Clinton wins Pennsylvania: the media reacts

Has last night's win for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania altered the dynamics of the Democratic race? The media consensus appears to be that while there has been no substantive change, her solid 10-point victory has raised some awkward questions for Barack Obama.

Why, after a string of phenomenal successes, is he struggling to land a knock out blow on his rival?  Is Clinton correct in her assertion that he is unable to carry the big states crucial to a Democratic victory in the autumn? The Obama camp has some strong answers, arguing that the former point could equally be applied to Clinton, the one time presumptive nominee. On the latter, it asserts that there are in fact not three or four battleground states but 10 or 11, a large swathe of which the Illinois senator has won. Nevertheless, it is a case that the campaign is going to have to argue very forcefully over the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, concerns over the destructive nature of the campaign are reaching stratospheric levels. The New York Times today appeared to be backtracking on its initial endorsement of Clinton with a scathing editorial urging her to drop her "mean, vacuous, desperate" tactics now for the sake of the party and calling on superdelegates to end the bloodbath as soon as possible. The Washington Post cited exit polls suggesting that seven out of 10 voters thought Hillary had been unfair in her attacks, while half said the same of Obama. In another article, it appeared to query the utility of Hillary staying in the race, noting that it was almost impossible for her to catch her rival in the delegate count or popular vote. It quoted loyal Clinton supporters privately expressing doubts about her ability to prevail, even in the wake of her Pennsylvania win.

A selection of comment from the web:

Top of the Ticket, LA Times:

"Psychologically, it's a significant result -- one that should cause many leading Democrats to listen a little more intently to her case that she still represents the party's best chance for victory in November."

New York Times editorial:

"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.

"It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box."

Real Clear Politics, TIME:

"If the superdelegates had grown concerned after Ohio about Obama's ability to win lower income whites in the general election - these results will not alleviate their worries. Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Erie all swung decisively for Clinton. If Ohio had them worried, so will these results.

"As for whether it will serve Clinton's short-term goal of spinning herself as still having a chance to capture the nomination - that remains to be seen."

Salon.com:

"There are no verities, just various forms of spin-dried argumentation. Does Pennsylvania prove that -- like the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries -- Obama cannot close the deal when he is one big-state victory away from being bathed in triumphal confetti at the Denver Convention? Or does Pennsylvania underscore for Democrats the dangers of scorched-earth politics...?

"Given his delegate lead, Democratic rules divvying up the primary vote proportionally, and the fact that there are only seven states left on the political calendar, Obama might survive a near-wipeout in the remaining delegate contests. But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections."

Huffington Post:

"How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist -- to a fault -- opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job."

Comments

[gb]

I can't believe the NY Times. What a ridiculous editorial. Hillary doesn't need to quit the race, but whoever wrote that piece definitely needs a couple of weeks off.
It's a presidential political campaigns, guys. It's not always settled all neat and tidy when you want it to be. And hey, get this- it might not be decided till the convention. What a concept! A nominating convention that actually nominates someone for once.
I think it's great.

[Barbara-USA]

This election stuff has now been going on since January , its now only April and I`m not sure how much more I can take of Hillary and Bill, it seems like every time I switch on the T.V. there she is, mouth wide open and screaming and Bill`s there behind her leering into the camera. I would love to see a woman in the White House after Obama has had his Eight years but not this woman.

[Arlene Robson]

I have been viewing this nomination with growing concern. For a very long time Hillary Clinton was being bashed heavily from every direction including the media and the Obama followers but as soon as she retaliated, they cry foul. How hypocritical can they all be? Sen. Obama is not ready to be the president of the USA and frankly may never be. For me and my family their are too many shadows and unanswered questions in his background. I have become weary of the whole procedure but should Sen. Obama finally win the nomination I will not vote for him. I love my country and want the best for it. Without a doubt, the person to lead us is Hillary Clinton. She has proven herself over and over again and has the insight to carry us forward.

[Susan Shingleton]

Senator Clinton is proving herself strong: strength is needed to be the leader of the free world.
She is also extremely well briefed and experienced. She could get the universal health care through this time, an asset that every other civilised first world country gives its own citizens.
As a woman too her instincts are for caring and negotiation despite the obligatory sabre-rattling about Iran.
Is America as grown up as Germany to finally elect a woman on her own merits?

