Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Clinton's vow may be hazardous to party's health

JOHN IBBITSON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:36 PM EDT 28/04/08

Her vow to wage a floor fight to seat the disqualified Michigan and Florida delegates may well provoke a stampede of support toward Obama ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: 1) Clinton loses Obama wins... in the middle of an economic slowdown and a war....Obama is the real loser.
    2) McCain would be a better leader but best he not win if the republicans want the house back in 2010 and the white house back in 2012.

    "Horray" says obama.. "I just won a bag of crud"

    Clinton already lost....check my math.
  2. Will M. from Montreal, Canada writes: Oh Hillary, wasn't it all so different last autumn when you agreed with the other candidates and the DNC that both Michigan and Florida's early votes should be disallowed because you assumed you would have a coronation.

    Voters in both of those states will have their chance to vote in the general election and, as such, are not disenfranchised. If they truly want a change in government then they will vote the party and not the person. And the same holds if it ends up being Clinton as the nominee.

    But if she really wants a credentials committee then she has to know that that's a 90 degree climb for her.
  3. bob london from Canada writes: Disgruntled boomers. Time to go to pasture.

    Propegandists and Pundits have been wrong to date and BiB thinks he is a republican when the farthest right we have in Canada is still to the left of the Democrats.
  4. harry carnie from Northern,B.C, Canada writes: BiB AmomA .. You have that right. Would any Republican like to see their party in power,next year,
    and having to clean up the mess?
    As you say ..hang it on the Democrats (Obama)and take power back in 2012..when the Democrats have failed.
  5. MJ M from transplanted Ontarian in Alberta, Canada writes: This just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is all about Billary, not the Democratic party and certainly not about the Country. If she wins the nomination this way, it's a McCain landslide in November, far too large a percentage of normal people understand that Hillary is a hateful @itch.
  6. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    BiB: Hi

    "...... 1) Clinton loses Obama wins... in the middle of an economic slowdown and a war....Obama is the real loser.

    2) McCain would be a better leader but best he not win if the republicans want the house back in 2010 and the white house back in 2012....."

    Today most Americans want change.

    Neither Hilary nor McCain promise that.

    Only Obama does. He may be inexperienced, but so was JFK - same age, same vision, same outsider's freshness (JFK First Catholic to BHO First pseudo-Muslim)

    The Obama-Rodham battle is not that a bad idea. It keeps them both in the news and gives them News coverage primetime while McCain is a side-show.
  7. John G from Ottawa, Canada writes: And it appears the media has finally chosen the Democratic nominee
  8. Will M. from Montreal, Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Today most Americans want change.

    Neither Hilary nor McCain promise that.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yup, good point. Hard for McCain, at 72, to argue he's the agent of change. Equally hard for Clinton as former first lady of failed health care reform to say she's the change candidate equally is not a good sell.

    A war weary nation that is looking for change doesn't need more hawks in the nest.
  9. Not right or left from Canada writes: This is all about Clinton feeding her ego and not about how to unite the Democrats or the country. How can she expect Michigan's delegates to count when Obama wasn't even on the ballot. There were rules set in place that all the candidates agreed to before the primaries and now she wants to change these rules when the game already started. If Obama won these States than Hillary would be singing a different tune. If she wins the nomination than I hope McCain wins so Obama can run again in 2012.
  10. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Will M: Greetings

    " ..... Hard for McCain, at 72, to argue he's the agent of change...."

    True, Obama is the youngest. But old age may not always stand for the status quo.

    Reagan, the oldest president in memory, changed the US the most, for the worse. His anti-peace, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-labor changes are what we are paying for today, just as Thatcher polarized Britain, and our own Mr. Mulroney made Canada heartless. I do not recall seeing panhandlers in Toronto before Mulroney days.

    As the rich become richer and have-nots grow, middle class is disappearing, so is middle class Democracy. Obama may not be able to achieve much if elected in one or 2 short terms, but he surely would change the direction away from the disaster that awaits the US if she does not.
  11. charlie brown from Canada writes: Well she stood by Bill thoughout his myriad of affairs. Guess the power and the percs which went with it were worth staying on for, at least to her. Hope she doesn't bring the same values to the Oval Office.
  12. Oswaldo I from Canada writes: The winning candidate needs 2024 to secure the nomination. Without Michigan and Florida, neither can get there. This is Howard Dean's fault because he wanted to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire and now he can't clean up the mess.
  13. charlie brown from Canada writes: To Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada who wrote: "Reagan, the oldest president in memory, changed the US the most, for the worse." Your ageist comments aside, Syed. Reagan defeated Communism and will be forever renowned for that. As for Jimmy Carter and Slick Willy, enlighten me.
  14. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Look at the weirdos in the background of the picture. Looks like Clinton collects the flotsam and jetsam.
  15. shaun w from Canada writes: well, there are some remarkably ill-informed opinions on here tonight. Let me start off by saying the obvious. Obama may have have won more states, but the pledged delegate count is not off by a lot. less than 150.

    Let me also say I don't think that Clinton can win, but it is not a blowout.

    If you want my opinion, I think the democrats would be really stupid to nominate Clinton. The republicans would have 1 extremely good arguement against her and it is this.

