Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 25 Jul 2014 12:56:18 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at mary gravitt Hillary is getting the odor of John McCain: George W. Bush. She is too much a part of the OLD GUARD. People want a change yet she brings up old arguments like race and the hard working white working class. These people used to be the Middle Class but was driven out by Bushism.She signed on to the bill that made bankrupcy impossible for these hard workers. She even mocks them by stating that they do not suffer, yet this is her base. I understand desparation. And this is what it is.I still say hang in there. Miricales can happen: Barack Obama is ahead of Hillary Clinton. She does not know how but the answer is in American History: The 15th Amendment to the Constitution vs. the 19th Amendment is being fought out in the second most relivant occurance in the 21st Century. Sat 10 May 2008 16:57:32 GMT+1 ronaine Sorry JPPeterson, but I just can't buy these lines from people who support Sen. Clinton.As you say, there isn't such a difference between them policy-wise.And as for the rest, he is a politician after all. You are voting for a President here, not a Saint. It's obvious he didn't support the war, as it is obvious that he was in a non-decisive role when voicing his opposition. So what? That's hardly claiming a major role as a peace-broker in Northern Ireland is it?The Rev Wright thing is a non-issue, surely, by any rational measure. Didn't President Clinton claim he "smoked, but didn't inhale"? Didn't George W deny Daddy had any involvement in his lack of active service in Vietnam?I can't help feeling that the real reason some Democrats won't vote for Sen. Obama is staring us in the face... Sat 10 May 2008 09:28:18 GMT+1 Emmnues JPPeterson (post 57)I think the Clinton campaign could really do with your insight showing that Obama is some mean smooth liar. I just wonder how the hawkish section of the media missed out on these mountains of Obama lies you have just uncovered, I really wonder...Note however that going down the lies telling road could be very slippery for Clintonites. Apart from sniper-gate, questions might be raised about the claim of raising $10million after Pennsylvania, as current documents say otherwise...He who lives in a glass-house should not throw stones! Sat 10 May 2008 04:51:28 GMT+1 JPPeterson Ah Ronaine I see. I burried my point.Condensed my gripe is this:Barack Obama has somehow emerged from this campaign as a noble character, the unsullied uniter who will lead us on to victory.I propose he's a garden variety politician with a near magical gift for oration.His vision of the standard democratic party line, so he and Clinton are pretty much the same on most issues.Its what Nancy Pelosi has been saying since she became Madame Speaker, along with most other democratic office holders.With the "I did not vote for this war...", he was outright lying in priciple, and early on few people bothered to do the math, so he got away with it. And boy did he milk it.On the McClurin thing he pandered to both sides. Saying one thing, but allowing the appearaces.On the church thing, huge festering lie. He claims to have never "heard" his pastor and friend speak these opinions. He quite artfully never said he didn't know, or hadn't read it. The reverend can think whatever he wants. The candidate shouldn't lie about it.Through manipulation, he's convinced enough people that he is what they want him to be, so he gets a free pass. Sat 10 May 2008 01:26:29 GMT+1 jacksforge David_Cunard wrote:#44 Emmnues - over 15 million people have voted for Mrs Clinton and they're old enough and wise enough to know who's best for America. When you become of voting age or become an American perhaps you'll understand it better.OK I'm of voting age and a Yank so lets see if i understand this right. You like 15 million other Clinton voters are a great example of how to create a better world.You have Ignore all scientific evidence for 30 years as you plunged the world into an enviromental catastrophy of global warming and the much forgotten pollution.You a have managed to keep the middle east at war despite dseveral peace efforts by vetoing the UN.Sold america's manufacturing base to china.Been the first generation to leave everything worse off for their children. Supported a war that was started for no reason.Voted in GW before you all got scared of what you created and now you all love hillary. THE OLD OF AMERICA HAVE SHOWN NO WISDOM IN RECENT MEMORY .As Kipling said don't always respect the old they could have been nasty young people at one time. But what really amazes me is the littery marvals here correcting spelling while while they try to promote their version of how to spin the fact that they do not like obama because he's black or young or in experienced.While missing the point that hillary is hated and devisive a cheat and a fraud.If a CEO had behaved her way they would have been sacked for racism and sexism by now.Shows me that an English degree is probably a waste of time . Sat 10 May 2008 00:53:02 GMT+1 ronaine My response to JPPeterson on this would have to be - so what?What Rev Wright thinks is a matter for Americans to debate - that's what I understand from what you're saying.But surely the important issue for American voters right now is what Sen. Obama thinks. Isn't it? We all have angry friends, one way or another, don't we? People who rage against injustice. Certainly I have and I'm no dangerous radical. Raging against injustice is healthy, no matter how clumsily expressed. Anyway, that's my tuppence worth in an American debate.Obama is a centrist, much like Bill Clinton as far as I can see. He believes in the market, enterprise etc. and he believes in judicious intervention where the justification is the "common wealth".What is so scary about that? Especially when you have had George Bush for 8 years... Fri 09 May 2008 20:38:40 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey People in groups that are marginalized to some extent by mainstream society are compelled to take identity politics to heart more than people closer to the middle of things.I can put myself in another's shoes enough to understand the source of Wright's anger - growing up in the Jim Crow era. A black American of his times may not appreciate