democratic nominee were already established, we'd already be seeing the media highlight reasons why he or she could beat McCain. Dude advocates the highly unpopular Iraq war! Also, this may be too esoteric for many people, but I am personally enraged by his comments on the failed Senate bill to correct Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. Why not just take a dump in a box and mail it to the EEOC?

So I think Sen. Clinton may have a chance to win, but I think her win in PA should assure her a place on the ticket. As much as y'all hate her, statistically 50% of democrats including myself want her on the ticket, in fact on top of it.

Anyway, LAA, the reason Obama and Edward dropped out of the Michigan race was to pander to the "first in the nation" states, which it looks like in Iowa did well by them. It was a political move by both Obama and Edward to choose to remove their names. I really hate having a caucus and a very white state choose our president, I think we need to rotate the slot among all the smaller states give each region a chance.

Now I think the results from Florida and Michigan should be counted, but only seat 50% of the delegates. I think that is in the rules somewhere. It also is reasonable as more people voted in them than in prior primaries in recent history, obviously the people believed in the process.

Once the nomination happens and I bet both will be on the ticket, then we will win in a land slide. And having both on the ticket is the only way to keep the party from fracturing. I hope Obama will have her on the ticket. I think it would be stupid to leave me and all the other Clinton supporters out in the cold.

We don't hate Obama, but it seems y'all hate her and us to boot.

"Anyway, LAA, the reason Obama and Edward dropped out of the Michigan race was to pander to the "first in the nation" states"

Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire pandering to this very fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

Which is to say, she lied to the voters of New Hampshire on this issue for political gain. I don't hate Clinton, but I hate the Clinton machine, and it's complete willingness to harm the Democratic party and the DNC for its own political gain.

I'm not against a deal being made where Obama has to offer Clinton the VP slot. Whether Clinton accepts is another matter entirely.

Lastly, can you defend her recent support of the gas tax holiday? It's absolutely disgusting, major political pandering, and bad for the environment to boot.

That Youtube clip looks very dodgey to me. If it was like live video or didn't sound so "clipped together" I might think it was more legit.

That being said, whether Clinton wants the votes counted or not, I do not care, I think they should be counted to better our chances in November.

The Clinton Machine isn't why I like them either, though I do think democrats need to win, and win big and so far all the things Clinton has thrown at Obama has paled compared to what Republicans have done to Democrats in the past. Also, the Obama campaign comes off as extremely self righteous at least with the Hillary you can tell she loves the discussions and the weighing of options. She is no ideologue and I like that.

As for the gas tax relief, I'm of mixed minds. I think we need higher gas prices because it will cause the US to deal with alternative engeries more seriously, but, in this current economic climate, regular people need more than $1200 in a tax rebate. Also, the psychological effect of lower gas prices would have a bigger affect on consumer confidence than even a $2400 tax rebate. Consumer confidence is big right now in keeping our economy afloat. All that being said, I would not recommend tax relief on gas, but taking Bush up on his offer to get rid of agriculture subsidies. But in an election year, we all know that won't happen.

Sorry, that YouTube video was the first hit on Google. Try this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

"and so far all the things Clinton has thrown at Obama has paled compared to what Republicans have done to Democrats in the past."

In the past month, Obama has dealt with as much as any presidential candidate has ever had to contend with. He's had both sides (both Clinton and McCain) attacking him, and virtually all news coverage and the past 3 weeks, post-Bosnia, have been negative toward Obama (and much of it born of subtle racism in the media -- that is, holding blacks to a higher standard for their "associates", like e.g. asking Obama to comment on Farrakhan or Harry Belafonte just because they are all dark skinned). Nevertheless, I definitely think he faltered in the weeks leading up to Pennsylvania. But in the past few days, I've seen him get back into the groove of things. And anyway, I support Obama the campaign more than Obama the human, as that to me is more indicative of the administration we're going to get.

It's pretty amazing that the 24 hours news cycle has been 100% anti-Obama in the past few weeks, yet he's still beating McCain on the average poll of polls. Wright's recent attempts to sabotage his campaign have hurt him in recent polls, but I hope his speech today will stop the bleeding there.