[Jason]

Logic defies all for Clinton supporters. How can she be the better candidate if she is constantly in 2nd place? Obama would have been and should have been the nominee weeks ago, but negative campaigning prolonged this Clinton nightmare. Clinton camp keeps asking "Why can't he win" HE IS WINNING and nothing would ever make HIllary dop out, so stop talking out of obthi sides of your mouth. You won;t allow him to win, even with all the votres and all the delgates, because you fell entitled to the presdency. the majority of American voters feel otherwise, and you can call them all the names you want. We are real voters, not fringe voters. sure we have som ein our rank, but so do you. We have people who belieive in poisitive changes Hillary has only people who fear positive change, so they vote for HC, ev en though they admit she is more dishonest. How farcical.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

In Pennsylvania, the woman has proved herself the ethical equivalent of Richard Nixon, indeed virtually indistinguishable.

The vicious personal quality of her attacks reminds me very much of some of Nixon's early campaigns, suggesting a decent Congresswoman was "soft on communism."

The rancid quality of her manufactured memories of early life in Pennsylvania had precisely the quality of Milhouse talking about Pat's cloth coat.

She is precisely what America does not need. After Pennsylvania, I don't see how she represents the least improvement over the ethical swamp of George Bush.

It does appear that America's political institutions just will not accommodate a thoughtful and decent person to become president.

The irony is, while she is so busy showing how ruthless and ugly she can be, is that she represents a gigantic target for McCain. Her background is packed with scandals, lies, and embarrassments.

I truly believe that Obama could have reduced her to tears had he chosen to do so.

McCain is not going to show the same restraint.

And then there's her sleazy life-long partner, always just over her shoulder.

Who wants Bill back, hanging around the White House and in the headlines again?

The barf-inducing potential of that is beyond calculation. Like a never-ending cheesy soap-opera.

How does America make any progress with a political system like this? It cannot.

The harshest, most strident, most ethically-flexible seem bound to succeed.

The country has had at most a couple of large spirits, really decent men as president since WWII.

To my mind, that is a shameful record for such a vast and rich land.

But the media and institutions and prejudices are all tuned to producing imperial leaders, the same kind of people who brought us Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other lesser nasty colonial wars.

[Edward in Cali]

Hillary Clinton's only merit has been leveraging her husbands name to get into the Senate, in a state she never even resided in and honestly could not represent, and then leveraging her husbands name plus a rather lackluster Senate term plus her femininity in a bid for the presidency.

She is experienced... at playing the system.

Hopefully by the end of this she will have a couple new experiences. Failure, and paying $10m in outstanding bills to all those who hosted her and her campaign, and then got stuck with unpaid rent and clean-up detail after she decided their support was no longer necessary.

[Guy Atherton]

First Clinton won by 9 percent. Not 10. Second demographically PA was more favorable than OH so 11-12% would be par of the course. So this is not some spectacular victory.
Some mentioned, why is it that the presumptive heir last year (Hillary Clinton) could not knowck out Obama? Obama has won several top 10 states - Illinois, Georgia and soon North Carolina. If we expand this arbitary top 10 largest to top 20 then the candidates are pretty even. Why should Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin and Conneticut be excluded (except Obama won them all - blue/purple primaries)

[Peter Gough]

Does the world really need another US President whose answer to everything is threaten to bomb?
The Clintons have an awful lot of dirty laundry that will be increasingly public if she continues.

[blossom]

When the going gets tough, the tough gets going. Hillary has proven she can do it and she Can If she can win through all the attacks directed on her by the Snobama inclined liberal press, she can win over McCain anytime. She's shown her steel in difficulty. And that's what realy matters in a leader. Go Girl !

[wpo]

The process is working, so, it might reveal sides of the candidates which they could have hoped to conceal, but this is the way for our representative republic works, just be patient.

[Paul]

Her peddling to the belligerent Zionist lobby already shows that she cannot be trusted. If she genuinely does want to bomb Eye Ran, then all one can say is that those whom the gods seek to destroy, they first make mad.

[Jaap den Haan]

The media however have experienced the Clintons already for 8 years, and are thus interested in someone new, to keep awake.

[Cllr Ken Tiwari (independent)]

My undivide support for Hillary Clinton is, as
always have been because she is the most hard working lady, and she always have been, having so many relitives there, in theyre interest i hope she will get to white-
House, i am sure American-community need
Hillary Clinton:Ken

[Patrice]

All the more power to Hillary!