that Tuskegee stands out as a gross exception to American values, and may see a fine line at best between the notorious syphilis experiment and cruel experiments by Nazi or Imperial Japanese 'doctors'. While we all try hard to say racism is over, and I think it largely is over based on watching today's kids, there is an overall tendency among whites to say "we talked about that - we renounce it - let's move on" that sounds ironic when compared to the indignation voiced over Wright or the perceived shortcomings of Obama's response. Republicans are fond of criticizing public education funding with the famous quote that, if the USA educational system had been foisted upon us by an enemy, we would consider it an act of war. Well I can see how many in the black community might feel similarly, about drugs, AIDS, the court system, guns and gangs, lack of youth activities, etc. - all these together are so damaging they could seem like a direct attack, or raise an expectation for proof that there is no deliberate element involved.Clarence Page had a good column on Wright a week or two ago. He even quoted Mike Huckabee (who may rank high on the church-o-meter but still seems like the most thoughtful, measured and inclusive Republican candidate) on the idea that Obama's success would refute some of the anger that may have been a lifelong bulwark of strength for Wright. So Wright, consciously or not, is being outspoken now in part to resist being proven wrong or relegated to more of an historical than a contemporary role.I understand why civil rights / gay rights are more of a heartfelt concern to you JPP. But step back to think whether an inclusive, uniting candidate would really go on to exclude anyone. I can't believe Obama is going to infringe on any citizen's rights; on the contrary I trust that he will work hard to make sure all are protected. Fri 09 May 2008 16:36:09 GMT+1 JPPeterson Re check my post ay #50 EmmunesI called the style "spirited" and I'm quite aware of the culture of African American worship. I live right next door to, and across the street from 2 African American churches in Atlanta."Crazy" addressed the subject matter. None of which I've ever heard from next door, and sometimes they have service outside, so I'm basically in attendance sitting in my living room. Fri 09 May 2008 15:54:12 GMT+1 Emmnues JPPeterson (post 50)Rev. Wright has a style of preaching that is common in African-American churches so no need for phenobarbitol or to insinuate that that the Rev. is crazy. There are many religious figures who have said things over the years that their congregants don't agree with, its a normal phenomenom.If Wright is the darkest dirt opponent have to throw at Obama, he stands a very good chance indeed compared to the ex-president caught pants-down. The Wright issue hurt Obama but it is not enough to bring him down. Don't forget that McCain will have his own negatives to deal with.If the general is Obama versus McCain, the Democrats would not stand by and allow the so-called Republican war machine to go unchallenged. There's so much they can throw at McCain believe you me that will make Wright a very small issue. Check out McCain's speeches and you will see... Fri 09 May 2008 15:34:12 GMT+1 Emmnues David Cunard (post 48)Its scary that 15 million Americans think whiteness, gender and power at all cost is good enough to be President of the USA. Its scary that 15 million Americans don't give much thought to the public moral compass of a potential president of the USA. This is what fills the rest of us outside observers with trepidation. The USA does not exist in isolation, its part of the comity of nations. It prides itself as a land of the just and the free, it always claims to speak for fairness for all people everywhere.Does your 15 million who 'know who's best for America' care about the 66 million threathened with obliteration? If your view of who's best for the USA means not caring for your international image, its more evidence of parochial political interest.Inform your 15 million to look out the window and see the 6 billion around the world whose lives are also affected by their choice. Inform your 15 million to for once think outside their little box. Inform your 15 million that America is not an Island! Fri 09 May 2008 15:19:02 GMT+1 JPPeterson DaletEhud"Asked and answered, your honor" isn't gonna fly on Reverend Wright. Not in a general election.Obama has basically said "I don't agree with him, lets move on".Its not like a spy snuck into that church and filmed short out of context snippets of the Reverend in his full glory. The video came from DVD's of his sermons...offered for sale by Trinity Church.The Obamas argue this is a non issue.I'm sorry, you went there for 20 years. You took your children to this church. You've donated over $20,000 to this church. You named your book after one of the Pastors sermons. He was on your advisory council.The Obams knew this man thought these things. There is no way they were completely unexposed to this. Read the "Letters fom the Pastor", on Trinity's website if they're still up, I have. The Obama's, as church members, likely recieved the original printed versions.And the GOP is going to accept the Obama position that "This is not an issue, lets move on"?Undoubtedly, there are other churches where the service is just as spirited. If however, it is a standard practice in other churches is for the minister to refer to the country as "The U.S. of KKK America" , to praise Louis Farrakahn, to suggest the US government engineered the AIDS virus and infected black citizens both here and in Africa with it, and propose the destruction of the state of Israel, all while the congregation cheers and claps, we have a huge problem brewing.Reading the Reverends comments do not due them justice. To truly be appreciated he must be seen in the videos. On the stage, in a sweating frenzy, screaming at the top of his lungs. That is not "different" as Reverend Wright accesses it. That is hollering at the wall in the day room, nurse bring the phenobarbitol, crazy.The American electorate is going to ignore Obama's participation in this for 20 years because he asked nicely?And if they don't, they're playing the race card? I believe Reverend Wright has plainly illustruated for us where the most blatant racism in this campaign