I look at Hill's record and what she has accomplished and I'd really like to support her but…. I've said several times before that I don't support her because of her tactics (and some of her votes in the Senate). She is polarizing, secretive and willing to do anything, including turn the Dems against each other, to get the nomination. It is ruthless and these tactics are the same ones that Bush uses (and Rove). This is the Washington political environment she “grew-up” in and helped perfect. This is the only way she knows how to operate and she's operating this way. Sorry, but just look at the facts…

I think it's interesting that Jill, Holly and others think that a lot of Dems will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I think they are right and as Jill said, no one knows for certain.

Not to insert race and gender into this race (but it can't be helped, really)… In this country there are still a lot of people who would vote for a man over a woman. And there are a lot of people who would vote for a white man over a black man. Then there are all those people who would vote for McCain because they like his positions (such as staying in Iraq indefinitely) better than Obama (who wants a measured pullout). And, to repeat (more or less) what I just said… as Jill said, no one is certain how this will play out.

It's definitely an interesting race with a white man, a white woman and a black man as the three front runners. (I'm not counting Hillary out just yet, even if it's looking that way.)

BTW: on CNN last night they said that for Hillary to pull even with Obama for delegates, she would have to win both TX and OH by 65/35 (Hillary/Obama). Which means she would need to stay even with him in the rest of the states to maintain that.

So yeah, if she can't pull off TX and OH, then her last real shot is persuading the superdelegates. PA won't help of she loses TX and OH.

What does that mean, even if he keeps racking up a higher percentage of the primary votes, we should arrange it so that another candidate gets the nom? Seriously?

Look, I was never into HRC. Partially, because I think mandates are a bad idea. Also, I think her husband wasn't as good for the poor or the Black community as he is remembered to be. Her vision for the country seems to be a return to that time and I think we have enough prisons, thanks.

But the absolute biggest problem I have are with the campaign tactics. It's as if she does not care what happens to the party as long as she gets the delegates. Statements like the one you just made indicate that her followers might not either.

After NH, when Obama could have easily become a flash in the pan, I did a gut check and realized that, if only because of Choice and the Supreme Court, I've got to vote for the Dem. No matter what I think of HRC right now, it would be short sighted and unserious to do otherwise. I'll even vote for her if she gets the nom by way of shenanigans. But see, I'm a Democrat.

As I was trying to say to Holly and as pacatrue said, you can only consider McCain to be close to Hillary if the only issue you look at is Iraq. McCain has spent his entire run for the nomination trying to be a Bush clone, including cozying up to the people he once condemned on the religious right. He has sworn that he would work to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has promised that his Supreme Court nominees would be Consider this:

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says her group has always considered McCain pro-life as well. And it's not just abortion, she says.

“He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances — that was about violence against women in clinics,” Keenan says, adding, “He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme.”

And yet millions of voters who would vote for Hillary would vote for McCain? Please.

I'd like to make a joke something like “I'm shocked that no one has blamed Hillary yet for his” since Hillary and the Clintons were like the right's boogeyman for years, but since it is Hillary's campaign, she actually is responsible this time.

They don't. That's sour grapes from the Hillary Vintners. Add in the war, and very, very few Hill Chillers will go Mac.

Hello? They do think of women that way, which is why I wrote: 'Every move Hill makes in the last week reinforces the stereotype that a woman has to whine when things don't go her way, instead of 'taking it like a man.'

DLS: Whininess and ruthlessness are not mutually opposing things.

'If the Dems can try to steal a general election they lost'

Just when you get close to reality, Bizarro has to bring you back in!

Jill: bad attempts at humor don't add a thing to the convo, but only heighten your Hillarization. Next.

Holly: 'If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Democrats will be voting for Sen. McCain in November.'

So you, Jill, and DLS vying for most out of touch person on TMV, eh? First, Your statement is true only if Hillary Clinton is subbed for Obama. Few Dems will vote for the psychotic war hawking of McCain, and Obama has already drawn millions of R's into his campaign.

So whose freezing now, Jill?

Ashen: 'Holly, do you even look at polls, or do you just ignore them if they are not positive about your candidate?'

She does look at the polls, but on Hillaryworld, folk like she, Damozel, and Jill constitute the polled.

Jill: 'I believe as she does that people who supported Hillary will go for McCain because they find him to be closer to what she is than Obama.'

Check out the similarities of the voting records. Hill's folk will go for O. But, thanks for the update from Hillaryworld.

I believe as she does that people who supported Hillary will go for McCain because they find him to be closer to what she is than Obama. You are suggesting that that number is outpaced/will be outpaced by the new voters Obama was able to draw in for the primaries and the numbers who will vote in the general. But do we really know that or want to rely on that?

There's no question that the Dems as a party are outdrawing the GOP in the primaries but then they don't have much to vote for, now or earlier. Once the GOP has a target in sight, whomever it is, do you really believe that their GOTV will simply not go into motion and will let themselves be trampled? I don't. Not for a minute. GOP voters skew older and older voters skew as extremely reliable.

I think it's extremely risky to not expect the GOP to fight tooth and nail for whatever disaffected voters they'll be able to find once the nominees are set.

What Holly has mentioned has been mentioned in plenty of other places. And the fact is, no one really knows.

I do like the motif of Clinton needing to do well in Texas, her Alamo.

As for her site, here it is. As the risk of being badly misinterpreted again, I'll note once more (as I did on another thread a while ago) that this is a lesson for readers, as liberals of the elite kind have argued for years for “at-large” seats in Congress (normally the House) to represent the “national interest” as an improvement (in their eyes; it is additional centralization of power in DC) as well as a counter-move against local orientation by House members and local-area spending in excess. Such at-large positions in a nation-wide body and their advocacy have always been elitist as well as liberal. (Conservatives have avoided this as a rule, instead have merely defended the nature of the Senate, decried the going to direct election of Senators, and include related remarks about abolishing the Electoral College, etc. Meanwhile liberals who are elitist toward the House have wanted to change the Senate to “democratize” it or make it more like the House. The original, real topic here, though, is that many liberals have advocated “national” “at-large” seats and you're seeing the problems currently with something similar insofar as the super-delegates are concerned. The Clinton site below discusses super-delegates, not only the idiocy about trying to force Texas and Florida's tainted delegates into the convention.)

http://www.delegatehub.com/

While some may badly misinterpret the use of that link, what I wrote in addition to posting the link is self-explanatory.