My husband mentioned a theory this morning that, as I've thought and thought about it throughout the day, seems pretty plausible - if unappealing.

He thinks that Hillary KNOWS she's not going to win. She now on a mission to be as destructive as possible, to make voters believe, although it's not true, that Obama can't win the GE ... without her on the ticket. Perhaps she's trying to force Obama to make her his VP running mate. Shudder.

It wouldn't be the first time we had a president and vice-president who hated each other.

I wish someone would point out that HILLARY is the one who isn't electible in the general election! She CAN'T WIN the African-American vote, the newly registered young people's vote, and the college-educated liberal's vote.

So there!

So what if Obama gets shot, and the blame falls onto some person of cause seen as 'conservative'?

IMO, Hillary defaults into the nomination, and the backlash sweeps her to victory in the general election.

What is there to say? Hillary's an asshole. But I disagree that these right wing Democrats will lose us the election. If Obama loses, Hillary will be blamed and no one else, unless she campaigns her ass off for Obama.

James Madison and Alexander Hamiliton explained the creation of constitutional America as a "compound republic." As part of their basic concept of dividing government powers among several competing sources, they meant by "compound republic" that in the selection of the nation's president all the various states (meaning their legislatures, congressional representatives, and governors) would hold their own presidential elections every four years, however they saw fit as long as legitimate, and the sum total of all these individual state elections would determine who won the presidency.

The Democratic Party, as presently constituted, essentially adheres to that same 50-state concept in its own total-delegate selection process for picking the Democratic Party's nominee. State parties decide for themselves whether to hold primaries, cuacuses, state-conventions, and/or any combination of them (Texas does all three). If any such thing as a "national popular vote" operated to pick the party's nominee, then all the 50-states could have held one "national primary" and chosen their nominee based upon the principle of "one person, one vote."

But the indidividual states never liked this idea of universal suffrage back in the late eighteenth century and they don't like it much better now. The various states and commonwealths of America want political consideration as individual entities in their own right and not simply as lines drawn on maps within which various numbers of equally weighed individual people -- otherwise indistinguishable -- happen to live. Americans can, of course, change this situation by amending the Constitution and becoming one nation at last, except for the recalcitrant opposition of smaller and/or sparsely populated states which very much refuse to give up their disproportionate political influence. So there we have matters as they stand today.

All candidates for national political office need to understand how America functions politically as a 50-state compound republic. Senator Obama seems to understand this -- as befits a constitutional scholar -- and his current insurmountable lead in pledged delegates confirms this. Senator You-Know-Her foolishly ignored this fundamental reality and the strategic -- not to mention historic -- blunder has resulted in her imminent defeat. In any event, trying to invent mythological "metrics" that ignore the complex political realities of the various 50 states does not recommend a person for the presidency of a compound republic. As well, agreeing to the rules for proportional delegate selection when this looked favorable but challenging those same rules when they favor another candidate (who has exploited them more effectively) smacks of illegitimacy, disrespect, and a desperate self-indulgence.

The sum total of the 50 individually selected state delegates will determine the Democratic Party's nominee for president. The so-called "superdelegates" will reflect this total, summary judgment. Senator Barack Obama will win because -- overall -- he deserves to do so. Senator You-Know-Her understandably refuses (at least in public) to acknowledge this reality. Irregardless of her increasingly strident claims to the contrary, this reality has bitten You-Know-Her; she has fallen; and she can't get back up again before the fat lady sings and the final curtain falls. Soon no more strutting and fretting her fifteen minutes upon the stage, bellowing sound and fury, signifying nothing.

news 10, you just reminded me of what Gerri F. said, if he was any one but, he wouldn't be here.

Probably not exactly Wright, but the best I can do when I'm having one of those MsBush moments.

I have only six words to say. OK, that was six words already. Not it's 12. Now it's 15, or 14 and one number. Stop the insanity! This is what I wanted to say (in 6 words):

Your logo freaks me out.

Oops, that was 5 words. So sue me.

I just blogged on the same issues. You just have to vent.

The title reminds me of McCarthy a little.

"Do you at long last have any decency? "

Ironically Clinton comes close to McCarthyism over her "concern" about anti-Americanism of Ayers and Wright, and "guilt by assocation". Sound familiar?

It is also myopic, if not mendacious, to suggest that only one candidate and only one campaign has gone negative and used underhanded tactics.

Both campaigns used sleazy robocalls in Pa. For months and months while Clinton was taking the high road and running a general election campaign during the primaries as the presumed nominee, Obama and his campaign attacked her on virtually every speech. The five year old war authorization vote was brought up at every speech instead of focusing on Clinton's plans, very similar to Obama's, for dealing with the situation.

The key meme, though, was the constant "code" that Clinton was an old hand, a long time politician. "You can't change Washington by sending the same people back in different positions." Many, many Obamaites can trace their intials misgivings about her to buyinbought into this.

Clinton supporters saw this attack (as clearly as the Obama supporters saw the "JJ won in SC also" statement as underhanded code) as code for "Clinton is part of the problem." It was code for "Clinton and Bush and Cheney and McCain" are equivalent. It was code for "Clinton won't really change anything." Watch the Russert moderated debate between Axelrod and Garin. Axelrod repeated the oft leveled charge that Clinton won't really change anything.

During the months and months that this went on, Obama got a free pass and Tweety and ObamaCentralNBC, scared that she would win early and spoil their fun and their ratings, railed at her constantly. To Clinton supporters this unfairness was as palpably obvious as the really unfair attacks on Obama last Friday.

So, for those of you who are fed up with her antics and feel she's some kind of anti-christ because she's played hardball after falling behind playing nice:

Grow up. Neither side is guiltless.

Neither side being guiltless is not the same as saying one side has is predominantly guitly. I think, almost without exception, that Obamas negative attacks (not all) have been in response to some proactive attack by Hillay's campign. Many of those negative attacks have come straight out of her own mouth.

It is not a question of growing up. it is a question of clearly seeing and acknowledging reality. While there are two sides to any dispute that doesn't mean that both sides carry an equal weight of evidence.

For Obama to respond to the negative ads that the Clintons have been inundating the airwaves with, is not negative within itself, it is common sense to defend ones position.

Unlike the Clintons trying to present their agenda, they would rather attack Obama. Is it me, or do the Clintons have nothing of substance to speak about?

It is very obvious that Hillary no longer cares about the Democratic Party, it is all about Hillary.
She is willing to win at all cost, even if it destroys the Democratic Party in the process.

In this campaign, we have seen the "true" character of Hillary and Bill, or should I say the lack of it.

I cannot believe I voted for him, twice. I suppose we all learn from our mistakes. I have.