The gas tax: you make one assumption that I think is wrong: that the gas tax will lower gas taxes noticeably. Everything I've read about it in the past few days indicates that it would save about a half a tank per consumer for the entire summer, while costing us millions of dollars in tax revenue. It's such a terrible terrible idea, and Clinton knows it.

"The 24 hours news cycle has been 100% anti-Obama in the past few weeks"

That seems like a rather bold statement to me. By "the 24 hours news cycle" do you mean all content on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC? Do you include print media or web media? What about blogs and And by "100% anti-Obama" do you really mean that? If so, can you back it up? I'd have a hard time even buying that, say, Fox News as a whole has been 100% anti-Obama over any 24-hour period. I mean, maybe if you only consider Hannity or something, but there's a whole lot that's said by one media source over any 24 hour period, let alone some notion of "the 24 hours news cycle", let alone a few weeks.

I mean the choice of top stories that have been covered in the past few weeks, namely Wright and the bitter comments. 100% is of course an exaggeration, but in terms of the main current of news coverage, it seems rather true.

By the way, this op-ed on CNN does a much better job than I did in explaining why the mainstream media's coverage is subtly racist:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/race-in-the-race-for-the-presidenc...

There is nothing in the rules that would allow seating 50% of the delegates. But, of course, you can always change the rules.

Indeed, the rules were very explicit that the pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida would not be seated. (50% was how the Republicans handled it.) However, RumorsDaily is right: the rules can be changed (and if I had to guess will be changed) by the credentials committee, which meets later this summer. But hopefully, by the time they do, the main nominee will be settled, and they will be able to seat the delegates with no controversy.

Also, from the CNN link, the reason we ask why black people are so angry, rather than why white people are so complacent, is because the first question actually provides actionable information, while the second question leads to a cul de sac of "because it's easy to be complacent when you're swimming in a pool filled with gold coins" sort of answers which, while possibly insightful, aren't going to leave us in a better position to deal with racial differences than we were before we started asking questions.

This is not related to the current conversation, I just didn't like that particular point in the op-ed.

Well, I think doing that makes it about all of us, rather than just about the black population. In my opinion, that white people are complacent is equally actionable.

It may be, the but the question of WHY white people are complacent isn't really one that's going to provide any helpful information. People are complacent because they can be. That's what complacency is.

The *why*, while important, isn't the only thing that can provide helpful information. The fact that there is complacency at all is a major issue, especially since many are quick to think that we are *oversensitive* to race issues because of the social taboo of making racist statements a la Kramer or Imus. Of course, most of the racial problems in America are much subtler than that.

I think we are getting a taste of what the media will be like in the general election. I think the media was all for Obama at the beginning, but did not vet him pre Iowa and now that they can prolong this battle, they are acting more pro-Clinton. I would also like to say that the media has yet to be pro-Clinton, their anti-Clinton remarks are just not front page like Obama's are at the moment.

I personally think Clinton should make a speech on race. One, to not let Obama run away with most of the African American vote, but also because her history with the civil right movement could help put Wright in context. That might help Obama, but Clinton need the conversation to shift back to the economy.

I also wonder if BO picked his Congregation, not out of love that particular Church, but to get local credentials to get elected in Chicago. Maybe I'm cynical, but that look very strategic and calculating to me. His value do not seem to coincide with this Church. Most of America would be appalled if someone went to Church for political motives instead of legit one's (HRC has been accused of that, but Republican wives came to her defense because she was in their pray circle in Washington).

I also think John Kerry had so much negative media coverage that these past two weeks don't look like much to me. Where is HRC's swift boat? Nothing compares to what John Kerry went through or even what Howard Dean went through after the "scream."

If Hillary gets nominated, her swift boat is coming.

As for why Obama picked that church, you should read this, as it provides a reasonable alternative to your cynical take: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/29/why-d-obama-...

"Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers."

More on what Clinton's gas tax pander represents:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-larger-less.ht...