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

I just love that "Go Girl!" stuff.

You find it especially in newspapers in the Midwest, the home of baton-twirling, drum majorettes, and flags on everything including underwear.

You'd think the person was yelling to the chief cheerleader for an American hometown football team. Or a woman stock car driver down at the track.

But we're not talking about a cheerleader, and we're not talking about a stock car driver.

We are talking about a person who on the morning of the election talked casually of obliterating Iran - that is, 80 million human souls.

And we are talking about a person who ran a piece-of-crap ad with Osama bin Laden's picture.

If the unpleasant Mormon, Romney, could be criticized in the press, as he was, for the crappy trick of several times saying "Osama" instead of "Obama" in speeches, why would any decent-thinking person support Clinton for this shabby, shabby work?

The woman has proved herself an ethical cipher, but maybe we secretly knew that already, after her thirty years of manipulation and lies hiding and excusing the sleazy exploits of dear old Bill.

All that seems to matter to some is winning. That’s exactly why we have god-awful mass murders like Vietnam and Iraq.

[Marlina Grossman]

Obama keeps putting his foot in his mouth. That's the problem, no matter how much his campaign spend. His campaign will do better looking over his notes and watch his mouth.

[Edny]

STRENGTH & COMPETITIVENESS are what Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) has brought to this nomination... As for Barack's supporters please stop the whining it is quite unpleasant. So far, all I've heard from people is that she's mean, she's a liar and etc...but could someone please tell me who administered a Coup D'etat on Democracy? My understanding has been in a competition a few scrapes and bruises in the midst of a physical game is fair play, this is a country that prides itself for being competitive i.e. In sports such as Football, it's all about competition. So I dare ask rethorically, when did the United States official game change? This is a competition and if Barack Hussein Obama can't stand the heat from Hillary, how will he manage against McCain? Furthermore, for all the nonsense cheap shots taken by some of the top democratic leaders(Nancy Pelosi et al.,), I only have three words "Shame on Them". Last time I check this is a Democracy, and I for one can't imagine how anyone can justify bullying a candidate out of a race as democratic.

Last but not least, I vividly recalled back in 2000 how Democrats were hurling and demanding for a recount in Florida, and now they are vowing to eliminate two (2) States primaries, what a contradiction? Of course, the argument I've grown accustomed to hearing is, "They broke the rule". I'll say this much, rules are meant to be broken and if that wasn't the case, There wouldn't be a "United States of America", this country would still be part of the Commonweath (Great Britain); Slavery and Segregation would still be the way of life, perhaps I wouldn't be here and Barack Hussein Obama for President would be out of the question. And as John McCain would say, "My friend", what I just expressed here is simply the tip of the Iceberg.

[cinthia]

When Bush Jr. was elected 2nd term, it was hard to believe. Could our country really be that dense?
Apparently so. This isn't "American Idol"! We shouldn't be supporting the guy who's glib and charming. FOLKS! We need someone strong enough to deal with the mess Bush has created. I originally thought Obama would be ready in 8 years but I'm glad we found out he will selfishly put his personal agenda ahead of the good of the country. I have no doubt he is sincere in his desire for the job. I know a few teenagers who sincerely think they can run things too. If I needed an operation I'd be more concerned with the doctor's experience and track record than his personality. The Obama Girl video said it all! The MTV generation seems to care more about glitz and facade.So give Barack the Congeniality award (if you are sucked in by schmoosy) but don't confuse charm for competence! As much as most of us want a Democrat for President, once the race is on, McCain will be seen as stronger and better able to straighten things out than Obama. No matter what starry eyed hopefuls think, a country that elected George W (God help us) clearly prefers the demon they know. Like them or not, we know what we're getting with Hillary and McCain. They have track records. Wanting Obama to win isn't enough. Talk is cheap when it's ideological but when push comes to shove and folks are forced to choose between McCain and Obamae - even Democrats will ultimately choose McCain.

