HILLARY CLINTON IS THE GREATEST CAMPAIGNER IN AMERICAN HISTORY !!!

HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:

IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, and loss in Indiana and West Virginia makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.

It is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Sen. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Sen. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Sen. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Sen. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Don't be fooled by the pledged delegate, and math arguments. Neither candidate has the necessary pledged delegates. The entire delegates counts, and votes from Florida, and Michigan are not even being counted. Plus the democratic caucuses, and primarys have been heavily corrupted by fraud, and vote cheating. The only relevant question now is who can best WIN IN NOVEMBER and take back the Whitehouse for the American people. And the answer is HILLARY CLINTON. Everyone knows that now.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."

Uh... wouldn't winning elections be a pretty good measure of "electibility"? By that measure, Obama's the more electible -- Clinton's substantial wins notwithstanding. We know Clinton's been saying it is unfair to count the caucus states, or the "red" states, or the non-swing states.

I agree there is plenty of room for improvement in the DNC rules for the primary process. Let's get a good discussion going over that soon. But, to change the rules of the game in the 4th quarter would be every bit as unfair as the Supreme Court's appointment of GW Bush was in 2000.

No, we are not "fooled" by the election tally so far, we are observing it. If you know of some instance of voter fraud or vote cheating, why not inform us all about it right here in this forum? And, while you're at it, 'splain for us why none of the campaigns have issued any public statements implying such things?

Yes, Clinton supporters count too. As do supporters of Richardson, Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd. Simply "counting" does not mean you get to overturn the results of democratic elections and caucuses.

You show me the paragraph in the DNC rules for the Dem primary race, that says a god-damned thing about "electability."

Show it to me, and I'll sign over to you, my first-born child. I'll even throw in a brand new car.

You see, Hillary knew going in to this race that the winner was the one who got the prescribed number of delegates first. That prescribed number does change, as special elections occur throughout the primary race, but it changes only by a couple at the most. So, what we're looking at now is 2,025. Obama is within 110 of that number. Hillary is within 306.

Here's my final question to you: If Hillary is more electable, why can't she even beat Obama.

Remember 2004? Remember how the Democrats nomoinated the most "electable" candidate, John Kerry? Remember how he couldn't even win against George Bush?

A choice between McCain and Clinton offers little choice. Hillary has many better domestic policies but she is with McCain on Iraq and Iran and went along with McCain on the stupid gas tax "holiday." If the people really want more war in Iraq and Iran or more stupid tax cuts then they'll choose McCain over Hillary. He's stronger on these issues. If they want us out of Iraq then Hillary offers little difference to McCain so she loses that battle too.

Obama offers a real contrast to McCain. He's a better candidate. He's more of a Democratic candidate. He appeals to a broad cross section of Americans and would be a much better president. Finally Hillary has lost. Deal with it.

Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.

You're an idiot. The Republicans are flat broke. Obama is rolling in cash. He is a mortal lock.

If you know of some instance of voter fraud or vote cheating, why not inform us all about it right here in this forum?

He doesn't know a damn thing -- he's just making stuff up. That's what Clinton and her supporters do -- along with inventing ever-more-absurd alternative metrics.

I don't have much respect for Dick Morris, but he said something interesting on Fox News last night. I'll attempt to paraphrase rather than searching for the quote.

He said that he considered Obama unelectable, yet he is the nominee of the Party that can't possibly lose this year.

On the other hand, he felt that McCain was "fairly electable", but that he was the nominee for the Party that couldn't possibly win this year.

That, he said, is the conundrum of the 2008 Presidential election.

I think that I actually agree with him in this case.

So you don't have any respect for him, but all of a sudden find what he has to say "interesting" when it confirms your opinion.

Whatever.

Jacksmith, it's true that the Clintons were in the whitehouse twice.

Had it not been for Ross Perot, they wouldn't have made it even once.

You've all got it wrong. Did you learn nothing from the last presidential election? Bush lost the popular vote. Yet, the electoral college saved us from our stupidity and put Bush in the White House. The same thing will happen here. The electoral college, not we the voters, will elect the next POTUS. So if you really want someone to blame for the last 4 years of Bush, blame the electoral college. We really need to get rid of them and go back to popular vote period....It is the only way that we will actually elect the POTUS that the majority of the voters want. Hell I did not want to see Gore as POTUS but right is right and wrong is wrong and Gore won the popular vote and by rights should have been POTUS.

Bush won the popular vote in the last presidential election. You might remember it, against a fellow by the name of Kerry. Curiously enough, Kerry was nominated to run against Bush because the Democrats considered him "electable."

You're thinking of the presidential election before last.

maroci:

So you don't have any respect for him, but all of a sudden find what he has to say "interesting" when it confirms your opinion.

Whatever.

Actually, I found it all the more interesting because it came from the mouth of such a cretin. It didn't confirm any pre-existing opinion that I had. I hadn't really thought of it that way before.

Obama is only unelectable because his skin is the wrong color. I don't celebrate that, but I understand it. Then again, I don't see how the GOP could possibly win this election -- and I have consistently said as much. It's sort of like the conundrum of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. I found it interesting.

Then again, as you so eloquently stated...

Whatever.

"We really need to get rid of them and go back to popular vote period....It is the only way that we will actually elect the POTUS that the majority of the voters want." You can't "go back" to a method that has never been used before. But I do agree that the electoral college should be eliminated.

Dausuul: Yes you are correct I was thinking of Bush's first time around, but I think you get the idea I was attempting to make. That being popular vote doesn't always guarantee victory when it comes to the presidential election and that is just plain wrong. How can a POTUS be the POTUS of the people, for the people and elected by the people if he looses the popular vote, yet still becomes POTUS?

Hell I did not want to see Gore as POTUS but right is right and wrong is wrong and Gore won the popular vote and by rights should have been POTUS.

Not at all. Both candidates knew that the popular vote was irrelevant and didn't campaign for it. If they had, the result might have been different. So I can't say Gore should have been president on the basis of the popular vote. If the candidates had spent time in NY and CA and TX, none of which were "in play," who knows what might have happened?

The candidates operated under the rules they were given. I can't assume that the votes would have fallen the same way had they run completely different campaigns.