Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Obama leads in superdelegates for first time

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 6:55 AM EDT 12/05/08

Hillary Clinton's once-imposing lead wiped out ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. James Tod from Vancouver, Canada writes: If this news is true, then in my view Hillary should gracefully step aside. Too bad because she would have been a great president.
  2. so, what from USA, Canada writes: I agree. She needs to put the party first, not her ambitions. The Democrats brand will be destroyed if she stays in it any longer. I'm sure the party elite will be telling her to step aside Tuesday night after her win...go out on a high note.
  3. Huey Lewis Has The News from Canada writes:
    Cant this chick take a hint, or does she have more dirty tricks up her sleeve? Ya know what they say about the rat in the corner,Look out Obama, thats one dangerous chick your dealin with there.
  4. PJ Casey Jardine from Canada writes: Excellent news hope she has enough in her to step down instead of tearing apart the party more than she has in the past few weeks
    Go Obama Go
  5. Melvin Porridge from Canada writes: Hillary needs to accept that she's been defeated.
  6. Tom h from Edmonton, Canada writes: Good fight, Ms. Clinton, but it's time to step aside. Staying in the race any longer is just prolonging the agony/delaying the inevitable/(or whatever your preferred cliche is).
  7. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: I guess it is the superdelegates who will decide. Hopefully soon!
  8. Andrea Timmons from Kingston Ontario, Canada writes: The Democrats will win the Presidential election easily by having Clinton accept the nomintation as Obama's VP running mate. I believe this is a move already being considered by many Democrats.
  9. Antonio San from Canada writes: It is so funny to read those canadians and their advices on US politics... If Obama wins the US will feel like home for those, well at least for a 100 days since afterward they'll be bashing him.
  10. Jamie Taylor from Courtenay, Canada writes: This is very good news, the world needs Obama right now.
  11. John Hinkley from Thornhill, ON, Canada writes: I'm sure that Hilary Clinton is still in this not only because her ego demands it but also because she herself questions Obama's moral, religious and leadership values.

    As should we all, not just Americans. He has been less than clear in these areas.

    He certainly has had a weird upbringing and he sure has made some questionable judgements vis a vis his life as a person of mixed race (Caucasian/African) and mixed religion (Islamic/Christian).

    And, he has played his cards close to his vest by making the most of his options.

    I do not see how this can bode well for Democrats. They are caught between a rock and a hard place.

    "Do we elect a female or a black person as the next President of the USA?"

    I sure wouldn't want to be in the voting booth making that historic decision.

    My guess is that when push comes to shove most Democrats, at least a majority of white Christian Democrats, just will not vote.
  12. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: Republicans will have a field day Obama. He guarantees a Republican victory.
  13. 20 20 from Canada writes: Nothing wrong with that Antonio San, that's what democracy is supposed to be about - informed citizens closely watching what their elected representatives do and holding them to account.

    People weren't really bashing Bush in his first 100 days in office either. In fact, it wasn't really until just after Iraq was invaded in his 2nd year in office that most of the world stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    I think the US will automatically gain a lot of goodwill from around the world if they do make Obama their president. It doesn't mean they will stop getting criticism for their policies and actions.
  14. Ken L from toronto, Canada writes: Hilary or Obama, we can all agree it will be a better place post-Bush.
  15. 20 20 from Canada writes: In fact, make that 3rd year in office (ie. after 2 years in office)
  16. Marley B from Vancouver, Canada writes: Is it cake and wine at the G&M today? Surely, you are salivating over some tasty morsel besides the one you proudly gush in the headline.

    You had the matches ready for Clinton's funeral pyre from day one and never once objectively covered this race.

    Are you charmed by good looks and slick You Tube videos done by celebs or do you just openly hate the Clintons and/or a woman in power?

    Come on, fess up.
  17. wayne powers from saskatoon, writes: Big deal the dumb democrats already had the black vote, McCain wouldn't get them unless he picked Watts or Rice as VP . So McCain wins and the democrats get 4 more years to sit on the swidelines. But if he did pick Watts or Rice they would have a better chance to be the Prez, McCain ain't the worlds healthy's guy.
  18. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: Fight on Hillary! Without you, it's the Republicans for 4 more years.
  19. R.S. New York, NY from United States writes: This is irrelevant, just like the Democractic primary. America is not ready to elect either a woman or a black president. McCain will be the next U.S. president. Case closed!
  20. Vancouver Calgary from Canada writes: Obama is the only hope for a country that has lost its way in the world.
  21. Runaway 08 from Wet Vancouver, Canada writes: Tsk tsk. Obama had a "weird" upbringing, eh? Father takes off, raised by single mother and grandparents. Scholarships to prestigious schools/universties. Whoa! How weird is that!! (Hey, it reminds me of my own upbringing....if U of T qualifies as "prestigious")