    If Clinton serves 2 terms, The US will have had 36 consecutive years where either a Bush or a Clinton was in the whitehouse. Obviously I'm including bush sr's years as VP. Now it would be true that 20 of those years with a bush, but it's also 16 years with a Clinton. I realize that this is not a real good political argument, but I think a lot of people would be concerned about this, and it could be enough to swing the middle 20% of americans to the republicans. And that's all you need really. Each of the major parties is guarenteed 40% from their die-hard supporters. The trick is to get that middle 20%

    I also think that americans would be stupid to elect Clinton to the whitehouse. The simple fact is that she is a very polarizing figure. I think Obama could be a less polarizing figure, although I don't think he will survive the first time. With McCain, well, I don't really know enough about him.
  16. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Reagan defeated Communism?

    Over-spending will defeat both the Soviets and the Americans,
    the US was has simply been able to carry their wounds longer...
  17. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: People who have an arrogant sense of entitlement to power and privilege seldom get their comeuppance even when they deserve it. The deck is usually stacked in their favour from birth. It is refreshing to see someone like Mrs. Clinton having to contest something for a change rather than having it handed to her on the proverbial silver platter. What is even more refreshing is the fact that she now appears headed for a well-deserved defeat, with no one to blame but herself and her entourage. Watching her and her campaign self-destruct will enable millions of Americans and others to revel in an orgy of schadenfreude that few get to experience in a lifetime.
  18. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    charlie brown: Greetings

    "Reagan defeated Communism and will be forever renowned for that"

    Well, certainly that was also a change. Goes to reinforce my point that age may not matter.

    Ross H: Good Day

    "... Reagan defeated Communism? Over-spending will defeat both the Soviets and the Americans, the US was has simply been able to carry their wounds longer... "

    For 70 years the West tried to finish the Soviets and failed. Now 20 years later everyone wants to take the credit.

    Laurels go to Afghan Mujahideen who lost 1,000,000 compatriots fighting Soviets and a land full of mines that continue to kill.

    Pakistanis did the recruiting, training, supplying, logistics, planning the raids, and leading the fight on the ground. The money was supplied by the Saudis who paid for the American armament.

    That is why the Jihadis are cocky believing if they could defeat the godless Scientific Socialists, they can also the overspending wasteful inefficient Corporate West.
  19. Jack Jones from Clearwater BC, Canada writes: Ms Clinton's comments and intentions are EXACTLY WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT. she is hurting the chances of the Democrats in order to further her own personal political ambition. Shameon you Hilary. Take the moral high road, bow out gracefully and let Obama win so that Democrats can get their well deserved presidency.
  20. Lili-Marlene Rose from Waipahu, United States writes: I agree with those who think that the Clintons will do anything in their bid for power. Too much ego and ambition that I don't believe is for the good of the country. I support Barack Obama because I think he is the best candidate to bring about the change in direction the U.S. needs. He will be up against corporate America and their corrupt politicians, so it will be hard. But if Americans support him and commit to holding our big businesses and politicians accountable, maybe we can stop these anti-Americans from selling out America. I believe Obama can help undo the incredible damage done by President Clinton and Bush in the Middle East. Unlike McCain, Bush and Clinton, he actually understands the Muslim world and differences between the religious sects. I consider that vital when it comes to getting us out of Iraq and trying to build better foreign policy there. I agree with "Not Right or Left from Canada" who says that Hillary only wants Michigan and Florida to count because she won unfair races there. She definitely would be fighting tooth and nail if Obama had won. Such hypocrisy makes me sick. I hope Obama wins. I'm frightened of what will happen if McCain, a war monger, wins, and I don't trust Clinton, who is backed by big money. OUr government has been acting anti-American for quite a while and now Americans are suffering enough to take a hard look at them. Good! Wake up, America, and see who's selling this country out!
  21. Wanda Fyooka from Vancouver, Canada writes: This lady has to get lost! Numerically she can't win so all she's doing is slagging Obama. The DCP should tell her to go home!!!!
  22. Duane Freemantle from writes: Clinton is not completely at fault. The Democratic party has two able candidates, and having a hard time choosing one. Clinton should have won the nomination, and this knowledge keeps her campaign going. However, she has to compete with a rising star in Obama. It was predicted several years ago that Obama had potential, great potential. However, Obama lacks experience. It is not experience that counts, since the only person that has real experience is the sitting president. If Clinton does pursue the actions that this article mention she will be come a hypocrite since her actions will conflict with the changes that she poses. May the best candidate win.
  23. Wanda Fyooka from Vancouver, Canada writes: The only experience that Hillary has is being first lady. When she answers the phone at 3:00 AM it's because her hair dresser has a free appointment.
  24. Denis Love from Victoria BC, Canada writes: So what is so wrong with Sentor Clinton staying in for the long haul? It shows she has the will to stay and fight for the job.

    The US media has been pushing for the other democrat and just now some of the same media are having second thoughts about the guy.

