Despicable.

As predicted, Hillary is trying to ruin the prospects of the Democratic party in November.  She is doing it out of spite and because she deludes herself that if he loses she will somehow be the nominee in four years.

This is pitiful, but it will be good for the party if the vast majority of her supporters abandon her, as they should.

Isaac, Jon, Jonathan, put a sock in it.

Clinton has every right to contest the nomination of Obama. I hope she takes it to the convention.

This is unprecedented. She won most of the primaries in the last month or two and Obama gets the nomination. Un-be-fuuucccking-lievable.

Hilary would make a great literary character. But this is all too real.

Obama is certainly (and eloquently) kissing her graceless ass right now. And no boos or hisses from the crowd at the mention of her name.

Predictable rodo-rooter-hackobamarama-twaddle.

No jackson, it is you who is utterly predictable.  This is not the BCS.  The later primaries don't count more than the earlier primaries.  He has won the primary election and will be the nominee.

Of course, it goes without saying that your candidate, the loser, will now do whatever she can to destroy the Democratic party.  I have said repeatedly that she is a narcissistic wrecker who would do what she can to precipitate the loss of the election in November.  Confronted with the reality, you just go deeper into denial.

Face it, jackson.  You have been wrong about her all along.  Now you can start to get used to President Obama.  Its gonna happen despite Hillary and despite you.  The majority of the voters and the majority of the delegates have spoken, and it will only get louder until we hear no more from Hillary Rodham Clinton, late of New York, headed back to Arkansas or wherever.

"This is unprecedented. She won most of the primaries in the last month or two and Obama gets the nomination. Un-be-fuuucccking-lievable."

The thing is, Jackson, everyone here knows you're smarter than this.  

jacksondyer--sorry, but you're full of it.

"The later primaries don't count more than the earlier primaries.  He has won the primary election and will be the nominee."

Bull, Rodo.

The earlier primaries where held in mostly Republican States.

Yeap, he won them and he will lose those States in November.

You people are being delusional.

"The thing is, Jackson, everyone here knows you're smarter than this."

Gee, Ratner, I hope not. I hope I am just dumb enough to keep telling people that Obama can't win in November. I hope I am dumb enough to stick to the truth.

This is just another Obamarama rally, full of bells and whistles signifying zilch.

There is exactly zero relevance either for the nomination or the general election as to whether the primaries won or lost by any candidate were in blue states or red states.  However, if, naively, one were trying to make a case on that basis, then the outcome favors Obama.  By your theory, jackosn, Hilllary can only win where the Democrats are going to win anyway.  Obama puts red states in play.

In the real world, however, it doesn't work like that way at all.  Everyone already knows which are the key battleground states, but you could never discern what they are from the distribution of primary wins and losses.

jackson,

That is because we do not decide nominations by who does well at the end.  We decide them by who does best overall, and that's been Obama.  I realize you think the party is making a mistake by nominating him, but it has in fact nominated him, and Hillary's hanging around and bashing him won't do anything but foster ill-will on both sides.

Even Mike "I majored in miracles, not math" Huckabee conceded once McCain got enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee.

If you are arguing that enough superdelegates will suddenly change their minds and switch to Clinton so that she becomes the nominee, then you are simply denying reality.  I would ask, then, how does anybody other than John McCain benefit from Clinton's continuing a race that is already over?

"I would ask, then, how does anybody other than John McCain benefit from Clinton's continuing a race that is already over?"

Yes it's over. It's time for all of us racist Clinton supporters,  get out and move to

www.johnmccain.com/.../ContributeB.aspx

jackson writes,

"The earlier primaries where held in mostly Republican States.

Yeap, he won them and he will lose those States in November.

You people are being delusional. "

Care to make some claims with a basis in reality?  Let's look at the races since Obama's winning streak ended: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana

4 of those contests were in Kerry states, 9 were in Bush states, and 2 were in territories.  Now Ohio is a pure swing state, and a couple of the other states might be competitive, but the fact remains that the recent primaries have been mostly in red states.

By contrast, let's look at the post-Super Tuesday contests when Obama built his lead: Wahington, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands, Maine, Dems Abroad, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, and Wisconsin.  If you're counting, that's 6 blue states (well, 5 + DC), and 3 red ones.

