Hillary picked up 12 delegates advantage in the West Virginia primary only to lose 18 delegates to Edward's endorsement the next day. It's over. Sometimes you lose close elections and it is hard to accept that it is over and you lost, but it is over, all the same.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy isn't quite alive and it isn't quite dead. I guess that makes Clinton the zombie candidate.

Obama 08!

I, and all those Obamacrats standing behind me, attempting to disenfranchise half of the Democratic Party, say that the nomination race is over."

"We would appreciate it if you would cease being anti-democratic by insisting that everyone within the Party has the right to vote in this nomination process. You see the DNC rewrote the rules so as to front load the states they figured would vote for Obama and we think that you, and all those gutter scum mainstream democrats, ought to allow the DNC and the national press to do your thinking for you, which is what we Obamacrats do."

"You see, we believe in conserving brain cells in case we one day find a use for them."

Your democratic fan -- Daystart

Excellent post, Gatewood!

but it's still over

It is over for Hillary, but she can still run out the clock, giving everyone an opportunity to vote -- which is important whether you think so or not -- and in the process she can hurt Obama and the DNC enough to perhaps see to it that John McCain wins the presidential election.

You see, if that happens then Obama will be recalled as the loser that could not handle a general election whereas Hillary will be recalled as the candidate that SHOULD have won the nomination process [would have won it if the DNC hadn't rigged it] and probably would have beaten McCain in the general election.

She can be a good democrat without having any loyalty whatsoever to the DNC, which has acted as her foe throughout this nomination process.

One can only hope Hillary isn't living for that angle, I don't think it would help her any in the long run to hurt her own party.

the sun goes round the earth many times, things change, you have to do what's right... today.

Gatewood:

It is over for Hillary, but she can still run out the clock, giving everyone an opportunity to vote -- which is important whether you think so or not -- and in the process she can hurt Obama and the DNC enough to perhaps see to it that John McCain wins the presidential election.

You see, if that happens then Obama will be recalled as the loser that could not handle a general election whereas Hillary will be recalled as the candidate that SHOULD have won the nomination process [would have won it if the DNC hadn't rigged it] and probably would have beaten McCain in the general election.

She can be a good democrat without having any loyalty whatsoever to the DNC, which has acted as her foe throughout this nomination process.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you constantly make shit up.

How has the DNC rigged the election? Because delegates chose Obama over Hillary? Are they not allowed a preference for whom they feel is the most qualified? Or is it just because they did not choose Hillary, there must be a conspiracy. And, it seems to me that the candidate that SHOULD have won the contest IS winning the contest. If the contest was overturned through backroom deals that would mean that Obama would be the candidate that SHOULD have won.

Statistically/logically Clinton SHOULD have been the nominee, but SHE blew it, on her own. And you keep touting this idea that Clinton is the only one who wants every vote to count, conveniently neglecting that facts that she signed the pledge to disawow Florida and her ccampaign did not even expect the process to go beyond super tuesday--remember the double digit lead she had and all the "inevitable nominee" rhetoric from the media? I guess not.

You call Obama supporters "Obamabots." Pathetic.

Hillary is staying in so that everyone has a chance to vote. This is a close race. and her supporters arent asking her to step down. Obama supporters are doing enough of that. 47 - 43. i dont understand why so many ppl think that is a blow out. 43% of democrats think she is the better candidate ....so 47 wins i get that but dont act like she is doing anything wrong here by not dropping out. i think november is going to be a tough fight for either candidate and it's not a good time to criticize OTHER DEMOCRATS. ugh get this nastiness out of my party!

Is there a brain between those ears?

The back door deals -- now listen closely to this part and STRAIN to comprehend reality -- were done BEFORE the nomination contest started WHEN Donna Brazille -- a rabid Obamacrat -- got with the Hillary-hating Howard Dean and probably Nancy Pelosi and conspired to help rig the voting process to front load the states most likely to vote for Obama when it would do him the most good.

Donna Brazille told her fellow board members that if they agreed to rig the nomination rules to favor Obama [she called it favoring diversity] then she could guarantee that her good friend Obama would run for the office.

This has been explained innumerable times on these Fray boards. The only way an Obamacrat can be ignorant of these known facts at this point is by WANTING to be ignorant of them. These people made no attempt to cover their tracks because technically they were not doing anything illegal . . . just unethical and immoral.

So did any of that help to illuminate political reality for you or are you -- in typical Obamacrat style -- going to shrug it off [known facts] as irrelevant?

Gatewood:

Is there a brain between those ears?

The back door deals -- now listen closely to this part and STRAIN to comprehend reality -- were done BEFORE the nomination contest started WHEN Donna Brazille -- a rabid Obamacrat -- got with the Hillary-hating Howard Dean and probably Nancy Pelosi and conspired to help rig the voting process to front load the states most likely to vote for Obama when it would do him the most good.

Donna Brazille told her fellow board members that if they agreed to rig the nomination rules to favor Obama [she called it favoring diversity] then she could guarantee that her good friend Obama would run for the office.

This has been explained innumerable times on these Fray boards. The only way an Obamacrat can be ignorant of these known facts at this point is by WANTING to be ignorant of them. These people made no attempt to cover their tracks because technically they were not doing anything illegal . . . just unethical and immoral.

So did any of that help to illuminate political reality for you or are you -- in typical Obamacrat style -- going to shrug it off [known facts] as irrelevant?

Known facts? You're a F'ing loon!! Get it through my head? You're crazy!

Show me some proof of this happening, besides some bullshit blog or Frayster post.

You're a joke. You hate Obama, we get it, but back up your claims with some evidence and quitting spewing tripe about everyone who disagrees with you. I like how you always try to talk down to people as well: calling them "kids", "children", "let me explains this to you".

Everything that happened in this election, to you, is a matter of victimization or plotting against Clinton. Except that in our little "Realityland" here at Slate, we like to give empirical evidence for things.

Go back under the bridge, freak.

P.S. I know you'll disregard all of the vitriol and namecalling that you employ, and just claim to be the victim of the "Obamamaniacs," that's what you always do, so get on with it.

crack me up. I noticed that I struck a sensitive nerve there. So you DID know about it and were just hoping that no one would bring it up?

You cherished this notion during a bitter campaign struggle? Holy shit! Now do you understand why political realists consider most Obamacrats pie-in-the-sky fantasists?

I wouldn't mind, but I do have some fondness still for the Democratic Party and I do resent the hell out of you intellectual children diddling the Party out of a guaranteed White House win just so that you could irresponsibly practice feel-good politics.

Gatewood wrote the following post at 05/15/2008 4:48 PM:
crack me up. I noticed that I struck a sensitive nerve there. So you DID know about it and were just hoping that no one would bring it up?
You cherished this notion during a bitter campaign struggle? Holy shit! Now do you understand why political realists consider most Obamacrats pie-in-the-sky fantasists?
I wouldn't mind, but I do have some fondness still for the Democratic Party and I do resent the hell out of you intellectual children diddling the Party out of a guaranteed White House win just so that you could irresponsibly practice feel-good politics




Whatever you gotta tell yourself to make it through.

Gatewood:

crack me up. I noticed that I struck a sensitive nerve there. So you DID know about it and were just hoping that no one would bring it up?

You cherished this notion during a bitter campaign struggle? Holy shit! Now do you understand why political realists consider most Obamacrats pie-in-the-sky fantasists?

I wouldn't mind, but I do have some fondness still for the Democratic Party and I do resent the hell out of you intellectual children diddling the Party out of a guaranteed White House win just so that you could irresponsibly practice feel-good politics.

And still you provide no proof of your vast conspiracy claims. You're a joke, Gatewood.