    And his middle name is - get this! - Hussein?? Granted, it's a Kenyan tradition to give their children the names of their family members - my own middle name reflects that, too - and Obama's African GRANDfather was a Muslim. His dad was an atheist/agnostic, and he was raised an agnostic. Very weird indeed. Hands up those who were raised as agnostics.
  22. Two Cents from Canada writes: Randal, who is your preference between John McCain and Hilary Clinton? If that were the choice which would you rather have in the Whitehouse for 4 years?
  23. w sykora from Canada writes: Bad news for Republicans (and their Con soulmates on this board). Obama is raising money at three times the rate of McCain. And he has yet to start his campaign against McCain.

    McCain's neocon utterings and recent pandering to the social conservatives has started to turn off the independents. Obama now leads McCain among unaffiliated voters by nine percentage points.

    Unless Bush unleashes a war on Iran before November, it's four years in the wilderness for Republicans.
  24. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Stupid, stupid Democrats. This round was not the time for either a black or woman candidate. That would have been the next election. Obama will be the next Democratic candidate. And he will lose. Very badly. McCain will win - two terms. And make no mistake, he will continue the GWB programme and agenda. Even if it is in a mitigated and more rational form, this spells the death of the US. Politically, economically and - most importantly - morally and ethically. Ya'll had better start learning to speak and read Mandarin. Cantonese too. Better start learning to stir-fry lots of veggies as well. And you'd better start saving up for those bullets you will be charged for when the executions start in earnest. I just wish there was some way to keep you bozos from taking the rest of us down with you.
  25. Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: The NYT had him already ahead yesterday, and CNN has him two behind with these latest additions. Hard to figure out how CNN tallies its estimate.
  26. Old blue from Canada writes: Great news..........now Obama can gracefully accept defeat by McCain....and the country can get back on track with the Repubs in the White House for another 4 years.

    Please hurry, my budgie is getting real tired of seeing this crap on the bottom of his cage.
  27. Rex Carbo from Energy City, Canada writes: I suspect the forecast for November, 2008 by R. S. from New York is closer than many would have thought.
  28. George Duncan from Canada writes: Obama does not possess the experience, depth, skill set, etc inorder to be the President of the USA. It is interesting indeed the only Democratic alternative to Obama they could come up with is Clinton. Either of the three Presidential hopefuls are weak inorder to effectively represent the USA domestically and abroad.
  29. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: I am not at all convinced that McCain is going to waltz into the White House if Obama is the nominee, and the data supports my thinking: in both Indiana this week, and Pennslyvania a few weeks ago, 27% of the Republican voters voted for either Huckabee or Ron Paul even though they had absolutely nothing to gain from it, except to show the party how dissatisfied they are with McCain as their nominee. More Republicans voted against McCain in Pennslyvania than there was in the margin between Obama and Clinton. And further, if nearly 80% of Americans do not approve of the direction their country is going, I don't think McCain can dissassociate himself from that particular smell. And finally, there is no presidency on record where the serving President had approval ratings this bad and that party prevailed.
  30. Norm Albert from ?, Canada writes: John McCain is the real winner here. If he has a snow balls chance in hell of wining this ellection it will only be greatly enhanced after the two Democrates tear one another a part. Regardless of who wins this round of political back stabbing supporter of the other may very well find McCain an easier pill to swallow. Both of these candidates are using up good resources battling one another. If this is an example of Clintons judgement I would not want to call her at "3am" with any bad news. There is a point at which we all have to face the mirror and face facts. The writting has been on the wall for sometime and this is not a show of courage. It is foulish pride and stubbornness. Something the US can do with far less of. This is not David verse Goliath. It is Goliath being picked on by David.
    This is more Visually not Black verse white or man Verses woman.
    It is black verses woman in this round. Neither of these two stand to walk away clean. You cannot ignore the reality.
    The longer this goes on the less time there is to bury the hatchet.
    May the good lord forgive them.
  31. Mike M from Sheunacadie N.S., Canada writes: Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: The NYT had him already ahead yesterday, and CNN has him two behind with these latest additions. Hard to figure out how CNN tallies its estimate.
    ================================================
    CNN's interest is in ratings, when this ends so does the nightly bonanza of "breaking news", worn out pundits, and "crucial primaries".
  32. looking on from Canada writes: It is so sad for the American people that such a shaddy person will be bidding for President of their country. He is bad news and his true colours will show up but maybe too late> God help us all!!
  33. Matthew R from Canada writes: The woman is done. It's too bad, because I thought she would have been the best candidate for the US president.
  34. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: McCain will be the next US president.

