It is happening today in Portland, Oregon

Bill is perhaps the 2nd biggest undecided, and a long sought out friend of Bill Clinton

I for one thought he was deep in Bill's pockets

THIS IS MAJOR ENDORSEMENT

This could mean the super delegates are going to not be bullied by Clinton's and decide now

And this conjures up thoughts of Richardson being in an Obama administration

This floors me!!!

Because I did not expect it...this shows me Richardson knows the Clinton's did 6 smears in a row and decided he was not going to stand for it!!!

Congratulations Bill Richardson on doing what is correct, and not what people thought you would do. IMHO of course.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

And also check out today's news on the passport gate problem done by a Clinton appoointee, and the picture showing Rev. Wright at the White House with Bill Clinton in 1998 the weekend after monica broke.

Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson have spoken

Senator Biden, it's your turn to speak, and remember, you may be on the short list for VP

:wtf:

So I'm confused, does these announcements/endorsements for Obama help Gore eventually?

They help America end the monarchy and the lies and smears

Isn't that what we all inevitably want?

(taking away the personal love for Gore?)

I would think based on what people have indicated here
If the inevitable choice is Obama vs. Hillary, Obama seems to win 9 to 1
and seems like Gore if he had to support either would support Obama because of his Iraq vote and other things

Isn't that the ultimate goal?

To have change?

Which in the end helps the people, helps the world, and helps Gore achieve his goals too? (which as far as any of us really know, his personal goals no longer is being president, much as we would love that to happen).

IMHO.

Biden did make some wonderful comments about Obama's big race speech.

I'm happy to see Richardson come out and endorse Obama. It shows me something about the guy that he was willing to do this as the media as been beating up on Obama. Like I've said, he'd make a great V.P. for Barack.

The Obama endorsements don't help Gore at all in the sense that they don't make it any more likely that some scenario will play out in which Gore gets the nomination. If anything, the endorsements make it less likely that Gore will have any chance to be nominated. If Obama (or Clinton) gets enough delegates to be nominated on the first ballot, then there's no way for another person to be nominated. The whole thing is over at that point. And the more endorsements Obama gets, the more likely it becomes that he'll have enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

I would argue at this point that this is the correct thing that should happen. We have to remember that Gore exempted himself from this race. It's not like he wanted to run and was kept from doing so. We have two very capable candidates to choose from, regardless of how you feel about them personally. The truth is that either will make a competent president, although I admit that I don't like the way the Clinton campaign is conducting itself. But if Al Gore wanted to be president, he should have entered the race, and the fact that he didn't is something we have to deal with. He's not a contender. If, by some wild set of circumstances, Al Gore's name is discussed as a possible unity candidate at the convention, great, but I don't see it happening. We have what looks to be a legitimate presumptive nominee in Barack Obama, and he's a fine and capable leader who possesses intelligence, diplomatic skills, good judgment, strong ethics, and a winning personality. I personally will not do anything to subvert his nomination if that's how things go. It would be unethical to do so. But if it looks like the party is in trouble, if the Obama/Clinton soap opera continues to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, if we get to Denver and there's still no way either candidate can get enough delegates to win the nomination, then, and only then, would I be comfortable with the idea of Gore as a compromise candidate, and I'm willing to bet everything I own that Gore feels the same way.

I don't believe that it will have any effect on the brokered convention. This is to let the Clintons know that they are history. I would like to know what really went on in the Clinton White House. I bet that Hillary tried to be the boss of all. I think the real feelings for Hillary is finally coming out.

Before you're so quick to condemn Clinton for Obama's passport breach, be aware that Hillary was just informed by Condi Rice that her (Hillary's) passport file was breached in 2007.

More Republican dirty tricks, if you ask me . . .

Patsy, I know you're one of the strongest proponents of the brokered-convention scenario that we have on this board, but if Obama can get to the magic number, the game's over. I haven't heard any recent counts to know if either candidate is even able at this point to reach 2025 on the first ballot, but I think it's still possible. Does anyone have those numbers?

