IF she is given the chance. Sen. Obama is now outspending her two to one in Pennsylvania and has started campaigning very aggressively in that state. All this talk about "do the math, she can't win" is simply not accurate, as you have pointed out here with such vigor and energy, Ms. M. While I am not, of course, supposed to take any official position on this race, in my role as Chairperson of the Democratic National Convention this August, I assure you that my true position has been (quite) misrepresented in the media and in the "BLOGosphere,". (Such an unfortunate term!)

I do believe that the delegates for FLA & MICH should be seated in August and that the votes of those states' Democratic voters should be counted. I also believe that some form of re-count must be held in both those states -- it is only fair to do so. If the situation were reversed and Sen. Obama were thought to lead in FLA & MICH, I do believe he would be taking the exact same position that Sen. Clinton's campaign, and President Clinton himself, are currently taking.

Thank you for your well-thought-out message here and as always, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

ON TO DEMOCRATIC VICTORY in 2008! (With all due respect to my Congressional colleague, the handsome & distinguished Senator John McCain, of course.)

green cheese? Same scenario?

Is don't get your hopes up too high. The second link has her ahead by only 5% n PA. If she slips just a little more she'll be under water and the sharks will start circling.

and thank you for your vigorous defense of the BEST Dem. Presidential Candidate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York. It has been quite hard for me to remain neutral during all of this unfortunate business these past few months & I am grateful to this site for giving me a "safe" venue where I may express my true thoughts. Of course, as a woman near to Sen. Clinton's age and life experience, who is so honored to serve as the FIRST female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, as well as a long-experienced politician and legislator myself, of course, I support Senator Clinton. It is just not proper or expected that I might do so, publicly and officially. She has my support, 100 %, as well as the support of my family. We all will vote for her in November, given the opportunity. Please trust me on that.

"Thank you for your support."

The Speaker

Thanks SpeakerNancy for your input here! Enjoyed it. ;-)

Nice to lighten things up.

It's always a good thing when we fraysters can discuss the issues at hand in this election without rancor or blaming one side or the other.

But, John McCain, handsome?

Well, I don't know about that one!...lol

<wink>

ducadmo:

Is don't get your hopes up too high. The second link has her ahead by only 5% n PA. If she slips just a little more she'll be under water and the sharks will start circling.

You are right,ducadmo. If she has a poor showing in Pa. It could be fatal.We just don't know how it will go.

The whole thing is very much still in flux ...for both sides.

I have MSNBC on and Andrea Mitchell just said Obama is down to 49% with Hillary back up to 45% in the National poll, right now..so it keeps fluctuating all the time.

ahead of her & has been challenged for its accuracy by several pundits and even other pollsters. Of course, the polls will go back and forth weekly, if not daily, between now & August.

A "pundit" on one of the recent Sunday morning public affairs programs, said he had heard that the Gallup Poll includes more African-American voters than the others. Not sure if that is verifiable but it was stated on-air. And not challenged.

And yes, three percent is within the margin of error, unless someone (on Obama's campaign staff!) has changed the definition of the margin of error in the past two days!

Did you see him trying to look like a regular guy the other day in PA? Bowling in a white dress shirt & tie! (Q.) Could he BE a bigger phony? (A.) No, he could not.

Also, poor (REAL) Speaker(no space)Nancy! Her FELINE impersonator, Speaker (SPACE) Cat Nancy has shown up to give you a negative ranking. Poor form, Cattylin, poor form!

(No surprises there, eh?) HILLARY's not going away and not going to quit -- and people should be glad of that! What if she does win the Presidency? Do these Obama-nuts really want A Quitter in the White House? I wouldn't. (Of course, I would like to have seen "President" Bush pull us out of the Iraq War by now, but that's not what I mean by 'quitting.' I mean a more serious and dedicated personality trait of hanging in there, keeping up the good fight and hanging tough.

ChicagoEngineer:

So your answer is C. You want Hillary to win because you find BO distasteful and think he can't win in the general election, and you don't care what it takes for that to happen. I think you're 100% wrong, but thats ok with me. I don't mind disagreeing with people, nor do I value them less for disagreeing with me.