lies. Fri 09 May 2008 15:10:48 GMT+1 DaletEhud There are two ways of looking at the present situation.1. The US has two excellent candidates to choose from, each having their own strengths and weaknesses, or2. One candidate is a neophyte whose credentials are yet to be tested; the other is an old political scrapper who is on the verge of being past her due date.Given the hysteria that accompanies US elections, I have no doubt that after the primaries are over and the nominee is definitely selected, Democrats will unite against the common enemy, John McCain. When one considers the present situation, change is almost inevitable. Should the nominee be Hillary Clinton, which is a long-shot, there will be slings and arrows directed at her extensive list of baggage which wouldn't get her on BA (presuming that flights have not been cancelled). If, as it seems to be, Obama is the nominee, nothing they can throw at him will be worse than that which has been cast his way by the Clinton camp. If, for instance, the Jerry Wright saga is brought into play, he only has to adopt the courtroom reply of, "Asked and answered, Your Honour."So, those who have any regard for America need not fear that it is going to descend (any further) into the mire. These things have a way of sorting themselves out.Let's face it, there's nothing else on TV anyway - tune in to CNN. Fri 09 May 2008 12:31:39 GMT+1 David Cunard #44 Emmnues - over 15 million people have voted for Mrs Clinton and they're old enough and wise enough to know who's best for America. When you become of voting age or become an American perhaps you'll understand it better. Fri 09 May 2008 02:37:09 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions Watermanaquarius: Ok I understand now! I'm sorry if I've caused you any discontent-I certainly didn't mean to!!! I also had no intentions, whatsoever, of accusing you of anything!!! I just misunderstood some things-please forgive me!! I do agree with the latter comments in your post on the coruption/deffasit problems in the schools being paralelled to the state of the US society/economy today!! Thanks for your explinations, and again I'm sorry!!! Thu 08 May 2008 23:02:34 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Hey NoRashDecisions,This has got to stop . Were filling up this blog with drivel. I have already got cained once today for placing a comment that followed the rules but was not understood by a moderator."Where the bodies are buried" referring to hidden truths, not actual human corpses!!!. If we don"t watch it now, somebody will think even that the word banana has a double meaning for me!My comment was "When you see the banana republics..." meaning the traumas around the world where an election takes place in Latin American, Carribbean and African countries eg Zimbabwe today.The quote is from O Henry an American. Please, please read the Wikipedia quote, including scrolling down the page! I was also shocked to read "wealthy, corrupt, self elected, poor schools budget deficit, weakening currency. etc etc Thus my follow up that although 75% of the page could refer to the state of affairs that America was now experiencing , it was not my intention.I am too old, and it's too long a time since I attempted conversing in both spoken and written English. My apologies Thu 08 May 2008 22:03:16 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions Watermanaquarius: I'm confused. You said '"When you see the banana republics inhabitants suffering with their voting rights denied by violence and corruption...", yet you explain in your last post that the "Banana republic" is similar to the US (though you are not pushing it). Are you saying that violence and coruption are stopping/has stopped people from voteing in this country? Barring the Supreme court in the elections of 2000 (which was constitutional, but just happened to be Republican dominated!!) and which believe me!!! No Democrat wants to experience the debating going o ong tat t has to go to the Supreme court to decide who won again!!! What do you mean by that? Please explain.And also, Ok...I'm sorry. I just got the impression from your last post that you wanted a vote in our elections. Who knows!! with all the "fire" we're making of it, may be you all could help make some sense of the madness!! If it were up to me, I'd say everyone in the western world can vote in everyone elses elections, because what any western nation does has some kind of an impact on the others. Thu 08 May 2008 21:32:07 GMT+1 Emmnues To David Cunard and other Clintonites...I can't vote in the US elections and I didn't give Obama a chance in hell when he stated his intention to run. I have been won over by the character of the man, not his colour, not what Hillary thinks about him, not racial prejudices against him.I am also old enough and wise enough to know that leadership is more about character, not how long you have spent in Washington DC. If you are a habitual liar, experience in DC won't make you honest. We know who has been the liar so far...Its obvious that Clintonites don't care about the character flaws in their candidate, don't care that the candidate pander's to the public, don't care that the candidate plays the race card, don't care she callously talks of obliterating 66 million people.. All Clintonites care about is gender, whiteness, power at all cost - the end justifies the means. Those of us observing from outside, have great trepidation of the fate of the world if this type of followership win the race to the white house. Hillary is still in it after all the ruckus she has caused because she is the spouse of a once much loved ex-president. She is drawing on Bill's goodwill in the rank and file of democrats to breaking point. If she continues, the shove will come...If some of you can just take a peep out of your racial fortresses, you would see that Obama WILL defeat McCain in the general. Limbaugh and the rest of the Republicans know this truth, so they have tried to kick Obama out of the race.McCain has so many glaring deficits against Obama its not worth a dime commenting about them. If you can't see this then you could either be politically naive or in self-denial. Obama will win the white-male vote and the gender vote in the general.Character is destiny! Thu 08 May 2008 21:26:29 GMT+1 JPPeterson To answer ronaine