Also, despite what I've been posting here, I just want to assure everyone that the heads of the draft Gore organizations are watching everything carefully and weighing their options. We are talking, thinking, observing--definitely not giving up. But I think it would be irresponsible of us to be unrealistic, and we wouldn't do anything that would subvert the will of the American people. We are not the SCOTUS! :rolleyes:

Okay, so now the state dept.'s saying that McCain's passport file was breached as well as Obama's and Clinton's. The soap opera continues . . .

Please don't confuse Clay with facts.

I don't know the current numbers off hand but I believe that neither Clinton or Obama will be able to reach 2025 with pledged delegates. Both will need superdelegates to go over the top.

The best scenario for Gore is for Obama to win the pledged delegate count and for Clinton to win the popular vote.

At this point it seems Obama will win all the victories

And at this point he is in line to be over the 2025 (or whatever the # be if the other two states count)

Obama Gore still sounds good to me

Why would say Richardson change his vote to Hillary after giving it to Obama?
Makes no logical sense

James may say I don't have facts, but he has no logic

Gore's upper hand may be to guide the 20 percent of Hillary people who might not vote for Obama to vote for Obama based on Gore's say

BTW-the polls show Obama took a minor hit, but one that if that is the lowest he goes, it is just a temporary lull

Next week it will be different

ABC begs to differ on those polls, at least in this reporters viewpoint:


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ews-pollin.html

“Peyton Craighill of the ABC News Polling Unit reports: "Mark Penn’s note is full of overblown claims based on current polling. He’s cherry picking numbers from recent polls. Much of his claim of a Clinton swing is based on the latest tracking data from Gallup in which Clinton is now ahead by 7 points. If you go back two more days Obama has a 7-point lead in a separate USA Today/Gallup poll. CBS has a new poll out today that shows a close 46-43 percent Obama-Clinton race. The CBS poll also has the match ups with McCain at 48-43 percent for Obama-McCain and 46-44 percent for Clinton-McCain. We see little indication of a shift to Clinton. Of the nine polls cited in his note, five of them are not airworthy."

I should have been more specific in my post. Here's what I should have said: I've heard that neither candidate can get to 2025 with pledged delegates alone, so what I meant was, even if the superdelegates are split 50/50, would that give either candidate 2025? If I read what you're saying correctly, James, it could.

If Obama keeps his 100-200 delegate lead, Hillary would need to win 86 % of every super delegate there is

Which is impossible

And Obama now only needs to win 41 % of all remaining delegates left to clinch

You do the #s and its plain to see Obama will win way more than 41% of all delegates

There are about 325 remaining super delegates, should they split them(and Obama should win more than 50 percent) Obama wins

And Obama will win at least 3 of the remaining primaries, which will offset PA


(PA is not needed at all...if I were Obama I would not even waste time campaigning there and try to up the delegates in the states he will win)

It happened in my rainy cold state. Seems like an Obama state, hopefully. I even had a Bushie tell me, he might vote for Obama. :clap:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/internati...128280000&ty=ti

March 21, 2008 - 7:27 PM

New Mexico governor backs Obama

By Matthew Bigg

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Barack Obama won a coveted endorsement from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Friday as the State Department apologized that its workers snooped into the Illinois Democrat's passport files and those of his two main White House rivals.

The decision by the Hispanic governor is a victory for Obama and could improve his chances of winning over Latino voters who have leaned toward New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Obama and Clinton are in a heated battle to represent the Democrats against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in the November 4 presidential election to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush.

In an embarrassment to the Bush administration, the State Department on Friday revealed that the passport records of all three major candidates had been improperly viewed by three contract employees and by a regular department staffer.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Obama, Clinton and McCain to apologize and the State Department said it was conducting an investigation and would look at how to tighten its systems to prevent such privacy violations.