    All he has to do is say, "Boo!" and the Democrats will run away; needless to say, it's a proven technique.
  35. A B from Saskatoon, Canada writes: For those who are saying McCain will win - do you actually pay attention that right wing policy turned off America from the current president? No matter what next republican president would do Bush seems to be at least popular president on the record - so, why to vote for another Republican? 2006 showed you what's coming - you want to accept it or not ...
  36. Allan Cup Pugh from Canada writes: The Clintons are truly horrible people.
  37. francesco galassi from Ferrara, Italy writes: I think I said this before in another thread on the Clinton/Obama issue some time ago, but you'll forgive me (I hope) if I repeat it: who else is old enough to remember another charming, outsider-ish Democrat who was all for change and renewal and new ways of doing things and trust and re-building America's reputation in the world? Who else remembers the underdog who came up from behind and won the Iowa primary against an "establishment" candidate? The unknown man who, on that Iowa victory, built "momentum" (whatever that is), and won the nomination and eventually the US presidency? The nice-guy, all-for-renewal moral man who went on to become the most despised US president in history (ok, that was before GWB)? Who remembers him? The well-intentioned, moral, open-hearted Jimmy Carter? Oh Lord, please, PLEASE, save us from good intentions and fresh faces and renewal. We have enough troubles, already. Give us today competent people who know the complexity of life, yeah, and will take the least trouble-making response unto it. And if that cannot be, oh Lord, give unto us safe, corrupt politicians who will do nothing unexpected except line their own pockets (my country being a good example of that). But in Thy mercy, oh Lord, be Ye considerate unto Thine folk, and spare us novelty, re-building and enthusiasm. For Thou knowest, only anger, and pain, and chaos will come of it.
  38. looking on from Canada writes: Allan Cup---do you know the Clintons personally-if so you are a lucky person.
  39. joe kelly from Canada writes: looking on from Canada writes: "It is so sad for the American people that such a shaddy person will be bidding for President of their country. He is bad news and his true colours will show up but maybe too late> God help us all!!"

    Yes indeed. I think his "true colours" are indeed showing through already. Nudge nudge wink wink.
  40. South Paw from Canada writes: Where do people get that McCain will win vs Obama. Polling has Obama beating McCain and those margin have only been getting larger over time.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

    McCain is also trailing badly in fundraising versus both Dem candidates.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anDWekGuCW8E

    Also Obama outpolls McCain on best to handle the economy 26-23 in a Bloomberg/La Times poll.

    ``This is a warning shot for McCain that he really needs to step up his game on talking about the economy,'' says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. ``The economy is more than just a national concern, it is affecting people's pocketbooks, and when that happens there is a sea change.''

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aw9hR7CsoGQk&refer=politics
  41. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky writes: "Stupid, stupid Democrats. This round was not the time for either a black or woman candidate. That would have been the next election."

    Wrong Orest, wrong, wrong, wrong. The Dems picked middle-of-the-road, white-picket-fence candidates the last two outings--both of whom were eminently more qualified than G.W.Bush. But in the end, both lost (well, many will say that Gore didn't in fact lose the first election, but that's another story).

    It is Obama's time. America is looking for a change and Mr. Obama is the right person at the right time.
  42. Hugh May from Khon Kaen, Thailand writes: R.S., from the United States, I agree with you completely. It was not too many years ago drinking fountains in the American south had signs "Whites Only". Clinton is an opportunist. Only one reason she did not leave the adulterous Billy when he was in office. Her chances of winning the nomination much better as the wife of the former President, instead of, the former wife of the former President. The Presidency is McCain's to lose.
  43. A B from Saskatoon, Canada writes: South Paw from Canada writes: Where do people get that McCain will win vs Obama. Polling has Obama beating McCain and those margin have only been getting larger over time...

    Either in their dreams, either they are paid to think that way...

    I would not be McCain - running for president and knowing that there is no chance to win.
  44. Norm Albert from ?, Canada writes: Do you know I really made a commitment not to get drawn into this debate. I tried to give up smoking with the same results. I keep saying it doesn't matter to me who wins "the US Election" and it doesn't any more than it matters who the ruling parties are here.
    The truth of the matter it's impossible to be impartial. We have been bombarded with this issue for years. Talk about your plagues and viruses. We are constantly manipulated in caring about issues beyond our control. If anyone thinks for a second a mark on a piece of paper is going to improve your lot in life you are sadly mistaken. It saddens me to make that statement. In all honesty the deck is clearly stacked against us.
    Who's to blame? The media for directing our attention. The rich who see this as the ultimate game of "he who dies with the most toys win" 0r the poor who do what ever they have to to survive.
    Bottom line is "it doesn't matter because we all loose in the end"
    This battle raging on in the US will never end and never matter. We have choosen our path and we will continue to follow it. Feathering our own nest at the misfortune of others. Makes sense to me. Little sense.
  45. joe kelly from Canada writes: R.S. New York, NY from United States writes: "This is irrelevant, just like the Democractic primary. America is not ready to elect either a woman or a black president. McCain will be the next U.S. president. Case closed!"