at #35.Just don't like him, here's why:Early on, he got an awful lot of mileage out of "I did not vote for this war...". No sir, no one asked your opinion as you weren't a senator until 3 years later. He now admits that given the knowledge available at the time, had he been a senator in 2002, he's unsure of how he would have voted. He's also dropped this rant, which always got huge cheers at his rallies.I'm a gay atheist. During the early primaries Time magazine had a post up called the God-o-Meter. It was a changeable scale based on godspeak and actions by the individual candidates. Ordained Southern Baptist minister Mike Huckabee was the only one to rank higher than Obama.In the lead up to the South Carolina primary the Obama campaign had a popular African American gospel singer named Donnie McClurkin headline some rallies, at churches. Mr. McClurkin is part of the ex-gay movement. He has gone through Christian conditioning to "cure" his homosexuality. He states homosexuality is "a curse". Several national gay rights groups questioned the Obama campaign about the wisdom of the slate at the pending rallies. The Obama Campaign said the events were already on the schedule and no changes would be made. (A gay minister was added to one rally, he led the opening prayer). Since then there have been allegations that Mr. McClurkin was not indeed, "cured" at all.Then Edwards dropped out. McClurkin was the clincher in my Clinton support.But I got icing on my already decided cake! Jerimiah Wright. 20+ years of close association and Obama had no idea? Pull the other one why doncha. He knew, Michelle knew, and thats where they chose to take their children on Sunday mornings.Oprah Winfrey walked out of that same church 8 years ago over the Reverends views.Barack Obama is a dishonest homophobe with reprehensible taste in places of worship. Thu 08 May 2008 20:00:12 GMT+1 watermanaquarius NoRashDecisions,Thanks but no thanks. We dont want a vote. You seem to be making heavy weather of it on your own without votes crossing oceans to fuel the flames visible this side of the water.Re Banana republic- Check wikipedia [ unfortunately if one reads between the lines it resembles a h/ , whole lot like America but I am not pushing that similarity] Thu 08 May 2008 19:52:21 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions O! Watermanaquarius-I remember one more question! What do you mean by '"Banana republic"? Thanks. Thu 08 May 2008 19:31:51 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions Watermanaquarius #32: You sort of lost me in that responce-but thank you for responding, and for seeing a bit clearer that Hollywood isn't Washington. I know, and think its sad, that foreigners can't vote in these elections-particularly since (for now at least! but not forever!!) the US is the last remaining super power. But, say, even if we weren't, would it not be just as unfair that, say, Americans can't vote in British elections? I mean I'm willing to bet I know just as much about British politics as the average UK citizen, and yet I can't have a say in the political direction of the world's 4th largest economy, one of the biggest voices within the EU, and the second most active millitary around the world. Its all dependent on which prisum one looks through when viewing a situation, I guess. Everyone around the world, I feel, should just work with what they've got, while always fighting for (positive) change. Thu 08 May 2008 19:28:29 GMT+1 kuma99 Hillary is out there. She can't be bargained with, she can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and she absolutely will not stop, ever, until she is elected. Thu 08 May 2008 19:24:32 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey Some thoughts from reading JPP #33Doubts about Obama have 2 sources:1) Obama himself - He can do a better job of speaking about his legislative record (yes, he does have one worth talking about) and his other public service, etc., and voters could listen or read instead of repeating the "he's an unknown quantity" mantra that made more sense before 21 televised debates. He's said his piece about Pastor Wright, and Obama's closet now looks pretty bare of skeletons now. Before anyone triumphantly posts a Reszko link, remember the Clinton impeachment, healthcare take 1, Whitewater, other investigations (admittedly most, but not all, focused on Bill), and the Keating 5.2) Insects in the dankest rotten corners of America's woodwork - Spend enough time using the Nazi/Stalinist approach of spreading "big lies" that 'he's a Muslim, he doesn't salute the flag, etc.' and people who may not be the most Internet savvy or in tune with real current events are soon believing and forwarding e-mails like that even further. And many more Americans listen to AM radio call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Osama, etc. Obama needs to confront this but he is not to blame for this false controversy - it all says more about the critics than the candidate.Why are we 'rabid' in support of a candidate? Rabid implies unreasoned; while I prefer Obama to Clinton for various reasons, (and Clinton to McCain) that's based on review of national circumstance, platforms, and what I can judge of character and experience - mostly reasoning with a few gut feelings. Should we look more closely at our assumptions if we really do have a 'rabid' (not fully reasoned) preference?Finally, while Clinton may say that democratic primaries have shown she's not polarizing, most of the people she polarizes negatively are conservative Republicans. Therefore this question has NOT been fully aired out or addressed by Democratic primaries. Obama doesn't have the 1992-2000 baggage that drives much of the Clinton polarization. He brings out our residual racism though, which HAS been aired out in the Democratic campaign and primaries (and I'll concede that sexism has too, but suggest that sexism is somewhat the less intense of these two lingering diseases in our culture). Thu 08 May 2008 19:09:02 GMT+1 northernrocker Not for turning ? Neither was the tide in Canute's time. Hillary should seriously consider her goals in staying in the race. Is it to diminish Obama's electability? i.e. a McCain win gives her another shot in 4 years time. An obama win would not. A realistic look at the Indiana primary indicates that, more