If you're going to call others delusional, it would behoove you not to make claims which are demonstrably false.

jacob,

I did not, nor have I ever called Clinton supporters racist.  I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.  If you feel that McCain would be a better President than Obama, you're certainly entitled to do whatever you wish with your money and your vote.  My hope is that most of Clinton's supporters care enough about the policies she fought for to vote for the candidate whose positions are nearly identical to hers, rather than the one that rejects those policies outright.

My original question still stands, though.  How does anyone *other than* McCain benefit from Hillary continuing to wage a futile campaign?

Yes, AlanSP, and one should also consider all the delegates he won in states that he lost. The candidates fought for those too. Pretty sure I'm right in guessing that those Obama won in California and Texas far outnumber those he won in red states like Wyoming.

Jackson, a defection to McCain would suggest that you care more about Hillary's personality than the Democratic platform. Is that so?

Gotta give jackson a half a loaf on this one--maybe two-thirds of a loaf.

I prefer Obama, I think he's won, and I don't ascribe to all of Hillary's arguments about her superior electability. RealClearPolitics has some neat Electoral College maps that essentially give Obama and Clinton equal shots to beat McCain.

Furthermore, I don't like the way Clinton has campaigned. Obama and McCain have not been without faults, of course, but I think Clinton has been significantly worse. This, without the efforts of her husband, who is beginning to piss me off. Strike that: who started pissing me off about six months ago.

On the other hand, if I'm in her shoes I'd still be fighting. For one thing, I'm surrounded by groupies and thus susceptible to groupie-think. For another, I've been doing well in several important states and with important groups of swing voters.

For another, this (the electoral process) is a privilege that she and Obama and McCain and Tim Russert and George Snufflelufagus and FOX and Olbermann and Ferraro and Wright and Hagee and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich's Twelve-Foot Tall Wife and you and me get to have fun with for several more months now, and then it starts all over again.

Is it pretty? Hardly. Is it supposed to be? Not that I can tell.

Gotta give jackson a half a loaf on this one--maybe two-thirds of a loaf.

I prefer Obama, I think he's won, and I don't ascribe to all of Hillary's arguments about her superior electability. RealClearPolitics has some neat Electoral College maps that essentially give Obama and Clinton equal shots to beat McCain.

Furthermore, I don't like the way Clinton has campaigned. Obama and McCain have not been without faults, of course, but I think Clinton has been significantly worse. This, without the efforts of her husband, who is beginning to piss me off. Strike that: who started pissing me off about six months ago.

On the other hand, if I'm in her shoes I'd still be fighting. For one thing, I'm surrounded by groupies and thus susceptible to groupie-think. For another, I've been doing well in several important states and with important groups of swing voters.

For another, this (the electoral process) is a privilege that she and Obama and McCain and Tim Russert and George Snufflelufagus and FOX and Olbermann and Ferraro and Wright and Hagee and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich's Twelve-Foot Tall Wife and you and me get to have fun with for several more months now, and then it starts all over again.

Is it pretty? Hardly. Is it supposed to be? Not that I can tell.

Uhm ... I actually don't know Jackson's smarter than that.

Hey jacksondyer

IN-YOUR-FACE!  :-)

Obama 08, YES WE CAN!!!

One thing that strikes me is that last year there was a lot of talk about how Hillary was going to take the nomination, but there was always an expected caveat from someone in the discussion:  "Ok, great, I'd like to see her as the nominee but CAN SHE WIN?"  The caps are there to underline that this was a genuine objection raised by people who know full well how mercilessly and effectively the Republicans can turn on the anti-Clinton machine that really brings out the base.

Suddenly that story went missing in action.  Since Iowa there has been this weird assumption, often an assertion, that Clinton is the best candidate to win in November.  The subtext of her campaign was that thought.  This is nonsense, people, NONSENSE!  Sorry, I don't usually shout.  The last few months have been like looking at a movie that keeps running through the same frames, a kind of Buster Keaton race between a car and a train -- Clinton was the engineer on the train taking the train apart for fuel for the locomotive until there was nothing left.  Nobody has ever -- to the best of my knowledge -- asked Clinton on TV, "given the rabid detestation on the conservative side for your husband and you, how do you rate your chances in November if they pull out every stop?"

Obama may win, he may lose.  But Clinton was in danger of being eviscerated in the GE -- as many of us worried about last year, before Obama began to take the lead.