    Many millions of americans have no medical coverage and Clinton tried to get that to change. The powers involved in the medical cmpanies spent a lot of money discrediting her. Yet now both she and her opponent are talking medical coverage. It has become an issue, but had she not been there, the subject would never have come up. The Republicans desperatly want the other fellow to become the candidate so McCain can wipe the floor with a fellow who has limited experience in anything beyond making speeches. The wars would continue and the arms dealers would be just so pleased. So let's just see how things turn out as most of us here don't vote in that country anyway
  25. Wanda Fyooka from Vancouver, Canada writes: so here's what will happen, she'll stay in until the last moment, paying for lots of attack ads against Obama, she'll lose anyway, but in the meantime she'll have made McCain's job a lot easier. Talk about snatching (pun intended!) defeat from the jaws of victory!!!!
  26. Ryan Lemay from Gatineau, Canada writes: McCain will win the election. Everyone you are wasting your time with this leadership dem thing. Just sit back, get infront of your computer, click stock options on your brokerage account, and buy military weapons supplier stocks. McCain is going to win and as a result Iran will be bombed and our stock options will make a 'killing' . Just accept it. America needs this, the housing market is crashing, the enviromental stocks need a couple more years to mature, so lets all get on this, and bomb the middle east thing. Financially 'us' will be better of and 'them' well who cares. Don't say I didn't warn you...
  27. David Stevens from Montreal, Canada writes: I guess it's, "If I can't win have the party leadership no one will. "

    She has already said that either she or McCain would be a better choice than Obama. Clinton has no party loyalty whatsoever.

    A woman president yes... but not this one.
  28. R. P. McMurphy from Brampton, Canada writes: The MSM has been trying to crown Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate since he started his campaign. Senator Clinton is by far the better candidate, having a much firmer grasp and understanding of policy issues than does Obama. He is 'an empty suit' - soaring oratory with nothing of substance behind it. He is a man of shifting positions, whatever the political wind of the day requires. He is prepared to throw his grandmother under the bus to defend his vile, hate-filled, anti-Semitic pastor - who is his 'inspiration'. If he is the Democratic party's candidate, McCain will surely win the Presidency - as well he should. The test of a leader is not quitting when things are tough. The reason people are all over Hillary is because she is a woman and she is white. Obama's run for the Whitehouse is a shallow method by which the US can expurgate its national guilt over slavery from its history. he simply is not the person for the job. These mythically driven comparisons to JFK are wistful but ill-conceived. He is NOT Kennedy, nowhere near him.
  29. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Reverend Wright has sunk Obama. He'll likely win the nomination but there is no way he's going to win the presidency after the GOP get through whacking him with those clips of Wright.
    The swing voters will be turned off big time.
  30. Duane Freemantle from writes: "So what is so wrong with Sentor(sic) Clinton staying in for the long haul? It shows she has the will to stay and fight for the job."

    Actually, that is half correct. This is the Democratic Party presidential nomination. With the key words being 'Democratic Party'. With political party nominations rifts can and will grow between the supports of the two top contenders (especially if it is close). A rift or schism in the party will damage the parties ability to win. That is the problem. Clinton's vow and behaviour can also demonstrate that she is lacks the ability to determine that she is in a fruitless battle. This kind of reminds people of US in Iraq and NATO is Afghanistan. The parallels are not really there, but he vows could also damage her chances.
  31. Draracle * from Canada writes: Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Reverend Wright has sunk Obama.

    Did you hear Obama's retort? An epic speech by any standard! I think he made up whatever he lost, and them some. The latest polls indicate so.

    As an aside: who has listened to the whole speech by Reverend Wright? The media (Fox) clipped the sermon to make it seem like something it wasn't. Having heard the entirety of Wrights sermon, I think he was a man a head of his time. One of a few that saw clearly in the post 9/11 days.
  32. Duane Freemantle from writes: "The reason people are all over Hillary is because she is a woman and she is white. Obama's run for the Whitehouse is a shallow method by which the US can expurgate its national guilt over slavery from its history." Did not someone in the Clinton camp make a similar statement. Geraldine Ferraro ended up resigning because the comments she made were considered racist.
  33. John Corbett from Trawna, Canada writes: I think the real reason behind this bitter, pointless quest of HRC's is a desire for revenge - against Bill, for all the humiliations he's visited on her. She's damned and determined to become a better president than him. It was the same with GWB. He was driven by a desire for oedipal revenge on his father, GHWB, for the discipline and scorn he heaped on the young W. So, his war had to be bigger, he had to have more terms, his deficits had to be deeper than Pa's.

    It all makes me sick. Let's have a clean campaign between BO and John McInsane, and forget about the Clinton/Bush hydra forever.
  34. A Skeptic from Canada writes: No normal person would want to be president. Is it April First yet? Okay, consider the possible team combinations. Obama and Nader.
    Hillary and Bill. Hillary and Chelsea. McCain and Hillary. McCain and Arnie. Obama and Oprah. McCain and Condi. Jeb... isn't it Jeb's turn?
  35. Rollo Tomasi from raison sauvage, Belgium writes: It's looking good, just what this cunning array of stunts needs, another circus-like controversary to generate media exposure. John McInsane started putting out ads the other day that say, hey, remember me?
  36. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: Just keep on doing that great job of doing nothing until November. At least do not miss the actual election date and nominate the democratic candidate a few hours before people wake up to go to voting. There will be McCain's name printed on the ballots and if people want to elect Obama or Clinton, they may write down any of these names by their pencils.
  37. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Is as the proverb goes "a drowning man clings at a -----, can this be the last straw?
  38. Mr. Justice from McCain-Clinton in 2008, in the USA, but not in, Canada writes: So . . . Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is backing Obama over Clinton? . . . Well, then this means that Ms. Klobuchar hates women, is afraid of the idea of women-in-power, and -- since she IS a woman -- is a victim of "self-loathing".