than anyone, she has Mr Limbaugh to thank for her slim "Victory". (Not her fault, but what a nutty system that allows your party's emenmies to choose their opponent.). So, please, as a Clinton fan, I implore you to back out with dignity, lend your considerable weight to supporting your party's nominee and work for a democrat victory in November. It's time for you to put principle and beliefs before ego. Thu 08 May 2008 18:58:27 GMT+1 junglestruggle I think the AnonymousCalifornian didn’t get it. Therefor a little stab back :-). Off course “the course of this nation should be determined by all eligible citizens of voting age, not just one demographic”. The contrary never crossed my mind, that is one of the basic principles of democracy. But isn’t it great that at last there is a candidate that rallied a demographic part of society that is better educated and so better equipped to decide what is good for the nation. Making it possible that the great US of A could start evolving again instead of staying stuck in a quagmire of disasters like: the Credit Crunch, Dollar through the floor, a million or more citizens loosing their homes and the world wide image of the US at an all time low. To name just a view. A nation, in a democracy, gets a president or government what it deserves and I think the US deserves a change for the better in a democratic way! Thu 08 May 2008 18:29:31 GMT+1 ronaine Ah, and I have just seen your 2nd post JP. And, as above, I understand that may be the case.I'm curious about this section of Democrat voters who have a bad reaction to Sen. Obama. His policies seem sound enough. Is it his style?We had similar doubts with Tony Blair, mind you... Thu 08 May 2008 18:11:43 GMT+1 ronaine Oh, I just posted a link to a Huff Post story which include the following quote:"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."And wondered whether the Senator had a longer term strategy here, to explain why she may not be for turning.Not in a defamatory way please be assured. Just pointing out that she may not be campaigning all of a sudden with a purely positive tone, as a lot of the US media (and Matt Frei) is suggesting. She is, I believe, and as David_Cunard among others is suggesting, still campaigning to win.So in a way, it balances out my previous musing about JPPeterson's first comment. Thu 08 May 2008 18:06:49 GMT+1 JPPeterson In post #25 ronaine addressed my post #24.At this point I can't believe the super delegates are holding out in deference and respect. They honestly do not know what to do.No one could have imagined we'd be where we are now when the primaries started. The super delegates are scared. They are the powers that be in this party, and have no idea how to fix this. In many ways it's a no win situation they're faced with.Strong candidates have split the vote. There are disturbing implications in the demographics. This has gotten pretty nasty on both sides. There are millions of votes in dispute. There is a scandal that by no means is put to rest. What should have been a Democratic cake walk in November has turned into a toss up.That said, Hillary Clinton is not responsible for doubts the super delegates have about Barack Obama, he is.The votes, the political climate, the scandals, the disputes and the polls all add up to a big stinking mess. Every day we hear more of "he's ahead, she needs to drop out". Well, ahead he may be, but he doesn't have the votes to actually win.I started all this as an Edwards supporter. I've been saying for years to my friends "Hillary cannot win this, too many people hate her". Well she proved me wrong, and got my vote in the process after Edwards dropped out.I'm completely torn. I feel loyal to my party but sheesh, I would throw up in my mouth a little, if faced with Barack Obama's name in November. I think I'd just leave president blank and vote for everything else. I cannot understand how people see this man as a good choice. His supporters feel exactly the same towards my choice. I have friends who support Obama as rabbidly as I do Clinton. They have the same opinion I see here from that camp. "Sit down, shut up, and support him". I honestly can't. We just have to not talk about it because it gets too ugly.I want her to fight for this to the finish. If he finally does get the numbers, that's when she drops out. The super delegates decide it. His camp needs to realise that the super delegates do not have to be swayed by anything. A win is 2025 delegates, it could still be either of them. Thu 08 May 2008 17:54:04 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Dear NoRashDecisions,Today its too hot to work in the garden so I seem to be hogging this blog.All good points and I do not feel everything has an America first and only slant.It was MAII's Changing horses in mid stream idea and that of many other of the USA voters that got up my nose. When you see the banana republics inhabitants suffering with their voting rights denied by violence and corruption, and then to read comments that make one cry from intelligent americans. I await MAII's retort that BHO often voted present, regarded by many as a put down and by others as a positive but reserved answer awaiting further discussion on the specific subject. Making a vote without actually voting perhaps??? But the electorate can not do that.My comment as an outsider- non voter counts for nothing in these elections. Further more my search and explanation of the truth seems to have caused some uproar with the BBC thought police, now noticing that other comments have disappeared from the site.WATCH OUT - BIG JUSTIN IS WATCHING! Blogs have ears. Thu 08 May 2008 16:41:51 GMT+1 jhbills7 Hilary Clinton is acting as a symbolic representation of everything that is wrong with America. She is stubborn, relentless, and she doesn't know when to GET OUT and cut her losses... Its like she is trying to make a statement about our poor foreign policy, except she isn't astute enough for that. This is just an example of how a Clinton in the Whitehouse would be more of the status quo Thu 08 May 2008 16:27:43 GMT+1 anapplefellonmyhead Its clear Clinton will not win, but she has every right to stay in the race and offer her services to the states yet to come, until Obama mathematically seals the nomination.This idea from Obama supporters that she should just jump out of