Yeah Potus—-plus all those dowdy pantsuits we’d have to look at for the next four years on top of it. I guess she’d run the gov like she ran her well oiled machine of a race (oh, that she’s had practice doing before) and yeah, I really want another war mongering veiled race-baiter/divider….not to mention her husband’s legacy of WTO, NFTA, the demise of Glass Steagall on his watch that led to the WorldCom, Enron and other debacles that have ruined millions, and the unregulated derivatives that exploded as a result to the tune of $700T when the world economy is $100T…..he balanced the budget on the back of the very poor. People ought to open their eyes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

Really Deni—well guess what I think the same of you and auntie em…I just wouldn’t use the word but let me just say ditto. And I really give a damn what some texan thinks.

My Alias- I’ll post yet another article FILLED WITH FACTS by lots of political wonks with much more insider knowledge than you or I will ever have saying essentially, why doesn’t she leave??? It isn’t that the questions posed by WOW are stupid—-they are what is posed all over the major sites and media—and oh I know dismiss all of that. It’s that there are a lot of lazy, ill-informed, complaining, UNIMAGINATIVE people here. IF WOW poses a lighter question then they are accused of feeding us fluff. Whatever is posed will never be right because there are people here who complain at everything without contributing anything value added. _______ “As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton gracefully concede defeat and throw her support behind her party’s defacto nominee, Barack Obama? As my colleague at Salon, Walter Shapiro putsit: “What motivates her? Is it ambition, pride, feminism, vindication, public service or ideology? Or is it some combination of all of them?” Mary Sanchez, writing for the Kansas City Star, is more blunt: Hillary should scram: ‘A lady always knows when to leave the party.’ Or so my mother used to say. It’s time for Hillary Clinton to take a tip and leave - not the party, of course, but the presidential race….She should save her political future and concede the nomination to Obama. The Democratic Party’s chances to win the White House are at stake now, not just her own career. Or her husband’s ambitions, if it is he who is pushing her to continue in a race she cannot win. The decision, Peter Keating, former senior writer for politics at George who now covers sports business for ESPN, suggestsis “how much she wants to hurt Obama. And when she equated ‘white Americans’ with ‘hard-working Americans’ in attacking Obama last week, she signaled that she’s still willing to campaign destructively. As long as Hillary is playing with her knife collection, she can make Obama bleed.” Michael Crowley has his own interesting take: [O]ne gets the overall impression that the Clintons feel Obama shouldn’t be here in the first place—that this ‘young man’s’ very claim to power is itself questionable. In this sense, the Clintons may be victims of their own sense of victimhood. The vileness of the Clintons’ past enemies seems to have convinced them that their enemies always are, by definition, in the wrong. And that Obama’s candidacy is almost like another illegitimate attempt to steal a White House that, in some sense, belongs to them. Speculating on the Clintons’ motives and what they hope to achieve has become the media parlor game of the moment. To add my own two cents worth, I suspect, but have no way of knowing, that she is: *Praying for a devastating anti-Obama story — Jeremiah Wright-Tony Rezko squared - to surface and turn the Illinois Senator into an unacceptable candidate in the eyes of the media and convention delegates. This is clearly a long-shot, and presumably her aides have no such story in reserve or it would have already seen the light of day. *Convinced, correctly, that after running a lousy campaign she has finally hit her stride as reflected in her solid victories in Texas, Ohio and, on Tuesday, in West Virginia. These victories, in her eyes and in the eyes of many of her aides, demonstrate that Obama is an empty suit weighed down with general election liabilities that are only coming to light at the close of the nomination process. *Psychically unable to accept defeat — after first believing she was the anointed candidate, and then, after losing her superstar status, clawing her way back into contention in an extraordinary display of grit. Opinions on this subject are a dime a dozen. Just go to RealClearPolitics and get your fill for free. The more important issue is that Hillary’s continued battle for the nomination, no matter how futile and no matter what the motivation, has consequences. One of the best analyses of the likely consequences is by June Kronholz in the Wall Street Journal. “What is clear,” Kronholz writes, is that “when challengers refused to concede and instead pursued the nomination into the convention,” their party’s nominee got beaten in November. She cites Ronald Reagan’s 1976 challenge to Gerald Ford, Senator Edward M. (‘Teddy’) Kennedy’s 1980 bid to unseat Jimmy Carter, and Senator Gary Hart’s insurgency against Walter Mondale in 1984. Ford, Carter and Mondale all faced uphill general election struggles, no matter what kind of primary fights they had, while this year the “Democrats have the electoral winds at their back,” she notes. But, Kronholz concludes, “a long, ugly nominating battle that splits the party still could cost it the White House.” {NOTE THIS UNWINNABLE BATTLE OF HRC WILL COST THE DEMOS THE WH} For Hillary, there may be very little downside in staying in the race until the bitter end, or at least until the final delegates are selected on June 4. Under once scenario - Obama gets the nomination but loses to John McCain - Clinton could begin her 2012 campaign on November 5, 2008, as a vindicated politician, using the narrative that she was the better candidate. Under the alternative scenario - Hillary promptly concedes and Obama wins the presidency - she may well have lost her one shot at the highest office in the land, and the White House and the power, prestige and status that goes with it, will be forever out of her reach - a intensely painful prospect. _______