    See how this works, now ? If you watch The View or The Lifetime Channel, you would already know this (duh).
  39. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: Hillary will make a fine ambassador in Canada. She can tell y'all how to run your health care system. She's got experience in that sort of thing.
  40. Lawrence Hutchinson from Houston, United States writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: I do not recall seeing panhandlers in Toronto before Mulroney days.

    I grew up in dowtown Toronto in the 1950's and 60's. Trust me...there were lenty of panhandlers.
  41. National Action Committee on the Status of Elvis in Canada from Ottawa, Canada writes: Dear otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States,

    No, we don't need Hillary Clinton to tell us how to run our health care system here in Canada. She should stay and tell Americans how to run theirs better. Truth is, 99% of us Canadians would not trade our health care system,whatever its shortcomings, for what you have in the US. This is not withstanding the best efforts of the vastly overfinanced US medical/insurance/pharmaceutical lobby groups, which trot out "typical Canadians" from time to time to slag our health care system to Americans. Truth is, the majority of Americans want a health care system like ours, notwithstanding the overly financed lobby groups. Hopefully a Clinton or an Obama will get the opportunity to do just that.
  42. Blue Nose from Canada writes: The missing key in this is the neutrals. Due to Michigan and Florida having been told they would be disqualified many neutrals attended the republican votes so that they would have a say in something.
    If they re-instate those two states right to vote for the Democratic candidate then under the voting rules, those neutrals who voted at the Republican caucus would be disqualified from voting at the Democratic one (where the majority would have preferred to vote in the first place). Losing the neutrals hurts Obama since he's been pulling the neutral vote more than the Billary campaign. She knows it and hence her fight for it.
  43. Anuradha Bose from ottawa, writes: Let the Democrats commit political suicide with the cocky little jr. senator from Illinois!
  44. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: Frankly, I could care less who wins since one way or another the US will become a more economically protectionist nation in the coming years as a response to their economic decline.

    That being said, if you're a Clinton supporter right now, I'm surprised you have the courage to admit it out loud. She voted to exclude Michigan and Florida when she thought she was going to win in a walk, but now is determined to see them count even though Michigan voters weren't even given the OPTION of voting for Obama. Democracy in action, eh?

    On top of that, she outright LIED about being under fire to boost her cred... which is pretty much a slap in the face to any Americans who have ACTUALLY put their lives at risk for their country.

    I don't care how smart she is. How in the world do you justify voting for a shameless, opportunistic liar as leader of the free world? Imagine what she'd be willing to do if she actually had POWER!
  45. Compos Mentis from Toronto, Canada writes: As I look forward to the convention in August, in my mind I have conjured this image of Ms. Clinton standing on the dais before the delegates at the convention, with green facemakeup shrieking like the wicked witch of the west, "I'll get you my pretties." There is no argument that Ms. Clinton is completely within her rights to drag this contest out, right onto the convention floor, a fact Mr. Obama has made on numerous occasions. However, when one looks at the optics of such action, it calls into question the character of the individual and when one evaluates the character of Ms. Clinton, one can only reach the conclusion that her sense of entitlement has trumped her sense of reason. She is deluded, in much the same way as those Maple Leaf fans were, into believing that she can somehow come away a victorious, when in reality all she is doing is delaying the inevitable, while causing catastrophic harm to her reputation and to the party she has served for so many years. Imagine if you will the outrage in the party were she able to convince party masters that the Florida and Michigan delgates should be apportioned in her favour! The reaction for many would be immediate and swift and would result in turmoil surpassing that of the Chicago convention decades ago, when a similar scenario split the party for years. Internecine warfare is never pretty and can only result on mortal damage to both camps. For the good of the party and the nation, Ms. Clinton needs to put service to both, ahead of her own personal agenda. To do otherwise is to ensure she is demonized forever!
  46. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: If Hillary hadn't married Bill, she'd be just another rich, lah-dee-dah, aging pseudo-liberal lawyer with wrinkles and saddlebags.

    Had she not married Bill, among the things she would have missed out on would be . . . lying about all those snipers at the Tuzla Airport. No wonder Scumbag Right-Wing Moneybags Scaife is now saying nice things about her; birds of a feather . . . .
  47. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Lawrence Hutchinson: Good Morning

    " ... Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: I do not recall seeing panhandlers in Toronto before Mulroney days...."

    " .... I grew up in dowtown Toronto in the 1950's and 60's. Trust me...there were lenty of panhandlers...."

    That is possible.

    I arrived in Toronto in 1968, relatively prosperous times for Toronto.

    My experience is of West of Spadina Front to Bloor which was relatively student area middle class. It had a healthy look.