    "Case closed"? Don't think so. He will win and it will be to America's fortune that he does. It is not even worth debating the FACT of his groundswell of support among under-40 voters of all colours. In otherwords, the future of the country. People are tired of the political liars who got the country into the trouble it is in --- a destination that was obvious to any sober-minded person who'd examined GW's first term. People are exhausted. They allowed themselves to be duped by the neo-cons. "Experience"? No thank-you. The much-vaunted "experience" of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rove/Limbaugh?etc type has lead to unmitigated disaster. Now is the time for intelligence and sober-minded policy and addressing the vast middle and working classes who are eating exhaust fumes chez GW.
  46. A B from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Norm Albert from ?, Canada writes:

    We have choosen our path and we will continue to follow it. Feathering our own nest at the misfortune of others. Makes sense to me. Little sense.

    With 80% Canadian export to the States - how it does not matter? It did matter even when Chretien was in Gov't and with Harper it is even more.
  47. J Dapena from Halifax, Canada writes: Considering that presidents are surrounded by their advisors and cabinet, and kept in check by the Senate and the House, I would MUCH rather see an "inexperienced" candidate with honest intentions win rather than an "experienced" candidate who is corrupt and powerhungry. Now that even the media are finally unable to sell the Dem nomination as a close race anymore, Obama will be able to focus his attention on the GOP. Judging by some of the comments here and by exit polls taken during many primaries, more Clinton supporters have said they won't support Obama in November than vice versa. Granted, what people say in the heat of the moment doesn't always hold true...but I'd love to know what excuse these white, mainly female, blue-collar gun owners and churchgoers will give for not supporting their Democratic nominee. His inexperience? Who his pastor was? NAFTA? Oil prices? No experience dodging sniper fire? Those same supporters may use a number of excuses, but like some of you have already mentioned, there are many people in the US that probably won't support Obama simply because he's black. There's no way to sugarcoat it, it's the blunt truth. The Clintons know this, hence the very subtle appeals they keep making to the white, blue collar crowd. The fact that they keep targeting this demographic in this way is disturbing and certainly isn't in the party's best interests. But I guess they've made no secret of whose best interests they're looking out for. Shameless.
  48. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: I hope the pro maccain posters sent him some money and quickly while he is still alive!
  49. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: Here's a interesting story detailing the why of the upcoming GOP demise.

    GOP getting crushed in polls, key races

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10238.html
  50. looking on from Canada writes: If I were an American,even though Mrs.Clinton may not win I would be damn proud to see someone who believes in herself and works like heck for her country and this lady has done that.She has determination and pride and thats not to be sneared at Mr.&Mrs. American!!
  51. joe kelly from Canada writes: PS. I would have had much more respect for McCain had he responded to the Rovian/GW personal attacks on him (as a republican presidential candidate in 2000) as one would expect a TRUE leader/commander-in-chief/military man to respond --- by socking Rove and GW in the face both literally and figuretively. Instead, HE TOOK IT. HE ATE THEIR SH#T and quietly ran home with his tail between his legs and sucked back up to the Republican Party. Some set of principles that McCain has. He may have shown great courage as a military man but as a politician, he went for the easy 'money'.
  52. Rick C from Canada writes: Hilary really has no other option but to quit; finally. Her only hope after Indiana/NC was that the superdelegates would overrule the delegant count from the primaries. That hope no longer exists as Obama has the majority there too now.