My Alias- Obama hasn’t asked her to quit…..superdelegates and other party leaders and the NYT etc are the ones exerting the pressure because the MATH isn’t there…and the drain of $$ and time and division continues with the outcome the same and that puts the Demos behind in the general election against gramps. Even Bill Clinton supporters/advisors/appointees have said she can’t win and this is hurting the party. It has nothing to do with Hillary “haters’ that’s a really small way to characterize those with another POV as if they didn’t come to their decision rationally but by vindictiveness. Does that make you an Obama hater? I thought Democrats were supposed to be the smart ones.

frank —If it’s tiresome go elsewhere. The site specifically states it is for politics and culture. I am sick of all passive aggressive whiners who contribute little—if they don’t like it they can always introduce another slant but then that might require imagination and research wouldn’t it? Instead of active citizenship and interest it’s always easy to whine and complain like the chief whiner auntie em. Your 3 sentences contribute nadda, zero, zilche.

Lily.Well I understand that and I also understand that the Obama/Clinton race is a major topic all over the US and the world, and the editors of this site will undoubtedly make changes as they see fit. The purpose of this board is Politics and Culture…there was a third I can’t even remember. And probably as long as it generates traffic (stats that we can’t see) and justifies it—-they’ll continue the questions in some form as the situation changes. As they say, a week in politics is like an year. And nothing against you at all. Really enjoyed seeing the link to you artwork someone posted—fantastic. Am a trained artist too—watercolors and have been prolific in past but not lately.

Reanta— Auntie Em NEVER has a thing to say but sanctimonious whines. Never contributes anything but she is so above it all. One of the boring people I ever encountered. And Texas. Give me a break. I was there, once, unfortunately on business and couldn’t be paid to return. As JFK said as they were flying into Dallas, “We’re flying into Nut Country Now.” Just some FACTS on rankings of Texas compared with other states: Percentage of Uninsured Children— 1st Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor—2nd Percentage of Population without Health Insurance—1st Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores—47th Percentage of Population over 25 with a High School Diploma—50th Percentage of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance—50th Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms—44th Rate of Women Aged 18+ Who Receive Pap Smears—47th Women’s Voter Registration—43rd Women’s Voter Turnout—49th Percentage of Eligible Voters that Vote—44th Texas has the highest rates for home insurance, 25% higher than 2nd place Louisiana. Deregulation of electricity has resulted in skyrocketing electricity costs. College education costs have soared by an average of 39% in just one short year once again as a result of deregulation. It has the worst air and is considered the worst state to live in in the nation—Austin excepted. But these brainiacs keep electing Republicans….Hence why WVA went for HRC. The rural, largely uneducated states are swayed by things like race-baiting.

Renata-Facts are wasted on Texans, esp those who denigrate ann richards one of the four intelligent people from texas. Ignore them and post away. I appreciated it.

Renata—“Flame away” you are extremely intelligent, politically informed and I enjoy your posts, and your active citizenry. Where those who criticize contribute absolutely nothing but flaccid victim “poor me” whines, or sanctimonious denouncements, because the fact is they have not once contributed anything of actual material weight. So ignore them. Post what you will I enjoy them and appreciate your insights and intelligence and the EFFORT you make to contribute rather than whine.

And the newsflash is? Because it was known that WVA was going to HRC all along. It is a very rural, racist state where her race-baiting strategy worked, and everyone knew it would work. That’s why Obama didn’t even go there. It cost her (read:DNC/Obama that are going to be forced to pick up the tab on her huge debt accumulated by financial mismanagement) and she picked-up very little. It’s a semi-open primary with 39 total delegates, including 11 superdelegates. She got 16 (as of 7PM PST) and he won 7. And if the superdelegates fall to him at his standard 80% rate since Feb 5, she’s netted zip. If Obama loses half the next six primaries he will still be ahead. Point? Meanwhile today, senior superdelegates including Bill Cinton appointees like former Colo Gov, Roy Rohmer, and senior Senators like Feinstein, and long-time Hillary advisors like James Carville [can’t get much more insider than that] said today—It’s over. That drawing this out is just wasting money and time that should be earmarked for winning the general election….because nothing short of a miracle can turn it around. Obama has 80% of the suprdelegates pledged since Feb 5. And her “go for broke to win on Super Tuesday with no backup Plan B” failed miserably. So am certain her cobbled together plan, after that masterplan, is even better. And this isn’t Hillary bashing, or ‘lack of balance’ on this site, it happens to be relevant and the truth according to the rest of the known world except for HRC fans who are delaying the inevitable to the cost of the party. But whatever they feel is best. Obama has a total of 1,874.5 delegates and needs 150 Clinton has a total of 1,696 and needs 328.5 There are a total of 458.5 uncommitted delegates left. (2,024.5 delegates needed for victory) There is one issue in the primaries. In the judgement of the party who has the best chance of winning the election. Everything else is superfluous.