The incident revived memories of the political firestorm that erupted in 1992 after State Department officials searched former President Bill Clinton's passport and citizenship files when he was the Democratic presidential candidate.

Richardson, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary during the Clinton administration, chose to abandon the former president and his wife, saying it was time for a new generation to lead.

"ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME"

"Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader," Richardson said as he stood next to Obama in Oregon. "You will make every American proud to be an American and I am very proud today to endorse your candidacy for president."

Clinton and Obama assiduously had cultivated Richardson's backing in part because the Hispanic politician could garner support among the Hispanic community, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc.

Hispanics largely backed Clinton in nominating contests on "Super Tuesday," with polls showing her winning two-thirds of the Latino vote in several states, and it was unclear whether they might shift to Obama because of Richardson's endorsement.

Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, on a conference call with reporters, dismissed Richardson's potential impact this far into the race. "I think that, you know, perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since passed," he said.

While saying his "great affection and admiration for Senator Clinton and President Clinton will never waver," Richardson, 60, added: "it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward."

A skilled negotiator and diplomat, the popular governor has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate or secretary of state in a Democratic administration.

He also is a superdelegate who would have a vote in the nominating contest if neither Obama nor Clinton win enough delegates during the primaries.

Obama leads Clinton in the state-by-state contest to amass delegates who will formally select the Democrat to face presumptive Republican nominee McCain.

Richardson praised a speech Obama made earlier in the week on bridging divides between blacks and whites, and extended that speech's message to appeal to Hispanic immigrants.

"As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonisation of immigrants -- specifically Hispanics -- by too many in this country," Richardson said.

Speaking in Spanish, he said, "This is a man who understands us and who will respect us."

He said Obama's speech "asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together."

Obama gave that speech in response to a political controversy ignited when news outlets called attention to sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a Chicago church that the Illinois senator attended for two decades.

Wright, who retired recently, has railed that the September 11 attacks were retribution for U.S. foreign policy, called the government the source of the AIDS virus and expressed anger over what he called racist America.

I think it's safe to say both Clinton and Obama now are damaged goods. The Super Delegates have to realize these two are already pretty "bloodied" and there's more to come which doesn't bode well for November. Also, looking at the support of each candidate, don't underestimate the endorsement by Murtha for Clinton yesterday. I see this as bigger than the Richardson endorsement because of his noticeable opposition to the war (even though Richardson was in agreement). I tend to think that if all the "White Boys" did not jump in earlier, Edwards would have been the nominee and neither Obama or Clinton would have been out in front now. Mainly, I do not see an ideal situation for either one of them at this point going over 2025 delegates before August.

thank God Edwards is not the nominee

That's just as bad as Hillary.

I love when people yak about experience, and then say they want Edwards.

He has less experience than any of them (except maybe as much as Dan Quayle).

I never understood why he thought he should be President.

And he never, ever came anywhere near any popularity nationwide to indicate he would have won anything.
He lost all but 3 races in 2004 and won nothing in 2008.
He started running for President a year after his first (and only) term.

And he voted for the war and the patriot act.

Accomplishments? None.

Edwards was never going to be the nominee. I'm a North Carolinian and I know that. The only reason both candidates are considered "damaged goods" is because the race has lasted too long...in other words, Clinton's ambition has kept her in the race too long. The same ambition that is more important to her than her party's welfare.

Besides, Bill Clinton was "damaged goods" when the Flowers scandal erupted early on in the primaries of '92. When we all step back and take a breath...and allow Obama the same...we'll realize how silly it is that we've allowed something a candidate's pastor said affect us. Hopefully, the media will realize they didn't devote this much time or engery to the McCain/lobbyist story or the Clinton exaggerating-her-record story and wonder what the hell were they thinking (heck, even some people at Fox News are getting fed up with the anti-Obama stuff).