Hillary and Obama are both slated to be speaking at the final session of AIPAC's annual policy conference

There are times when it is best to ignore completely the tantrum of a spoiled child, on the premise that the whole point of throwing a tantrum is to keep everybody's attention on you and to eventually get your way.  That certainly would seem to be the m.o. of some of the more rabidly mouth-foaming Clinton supporters who pop up around these parts on occasion, though certainly not of all Clinton supporters (right?...right?).  I would really like, as someone who thinks a McCain presidency is a bad, bad idea on more levels than I can calculate, to be reassured that this tantrum effect is not the m.o. of Clinton herself.  

What Clinton has the right to do is not necessarily the same as the right thing for Clinton to do.  She has the right to keep on fighting all the way to Denver, but that doesn't make doing so the right thing.  

If I heard Clinton's speech right (admittedly, I have a head cold and we keep getting thunderstorms over and over here), it sounds to me like she's decided she's the only person who can save the Democratic Party from itself.  And people accuse Obama and his supporters of being overly messianic...sheesh.

What is truly disappointing is that before I heard Hillary's speech, I actually started to think the "dream ticket" could work.  I suppose I shouldn't be astonished, but I am.  This is not an election, it is a nominating process.  It's not pretty or precise, but it is fair.  And someone who has been involved in presidential politics as much as Hillary has surely understands this.  I don't understand why her 18 million votes are more important (or more disenfranchised?) than Obama's. Because they are poor, or hard-working, or women?  Call me a latte-sipping, urban elitist, but I really don't get this.  

I am a grave Obama sceptic but Hillary has lost. This is the reality of it. The convention is not going to change matters. I feel as though my skin might fall off because i just sided with roid.

I am angry with Hillary.  She has a core group of supporters, like the people who showed up at the RBC hearing, who think that this primary has been stolen from Hillary through a combination of voter suppression and misogynistic smear campaign.  Her speech last night went as far as she dared toward stoking the anger and sense of grievance of those supporters.

Time often blunts my initial impressions of political speeches: The extraordinary starts to seem more

A McCain presidency would be a continuing disaster.  Please, Clinton voters, be realistic and VOTE FOR YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.  Support Barack Obama with all your hearts and minds.

I voted for Hillary Clinton in my state's early primary, mainly because of Bill Clinton's successful presidency, but I will now support the party's nominee, Barack Obama.  I really beleive there are many out there like me, despite the volume level of the die-hards.  It's not about gender or race or socioeconomic status, it's about pride in our country and pride in ourselves.  We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to take back our country from the dark forces of Reagan-Bush.

Hillary....it's time to move on.  Concede while you still have some clout.  Obama won the nomination fair and square.

jacksonsnyder:

i don't get you, because i don't know you.  

but i want to understand.  why is it that faced with a nominated democratic candidate who can articulately and passionately stand up for the principles of the party, you'd rather trash talk and predict his (our???) loss on a public forum?

are you one of those kids that gets really into elections for the sport-like competition part of it, but really don't give a crap about the beliefs and stakes?  because if you chose clinton over obama and now will choose mccain over obama, with as much consideration as you chose for whom to root in the world cup 2006, and you actually don't care much for fixing up our inner cities, helping katrina victims, getting our manipulated fighting men and women out of iraq, and protecting the country of freaky conservative sc judges, then i get it.  and you are not cool.

but otherwise, please give us the low-down.

the way hrc has handled this whole primary season is indicative how her white house would be run.

bald face lies,secrecy, bait/switch etc.... not to mention we would be witness to numerous bubba eruptions.

while hrc talks about her up bringing,her years as first lady, and her senate exp.as well as being in politics for 30 yrs. she never learned how to lose gracefully. her behavior over the past few weeks has been disgraceful.

The big question for the general election is whether MI, OH and PA will vote their economic interests or their, er, cultural interests. FL looks safely Republican this time, and I think NH will likely turn Republican again for McCain. But Obama puts more states that voted for Bush in play than Clinton would.

As for all those Republican states that voted for Obama, how 'bout all those Republican states that voted for Clinton? AZ, AR, FL, IN, OK, SD, TN and TX? Maybe states that vote for McCain in 2008 shouldn't get any delegates to the Democratic convention in 2012. Oh, heck, why not just let CA and NY decide who the nominee should be next time?

Jacob - I hope you're still out there somewhere reading the comments posted here.

I'd be willing to bet there's not one person who's read your comments who will be sorry to see you go over to the McCain camp. Take your money and your nasty comments elsewhere. Please.