[fred]

Supposedly, we study history to learn a few things. I realize many who profess to want "change" don't remember Jimmy Carter's presidency. Read a history book. Good person does not necessarily translate into good president. Barack is a good speaker. No argument there but talk is cheap. TV coverage, the internet and sleazy magazines have tainted people's views of leadership. Every complaint of Bill Clinton has to do with his personal life but no one minds that unemployment and interest rates were down, the budget was balanced, prosperity was at an all time high. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (certainly not JFK or FDR) ... the list goes on... could never have survived today's media coverage of their personal lives. Mozart has a reputation for being an ass. Martin Luther King's infidelity is well documented. Are people so dumb that they can't learn from history and accept that someone can be competent and effective even if you don't personally like them?

[jed willde]

The New York Times are absolutely correct to distance themselves from Senetor Clinton. She has dragged this debate into the gutter. There appear to be no limits to how low this woman will go to get the vote. Anyone that saw the TV interiew where she threatened to 'obliterate Iran' cant have failed to see that mad look in her eyes that showed she is clearly unstable. US foreign poilcy has been a catastrophe for the middle east and the world. The last think this great nation needs is another dangerous war monger as leader. She would be a distaster for America and the world

[Rip Tide]

Let's get serious and analyze all 3 candidates;

Hillary Clinton; advocates Universal Healthcare for all. As an American I have never seen our Government run anything right except the Military. Where is all the Social Security Money we Workers paid in?..Almost broke. Ask Britain and Canada if the citizens really like Socialized Medicine? That' what we would get. Next; This Lady wants to be President.

What skills does she have to lead the Nation? She was first lady but made no policy decisions. She stays married to a sleezeball husband who embarrsed our nation with his shenanigans just so she could use the Clinton Name to slide in so to speak. This is the same Woman who called all the woman Her Husband fooled around with..Virtually Liars.

Obama; he came out of the starting gate fast..The media and people adored him. Now a few "Skeltons in the closet" involving his past associations is coming back to haunt him...that's why Hillary is gaining on him. George Soros and Moveon.org thought they had a "Bullet" to the White House..now it looks like a "Mis-Fire" as The Liberal-Left Media can't Dodge hard Questions on Obama much longer. Experience?...Zilch.

John Mc Cain...A true War Hero...But what about his "Flip-Flopping" on the Border Issue (McCain-Feingold Bill)He's the man with the Experience..But will he sell us out to the Left as he's done in the Past?

Verdict; This Election has no clear cut leader. All 3 are suspect at best. If this is the best 3 America can choose then we are in serious trouble..mark it down.

[Andrew O'Donnell]

If America wanted an ethical person as president they would not have elected Bush twice.

[Anthony Lewis]

Hillary Clinton is running a campaign that is indistinguishable in character from one run by that most nasty of Republicans, Karl Rove. The constant and unfair attacks on Sen. Obama DO NOT show that she is strong, but rather that she is completely unscrupulous. She lies - Bosnia sniper fire and her claimed behind-doors fight against NAFTA (just to name two); she cheats - wants the Florida and Michigan results to count even though the rest of the candidates had agreed with the DNC not to campaign in either state, and now she thinks she can steal the nomination by arm-twisting superdelegates at the convention. Listen, we just spent over 7 years dealing with a president who did not hesitate to lie and to denigrate his opposition in order to achieve his ends. We do not need another. Character counts, and Hillary's behavior in this campaign proves that she unfit for the office. Oh yes, you go girl: go far, far away.

[Ashur Shamis]

It seems the only way a black president can win in the US is for the Repuplican and the Democrat parties each to have a black candidate. As long as a white alternative is avialable, the voters will go for it - they feel more comfortable with a white candidate. That is how the American psyche seems to work. It is true to say, therfore, that America is never ready for a black president.

[Ashanollah]

I can see that John McCain could be the next President of the United States if Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama keep on demeaning each other. Truthfully speaking majority of white Americans are still prejudiced against the blacks therefore they will want Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic party nomination. If she wins she will find it very difficult to beat McCain because of her gender, the American people even though they want a change will not be happy to have a woman leading their country. Sorry America it is looking as if you will be lummbered with the Republicans for another 4 years.

[anndeegh]

We have spent the last 16 years with bitter, partisan fighting and not much else. Our country is in a seemingly endless war, our economy is suffering, food and gas prices are soaring, etc... It's going to take a long time to recover from the mess that GW Bush and his cronies have created, and its going to take people who are willing to work together. But you can be sure that with Senator Clinton, we will get another 4 years of the anger and bitterness between the two parties. I have been against her candidacy since the beginning, and my feelings haven't changed in the last year.