Then the Democratic party will be back on track. When Obama is chosen the nominee, he will be a young, tall, energetic candidate calling for hope and change standing up against a sometimes cantankerous, elderly man whose only message seems to be keeping things the way they are.

The choice will be simple. In a CHANGE election, the CHANGE CANDIDATE wins.

It's not a question of if you like or dislike Edwards. I saw polls a couple of months ago with him in the race beating solidly all the Republican Candidates at the time where Clinton and Obama we're not. Probably one of reasons for this is the Democrats have many groups in the "Big Tent." The white working males in industrial cities which are called Reagan Democrats are one of these. It was speculated in exit polls last month that many of them held their noses in the Ohio primary to vote for Clinton because of their opposition to Obama. Unfortunately without this group as well as some independents crossing over, the Democrat’s chances in November are in serious jeopardy. Although I have no doubt that Obama will be on the ticket, I just think with his problems now surfacing he is likely going to be a loser being at the top of the ticket. Clinton? She would even do worse. I know we're making headway in gender and race, but even in the Democratic Party, we're not there yet. In the current climate in this country, you will need a white male to be at the top of the ticket to win the White House in 2008.

Thanks for those observations Dem4ever. I agree :good:

We all were hoping that Al Gore was going to run in 2008. But since he isn't running I am wary of suggesting that Gore should be drafted because a woman or black person can't get elected president. We're better than that. In my view Al Gore wouldn't want to get the nomination that way. Odds are, Obama will be elected president. And he likely will win over most of the working-class white voters, it's just a matter of time.

If Gore does not get the nomination at the conference, we are going to have a bloody fight between Obama and Hillary. That will damage the democratic party in November. That at this point is our only choice.

If Clinton steals a win somehow, it will damage the Democratic Party. However, I have confidence Obama will bring us together when he's solely focused on McCain.

Some DECENT poll news for Obama today. After a few days of not-so-great poll numbers, Gallup has Obama leading among Democrats 48 to 45 against Clinton in the newest poll. It's said this is due to a strong showing on Friday...possibly from the Richardson endorsement. Hopefully Obama can sustain.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...rebounding.html

In a perfect world, Obama has a lot going for him and eventually he'll I'd like to see him as President. But, between Rev. Wright sound clips, Resko trial starting and Michelle O's sealed papers thing, he's not looking like he's ready for Prime Time just yet. Patsy's right, you will need somebody to rise above this or McCain will come in by a Landslide. Also, there are a couple of new polls showing McCain beating Obama more than he's beating Clinton.
The only solution to winning in November is a Gore/Obama Ticket. Just hope Gore is open to this.

He is indeed ready for "prime time". We all wanted Gore to jump in. It seems obvious that he's made his decision not to. Most of us are fine with the candidate we support. We just don't want to see the other candidate win.

So now there's a recent poll showing McCain ahead and you give up? I've got news for you. NOONE will want the country to "stay the course" this time. Nobody wants the Bush economic policies anymore. Nobody wants the same health care situation we're in. And very few want us to stay in Iraq. The one constant this whole election is that people want CHANGE. McCain isn't even interested.

This is why Obama had been ahead of McCain for most of the campaign. The only reason that has changed recently is because of the long, incredibly drawn-out fight between Obama and Clinton. And nobody is really focused on McCain. That will change when Obama no longer has to contend with the Clintons. Once he focuses on McCain, he will remind voters why the choice is clear.

I wish you the best of luck and will vote for Obama in a minute if he is the nominee. I certainly do not feel that way about Clinton. but would do the same barring that there is not a viable Third Party Candidate that comes along.

Having said that, right now I don't see the Democrats taking the White House. On the other side, with the House and the Senate races, I'm feeling more positive. The problem facing Obama supporters are it's not just what they want, it's what the Democratic Party wants.
You have many groups in the 'Big Tent " and it's why I feel the chances of Gore as a compromise candidate are getting stronger as this race continues.