    With no conceivable way to win she is doing her party a disservice by not stepping aside and backing Obama.
  53. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Obama will win because he is the only sane one. The people of the world are tired of those who want war or 'to obliterate Iran', etc. The people of the world prefer negotiation rather than confrontation. The people of the world want co-operation rather than bullying tactics. The people of the world want some restraint and humour and some sincere sympathy for -not only their own downtrodden -but the millions in need WITHOUT STRINGS ATTACHED (e.g. Burma). Hillary is definitely of the old school, wanting to weild her authority over states who want to protect their natural resources. McCain would also prefer to have resources of U.S. ownership WITHOUT HAVE TO GO TO WAR TO GET THEM (his own words).
  54. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: looking on from Canada writes: If I were an American,even though Mrs.Clinton may not win I would be damn proud to see someone who believes in herself and works like heck for her country and this lady has done that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree............. The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president. Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton. Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama. Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali. It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
  55. looking on from Canada writes: Yvonne-you sound like Jack Layton who thinks everyone can sit down and have a wee cup of tea and talk. Are you kidding-Bin L having a wee chat etc.
  56. J Dapena from Halifax, Canada writes: South Paw - those were just examples of mis-pardoning and mis-gifting...:)
  57. maryetta thielen from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: Hillory will never be offered the VP post as Michelle is very against her. Hillory voters wont vote Obama and vice versa, put them on the same ticket and no one will vote for it. Should he be stupid enough to offer it, and she accepts, who till be his food taster for four years.
    He better stay out of parks and garages.
    Poor Chelsea, she will never have a WH wedding. Would obama have won all those states back in Feb if all the stuff about him was out there then.
    Main reason white elites are voting for him is guilt from supposed wrongs centuries ago. And remember, many of Hillorys voters were cross overs, who will not vote for her in Nov.
    What happened to her, she was about to be crowned when she announced and was so sure of it she never planned a campaign after Super Tuesday.
    Pres McCain will be inaugurated in Jan 2009.
    Any bets on whether she will stay in the Senate or resign.
    I will bet that if she has to quit, the clinton machine will sabatoge Obama, like they did Kerry, so she can run again in 2012.
    Having listened to Michelle a few time, I think she is vicious and will have a lot to say on who in on her husbands team should he win.
    Don't cross her.
  58. looking on from Canada writes: South Paw who cares what you know -Mrs. Clinton has guts and she would be a hellofalot better than the strange fellow Obama who has already lied about his poor childhood that didn't exist!
  59. bob london from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky; worry about your leader Dalton. As communisim rules the "liberals", the Democratic Obama is to the right of Harper.

    Odd but ideologically correct.
  60. G Rossi from TO, Canada writes: looking on from Canada writes: South Paw who cares what you know -Mrs. Clinton has guts and she would be a hellofalot better than the strange fellow Obama who has already lied about his poor childhood that didn't exist! *************************************************** His poor childhood never existed....yeah....well....Hillary was never a lawyer either!! Take that! Geez, the crap that's coming out of some people's mouths. You think 'Mrs Clinton in name only' is a hellofalot better because she has GUTS? Saddan Husseins sons had guts - they died in a blaze of glory against a friggin US platoon...doesn't mean I'd want them to run a country! maryetta thielen, the reason why white elites vote for Obama is the same reason why anyone with an education does - because they don't believe the same bs that idiots do. And the guilt for wrongs done centuries ago? Blacks weren't even allowed to go to the same schools or walk on the same side of the road forty years ago...in my lifetime! I know, because I remember it! And there's still plenty of places down south where races don't mix...today! When black preachers and a Moslemsounding middle name are even brought up in an election, it's proof that racism is alive and well...even in Canada it seems.
  61. joshua morris from Canada writes: the next few primaries clinton is poised to win by the polls. just to give a heads up
  62. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: The winner has to be Clinton otherwise if it's Obama they will have
    to spend too much $$$$'s to change the Amero Dollar to a man.
    Right now the one side of the Amero is a woman. After all she's closer to the Royals than Obama. us of a is a Corporation under British rule only property around White House is country of us of a.
    (The Biggest Secrety by David Icke).
  63. looking on from Canada writes: G Rossi--sure sorry got your temper up -promise Sir it wont happen again.
  64. Justin Payne from Richmond BC, Canada writes: South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: Here's a interesting story detailing the why of the upcoming GOP demise.
    GOP getting crushed in polls, key races

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10238.html

    Yah...I think all McCain supporters need to open thier eyes and read this article. McCain uses "Bushspeak" as a second language. He has passed the 'Best by date'. But hey...McCain is good for the Dems as I can't imagine McCain would do well agianst Obama...
  65. Joey Tavares from Toronto, Canada writes: What everyone seems to be forgetting, in this John Kerry feel good moment, is that this is America we are dealing with.

    The country where all the lefties stayed home so that Bush could glean his second term, remember?

    If ANY of you think Mr. Obama has a shot, you are FORGETTING WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

    The best way to GUARANTEE a Republican win is to let this Bryant Gumble wannabe take a stand.

    It's called the lesser of two evils. An equation those south of the 49th have yet to figure out.

    God help us all.
  66. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: And its about time we put Hillary on a shelf. She is of a vindictive type no longer needed in this day and age.
  67. B Johnson from Canada writes: And at one time they said a Catholic man would never be elected as President of the USA. The Republicans are TOAST in America and will be for the next few terms. They will go down as hard as the CONS did under Muldoon. The only hope the US has of redeeming itself to the world even partially is by electing Obama.