I am sick and tired of all the fighting. If Senator Clinton wants to go fight someone, I say learn to box and get out of the way of the adults.

[James]

While I don't live in America (I'm Australian), the American presidential race seems fascinating to me. Forget John McCain, it seems, there's something bigger and better going on. Hillary Clinton can question Obama's inability to "close the deal" all she likes and apparently avoid answering the same question. Now, I suppose I'm horribly old fashioned, but I would prefer to see the leader of the free world as someone with the integrity to avoid fear-mongering and personal attacks. These are irrelevant to the race, so far as I can tell, and do nothing but harm to her political party. McCain and his camp are being handed their material to them on a gilded silver platter. I would very much like to see Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledge the inevitable and drop out of a race that she can no longer win. It is my solemn and sincere hope that the Democratic superdelegates have the sense to see that if they grant the nomination to the candidate in second place, that candidate will have all the legitimacy of G. W. Bush's wild goose chase for WMD's. This goes for whoever is ahead in the popular vote at the nominating convention, and at this point, it is going to be Barack Obama. Wake up, please.

[douglas Abraham]

Hilliary is a pthological lia, as is Bill. If he made hundreds of millions giving speeches to big corporations and needy countries needing legislative support what would he make during her 8 years, an abortive billion, he could name his price and they would pay as she gloated.What a horrible pair they are

[Jennifer]

The Democrats are fools if they do not nominate Barack Obama. They appear to risk more with him, but they have the chance to win more, because despite deceiving polls, Hillary Clinton is not going to defeat John McCain in the fall.

Polls showing Hillary Clinton is more likely to defeat John McCain right now are meaningless. She has played most of her cards and run up huge negatives. We all know everything there is to know; those who like her don't actually like her; and our opinions won't change.

John McCain is also well known, and his own "base" is skittish, but he has not yet pulled out his ace: his Vietnam War record. Everyone will respect the loyalty he showed his comrades by refusing to leave the prisoner of war camp when his father could have gotten him released even if not all vote for him. That story neutralizes so many negatives such as health and age. It will play beautifully in the convention propaganda. Hillary Clinton does not have such an ace, and worse for her, what few "stories" she has aren't really true. McCain's is seeringly authentic.

Moreover, Republicans grumble about McCain, but they usually find ways to compromise if they think they can win. And no Democrat starts Republicans frothing at the mouth more than Hillary Clinton. She will bring Republicans to the polls that on his own John McCain on his own cannot.

It's less clear with Barack Obama. For as many Democrats who imply they will not vote for a black man (and I'm not sure that's true), McCain is not beloved of Republicans, and many of us would like to be able to say we voted for Obama. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he is not an entirely "known" quantity, and his numbers could fluctuate. Would the Democrat working class folks really vote for McCain over Obama? I think so, but the chance of that changing is greater than the chance of Hillary Clinton remaking herself in a way that will allow her to defeat McCain.

The smart money is still, as it has been for four years (despite what "experts" outside the U.S. say), on John McCain. That money is only getting smarter. But if the Democrats want to change that, they will nominate Barack Obama.

[Olivier from France living in the US]

“We, the Clintons, are winners!” “Winners don’t quit!” “Winning, by all means…” But winning for what, for whom? For herself? Something she has to prove to herself and/or her family? For her indoctrinated daughter, or as a revenge against her husband? All she actually did is manipulate the public opinion, doing a pretty dirty job throwing everything she could at Obama’s face with consistent hypocrisy and dishonesty. Indeed, listen to what she says: “I offer solutions, not speeches”… say what?? Speeches are the candidates’ tool anyway! But when she talks, it’s not a speech, it’s a practical solution… “Yes we can” becomes “Yes we will”, pure demagogy. Taking a soft-silly-voice and smile “He’s gonna go to Washington and simply say” Let’s change!”, that’s taking people for a fool. “He can’t take the heat, he complains about tough questions…” when did you see that? He sure doesn’t hit back, which doesn’t mean that he doesn’t stand the hits, and he never complains. He only says that he has already addressed the controversies, and would like to raise the level of the debate, talk about the real issues.
When it comes to Bosnia, she asks us to move on and forget about it (see famous PA debate), but She would have left Rev Wright’s church, and reminds it all the time. No wonder why even her closest friends now support Obama. She only plays for her own interest, her personal victory because she gave this primary for granted, and nothing should have stood between her and the nomination. Enough is enough!