the race and disappear is stupid and damaging their own chances. The fact is, Clinton has a massive support base across some vital demographics that will be severely tempted to opt for the "experience and security" the Republicans will sell them. Clinton must keep these people on the Democratic bandwagon - if she dosen't, Obama will lose in November.Obama and his supporters need to stop telling Clinton what to do and go out and win the last few primaries fair and square. If they do this, Clinton can have nothing to complain about and can get her supporters on side for November; if they carry on with this political dealing before Obama even has the delegates he mathematically needs, it only disenfranchises those Clinton supporters on whom the election will swing. Thu 08 May 2008 16:06:42 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions Watermanequarious #20 asks: '"I wonder if you have been brainwashed into a thought pattern that is compounded by Hollywoods need to show Americas suffering?"While I completely support, and praise your condemnation of Marcous Aurileious's seemingly baseless, racest rants twards Britain and Europe, I feel I must explain some thing with respect of your impression of our entertainment industry. First, as you pointed out with '"A Bridge too Far" and "Saving Private Ryan", Hollywood films such as that show the devastation of war-and sometimes-as in "Saving Private Ryan", the necessarity of it. But they are not as you think, "to show America's (and no one elses) suffering"!! I mean of course they are going to have an "American" perspective to them-they were directed, written, and produced by most-likely American citizens! But that doesn't mean that Hollywood directors are oblivious to, and/or don't care about other nation's citizens's sacrifice and suffering as well, as you explained with the examples of those two films!! And if you think that all Hollywood does is praise American foreign policy you couldn't be more rong!!! "Stop Lossed", "Randition", "Lions For Lambs" are just a few mainstream films criteaquing and harshly criticising our government's I feel illeagle and unjust policies from Guantanamo Bey to extending our soldiers toors of duties beyond what they had origionally been promised!!! People seem to think that Hollywood is effectively Washington but on the west coast, and its simply not the case!!! Also, as another example of people shooting films from their perspectives, half of Hollywood now consists of British directors/actors/actresses, so if you were to look at a film directed by a British director, obviously you would get a different perspective than if you were to watch a film directed by an American one. Thu 08 May 2008 15:52:29 GMT+1 Streathamite I'd say The problem with clinton is not that she won't concede - it's that she can't.The clintons are pre-programmed to campaign and to win; it's what they DO. as such, defeat - ANY defeat - issimply beyond contemplating. Expecting her to concede before all hope is like expecting a lion to turn herbivore. Thu 08 May 2008 15:42:47 GMT+1 ronaine This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 15:11:38 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 14:59:53 GMT+1 ronaine Hmmm, I see the point JPPeterson, although isn't it as likely that the party hierarchy are allowing her to run the race out - as a mark of respect?It seems as though it could be less about their doubts re: Sen. Obama and more about their fears of offending or upsetting the Clintons and their supporters. At least that's the way plenty of US media opinion has it. Thu 08 May 2008 13:51:51 GMT+1 JPPeterson Why in the world should she drop out if her opponent doesn't have the delegates to win either.At some point the super delegates will make their views known and the count will indicate the nominee.They haven't yet. If an undisputed and unquestionable Obama victory has occurred what are they waiting for? Its clear by this delay alone that even if Obama is the eventual nominee he gets it with trepidation. There is no "landslide" of super delegates toward Obama.Outside his core supporters, opinion of this candidate is luke-warm to hostile. That spells huge problems in November for an Obama campaign.Indecision at this point indicates that within the upper echelon of the democratic party they are looking for any reason they can not to support Obama. Senator Clinton sees hope in this, as so do I.In a national campaign the GOP will crucify Barack Obama. The GOP already had their go at all things Clinton, and the Clintons survived it. Thu 08 May 2008 12:43:39 GMT+1 Board Stupid Everyone who keeps telling her to withdraw is missing the point.Their words tell me that they think voters in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, South Dakota and Puerto Rico should not have a say.What's democratic about that?Actually the whole idea that soem states have more say than others in the US elcetion system is an affront to democracy.There should be a complete overhaul of the selection process.Secret ballot - no caucuses.Only Democrats should vote.Voting should take place on the same day in all states.Each person's vote should have the sam value - end this nonsense that some people's votes are worth more than others just because of where they live. Thu 08 May 2008 12:15:36 GMT+1 DrCahil A bit of common sense is called for to all those who keep arguing that Obama can't beat McCain, and that only Hillary can!Well, he's beaten the Clinton juggernaut, hasn't he? Are you then saying that McCain is a bigger juggernaut than Clinton? Obviously not!Why would the likes of Rush Limbaugh continuously urge Republicans (of his ilk) to come out and vote for Hillary? Do you suppose it is because they love her because she's the best thing that ever happened to America? No. It is because they know she'll be a much weaker opponent against Sen. McCain. Which is why they voted for her in drones in Texas, Indiana, etc.The movement Sen. Obama has created, the likes of which has never been seen anywhere else on this planet, will easily defeat the so-called Republican war machine. Why? Because it goes to the very roots and foundations of Democracy - power for the people by the people! Think about it. Thu 08 May 2008 11:44:01 GMT+1 DrCahil Just adding to what Watermanaquarius has said:Those who delude themselves