    Republicans have always come out every OTHER term yelling "change". Just like our CONS here. They are ultimately given the chance and they inevitably blow it by sheer pandering to the neo-con religious right wingnuts. The same will play out in the US and again in Canada.
  68. Duncan Morris from Salmon Arm, Canada writes: The calm idealistic Senator from Illinois, the same one with very little so called "experience" out played, out manouvered and out lasted the daunting Clinton Machine that was ready from day one with 20 years experience and vast networks under their belt. Sounds like a "fairytale" but one that has attracted more popular votes, more states, more caucases and now more superdelegates. George McGovern, John Kerry, the Kennedys, Bill Richardson are not light weights and have plenty political savy I dare say more than the nay sayers on this thread put together 1000 times over and they believe there is a change coming and this young man from Illinois is now at the head of it.
  69. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: looking on from Canada writes: South Paw who cares what you know -Mrs. Clinton has guts and she would be a hellofalot better than the strange fellow Obama who has already lied about his poor childhood that didn't exist!
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firstly, it's not what I know, it's what journalists are writing (those would be the links that I provided).

    Please provide me with evidence of these childhood lies you refer to.
  70. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: looking on: . . . Is Obama "the most liberal member in the entire Senate!" . . . too ?

    Just asking.
  71. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: .
    Hillary will keep up this fraudulent claim that she is still in the race until she has recouped her $11.5 million "loan" even if she has to beg her poor "hard-working white americans" for their last
    $10.

    Thank god Obama saved us from another Clinton.
    .
  72. Bubbles McBubbles from Trawna, Canada writes: For all of you mooks who don't think Obama has a chance against McCain, here's the biggest difference between the two of them:

    When Obama received the swiftboat treatment from Hillary he stood his ground and won.

    When McCain received the same treatment from Bush/Rove he folded like a cheap tent.

    The same will happen in '08. To put it frankly, McCain is an unstable old coot with too many skeletons in his closet.
  73. Duane Freemantle from writes: Now it unanimous among the various newspapers. Some had Obama leading in super delegates on Friday. Clinton will still win the next primary. The Democratic party should hope that Clinton does not stay on until the end. Also, Clinton should not stay until the last primary and the sooner she concedes the better. Obama leads in popular vote, super delegates, pledge delegates, total delegates, and states won. Even if Obama gets 40% in all categories he will over the 2025 need for the nomination.

    Some people have written negatively against Obama. Many nations have already have had vary capable leaders and Obama seems that he will be one. American will one of the last western nations to reach outside of the 'tradition old boys club' to find a leader. This was suppose to be Clinton's turn. I do not know if Marget Thatcher was the first, but Clinton had a chance to become the most famous female leader of a western nation. Obama is not the first Africa-America to run for his parties nomination for the president of America, but he is the most astute one.

    It seems some Canadians are not ready for Obama (or even McCain) as president of the United States of America. Americans may just as well be content knowing that it is their historical choice. Socially Canada is a more liberal country that America, however in certain aspects America is a much more liberal country that Canada. America's election will be historic who ever of the three remaining candidates they choose.
  74. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: If Barak Hussein gets too far ahead, Hillary might consider re-visiting the Vince Foster affair.
  75. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: bob london from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky; worry about your leader Dalton. As communisim rules the "liberals", the Democratic Obama is to the right of Harper.

    Odd but ideologically correct.

    Just as the Democrats are to the right of the liberals and probably pretty close to the Conservatives.
  76. WC Dieno from Canada writes: It's all about depth ......... as a Canadian we know about depth ......... 10 years of Chretien doing absolutely nothing at all .......... Mulroney selling our country out ............ Harper a GW lacky ......... Layton who inspires as much as Dion ......... Mrs. Clinton has depth, is smart and can do what she has to do ......... Obama is Mel Torme smooth but not once has he talked like he meant it on issues .......... in my opinion all Hillary would have to do is call in the womens' marker ............ " here's our chance to improve the world,,,, ladies and friendlies lend me your vote "........... if Maggie Thatcher can do it then for sure Hillary is the best possible of candidates ........ John boy McCain is no slouch .......... he'll be coming hard
  77. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: How will John McCain do among members of the First Wives Club ?
  78. Stan Sambey from Canada writes: Imagine for a second in every racing sport if all the people who did not came outta the gate in first place just decided to quit. What is wrong with you people? In a democracy you are supposed to tally ALL the votes. Just being in the lead half way does not guarantee victory.