Below, Andy Ostroy's column explains it well;

SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 2008
Why the Clinton/Obama Race Needs to and Will Continue
http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/#51506

Ok, out of appreciation and respect to my readers who clearly disagree with my position on the battle between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I will attempt once more to demonstrate the only things that matter right now in this race: facts. After this, I will no longer engage in the back and forth debating over Hillary's right to stay in the race and her supporters' right to see this through until the end. I will continue to blog about what I see on the campaign trail, and readers are free to debate amongst themselves on the message board. I've clearly demonstrated my objectivty here, and have stated my position repeatedly. So, while I know the following indesputable facts might mess with the fantasy, here they are again to ponder nonetheless...

Fact #1: The party requires 2025 delegates to win the nomination, not 2000, 1900, 1800 or 1700. That number exists for a reason. If neither candidate achieves that level, neither candidate wins. The party does not have a "whoever has the most delegates wins" system.

Fact #2: The party instituted the super-delegate system over 25 years ago to serve as the decision-making body in the event no one reaches the minimum, or "wins." The super D system exists to handle contested situations exactly like the one we have now

Fact #3: Obama and Hillary are separated by just about 2% in popular vote

Fact #4: Obama and Hillary are separated by just about 10% in delegates

Fact #5: Hillary has won most of the big Democratic must-win states for the general election. Obama has not.

Fact #6: the latest polls show that Obama has lost appreciable ground among independents. Neither candidate will win anything without a majority of independents

Fact #7: a new Franklin & Marshall College poll in Pennsylvania shows that among voters in that state (whose very significant primary is April 22), Obama's unfavorability rating has increased from 16% to 25% from mid-February

Fact #8: a new USA Today/Gallup poll has Clinton with a 49%-42% lead over Obama. Just over a week ago Obama led 50%-44%.

Again, these are inarguable facts. One can choose to ignore them, spin them or wish them away. But what you can't do is refute them. That's the beauty of facts. And it is precisely these facts that keep Clinton in the race.

And now for little closing editorial, although it essentially is fact as well: As harsh as this may be for Obama's supporters to hear and grasp, he will not reach the 2025 minimum because he will not have convinced enough Democratic voters to vote for him. Because he clearly has not "united" the party. Because he really only has roughtly half of the party behind him. Certainly no mandate, and no justification whatsoever to expect Clinton to back out at this point. The battle between him and Hillary rages on--much to the chagrin of him and his supporters--because the race is so close. If it weren't, none of us would be wasting any time on it, and Hillary would have dropped out long ago. What we have is a heated race. Some claim that Hillary's dividing the party by staying in the contest. I call it Democracy in action. She has a right to run, and voters have a right to support her without being vilified by the opposition for being divisive, un-American, un-patriotic and racist. This kind of bullying is not what the Democratic Party stands for.

I think it's pretty presumptuous and arrogant (not to mention incredibly naive and unrealistic) to feel someone's breath on your neck as you dash to the finish line and then turn around and demand that they exit the race so you can "win."

A final thought to the Obama supporters: you are certain of his inevitability. You feel it's a slam-dunk that his lead is convincing the super D's to support him. You repeatedly claim that "it's over." If so, then why not let it play out till the end? Why are you so against letting the process--the one laid out by the party over 25 years ago--run its course? Why are you repeatedly calling for an early end? Perhaps it's because you're not that confident after all? That you worry that somehow the process may result with Hillary as the victor? In sports, one team could be down by a zillion runs/points and the game still plays until the end. As Yogi Berra aptly said, "It ain't over till it's over." It's time to accept that.

The above writer is either on Hillary's staff, or is a republican

The longer it plays out, the less time to go after McCain

McCain has actually NEVER BEEN VETTED

Because he was thought of as gone early on, nobody picked on him
Then all the others self-destructed and McCain was the candidate
At that point, the rightwing media who NEVER LIKED MCCAIN NOR VETTED HIM
put the talking points out there- SHUT UP AND DON'T DIS MCCAIN

So he never was introduced to the public

The race is over.