into thinking that Obama's race will work against him should really come out of the racist closet and be more open-minded. The evidence to the contrary speaks loud volumes for itself. Over 15 million have voted for Obama, the vast majority of these are white people like myself. And even more will do likewise come November!One's race is not something you select by choice, but is your God-given right. To be racist is not only self-limiting but also condemns the Creator for giving us diversity.Despite his shortcomings, Barack Obama is by far the best candidate out of the remaining three contenders. Just look at the positive reaction he is already having in the rest of the world! He is the only one of the three who would restore America's image abroad, an image that has been completely shattered by white Presidents (including Bill Clinton!)It is time to change the page indeed and to stop living in the past! Thu 08 May 2008 11:22:03 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Dear MarcusAureliusII,You have now completely lost me !We have had to put up with long anti British, anti european comments being a theme in many of your pieces. We are liberally minded so if thats your thing then we accept the free speech bit. You write intelligently with a tendancy to direct our attention sometimes towards movies. eg M Moores The Patriot] etcI wonder if you have been brainwashed into a thought pattern that is compounded by Hollywoods need to show Americas suffering.I feel at times that you do a disservice to other countries who were supporting each other in times of great need. Perhaps you should come over and stand at one of the graveyards in France, Belgium and Holland and realise that it is not just acres and acres of USA soldiers that lie there. A Bridge to Far, or Saving P. Ryan film shows us all the futility of war and its dire results, not just , but often an American take on the proceedings.With this factor in mind I can now not understand your suggestion of changing parties and possibly voting against Obama and supporting MCcain. You paint a previous picture of Mccain having less intelligence than an organ grinders monkey with a mean vicious imbalanced streak that does not auger well with the worlds hopes against conflict.It seems like petulance on your part, often expressed on other blogs with that "If nobody will play the game my way I'll take my ball and go home"Although I'm pleased that you do not remark that you will stay at home and not vote for anyone I feel you are ignoring your parties hopes. You write how good Bill Clinton was for America when he too entered the White House with little or no experience yet refuse to give the Democrat upstart a chance this time. Perhaps you and fellow like minded HRC supporters will enjoy a Republican 3rd term. I wont. Thu 08 May 2008 10:39:11 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey David Brooks summed up well in his NYT piece today, 'the fighter vs. the thinker".The fighter took every shot she could (elitist name calling, gas tax etc.) and has veered toward nihilism without keeping a clear cause in sight.The thinker has held or gained ground, and demonstrated enormous calm and presence of mind, despite all the distractions.While Clinton the fighter would be better for the US than a tamed, right-shifted, ex-maverick McCain, the thinker would be better still. Like Reagan or Roosevelt the thinker is also a communicator. There are 6 months before the election for him to cut through the distractions and show his abilities to calm, listen, and build consensus. Thu 08 May 2008 05:54:52 GMT+1 alanbloggz Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned eh! The old saying is true in the case of HRC. She knows she's lost but now wants to try and spoil the Democrats party. She thought that she would walk it. Her experience? As wife of a President that ended up being impeached? C'mon, she's just a repug in disguise. If they want her to win then it says much about her brand of politics. Bye Hillary you're way past your vote by date. Thu 08 May 2008 05:07:46 GMT+1 Orville Eastland I'm starting to think that Clinton may be the VP...for John McCain. The establishment would love it. However, it would likely backfire with Obama winning the presidency and a third-party Conservative (and anti-war) candidate getting a good deal of votes as well. Thu 08 May 2008 03:57:07 GMT+1 creekmorehalt I voted for Hillary, and even now I like what she stands for, but I do see one of the points that the Obama supporters have been making, the Clintons are part of the problem, part of why there has been a division amongst the American people for 12 of the past 16 years.We swung from a liberal 'anything goes money for all' climate, into a conservative money for big business, and not fior the middle class atmosphere.Change is needed, something that promises a better future for all Americans, and Barack Obama is the person who represents a lot of what America has now become. Thu 08 May 2008 02:30:16 GMT+1 AnonymousCalifornian Since none of the comments so far have addressed junglestruggle, will take a stab at it. 'Rednecks' have every bit as much a right to vote in these elections as young urbanites. The same goes for the elderly. The course of this nation should be determined by all eligible citizens of voting age, not just one demographic. So long as they are willing to actually investigate the issues and candidates thoroughly, and vote accordingly, they should be free to vote how they wish. That is what 'democracy' (in the common, modern sense) is. Frankly, your comment was disgusting, and it's disturbing that none of the other comments have, as of yet, called you on it. Thu 08 May 2008 01:58:53 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII So Obama will become captain of the Titanic. I predict that if he is the nominee, he will lose in a landslide. Even I will register to vote against him. He has no experience. He is far too liberal for the mainstream of American politics. His association with Reverend Wrong will haunt him right up to November. And quite frankly, for a small percentage of the population, his race will work as much against him as for him. The US is not race neutral yet. Sad but true, on both sides. By American standards, I think if the outcome is beyond 55/45 it is considered a landslide. Thu 08 May 