    No person can dictate what the future holds. Perhaps Obama has even worse than then Rev. Wright in his closet yet. No ones even touched up on his wifes statements much yet. Clintons been in the public eye for 15 years.

    Obama's supposed to represent the new and the different, but from reading the last few days the 'Obama army' seem to be a bunch of foaming at the mouth extremists, calling anyone not behind them racist or worse. Anyone read the Obama supporters views on the people in West Virginia? Wow, just wow. Reverse racism, stereotyping, and discrimination at its worst. THAT's his support base?!? Niiiiiiice.

    What really kills me the most is that America, in the big picture, has seen social change at breakneck speed. It just does not seem to sink in very deep with people that a black man and a woman are running for president....today. This is not the 1700's, nor even the early 1900's when neither women nor blacks could vote. Comparing Hilary's run as equal to 'old Washington polictics' is a fantastically ignorant exercise.

    And what of the turncoats filling the ranks of Obama's superdelegates. Talk about people of no substance, character, nor honour. Dispicable worms. Once upon a time men would rather end their lives than submit to such lowering of themselves. And he'll likely win the nomination due to the support of these human good weather vanes.

    At the end of the day Hilary Clinton is as much a change as Obama. Plus she AND her husband are known factors. The old addage of sticking to the evil you know should hold true here. It probably won't.
  79. martha stewart from Canada writes: Poor Hillary. She really expected to win.

    She thought so when she put up with Bill's cigar tricks.

    She thought so when she lied about staying in the Senate to get elected.

    Too bad. Now she should just go away. But she won't.

    McCain is going to win. If Hillary was the candidate she'd be blamed. Now with Obama as the candidate she'll be blamed.

    But I'm glad she'll be gone. The idea of having to watch ol Bill or princess Chelsea any more is just too much to bear.

    And, after all, Hillary is just McCain in drag. Her foreign policy is dictated by the Wall Streeters too. At least McCain can't last 8 years, I hope.
  80. G Rossi from TO, Canada writes: Stan Sambey from Canada writes: Imagine for a second in every racing sport if all the people who did not came outta the gate in first place just decided to quit. What is wrong with you people? In a democracy you are supposed to tally ALL the votes. Just being in the lead half way does not guarantee victory. *************************************************** Hope you're not suggesting that we're only at the half-way point because I can't take much more of this. As for sticking to the evil you know, why would you stick to evil at all? The Clintons are known factors and considering that Obama has treated her with kid gloves and not attacked her even half as aggressively as he could have, they're not people I'd want to see in power again. And your take on West Virginia...I worked in Huntington WV back in the late eighties, and no offense, I was treated well by most, but I can guarantee that if I had been black or darker skinned, it would have been a different story. I hope a lot has changed in twenty years, but it is one of the poorest states in the union and has the lowest percentage of college educated people in the entire country. Their votes are just as important as anyone else's, but you're wearing rose coloured shades if you think that some of the comments regarding WV are completely out of line. MANY people there will not vote for Clinton for any other reason than Obama is black. Same deal with Kentucky...another state that Clinton is going to win big in. It's not reverse discrimination if it's the truth. As for your coarse coments about superdelegates moving into Obama's camp, you're sure you're not frothing at the mouth a little bit? Wasn't it Clinton who has been insisting that superdelegates can vote however they feel...didn't she even extend that to pledged delegates?? The rules can't work both ways.
  81. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: McCain is having a walk to the US Presidency. The Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Durgan.
  82. G Rossi from TO, Canada writes: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/26/133958/391/499/503927

    Check out the above link for one perspective of the racial divide in WV and Kentucky. I bet if you take some time, you'll find a lot more similar opinion pieces. Doesn't mean Obama can't beat McCain, but he won't beat him there.
  83. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: I guess it is the superdelegates who will decide. Hopefully soon!"

    __________

    they have decided. goodbye hilary clinton.
  84. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Regardless of the outcome, I have long stated that the dream team would be the runner up goes as vp, then the whole party is there.
  85. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: For all those people who want Hillary to be VP, please undertake to be Obama's food taster.....
  86. Duane Freemantle from writes: Stan Sambey you have attempted to make a convincing argument. Like Clinton and some of her supports try to deny, the odds are against her. This has nothing to do with whether Clinton represents change or can do a better for the job. Clinton's effect by staying in the race would be hurting her image.

    Using the race analogy. The primary is a race to get a spot to compete in the championship. Ones get there by accumulating a certain number of points. All Obama need to do is show up for the next few competitions, finish the race (not even win) to secure the Democratic nomination.
    Mr. Sambey you lose your argument by saying "turncoats filling the ranks of Obama's superdelegates" (reasons later).
    Image that Clinton and Obama split the next primaries 50/50. Clinton would need 78% of the remaining superdelegates, which means the superdelegates will have over ride the popular vote. Even if Obama gets 40%, Clinton needs 70% of the superdelegates.