Hillary needs for the party to get out NOW

And, if something happens where someone other than Obama is called upon, that is Al Gore

But NOT HILLARY- it will never be Hillary or Edwards.
So it's time to wrap this baby up and let's start getting all the dirt out there on McCain

Once America realizes who this tired, old, ill (most people do not know he has been ill 3 different times...what do insurance actuary #s say about his life expectancy???) and the Keating Savings and Loan, Enron, etc.

the more people hear about McCain, the less they shall vote for him

That is the important part to remember, not some polls RIGHT WHEN OBAMA TOOK MAJOR HITS

Obama got the 2025
Bill Richardson's endorsement yesterday will move most of the undecideds over

Ask yourself when Hillary got the majority of her supers? When? Early on, she got them to sign up.
Meaning she could not get the others on her side. And won't. They are just too chicken spit to come out now.(and let's not talk about non-superdelegate Edwards, who doesn't really count as he isn't a superdelegate...what a pansy to play his pocketbook/career over taking a stand, makes me wanna barf.)

All Obama now needs is 39% of the remaining delegates.
As he is going to win some of the remaining primaries, that means he actually needs even less than 39% in the states he is not going to win
And Hillary can win by 19 points in PA and still only barely come out ahead in
the delegate count

It's over for Hillary

She is just being a Bushfan republican if she continues the political suicide
She must really actually want McCain then
Good ole' boys and girls stick together I guess.

Happy Easter. Hope Hillary hippotty hoppity right out of the race

There is no need for that.

That type of reasoning in your own reality distortion field is exactly how we lost in 1972.

Back then, it wasn't a candidate as much as it was being against the Vietnam war. No compromise. Maybe if you would read, you would find I probably detest Clinton more than you do.

I apologize to you. I see now (and I didn't read), you were referring to the person who wrote the column. He just so happens to be a Gore supporter.

Yes, I was going to say, but you beat me to it, Andrew . . . Andy Ostroy has always been a strong supporter and proponent of Al Gore.

And btw, I think he makes a good case for people to stop demanding that Hillary should drop out. Why should she? With a race this close, would anyone drop out? I wouldn't.

A different opinion on Hillary’s chances. Caveat: The first site is pro-Obama. I don’t know about Politico. Supposedly, the numbers just can’t add up for an HRC win no matter how well she does and she’d have to blow Obama out of the water. If she is thinking the superdelegates will award her the nomination, that thinking is, I hope, flawed. Because that would split the Democratic party, IMHO. An opinion here also, about the MSM's role in keeping the campaign going. The interesting point is crunching the numbers and is HRC really close enough to pull this off? I've read that even if she were to win from here on, she can't do it because those wins would have to be blow outs and that is not happening. If she has a legitimate chance, then she should stay in. If she does not, and she continues to campaign in the same way that Richardson criticized her for, then the question becomes whether she is campaigning for delegates/voters or to make Obama such damaged goods that the party has to consider her? (Which I think would be a really, really flawed strategy. The blowback won't make her friends with the voters she needs) That's not going to be a popular thought but it's going to be and has been considered. The question is, does the math support her continued campaign?:


http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/020

Hillary Clinton and Her Self-Constructed Temple of Doom

“Political reporters Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of The Politico have finally said with prodigious, black-and-white clarity what so many others in the mainstream press have been fudging and dancing around: "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning."

......

“"The only way she wins [with] Democratic superdelegates [is if they're] ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency." Then, the two journalists' death blow to such fantastical musings: "People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet."

In effect, Vandehei and Allen continue, the mainstream press and broadcast media have been playing mind games with the electorate -- and especially Hillary's supporters. "Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is," and mostly, almost exclusively, because journalists love a good horse race and didn't want to see this one at the finish line.”

....