Please wake back up America! You brought Obama to this point, don’t let him down now! They (Clinton and Mc Cain) have been trying to destroy Obama, but if you think of it, they found nothing! Some of his acquaintances? Somebody else’s words? Let’s dig deeper into the Clinton’s foundation, or the law firm and Whitewater controversies… Lies, lies and mafia-type management. She now blames Obama for being an elitist. Easy claim against somebody who obviously is brighter than the average. He sure made a mistake in the way he talked about small-town Americans, but more at a political-wording level than message wise: everybody understood what he meant. Let’s not forget that this claim comes from $100m Hillary Clinton!! And She understands the poor!!! Let me laugh. Why do you think that Mc Cain only attacks Obama? Because he is not afraid of Hillary. What we haven’t heard from Obama against her, we’ll have it from Mc Cain if she is the nominee.

What she solely did is tarnish Obama’s reputation, and did not even find any real thing to worry about. However, repetition seems to work at a certain extent. She clearly doesn’t run for the better good but for her own interest, with aggressiveness, disrespect for the democrats, for her fellow candidate, and also for the people, as soon as she goes into her populist tone.
Americans are not stupid!

Let’s hope they will show her.

[Melanie]

Obama is the right person for the job. He is proving over and over that he can bring everyone of all walk of life together to make this country strong again. Being tough doesn't make you a leader, Obama is a leader and will fight for this country. Hillary has been condesending to dems that don't support her and is tearing the party apart b/c it's all about Hillary and keeping the dynasty alive in the white house.

[syed aziz ahmed]

America is a bankrupt economy. Their deficit rose from 5 Trillion in 2000 to 9 trillion in 2008. What the 42 previous presidents combined efforts in their terms, GWB has equaled it in his two terms. 3 of the 4 trillion deficit is the cost of war.

The question is can America sustain another cost of war and will the people of America allow that.

The super delegates know that if Hillery wins because of their votes, there will be revolution in America, someone like Jeremiah Wright will declare war, even Obama, Jessie Jackson, Kennedy and the rest will not be able to control it. Such is the passion for change and the Blacks are suspicious, very very suspicious.
So the sensible thing is to let Obama win the nomination if he is ahead on June 3rd. But will the king makers allow that. Because if Obama wins their, lobbyist supremacy will be compromised. So the Democratic part seniors may take the middle path of taking the decision to convention in Denver in August. Reject both the candidates for their bickering and choose Al-Gore.

Or the 2nd scenario is to let Obama win the convention and distort his image that he becomes non-electable in November.

This will be resolved in three stages. Early May primary, 3rd of June when all the primaries are decided or Denver. Meantime Obama's background will be scrutinized. The Private investigators are combing the streets of Kenya from where his father came from and Indonesia where Obama spent part of his childhood.
Meantime the gas prices in California, the largest state has crossed $ 4/- per gallon. Jobs are exported and health cost is sky high.
Not a very healthy situation.

[Dave]

It amazes me that no one seems to be challenging Clinton's claim that her "experience" qualifies her to be president. Has anyone Googled in search of her background or experience?" Anyone can take a look at Wikipedia for her background. Most of the list of things she has done are normal first lady duties -- as wife of an Arkansas governor and president of the U.S. As a WalMart's board member, did her supposedly pro-labor position change or influence anything about WalMart's known anti-labor stance? As a one-and-a half term senator what has she accomplished? What she has done is a great job carpetbagging her way into representing New York. What qualifying experience is she talking about?
When did she ever get into the mean streets of any city to organize churches, unions, and communities against injustices committed against those who have been marginalized by the "establishment?"

[Sonny]

I wonder if the people who support the Clintons read the same newspapers I do. I realize that what is understood of what you read is in the mind of the reader but how anyone could think that Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President must have some serious issues with reality much the same as she and her family do.

[mm.a]

What I don't get are those that blame Clinton for this exhausting nomination process. Blame the DNC - after all, they instated this system of proportional allocation to begin with! Let's remove ourselves from our personal opinions of Clinton and Obama and see the situation: there are two candidates with vast amounts of support. Because of this, the states essentially keep splitting the delegates; ergo, neither can reach the necessary 2025.