    If Obama gets 60% of the remaining primaries, Clinton would need 88% of the remaining superdelegates.

    Obama might get 55% of the remaining primaries, requiring him to get only 17% of the remaining superdelegates.

    It would be great if Obama got 75% of the remaining primaries, securing the nomination without needing any more superdelegates. This of course will not happen. More examples would be silly.

    Statistically, it is over for Clinton. The superdelegates that have left Clinton realize this. It is really sad that she has not.
  87. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: It's over Hill-dog. Step aside.
  88. thirtyeight * from Toronto, Canada writes: It's a hollow victory. In the end the great unwashed will turn their backs on the man with the Ay-Rab name and the Ay-Rab religion in his roots, even if he talks like a professor and acts like a president should. They'll again get what they deserve, and worse. Bush will seem like the Mahatma Gandhi compared to McCain.
  89. Bill Murtagh from Canada writes: What amazes me is that despite being an idiot, George Bush won two terms. Hillary and Barack are both solid candidates but it is time for Clinton to step aside and do what is best for the party, the country and the world. Stephane Dion, are you listening?
  90. H Chu from Canada writes:
    Hillary do the graceful thing and take your pant suits and step aside.
  91. joe kelly from Canada writes: Jim Saxon from Canada writes: "For all those people who want Hillary to be VP, please undertake to be Obama's food taster....."

    I laughed very hard when I read this. Then I paused and thought, 'gee, maybe not so funny at all.'
  92. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: 20 20 from Canada - sorry, I was bashing Bush from the day he lost the 2000 election but took the White House through vote irregularities.
  93. A J from Calgary, Canada writes: I'd also like to thank those who have said, in this dialogue and others, that John Ibbitson and/or the Globe and Mail in general have been pro-Obama.

    I was happy to hear these comments because I've been thinking that John Ibbitson and the Globe and Mail have generally been pro-Clinton.

    So, whew--maybe, just possibly, they've been covering the race more fairly than I gave them credit for.
  94. A J from Calgary, Canada writes: Stan Sambey from Canada writes: Imagine for a second in every racing sport if all the people who did not came outta the gate in first place just decided to quit. What is wrong with you people? In a democracy you are supposed to tally ALL the votes. Just being in the lead half way does not guarantee victory.

    About that "just being in the lead half-way"....

    We're a good distance past half-way.

    Forty-eight contests have been completed; there are six left to go. Clinton is expected to do very well in West Virginia (May 13), Kentucky (May 20), and Puerto Rico in early June; Obama will do well in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Obama might reach the majority of pledged delegates on May 20, before the Oregon polls close--and if not, I predict it will be the Oregon vote that gives him that majority.

    More than 3000 pledged delegates have been chosen. Only 217 remain to be selected in those six contests.

    This is the first time in years that the primaries held this late in the cycle have mattered. Usually, it's all over after the first three or four states have caucused or voted!

    If you want democracy, there has been a lot more of it with the rules that assign delegates on a proportional basis. Those rules also say that if a candidate is viable--gets more that 15% of the vote--then that person gets some delegates out of it. Thus, Clinton and Obama have divvied up a lot of states, whatever the popular vote may have been. (See Wikipedia for more info about the primary process this year.)

    Despite the downsides--such as the high cost of the campaigns in the primary season, and the negative campaigning toward the end--the Democratic rules have had the effect of getting the more successful candidates to set up ground campaigns across the country. This will be useful for the general election, which will be underway pretty soon now.
  95. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Hillary's "campaign" has become as non-sensical as the phrase, "playoff hunt" in Toronto after Christmas in relation to the Maple Leafs...

    Hillary Clinton, would you please leave now !

    Much appreciated.
  96. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Some here have expressed the hope that should Barack Obama prevail (as appears likely), that he should name Hillary Clinton as his VP candidate. I think this is highly unlikely for a reason that has nothing to do with the viciousness of this primary season. In normal situations, it isn't unusual for a nominee to choose the runner-up as his running mate, despite many sharp differences in policy stances and proposed methods of tackling issues. Reagan did it in 1980 as did Clinton in 1992, and Dukakis in 1988. It's a common way of trying to unify the party. A variety of factors go into the selection of a VP. One of the most important is geography. Typically, presidential candidates select their running mate based upon the goal of broadening his appeal in a region in which he lacks appeal. However, Obama is a sitting Senator from Illinois, specifically from Chicago. Hillary grew up in suburban Chicago. The idea won't work because Southerners and Westerners typically won't accept a nominee and running mate both