So I'm watching ABC news tonight, and there's a story on Hillary vs. Barrack and I got a chuckle from listening to this part:

Charles Gibson: Now to presidential politics. And what amounts to a tale of two campaigns. The primary season ends next Tuesday. Hillary Clinton is arguing as aggressively as she ever has that she should be the nominee. However Barrack Obama and John McCain are all but ignoring her, as if the general election campaign has already begun. Here's ABC's Jake Tapper.

ABC NEWS VOICE: South Dakota's Mt. Rushmore may be as close as Hillary Clinton gets to the Presidency this last week of the primary season. She needs almost 90% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. So she's pushing her electibility to Super Delegates with this exaggerated claim:

Hillary (they show a clip from a recent speaking rally): And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that's been taken and every state that a democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall.

ABC NEWS VOICE: But the Clinton campaign has been making this general argument for months to little avail. Since May 6, when Clinton won Indiana and Obama won North Carolina, 9 super delegates have endorsed her, 63 have gone for him.

They continue on with the story and show that Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) predicted that the rest of the super delegates will back Obama. They show clips of Obama and McCain only talking about each other, not mentioning Hillary whatsoever.

At the end, Jake Tapper (the reporter) says, "Democratic sources on Capital Hill tell ABC news that a number of Hillary Clinton super delegates are talking about switching to Barrack Obama next week. Probably right after the June 3rd primaries on Tuesday."

They continue on with the story and show that Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) predicted that the rest of the super delegates will back Obama. They show clips of Obama and McCain only talking about each other, not mentioning Hillary whatsoever.

At the end, Jake Tapper (the reporter) says, "Democratic sources on Capital Hill tell ABC news that a number of Hillary Clinton super delegates are talking about switching to Barrack Obama next week. Probably right after the June 3rd primaries on Tuesday."

I read about the memo she sent out to super delegates with all the data supporting how strong she's running and of course her husband says she's winning the general election and yet the super delegates haven't rallied around that info yet. The whole popular vote argument is supposed to convince them and they don't seem to be be going for that at all.

Between now and Saturday, there will be plenty of stories about how she and her backers reject the DNC lawyers analysis regarding FL and MI. But that's not going to carry any weight with the super delegates. Nor is the 100 million woman march/rally on the meeting on Saturday. The fact that they're blowing this up is probably only antagonizing people who already had a problem with her. You can't tell people who voted in caucuses that their votes don't count because they're not FL or MI or important enough and then later turn around and expect their support.

But see, you're forgetting, Wales.

Only the big states that voted for HRC after 12pm on a rainy day where the wind was blowing to the southeast only counts in the end.

But see, you're forgetting, Wales.

Only the big states that voted for HRC after 12pm on a rainy day where the wind was blowing to the southeast only counts in the end.

Oh yeah.

I think the Clinton people who voted to strip FL and MI should go hang out with the women who aren't coming to shake down the party on Saturday.

How is it the party's fault that even though they outnumber men and there are men supporting her, she still didn't lock down the pledged delegates? I love this:

"Our purpose is not to divide the party or attack the DNC or Senator Obama," said the Hillary Rapid Responders, one of the rally planners, in an online announcement of it. "At the same time, Hillary's strong support cannot be dismissed in DNC efforts to unify the party."

So when your candidate is losing the delegate count and you decide to shake down the party in an effort to seat delegates from states who violated the party's rules, it's not a shake down intended to divide the party and attack the DNC in order to get your candidate the nomination? What a joke.

I think you first have to care about the party.

I just don't see how these actions prove that, to me.

It's more important to win the presidency than it is to do what's right and to follow rule and law.

JMO, but that's the way I see it with her.

I know one thing, though.

She can now pay back her debt her damn self.

I think you first have to care about the party.

I just don't see how these actions prove that, to me.

It's more important to win the presidency than it is to do what's right and to follow rule and law.

JMO, but that's the way I see it with her.

I think that more people will gradually begin to take the position you've expressed. It all has to do with approach and she and her power play movement is taking the wrong route. They're making the assumption that they're the most powerful voting bloc there is and that's a poor assumption and they're also making the assumption that they're the voice of all women which they're clearly not.

I think Moderates who were on the fense may.

But, the die-hard Clinton people will not. A few may, but the majority probably won't.

Now is the time to see where the "party people" really stand.