While I understand the arguments for such a system (that it is more democratic in reflecting the will of the people), the only problem is that in this case the people's will is virtually split. The party leaders should have accounted for such a "worst-case-scenario" situation and realized that setting an end date as late as August would only leave about 3 months of campaigning for the general election. Furthermore, the greatest irony in all of this is that the DNC - in their quest for arranging the most "democratic" nomination process - decided that in the case of a virtual tie, the decision would ultimately be placed in the hands of super delegates: which I dare say is a rather "undemocratic" solution.

My point is, this situation would've happened eventually. They should have seen it coming.

[S.F. Al]

Leaders are born as leaders. I do not think Hillary was born as leader. Getting married a leader doesn't make you a leader. I do think that every word Hillary talks, every moves, every expression is industrial; basically I cannot believe what she is saying.
I do believe Obama deserves to win but I do not think his colour will let him do that.

[John]

As an Australian observing your election process, no where in the free world do they have such a drawn out pre election & election process. Then u finally get to the election and the presidential candidate who has the most single votes does not win , remember Al Gore but it is decided by the ridiculous Electoral College.
If I was a US citizen my choice for President would be Hillary Clinton , can't see Obama beating McCain

[Dave]

I'm not an American but it does seem that in common with UK politics, the US democracy seems to have lost its way.

Whatever happened to truth, justic & the American way.

[Victor Marriott]

I am amazed at the way my fellow citizens continue to support Hillary Clinton who has been proven time and time again to be be a congenital liar. She lied when she said Chelsea had been in close proximity to the World Trade Center on 9/11. Chelsea subsequently said she was nowhere near the buildings. Hillary lied when she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when he only became widely known long after she was born. She lied when she said as a child she used to here her parents play a recording of a Union theme tune which similarly wasn't composed until years later. And now she tries to tell us that she mis-spoke when she said she came under gunfire in Kosovo. This women will say anything to win the sympathy of the electorate and shame on those of us that get sucked in with her lies. I would just like to say that "I DID NOT VOTE FOR THAT WOMAN, HILLARY CLINTON."

[Elia Armacanqui]

No, I do not think that she has the vote to win the White House. The people deserves that Senator Barack Obama be the President of the UNITED STATES. He leads on delegates, states, and the popular vote. We, who vote for him demand that the voice of the people is respected.

[Garth Wiseman]

Hillary will divide rather than heal the nation which is not what the American people need after 8 years of the divisive neo-cons. Obama is too inexperienced and untried to be CEO of any country let alone the world's major power. That leaves John McCain whose policies may appeal to those on both the left and right but whose health is too problematic to run the USA. So there is no alternative but to bring on Al Gore!

[William Nielsen]

A little news for the little Obamanaic who said the majority of America has voted for Obama. More people have voted for Hillary Clinton. (go ahead and launch a tiff about Michigan and Florida not counting, but the fact is those people voted for her whether you like it or not) He leads in delegates, yes, but he does not lead in number of votes. He's not winning anything.

[P. C.]

Perhaps Clinton should consider leaving the race because the Democratic Party's future is at stake...
People sometimes forget that the DP has been 8 years without the White House, and about 6 years without a majority in Congress.
What does this have to do with Hillary leaving the race?
... they need to consolidate the nomination before the Convention if they want to have a greater impact on society... in order to beat McCain.
Though this is partly inexplicable, most Americans don't agree with the war in Irak... but they are willing to vote for a Republican who says he would stay in Irak 100 years...

This makes no sense at all....

- PC from Puerto Rico

[Bill]

I don't understand what you people see in her. The only thing I've ever read about her that I like is her stance on abortion ("safe, legal, and rare"). Everything else is just the same old lies and politics.

Clinton: "I won Texas!" (...except Obama won more delegates)

Clinton: "Two-point lead in Pennsylvania!" (...if you round 9.2% up to 10%, I guess)

Clinton: "I got more of the popular vote!" (...if you count states that she agreed didn't count, in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot)

Clinton: "I have more foreign policy experience because I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire!" (Nevermind the fact that the whole story was made up. How does being shot at give you foreign policy experience? Does this mean our soldiers in Iraq are foreign policy experts?)

Lies lies lies, and people just swallow it up.

And Bill Clinton pardoning the FALN terrorists so that Puerto Rico supports Hillary? How did they get away with this?

[cafenitro]

Hillary is strong. Obama is a pansy wimp. Do we need a wimp in the whitehouse? Nobama.