But you need to own your opinion. You want whatever it takes to make sure Hillary is the nominee. Thats an honest and fine opinion for you to have. But don't pretend it has anything to do with enfranchisement or rules. Its about the ends, not the means. Be proud of your beliefs.

No, Chicago. I want what is best for the country. At this point I don't think we have any really great choices. Sad that.

I wanted to like Obama and as I posted I did after Iowa.

I am sorry that changed and changed dramatically when I heard his mentor honors Louis Farrakhan.

After the Wright thing came out it only solidified my feelings and concerns about Obama.

I just can't cast a vote for someone that I have serious very serious reservations and worries about that way,just because they say and have told the party bosses they are loyal democrats.

His background and associations are very disconcerting to me.

The really beautiful thing about our great country is the poeple's vote.

Because it is looking like the portion of our government currently controlled by the Democrats, have made a real error in judgement when not properly vetting Obama before putting him out to run.

Thank God..people can vote to say , no, to a party that puts up a poorly vetted candidate.

The government is not infallible.

But the poeple's common sense generally gets it right, in the end, anyway.

BUT, if it's split, there's a problem. I've never liked the Electoral College, and for that reason, I don't want to overthrow the popular vote for someone who only won the delegate count. To me, the popular vote is "the will of the people".

It's funny, but everyone talks about the problem of who Hillary's supporters will vote for if Obama wins, or vice versa. They always leave out one important detail. This is the one thing I'm adamant about: whoever the loser is, he or she must support the winner BIG TIME. (Per Demosthenes, I'll allow a 5-10 day "cooling off" period to nurse wounded egos.) No ifs, ands, or buts, the loser must get out there and use his or her best efforts to convince supporters to vote for the other Dem. I'd really prefer it if both candidates made that pledge right now. But whoever the loser is, I will never forgive them if they don't try valiently to sway their supporters.

The polls are beginning to tighten up again with a slight drop for Obama today, SN.

And yes, I giggled when I saw how she copied your nick and did that on my post.

She's always here lurking, isn't she?

Makes you feel kind of important knowing that she is always watching, reading and so intensely focused on us, eh?lol.

;-)

let the primaries continue then and let's see who gets the most popular votes in the ned. let the people have their votes counted.To be equitable..that would have to include Florida and Michigan.

That's all I am saying as well.

I hope the country pulls together, as well.No matter what.

You have a visceral dislike of Obama, and want to see him lose the nomination whatever the cost. You have your reasons for it, I'm sure you think they're reasonable. Fine.

But stop with the "disenfranchisement" argument. Its a load.

too much contradiction. The DNC is not conspiring against Hillary, there is not some group of rogue Democratic Senators out to get Hillary, and Hillary said not one word about FL or MI until after she knew she'd need their votes (for this reason I find her new role as "champion of the disenfranchised" self-serving and disingenuous to say the least).

There are many in the democratic party who think Obama was a mistake and had not been properly vetted before he was pushed into the arena.

That is a problem now for the DNC and for the party at large.

So, what you're saying is that some voters will not get the candidate of their choice, right? Again, how is that different from any other primary race even run? How would it be different if it was Hillary winning and Obama supporters not getting their choice? What, exactly, is the DNC supposed to do about that? I'd really love to hear the speech Howard Dean would have to make to sell a superdelegate coup.

"We thank all of you new voters who participated, but you're just too damn stupid and you picked the wrong guy! We'll just fix that problem for you and nominate Hillary instead. No harm, no foul, right? Really, we know what's best for you. We know you'll be happy as lifelong Democrats. Thanks again, and we look forward to seeing you at the polls!"

Mitch is saying that if Obama wins, Hillary supporters ought to get behind him enthusiastically. That is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming you'll do.

I had to tell my good friend SN above to lighten up with the pro Hillary emails etc. I was for Obama at that time.

But the Farrakhan thing changed that.

Is it a visceral dislike?

It's a presidential race for the leader of our country and the Free World.

If that choice is a visceral ,meaningful one I make and care deeply about, the answer would be ,yes.

I do feel my concern in a visceral(feeling) sense.