I've supported Emily's List for years. I may not give them any more money if they spend it organizing protests of candidates I support. I don't care if they give money to pro-choice Democratic women. That is why I give them money, to support the cause. I do get angry when they use my money to hurt the a pro-choice Democratic male by staging a protest of the Democratic Party. Those primary rules have NOTHING to do with the mission of Emily's List and EMILY's List, in my opinion, should stay out of the fight.

Edited May 29, 200817 yr by Jess

I've supported Emily's List for years.

I do as well and any other cause that prevents or supports protecting young girls from predators. But I don't understand why they are getting involved in MI and FL. This has nothing to do with their cause. I don't blame you if you want to stop giving them money. Good call Jess

I do as well and any other cause that prevents or supports protecting young girls from predators. But I don't understand why they are getting involved in MI and FL. This has nothing to do with their cause. I don't blame you if you want to stop giving them money. Good call Jess

I'll probably keep giving them money although this is a bad idea on their part. I just think by and large they do a good thing. I was just spouting off. I'm totally with you, btw, on programs that protect young girls from predators. Since this is a daytime board, I think soaps could do a whole lot more in portraying young women as vulnerable. Instead of having these young women get knocked up (tired old storyline), they could actually touch on a contemporary problem.

Oh well back to the topic at hand.

The protest probably sounds like a wonderful idea to them since they're all fired up over what they believe is sexism costing their candidate but they're diminishing her accomplishments by advocation subverting the rules to get what they want. If every woman in the country shared their view then this wouldn't even be necessary, but they need to accept that every woman doesn't as well as every man and in doing this, they're going to alienate some of the people on which they rely.

It should be more important to them to have candidates in office who support their causes than to threaten the party in order to force their party on the ticket. It's very poor strategy and they really should examine the facts more closely and recognize that their candidate and her committee supporters enabled the disenfranchisement in the first place. They can blame the Republican governor in FL but the governor of MI is a Democrat and a Clinton supporter so who can they blame there?

From CBS News’ Fernando Suarez:

HURON, S.D. -- On her last day of campaigning in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton told a group of supporters huddled inside a ballroom that South Dakotans should pick her on Tuesday because of her economic experience. “If you will vote for me next Tuesday, you are voting for the most fiscally responsible candidate in this race on either side of the aisle,” Clinton said, a blatant jab at both Barack Obama and John McCain. Clinton was referring to her practice of offering explanations on how she will pay for all of the programs she has laid out, including her very expensive universal health care plan.

“We need a president who will put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility,” she said. “I am the only candidate running who has told you specifically how I will pay for everything I propose because I want you to hold me accountable.”

There are a couple of problems with this claim, though. First, her campaign is approximately $20 million in debt, even after she loaned over $11 million of her own money to the cause. Several vendors and suppliers have come forward to say they are owed money by the campaign, and her former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is owed $5 million for his services before he parted ways with Clinton.

Second, Clinton received more than five times the number of earmarks than any other senator, according Taxpayers for Common Sense. Their report also found that Clinton is responsible for receiving over $2 billion in earmarks from 2002 to 2006, which is more than either Barack Obama or John McCain.

The report set off controversy when it was revealed that Clinton, and the senior senator from New York, Charles Schumer, supported a $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. McCain knocked the project during a Republican debate last year, calling Woodstock a “cultural and pharmaceutical event.” He added that he didn’t attend Woodstock because he was “tied up at the time,” a reference to his day as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

I'm totally with you, btw, on programs that protect young girls from predators.

I am glad we agree there, even though we don't agree on much here

The protest probably sounds like a wonderful idea to them since they're all fired up over what they believe is sexism costing their candidate but they're diminishing her accomplishments by advocation subverting the rules to get what they want. If every woman in the country shared their view then this wouldn't even be necessary, but they need to accept that every woman doesn't as well as every man and in doing this, they're going to alienate some of the people on which they rely.

It should be more important to them to have candidates in office who support their causes than to threaten the party in order to force their party on the ticket. It's very poor strategy and they really should examine the facts more closely and recognize that their candidate and her committee supporters enabled the disenfranchisement in the first place. They can blame the Republican governor in FL but the governor of MI is a Democrat and a Clinton supporter so who can they blame there?

Well, like a very wise person just told me, this should be over by next week.

She needs to call it a day after next Tuesday.