2008 01:56:26 GMT+1 drrogeringram The question is not just about "a lesser person" who would leave but about a "self-centered person" who won't leave. With a changing strategy and persona, more flexible than even Madonna the singer could pull off, Hillary Clinton needs to go away. There is no strength in continuing, it will harm the democratic party, moreover will harm the USA, and the Clintons have had there time in office, with mixed results.A president's spouse now in the form of Bill and earlier in the form of Hillary is not what we need in the USA. We need unity, wisdom, diplomacy, and leadership. We need someone else, and that person thankfully is Barack Obama Thu 08 May 2008 00:36:28 GMT+1 AndreainNY I'm not sure anybody can tell Hillary to do anything. She does what she wants.That she would get this close and walk away is unrealistic if you know anything about the Clintons. Thu 08 May 2008 00:25:26 GMT+1 DougTexan Hang in Hillary, the motley fool says a socialist is bad for the economy, but worse for the poor. Thu 08 May 2008 00:19:09 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense That said if the turkeys want to vote for christmas. Let it be christmas. John Kerry all over again...... Thu 08 May 2008 00:04:16 GMT+1 JoeChristmas Not for turning? Oh please. What an ego! It's over. Done. Finished. I'm reminded of the knight screaming, "It's only a flesh wound!" Riiight. Can't someone pull her aside and tell her to stop making a fool of herself? What is she trying to prove? That she can destroy Obama before the general election - making sure he loses to McCain - so she can swoop in to save the party in 2012? That would just mean another 4 years of Republican rule. Oh the horror!I know it's tough for her. She had everything: money, name rec, organization, Bill, etc. The nomination was hers. And then some nobody with a vaguely sinister sounding name - the junior Senator from Illinois! - came out of nowhere to beat her. To start a movement that she feels she should be leading! She's left with the support of the elderly and uneducated whites (not an insignificant voting block in the US, btw). Still, what a base. So she's gone redneck on the electorate, painting Obama as a rich elitist out of touch with the common folk. Like Hillary. Ha! The irony!It's all over people. Let the blame game begin! Wed 07 May 2008 23:58:40 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense David_Cunard: I agree, Obama is the weakest candidate and he will lose. Most republicans voted for Obama in open primaries that must tell you something. Interestingly if the Dems used the same system as the Reps (winner takes all) Clinton would have won ages ago. This goes to show another failure of PR. PR is a weak form of government and leads to weak leaders. Wed 07 May 2008 23:56:02 GMT+1 David Cunard CNN’s report “Limbaugh comes out for Obama” provides the reason/s why Mrs Clinton should be the Democratic candidate, Rush saying “I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees.” That, and his detailed reasoning, should convince superdelegates that perhaps moving to Mr Obama might just not be the best thing for the party in order to win in November. See: course, as with this blog, Obama supporters do not agree, but nevertheless, he's a voice that matters to many. Wed 07 May 2008 23:27:25 GMT+1 tsed888 People presume that her quitting is the only way to begin unifying the party. I don't think thats the case.If she gave up now there would be a swath of hillary supporters that would have a bitter taste in their mouth that barack and the democratic party would have to tend to.If she stays in the race, she could use the media attention to prime the democratic base for the general election. Stop going negative on barack. Play up the importance of democrats taking white house. Talk about how there are two great candidates. Frame the discussion on contrasting McCain's plans with hers and barack's plans (because they are relatively similar).Barack will be the nominee and nobody can reach disgruntled Clinton supporters better than her. The best time for her to do that is now, not after she officially loses.It doesn't make sense for them to share the same ticket. But it makes lots of sense for both them to be promoting the democratic party right now. Wed 07 May 2008 23:02:33 GMT+1 gunsandreligion Hillary staying in probably has something todo with her calculation that she has knockedholes in Obama's demographic appeal, suchthat a Clinton-Obama ticket would be necessaryto win against McCain.Although, somehow, I doubt that Hillarywould accept the VP spot. Too much egoin the Clinton clan. Wed 07 May 2008 22:53:49 GMT+1 Candace9839 She needs to step aside. Her desperation is unattractive and hurtful to the party. Wed 07 May 2008 22:20:55 GMT+1 Adrian_Evitts My advice to Bill is to buy a one way ticket to a desert island before Hillary spends all the Clinton cash on achieving only one thing - ensuring that there is no chance of a Democrat becoming President. When Hillary finally concedes, I imagine that her old man will have no peace for a long, long, long time ...Justin, do you think this is Hillary's cunning Plan B: to curry so much favour with Senator McCain that she becomes his Vice Presidential nominee?Not so much a Dream Ticket ... more the stuff of which nightmares are made! Wed 07 May 2008 22:00:53 GMT+1 gaiusjulius384 I don't know why much of the media is praising her futile tenacity. The fact that she would effectively sabotage her party's chances on election day for her own personal gain is ludicrous. Any sane person would have given up by now-more evidence that Hillary Clinton has completely lost the plot.Hillary-sorry, but it's over. Back down now, before you ruin what should have been an EASY election win.If the Democrats bugger this up, I'm going to be laughing so hard...cheersGJ Wed 07 May 2008 21:49:56 GMT+1 junglestruggle Mrs Clinton should exit now, with still a little grace. Instead of hanging in there as a frustrated women who can’t get what she wants. This hurts more than the sniper fire she endured in the Balkans. The future of the mightiest country in the world should not be decided by the elderly (with due respect for them) or the rednecks (no respect whatsoever), but by the younger and better educated Americans. Alexander Wed 07 May 2008 21:00:01 GMT+1