    Today, it looks like a slum (except for the condos) and abounds in Panhandlers absent before Mulroney.
  48. Jonnie King from United States writes: Democrats NEED Clinton to stay in the race. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE IN GENERAL ELECTION. Obamas campaign pastor is not going away anytime soon Rev Wright says you don't have to wait for the afterlife for the mansion on the hilltop, hes right! to shut him up Trinity United Church of Christ is building Rev. Wright a $1 mil house on a lot that was purchased for $345,000. According to his federal income tax return Obama gave the Trinity United church $22,500 in contributions. CBS Chicago has strangely not released video they have of Obama at Trinity United Church of Christ Service with Pastor Wright. According to a Chicago Tribune article, at the Service Obama spoke to the cheering congregation and the choir sang, “Hallelujah Barack”. After the service Wright and Obama sat together, laughing , talking and signing books. if ANY other candidate had this controversy swirling the footage would have found it’s way to the national and cable news networks by now! Obama who marched with Farrakhan”Obama AND OPRAHS Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine (CNSNews.com) Wright continues his Obama supported attacks on non-blacks now slurring Italians in issue of Trumpet Newsmag. Wright states, Jesus enemies had their opinion, Italians looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans, and Jesus death on a cross was a public lynching Italian style! This government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the KKKlan of white supremacy who is clearly in charge.
  49. Martha K from Canada writes: I can't believe all these people who would be ready to throw Senator Clinton under a bus. She has every right to stay in the race. John McCain's opponent stayed in until the last minute where his ratings were 30% to McCain's 60% and he didn't get this much flack. I'm not sure how many here know that there are still TEN!!! states to have their primaries. Some of these are huge states and she's apt to do very well in several of them so this is by no means a done deal. Senator Obama is ahead by only a margin of about 5% in the popular vote and 10% in the delegate vote and by the way, just because a delegate has put forth their voting intention now does not mean they can't change it at the convention! They absolutely can. I like Mr. Obama but I can't get past the rhetoric, platitudes and the hope. I wish he'd come out with more concrete speeches. On another note, Michigan and Florida SHOULD be seated since the voters themselves only did what they were told to do - they shouldn't be disenfranchised. As to the poster who said Mrs. Clinton lied - well check out the American news - Mr. Obama had some dramas unveiled this past week which were quite shocking and the biased press gave them a pass. In fact that was the discussion on CNN last night - how 80% of the press is skewering her and elevating him - these are reporters and not commentators who are allowed to show personal bias. Interesting article in TIME by Joe Klein who postulates that there could be an Gore/Obama ticket - yes, GORE being the candidate for President. Check it out.
  50. André Villeneuve from Canada writes: I need help here! Although I have my favorite in this race I do not understand wht Florida and Michigan are still and issue!
    If these two states democrat organizations knew the rules way in advance why have they decided to break yhe rules and go ahead with their primaries? My understanding is these rules were agreed upon by all concerned including the candidates so why are still bickering about it?
  51. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Time to quit Hillary!
  52. Martha K from Canada writes: André Villeneuve from Canada writes: I need help here! Although I have my favorite in this race I do not understand wht Florida and Michigan are still and issue!
    If these two states democrat organizations knew the rules way in advance why have they decided to break yhe rules and go ahead with their primaries? My understanding is these rules were agreed upon by all concerned including the candidates so why are still bickering about it?"

    Mr. Villeneuve - I believe they are still bickering about it because the voters have been disenfranchised. Yes, the states' Democratic leaders agreed to the rules and yes they broke them but how is that the voters' fault? The voters are the ones being misrepresented and they are a huge swath of voters; these are not small states.

    As well I've read many commentaries where apparently rules are changed all the time and these types of positions are accomodated frequently. There have been no real consistent rules amongst parties that have lasted through the last 10 years. They are always in flux. At this moment though it serves the Obama team and their supporters very well to not have these states seated since they overwhelmingly would go to Mrs. Clinton.
  53. j boland from United States writes: She may be bad for the party but in her egotistical crusade for power she is helping the country in a perverted sort of way.

    It is only when two democrats rip into each other that the mainstream media bothers to cover the outrageous behavior of either of them. In finally doing so, we all can see that neither is fit to be even a dog catcher. Obama is an overt racist, but then again so is Hillary, and most democrats. Hillay is an overt liar, but then again so is Obama, and most democrats. Neither has an experience of any value, and it is clear that neither has any good judgment. Just what the world needs.
  54. Jared Dapena from Halifax, Canada writes: Jonnie King - evidentally, you think the Pastor Wright issue should still be first and foremost in the public eye and is enough to kill Obama's chances in November. You could be right - but given the fanatic, extreme right religious figures that lurk deep within the GOP, McCain would be wise not to cast the first stone. Well, perhaps wise isn't the word - old, white Southerners will eat this stuff up like cotton candy. Rather, McCain would be showing character not to cast any stones. Unfortunately, I hear that Fox News has some pretty damning evidence against Obama's postman due to come out this week. As for the Clinton trainwreck, there is no question her campaign will dig and pick at Obama until McCain has a high double digit lead in the polls, and then she'll "gracefully" drop out for the good of the party, knowing full well she has four more years to gain more "experience" and "war stories" that she can misrepresent and mis-speak about. Mis-speak - are you bloody serious?!?! And she'll drop out without the voices of those poor Michigan and Florida voters being heard...again for the good of the party. I somehow think that most voters in those two states aren't completely stupid - when Clinton was ahead, disenfranchise away! Now that she's well behind, she's their greatest advocate?!? Excuse me while I wipe away a tear.
  55. Nelson Peebles from raleigh, United States writes: Please let Hillry continue running. This campaign is no longer about Hillary. It is about Bill and Hillary [passing along the legacy to Chelsea. Chelsea Clinton will be the first female president of the USA. Hillary and Bill get the anxillary product - the money, book deals, corporate board seats, etc.. Just take a look at their tax returns from the previous years. Why would they want the scrutiny of the White House. What we all need to do is stop and take a deep breath or "Chill" as Bill has said. America is in the throws of a major crisis. It is the crisis of addiction. And, who should know better than Bill Clinton - our resident sex addict. And, along comes John McCain with the addicted wife. You do know that in addictions theory, the spouse is sicker than the addict. Nor, about America. Louis Farrakan recenly wrote that America is addicted to oil. OK OK OK So, it was Louis Farrakan who spoke this. But, don't shoot the messenger (That is addict behavior) n No, listen to the message and proved the messenger Here's wht you do "Try going without oil or gas for 90 days. Can't do it. Try 30 days. Can't do it. Try a week. A good week to try this is the week the rebate checks come back. No oil no gas no deposit of check GO ON STRIKE If ever American went on a no spsending spree for one week, the little people could bring the high rolling rich guys to their knees NO THAT"S AMERICAN
  56. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Jonnie King:

    " .......... Democrats NEED Clinton to stay in the race. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE IN GENERAL ELECTION. Obamas campaign pastor is not going away anytime soon Rev Wright says you don't have to wait for the afterlife for the mansion on the hilltop, hes right! to shut him up Trinity United Church of Christ is building Rev. Wright a $1 mil house on a lot that was purchased for $345,000. According to his federal income tax return Obama gave the Trinity United church $22,500 in contributions ...."

    Obama was born a Muslim to a Muslim father and a hijab clad American. He spent some of his first 10 formative years among the Muslims in Indonesia.

    In America, naturally, he turned to Christianity, Islam's closest sister. He contributed heavily to show his allegiance.

    But in the end he had to denounce his Pastor, and renounce the values he supported.

    I hope his brush with Christianity has been instructive.
  57. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    otto von abbatoir: Greetings

    " .... Hillary will make a fine ambassador in Canada. She can tell y'all how to run your health care system. She's got experience in that sort of thing...."

    Better than that. Let us give her honorary Canadian citizenship and run for Liberal Leadership. She will beat Harper hands down.

    (This is not sarcasm. But I know the chances of this happening are low)
  58. j boland from United States writes: "Christianity, Islam's closest sister." Oh, my, what a tidy bit of misinformation.

    Islam has no sisters, or brothers, since all others are infidels. Any good muslim knows that, and acts accordingly as to such. "Accordingly" has a short list: convert, submit and pay tribute, or die. While it is rather stupid and so dark-age/medievalish, it is also simple, and not hard to understand, unless you are a western "liberal."
  59. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:
    Charlie Brown says: "Reagan defeated communism".

    This is a technicolour dream in retrospect that helps Republicans feel good about the only Republican that hasn't left the White House in disgrace since Eisenhower.

    Communism defeated itself. Reagan just happened to be on the ice at the time. If you want to point to key figures who pushed that defective political system over the cliff, look to Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbachev.
    Reagan was so out of the loop that he was still rattling his cold war sabre long after Gorbachev had been sending conciliatory signals to the west.
    It took Reagan a while to catch on that the cold war was over and that the west had won.

    Reagan was the last one to know.
  60. André Villeneuve from Canada writes: To Martha K from Canada: Thank you very much for the explanation however there are still a few points that I do not understand.
    These voters are Democrat voters and not voters at large are they? In order to vote during the primaries say for the Democrat candidate, do you have to be a democrat member? If so, it issue is to be resolved by the membership at their next state convention would you think? As per news report, the Obama did not have his name appearing on the Michigan and (not sure) the Florida ballot; how this anomaly could make a fair call for Ms Clinton? Had it been run the way it was supposed to be would the numbers be the same? Unless there is a rerun, nobody will ever know.
    So my final thought is if this a matter of party management issue, the membership should hold to account its state/national organization, shouldn't they? As far as altering the rules to address special situations is fine with me as long as there is no advantage given to either party...
    Thanks aagin Martha.
  61. j boland from United States writes: Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes from ignorance of the highest magnitude, or more likely from mere wishful thinking, denying reality.

    While liberals world wide quaked at the Soviets and advocated appeasement and cowardice at every turn, Reagan, having discerned that the convential wisdom (that the Soviets were strong) was not correct, adopted the strategy that "they lose, we win" and he made it happen, via many actions, not the least of which was to provide hope on the other side of that iron curtain. Reagan was a leader. Your really ignorant mentality keeps masses in subjection world wide still.
  62. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:
    j boland -

    Yeah, if you ever want to knee an american conservative where it hurts, just blow the whistle on their naive view of history, particularly that doodering old codger, the Iran contra guy.

    The reason that you have to pretend that Reagan was awake for part of his presidency was that all your other republican potus (poti?) of the last 50 years have been complete disasters.

    Historians are pegging Reagan as a mediocre to ordinary president, regardless of how hard the republican partisans try to make him out to be something he wasn't - effective.

    You can't fool history for long.
  63. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    j boland:

    " .... Syed says "Muslims have yet to murder 120,000,000 within 31 years (1914-45) of their own. " I agree, but not for any lack of desire, only lack of ability...."

    Keep on dreaming. Despite US and Israeli provoking Iraqi Civil War, it is a credit to Shia and Sunni leadership to hold them back.

