News-Record.com

It must be hell being a flaming liberal now. You must choice between two flaming liberals. Of course Obama says he not a liberal? Maybe he forgot his voting record. You defend him for going to Wrights church, you condemn Bush for going to Bob Jones University*. Now your beloved Bill has stuck his foot in his mouth, a dozen times. Life is hard for the liberal media, They must now spin the spin they have already spun. Of course I do not know why I am happy, I get a liberal no matter what party wins. Harsh? Just act like one of them is a conservative and jump all over them.
I do not recall BJU saying GD America. Saying that what happen to the liberals beloved Wright, rumor has it he has left the country! off to the golf course have a good day.

No, Bob Jones University merely held some neanderthal views and policies about interracial dating, etc.

Actually, I'm not on the record for condemning Bush for going to Bob Jones. Don't know where you got that.

But I don't think it was a wise choice. Nor do I agree with everything Wright said.

Although, like you, I'm basing most of that on less-than-10-second sound bites.

I think you may be unfair to Clinton if you're saying she ought to drop out because she's trailing in delegates and popular vote. In this crazy system, the candidate with the most popular votes in a primary doesn't necessarily win most of a state's delegates. The process of awarding delegates in some caucus states is so convoluted that it takes weeks in some cases to sort it out. Two huge states, Florida and Michigan, aren't even being counted. There are reasons to believe Clinton would have done well even in legitimate contests in those states. Add California, New York, Texas and Ohio, where she won, and she's got some very big states on her side. So I'd say there's quite a risk of alienating HER supporters in very important states by pressuring her to drop out before she's lost. And she hasn't lost until Obama wins a majority of delegates, which he isn't likely to do before the convention.

I just don't think you can say Clinton ought to drop out when, by the process the party has created, she hasn't lost and Obama hasn't won. It's not over until it's over.

There is no chance for Clinton to get this nomination unless there is a brutal battle at the convention and that would essentially tear the party apart. She does need to admit defeat so we can bring our party together and make us as strong as possible going into the convention and the November election. The media is reporting this primary as a "horse race" between Obama and Clinton only for ratings and money. The Politico had a great article on this last week that can be found here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Talk of "tearing the party apart" is wildly exaggerated. At worst--that is to say, at best--this means losing some very small fraction of the vote next November. Should Hillary go Harpy on Obama and physically scratch at his eyes during their next joint appearance, the Democratic party will remain intact--just as the Republican party will, despite McCain's being a weevily septuagenarian with excessive do-gooding tendencies.

I believe the fissures are deeper than that. If this fight is not resolved until the convention, the party will emerge fractured and angry and anything but energized.

I actually read BHO's books - difficult as it was to stay awake. Had you read them, unless you are racially biased in a big way, they made you sick to your stomach. Here is a person who did not realize he was black until he was in the fifth grade. He talks about his white grandmother who basically raised him when his dad skipped out and his mother went off to find herself as if she was the enemy. He has never been poor, never had any dealings with slavery, and he tends to play fast and loose with the race card. At least Clinton does not, and has not, shown bias. Maybe you should take a look at BHO's history. Maybe you should make the grand discovery that BHO changes his persona to be the person necessary to win that day. I am a black American. I have never been to Africa. I am not a slave, and I have never known a slave. I do not know anyone who has ever owned a slave. It is time to put this negative racial garbage out and get on with fixing this country. BHO doesn't know how. I am a democrat, but if BHO gets the nomination, I will vote Republican for the first time in my life. Are all of you blind, ignorant, or both?

"Never had any dealings with slavery"?

I'm guessing none of them has unless they're lying about their ages.

I wonder if Deena Hayes will be there?

Will barack inspire Deena to stand up for herself and not play "the" card all the time?

Well, it wasn't that long ago that everybody was fretting that the Republican party could never get together behind McCain: too liberal for the social conservatives, too regulationist for the libertarians. McCain could never hold together the "Reagan coalition" of small govt folks, moral majoritarians, Reagan democrats, and RINOs. The party would be enervated, dispirited. After a few weeks, that narrative died.

Now, the Democrats are playing a bit nastier, to be sure, but the shock poll I saw a few days ago suggesting that something like 30% of Obama/Clinton supporters would never vote for the other is simply nonsense. Policy-wise, they're virtually identical, and after much wailing and gnashing of teeth--a specialty of Democrats--they'll return to fold.

In the meantime, Rush and co. will advise Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary in hopes that this isn't true.

I can't believe I'm sticking up for Hillary Clinton here but...

Why should she (or any candidate, for that matter) drop out of a race that she has a legitimate shot of winning? It's not like she's Ralph Nader or some other fringe candidate. Roughly half of the Democratic voters so far have said she's their candidate.

For Clinton to bail out at this point would be like a football team giving up at the end of the third quarter in a 17-16 game. She doesn't owe Obama a free pass to the nomination.

Good point, Brian. But this cuts deeper than the Far Right's disaffection for McCain. The Democrats' bigger tent means a lot more tension among different factions.
For instance, if black voters come to feel Obama has been treated unfairly (say, if Clinton did not win the most pledged delegates but overtakes Obama through superdelegates) black voters, among other Obama supporters, will not turn out for Hillary in November.

Maybe. I'd actually argue that Republicans have a bigger tent ideologically (if not ethnically). There are small govt, free market, liberatarian sorts like me who don't really have much in common with Reagan democrats or social conservatives and who think Bush's big-govt "conservatism" is fraudulent. Meanwhile, Democrats of all stripes--the bohemian bourgeosie, working class whites, blacks of all socioeconomic groups--have a fairly consistent view of government: namely, that it is obliged to tax, regulate, nag, and otherwise coerce its citizenry until a world of perfect harmony is achieved. That, I predict, is what will bring Democrats back into the fold.

I don't agree. The GOP has a much easier time of rallying around candidates and ideas: small government (at least theoretically), immigration and tax cuts, for instance.
But we'll see in time (maybe later rather than sooner) who's right on this one, you or I.