Mitch McConnell is never one given to things like facts. Nonetheless, he ought to check the polls. Democrats have a 52% approval rating that soars above the ones for GWB, who in an AP poll is chosen the greater vilian far above Satan, OBL, King Jong II, Sadam, the Prez of Iran. Demos also far outpoll Cheney with a 17% approval rating. Congress—a point above Crashcart Cheney. And the GOP with 32% approval. Despite choosing foul-mouthed Gramps as their candidate concurrently with coming up with a new slogan already owned by an anti-depressant medication. Way to go, guys!

My alias, “Shame on the DNC for saying votes won’t count based on a schedule. It’s an insult to very name - Democratic Party.” There are rules…otherwise it would be a free for all. There was an agreement between all parties, and now it is under review by the DNC. HRC didn’t mind when she was manipulating things with the Texas vote. So why not stop acting as if she is some neophyte victim and let the process play out? I’m quite sure HRC’s very adept team of LAWYERS {and she IS one herself as is BILL as is OBAMA…so am not quite sure the intent of your lawyer comment} is handling it full throttle.

“When you get 500+ hits on a question, I guess it just makes the founders drool. I believe this is how we got the ‘entertainment news’ media we have. ‘oh look at the numbers! Let’s do it some more! ’” The other way of looking at it is that this is a race for the record books on many scores. It is not just a national story, but an international one. It is at a particular crucible point. This is the questions on ALL political blogs, in people’s conversation, in all media AND the masthead of this site does read: Politics and Culture. Oh, and there is that little thing of commercial viability re the # of posts. But yes, I can see where “hi toto lol” is much more value added than the topic at hand…and of course there are other choices, and/or they can be introduced. Politics are not for the faint of heart to be sure.

Elizabeth F—BTW—-I responded to exactly the points you made…that’s what the ‘reply’ button is for. Your statement: “Not much neutrality, nearly zero signs of anyone in support of the H. Clinton.” Fact: The poll has shown 50/50 split all day. Your statement: “Worse yet the place stinks of overwhelming daily rehash of H. Clinton assassination attempts which are bringing out the worst in and empowering the Hillary haters here as they try to strike the blow that will finally knock her block off, whether they be WOW regulars or frustrated losers who visit this site for no other reason than to spew their sexist and racist BS over the rest of us. Not sure why the powers that be imagine that this is acceptable. Do they buy into the propaganda and, fearing that H. Clinton supporters are thought to be no more than uneducated, dried up old hags.” Fact: That emotional diatribe is OPINION, I provided information from reliable sources like the New York Times. The FACTS that they endorsed her, and THEN called for superdelegates to decide based on, as THEY SAID in the editorial quoted, “race baiting” and other low-ball tactics was dividing the party. Senator Diane Feinstein, in a letter today to HRC also said, as a friend who respects her, and as one of the seniors of the party, she’d like to know HRC’s plans because the FACTS are her futile continuance of this race is dividing the party and threatening the General Election. Whether you care to believe it or not these things happen to be apropos to this race, and this thread. Your statement: “I’d expected fair, balanced, interesting and fresh.” Fact: The poll indicates it IS balanced 50/50. No one can vote more than once so it is as accurate to people coming here and voting. No one is prevented from voting. If you’d like to see something “interesting and fresh” you are free to add it. “Post-whore” was interesting to me—have never heard the term before.Not sure what it means. Not sure what ‘setting up a straw man’ means either. I surmise if you like the response to you public post it is ‘fresh and interesting’ and if not it illicits a name calling put down response. “seeing that you rely on argument” YEAH—sorry to give you the 411 but that’s the basis of debate. “and misrepresentation to make a point” the sources I cited are hardly misrepresentation. And if you believe they are—perhaps take it up with the NYT. Sheesh.

Elizabeth F—-I give you an ‘A’ in vitriolic comment of the day..and representing your candidate so well.