    " ..... Given time, and further opportunity, which oil riches and modern communications now provide, islam will do its best to match and exceed those numbers, which will include both muslims and non muslims since none matter to the frenzied jihadists...."

    West can not defeat Islam, it hopes they will self-destruct. Dream becomes technicolor.

    " ..... And it really is a misnomer to call islam a religion. It is really a political venture wrapped in religion to better control the flock who tend to be almost a hundred percent of the herd mentality...."

    Who needs religion today. We need a socio-economic system for the Trade Era, one that Mohammed the Trader devised.
  64. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:
    Syed Abbas says:

    "Muslims have yet to murder 120,000,000 of their own"

    A little late to embrace technology, they now have the opportunity to catch up. Some of them certainly seem to have the will.
  65. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Thomas D'Arcy McGee:

    " .... Syed Abbas says: Muslims have yet to murder 120,000,000 of their own"

    " ..... A little late to embrace technology, they now have the opportunity to catch up. Some of them certainly seem to have the will...."

    The Christians used old technology to kill 120,000,000 of their own. That was before the Nukes.

    The Muslims have had that technology for a long time. Still, the carnage to that level is no where to be found in Islam. It never will.

    Most of the killing is where the West has interfered. Once the borders are re-drawn there will be peace.

    Eat your hearts out, Islam bashers. But pray tell me. Why is America turning to a Muslim Obama for help?
  66. Gail Thomas from Waterdown, Canada writes: As somebody earlier said, Obama is not Kennedy, but neither is Hillary. They would both reverse the late President Kennedy's most famous saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" and turn the US into a nanny state if the Dems (progressives) have the majority. A weak looking US would bring about more chaos in the world and those who look to the US for help against tyranny would be slaughtered. Negotiating would take on a whole new meaning and be seen as subservient by those who would do us all harm. McCain is the best choice in terms of strength regardless of his age. He needs a Mitt Romney for VP to concentrate on the US economy.
  67. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: We need a Solomon to decide. In the case of the disputed baby, you may remember, he suggested that the baby be cut in half (ie destroyed) and the real mother then agreed to allow the baby to go to the other woman. In this way he was able to decide who had the child's interests at heart. Now will Sen. Clinton prefer that the Democratic Party be destroyed rather than she give up what she considers her rightful claim to the Presidency. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT DEFEATING THE REPUBLICANS OR ANYONE'S PARTICULAR CLAIM TO THE PRESIDENCY?
    CYMRO
  68. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:
    Syed

    Obama is a man who was exposed to Islam and turned his back on it.
  69. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Hillary worked a long time and put her heart and soul into this campaign to win, and Now to have a young popular black upstart with credentials undermine her is hard to take. Her experience is important but her 'old' tie to the system is unhealthy at this time -as far as the Young Educated are concerned; they are betting on a complete change of tactics to change America, and I think they should be given the chance.
  70. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Denis Love from Victoria BC, Canada writes: "The US media has been pushing for the other democrat and just now some of the same media are having second thoughts about the guy. "...The Republicans desperatly want the other fellow to become the candidate so McCain can wipe the floor with a fellow who has limited experience in anything beyond making speeches." _____ Before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton was annointed as the Democratic front runner by the U.S. media. As the runner-up to the 2004 party nomination, John Edwards should have had this status. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the Republicans desperately want Obama to win the Democratic nod. They have been licking their chops for months at the prospect of running against Clinton, who has been a polarizing figure in U.S. politics since Bill Clinton's campaign for the 1992 election. They're sure they can deep six her in the November election. The prospect of facing Obama gives them headaches. One of the Republican underground tactics has been to coax its followers to vote in Democratic primaries for Clinton. Therefore, I believe Clinton's numbers would evaporate somewhat should she win the nod. Obama, too, has received many votes from Republicans. Most of those votes, however, have come from Republicans disenchanted with the direction the nation and party have taken since the election of GWB. As for healthcare, I think it would be a non-issue as Clinton's attempt to institute universal healthcare was a debacle. With the swelling ranks of uninsured and underinsured Americans and the exorbitant cost of health insurance, no candidate can really afford to ignore the issue. The current system has bankrupted many people, even those who already had insurance before illness struck.
  71. j boland from United States writes: Between Syed and Thomas I am wondering which has the least knowledge or understanding of history. It is rather mind boggling to contemplate. Up is down and down is up, for both. Both accept the myths of their own political systems as reality. But they do demonstrate the danger facing the world.

    It is curious how a Syed can continue to maintain his blissful fantasies of islam now that he lives in a civilized nation like Canada. Perhaps he is just a con man, no more a muslim than is Don Cherry, but assuming he or his family came to north america voluntarily, one can only be astonished that he would long for the violence and ignorance of the old country. Islam is by definition totalitarian, giving little real freedom to its people or to its subjectees. Thinking muslims in the US have no use for the old country and are ecstatic to be here where they understand real freedom and opportunity, but wahhabis are not thinking muslims and if Syed is real then he is most likely of such mentality judging my his inane comments.
  72. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:

    Gail Thomas says:

    "...if the Dems (progressives) have the majority. A weak looking US would bring about more chaos ...."

    Gail, the US is the weakest it has been since it emerged from its pre-WWII isloationism.

