http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smile y/here-we-go-again_1_b_96374.html

This article says it all about Clinton and her shameful reaction to the words of Obama. If she really cared about advancing the cause of poor people, she wouldn't be giving McCain talking points and instead, worked united with Obama to see how Washington has failed small town America and how Democrats, no matter which one of the two, will change things.  But no-- she just cares about winning.  She won't win. Even if she gets the nomination, the party will be destroyed and McCain will walk towards victory.

So it makes me wonder. How shameful is she? And what are we going to do about this?

I am an Obama supporter. But I believe that the calls for Clinton to quit are unfair.

Clinton trying to get superdelegates to vote for her despite how their district or state voted is perfectly legit.  And with this logic, she still has a chance to win.

But the Michigan and Florida ranting must end.  Because I know that you all know that to overturn what has happened in a way that favors her is what is truly unfair.

Trying to give her delegates according to the Michigan and Florida results is like winning a pickup game and claiming a championship victory.  All the candidates agreed that none of the states were going to count. They didn't campaign there.  Many Dems voted in the Republican primary because they believed the Democratic primary wasn't going to count.

She wins the "pickup game", declares victory, and says that she should be rewarded like it was a championship.

Please. If this was a real election where everyone could campaign fairly and every voter knew that it was going to count and then they didn't divvy up the delegates, then nobody would argue about the fairness.

As for the Texas convention process, this process has been around for decades.  It wasn't put in place for Obama.  It was put in place for everyone.  Obama's campaign efforts were aimed at getting people to vote and then participate in the caucuses.  If his campaign had 100% of the resources devoted to the primary, he probably would have won it.  But instead, he focused on getting the most delegates.  That's how the election is decided.  

If Clinton and Clinton supporters had fought for a difference in the process BEFORE January-- before Iowa, then I can look at this as a fight for democracy.  Did she tell Iowa and New Hampshire that they were bullying the DNC THEN? No!

If you really feel strongly about this as an issue of fairness in the process, then do so for the 2012 primary.  But all Obama's campaign has done is play by the DNC rules and win at it.  

Whatever you think about Barack Obama or Michelle Obama, we as Americans cannot put up with violent, racist comments.  Take a look at the diary about what Bill O'Reilly Said on DailyKos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/ 145745/886/64/460631

This is what he said:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels."

On MSNBC, they are talking about members of Clinton's campaign choosing to go negative, as they believe this is going to be the best option to win, given Obama's big lead now in pledged delegates.  

The problem is: that an overly negative campaign against Obama is going to hurt the Democrats.  This is a case where her attacks may help her, but it will hurt him in ways that will hurt him in the general.  It's time for we as a party to be much more strategic about our primary candidates and our primary candidate activities.  So it's time that we URGE Hillary Clinton not to go too negative.  The chances of she winning with a negative campaign are slim.  She needs to prove that SHE is the BEST candidate-- not HE is the WORST candidate.  Remember: We are Democrats first!

I know this is a relatively Pro-Clinton web site, so I'll get criticized a lot.  But I do want to ask people on here how long they want to continue negative attacks on Obama.  

It's looking as if there are going to be two scenarios based on the number of pledged delegates and projections going forward.  Either Obama is going to continue getting momentum and will be the clear nominee by April, or Clinton will find a way to catch up to a tie in pledge delegates.  The chance of her actually overtaking Obama in pledge delegates is small.  As an Obama supporter, I can say that there will be a lot of bitterness if superdelegates decide the nomination.

So for Clinton supporters, is this the best time to focus on attacking Obama? Or is this a better time to accept the possibility of an Obama nomination and to begin to send some positive support his way. I'm not saying give up.  I'm just saying give up the negativity and be secure that Obama would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better than McCain.

It is so exciting to see all the momentum in Texas already for Obama.  Despite the mainstream media talking about Clinton winning Texas by a landslide, all the feeling on the ground (at least in Austin) is with the Obama campaign.  There are bumper stickers on many cars.  There are yard signs.  There are huge numbers of people going to Obama events.  And we still have three weeks.  

Even if you are a Clinton supporter, you have to appreciate the movement that is occurring (I respect that you still prefer HRC for whatever reason you choose). This is democracy at its finest.  The Democratic party is about people power, and the Obama campaign has tapped into this.

After 12 years of Bush & Perry, I can see a blue light in Texas, if and it's coming from this Obama movement.  Who knows? 2010 Democratic governor?

A simple question about electability.  Has anyone EVER met a Republican or Independent who said they support Hillary Clinton? What about Barack Obama.  I do interact with many from each group, and I am amazed about what they say positively about Obama and how they despise Clinton.  I think before we ask questions about electablity, we need to ask ourselves "who do I actually know who voted for Bush and would vote for Candidate __?"  In fact, that's all we should be thinking about.  Otherwise, we'll get overconfident again and let another 2004 happen again.  I have personally seen the difference at a personal-level.  This is not enough for a statistical sample, but at least its some evidence.  Can any Clinton supporters say the same?