“After seven years of vastly experienced presidential lying, conniving, weaseling, obfuscating, twisting, manipulating and swindling, the last thing most voters wanted was more Washington experience. But what did Hillary give them? Thirty-five bloody years of it. Reams of it. Mountains of it. Endless lectures and tutorials about it.

For a candidate known for her slyly calculating nature, it was one of the most colossal miscalculations in American political history. And that, I'm sure, is how future political historians will write her political obituary of 2008, just after noting another colossal and preceding miscalculation -- her 2002 Iraq war vote.”




Here is the Politico piece upon which the above opinion was based:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9147.html


.....

“But it’s assuming a lot to give Clinton anything but the slimmest of chances to lead in the popular vote. It’s impossible to project turnout in the 10 states and territories left to vote, but Clinton will have to close a deficit of more than 700,000 votes. That means, even with extremely high turnout estimates, she would have to win by huge, double-digit percentages in the states where she could have an edge — Pennsylvania and West Virginia — while holding Obama to tiny gains in states such as North Carolina and Oregon, where he is heavily favored.

Without those blowouts, many influential Democrats contend, she will find it hard to convince superdelegates of a legitimate victory.

“It would be a particularly poisonous Pyhrric victory if she gets the nomination after losing the delegate count and the popular vote,” said Dan Gerstein, a political consultant who said he supports Obama. “Many Democrats would see the result as illegitimate, particularly in the black community. As such, it could cause a real rupture in the party that would not just threaten Hillary's chances in November but could lead to lasting bitterness and even a full-on rebellion after the campaign is over.””


On edit: Just found this from NPR. Maybe the media is deciding that if they don't get off the bandwagon, they may have egg on their face, again?:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/medi..._beginni_1.html

Media Ask "The Beginning of the End for Clinton?"



Richardson doesn't back down:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9174.html


Re Richardson- IMHO, Richardson acted in the way that he is known for, as a statesman. He put loyalty aside and made a decision based on what he thought was best for the country. I am appalled at the Clinton reaction that loyalty over country is more important. Reminds me of a certain current resident in the White House. So they appointed him and consider that a favor? He did his job. I can't believe Carville made a statement like that. Are they so incompetent that they can't see how Bush/Rove-like they are becoming? Richardson focused on the future based on what he perceived was needed. I think had he believed that was a return to the past and what HRC offered, he would have endorsed her. Regardless of the "packaging" of the message, Obama is getting new people and young people involved. That is the future of the Democratic party and Richardson saw that.

Because the sooner she drops out, the quicker we can get the party united. Sure, Obama hasn't yet united the Democrats. But much of that is due to the Clinton machine. The Clintons are powerful and influential, and Hillary had been the presumptive nominee for years. But truthfully, if it had been any other candidate who lost 11 contests in a row, we'd have written their political epitaph already. Had she decided then to step down, we wouldn't have to hear her and Bill imply Obama isn't as qualified as she or their Republican rival...or listen to them question Obama's patriotism.

The Democratic National Convention is when? August? If this goes all the way to the convention, Obama will only have only a couple of months to unite the party and defeat John McCain. Now, as I've stated before, I have no doubt Obama will beat McCain. But why make it more difficult for him to do so? When you think about it, what Obama has already done is extraordinary. He's been fighting McCain and BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton for several weeks now, as well as suffering big body blows from the media in the last 2 weeks. So far, he's been courageously up for the task...

...But do we really want to see Barack Obama battling it out with forces outnumbering him for another 4 months?

Here's what I believe: I believe it's time for the superdelegates to act. If they tire of the distractions...if they desire for their nominee to go back on message of hope and change...they can end this now. They can make Pennsylvania irrelevant. The 50 or more superdelegates (the ones who were planning to support Obama, before Hillary begged them to hold) can come out for Obama and make it basically impossible for Clinton to go on. If they don't, Clinton will win Pennsylvania by a fairly large margin. Just like in Ohio. The media will continue to negligently keep her hopes alive from the win, and the contest will go on and on.