    It's economy is in tatters. Entering a recession, or possibly worse.

    It is a debtor nation. In hock to China, among many others.

    It's military is drained by its foreign misadventures.

    It has gone from the most admired nation just eight years ago to the most-loathed.

    The US is already weak looking. As a result of the policies of the current republican administration.

    The democrats couldn't make things much worse.

    The American people will choose change.

    Old John is Bush's third term.
  73. Mark S Noel from NT, Canada writes: If Obama is a cake walk to win, why are the Obama supporters trying so desperately to get Hillary to step down? Oh, that would be because he isn't a cake walk to win, a fact which Hillary also knows. In politics you don't campaign to come in second place but to win, just ask Dion who wants not just an election but one he believes he can win.
  74. j boland from United States writes: "Obama is a man who was exposed to Islam and turned his back on it."

    Would that such is so, but no longer clear that it is since he remains a big fan of "Minister Farrakan", as Obama calls him, a muslim of sorts and one of the great racists of the modern age. One thing Obama has clearly turned his back on is good judgment.
  75. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:

    Mark S Noel

    I don't hear anyone, particularly Obama supporters, saying he's "a cake walk to win".

    Where did you get that?

    The old 'Straw man" tactic? How about using real facts to make your case?

    People are suggesting that Hillary step down now in order to limit divisiveness in the Dem party, get started on their presidential campaign preparations, and focus their fire on John McCain.
  76. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Thomas D'Arcy McGee: Hi

    Denouncing Jeremiah = rejecting Islam?

    In 1970s Dave Barrett, BC Premier, asked a crowd:

    "Do you want medicare"? Yes, roared all
    "public education"? yes, yes
    "social assistance"? yes
    "equal opportunity"? oh yea

    "Do you want socialism"? No, Never

    Baraka Hussein Obama, weaned on Hijab clad convert mom, spent formative years with Muslims, pushes non-western values:

    - Color blind
    - Not for Big business or Bankers
    - Freer Trade
    - Peace
    - quiet on Israel

    Obama a Mohammedan? - NO, never.

    Mohammed the first and only in history to utterly route combined forces of Big Business, Bankers, Trade Monopolists, and Judahists, and tell how to do it in Koran.

    For 9/11 anti-Koranic, anti-Mohammedan racist, misogynist, violent, ignorant, Trade Centre downing Jihadis, US turns to Mohammed.

    His Medina socio-economics = Univesality, Individual Rights, Emancipation of women, Knowledge, meritocracy, peace, Free Trade.

    Mohammed yes, Islam no?
  77. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: André Villeneuve from Canada writes: "To Martha K from Canada: Thank you very much for the explanation however there are still a few points that I do not understand. These voters are Democrat voters and not voters at large are they? In order to vote during the primaries say for the Democrat candidate, do you have to be a democrat member?" ____________ This is where rules in the U.S. are very messy. Basically, each state has its own rules regarding crossover voting at the primary level. For example, to vote in Minnesota and Wisconsin primaries, one need not show party affiliation when checking in to vote. As a registered independent, I'm allowed to vote in any party's primary election in Minnesota. The cavaet is that I can only vote once. If I choose to vote in the Democratic primary, I can't come back two hours later and vote in the Republican primary. (This is why voters must check-in before receiving a ballot; poll workers check your name off on the list of all eligible voters in the precinct to ensure one vote per person.) In Pennsylvania, however, voters must register as a member of a political party to vote in a primary election before a proscribed cutoff date. He or she will receive the ballot for their declared party only. If a Republican wants to vote in the Democratic party, they must re-register as a Democrat by the cutoff date. (This method is like the one I've heard is used in Canada.) Many voters under this system don't realize that they can change party registration. If they're unhappy with the party in which they're registered, they stay home come primary election day. You do not, however, have to declare party affiliation to vote in the general election. Hope this helps!
  78. The Natrix from Toronto, Canada writes: Sen. Clinton is uninspiring and lacks any real ideas (aside from the kookie vote-pandering ones). Her ability to just shrug off and laugh things off is also troubling. Obama, there is something untrustworthy about him as he appears to have some sort of secret agenda, and way too calculating. His sound bites and general rheotoric will only carry him so far until people start to listen in the general election. I do agree that she should test the waters a bit, but will soon need to get out if there is not a convincing reversal of tides.
  79. j boland from United States writes: "The democrats couldn't make things much worse."

    Another fantasy from Thomas.

    Actually, they can, and would given the opportunity once again, witness the 90s under Billie Bob Clinton, going from the collapse of the Soviets--as we discussed before--to a period of (1) ignoring the growing threat and actions of islam as Bin Laden flexed his muscles with impugnity, (2) intentionally degrading intelligence gathering capabilities as their version of "public policy", and (3) giving the chicoms missile technology for campaign contributions, into presto 9/11. Thank you, democrats.
  80. Rocky Balboa from United States writes: The US primary season has gone on far too long and all of the surviving candidates have been damaged by it. McCain comes across as a dithering old warmongering coot, Clinton as a lier and Obama refuses to disown his hate filled, anti-American former preacher. So there you have it. Maybe a country that would never elect an openly gay man or a Jew or a Muslim to the Presidency doesn't deserve any better.
    • Posted 01/04/08 at 12:38 PM EDT |