The 50 need to come out now! And wouldn't it be great if they were represented by one individual. A kingmaker, if you will. I think I know someone perfect for the job!

Dems. will unite behind whomever the nominee is, and there's time to get everyone on board after the convention.

Again, I ask: If you were in Hillary's position, would you drop out now?

What do you mean "again"? Did you even read my post, Earthmother? I've given reasons why she should drop out. Most importantly for the good of the party. The problem is, she doesn't seem to care for the party. Certainly not as much as she does her own ambition.

I think the question is not that Obama doesn’t have enough of the required delegates- its’ that he’s ahead, HRC doesn’t appear to have a chance of catching up so won’t go into a convention with the lead, and in the meantime, the damage accumulates. The only way she can appear to win would probably shred the party. The most poignant post is the last one. A quote from that post:

” So I was determined to stay out of this fight. But the fight in Texas and Ohio changed all that for me. Not just because I was appalled at the Republican reinforcing fear thematic that Hillary used to win, but because there is no path for Hillary to the nomination at this point except an ugly, ugly path. Given the delegate math, she can only win this by a combination of fear-mongering attacks and behind the scenes deals with superdelegates. That would be terrible for our party, and for the entire progressive movement.

The reaction since my endorsement post has been really interesting. No surprise at all, I got shots across the bow by people connected to Hillary's campaign about my name being mud, etc. Hey, it's politics, I get that and expected it. But I have been surprised by the number of Hillary supporters who quietly said to me, "I've picked my candidate and I'm with her until the end, but I admire what you wrote, because there is no way to a win without it getting really ugly." And even the most ardent Hillary supporters -- the ones who say things like "well, yeah, but Obama's been negative, too" or "hey, politics is a contact sport" -- cannot spell out for me a path to the nomination for her, absent a big mistake by Obama, that isn't profoundly divisive.”

Caveat: All of these from Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i...fo_b_92904.html

Is Hillary Positioning for 2012?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins...-k_b_92821.html

The Day Hillary Clinton Knew She Had Lost


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/rea...ci_b_92785.html

Reactions to a Tough Decision

No they won't.

I for one won't vote for Hillary ever because of her racist campaign

I live in NJ

NJ has more independents than any party

I will work my tail off to make sure McCain wins NJ

Because I would rather die with McCain than allow Hillary to come in, sweep everything under the rug and have Jeb come in because the world hates Hillary

At least if Jeb comes in with McCain, it is not in deciept.

Hillary and Bill are 100x worse than McCain

And Al Gore knows it


So earthmother, this writer being a Gore person disqualifies him from writing just as much as if it were a rightwing writer
Because he then wants Gore to come in
So he believes OPERATION KAOS RUSH THE VOTE is the way to do it

Hillary LOST
She would need 89 percent of all remaining delegates
She cannot get those percentages
And Obama now needs less than 41 percent

Impossible the way democrats delegate to have that occur

Do you think Al Gore would ever vote for Hillary.
I would bet a million dollars he won't (unless that gun indeed is at his back).

And if this race is fixed that way, nothing any of us do or say would matter

There will be blood- in the streets if Obama wins and it's stolen

But, again, why in the world would someone like Bill Richardson later change his vote, he couragously made in the first place?
He could just be a stupid wimp like John Edwards and not do anything that being the case.
(UNless Al Gore is plotting deviously behind the scenes

You know, I was talking with a high powered entertainment lawyer last night...
who works for a star who at one point was considering running for office sometime
He said, it is not as easy as one thinks to divest your business stuff to run for office

And someone like Al Gore, with all his holdings could not quickly do it

Which is something I asked a few weeks ago

Al now has $100s of millions personally, and owns a TV station, and 1000s of other things that are viable
He would have to get rid of all of it

I don't think he cleanly could

If that is so, all of us here better hope Obama is the one and not Hillary
It's the difference between life and death
OURS.