If you want to use the electability test, why has Sen. Clinton not been as electable to primary and caucus goers? Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all got the nomination without an assist from superdelegates turning back the will of the voters, why does she need welfare?

2. Neither candidate will have the necessary delegates going into Denver. It’s all about the superdelegates now, as was foreseen when the superdelegates were created. Superdelegates who were free, and who are supposed to look after the good of the party.

3. What should a superdelegate look for in a candidate?

A. Electability – I argue that Rev Wright debacle has set Obama’s electability back below Senator Clinton’s.

B. Momentum – If Clinton picks up PA big, and then goes on to do well in NC and the other primary states left, she has that?

C. Fitness in a General Election – We have seen how effective the Right Wing Smear Machine has been at assaulting Obama’s strengths. They have already shot off their weapons against Hillary, she’s past that.

D. Strength of Base – Karl Rove showed us that a strong base is crucial to winning Elections. He rubbed our nose with that in 2004. You solidify and motivate the base, THEN you count the crossovers. I think the last week has shown Hillary’s base is MUCH more solid than Obama’s.

If Hillary Clinton has so much money why is she in the red? She could have 100 billion dollars for the general election that doesn’t do her much good in primary season. Sen. Obama has millions on hand for the primaries. Only one of the two of them had to give their campaigns a Romney-style personal loan. (furthermore, Sen. Obama has not tapped out his donors for the primary or general. There are many like me way below the $2,300 limit for both the primaries and general. Sen. Clinton is overweighted in “whale” donors which is fine but doesn’t give her the same kind of flexibility because they’ve maxed out at $4,600). But I guess one has to be a “cultist” to see any of that.

If Sen. Obama is such a weak candidate and Sen. Clinton such a strong one, why isn’t she kicking his ass? Why didn’t she wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, as she predicted? Why is she now backpedaling on her promises to abide by party rules with regard to the Florida and Michigan primaries? If she’s such a strong candidate why have more people voted and caucused for Sen. Obama?

Anyhoo, according to you, Obama is getting republican converts and independents. That spells electability to me. I can’t imagine the base won’t turn out this election even if the Democrats ran a talking goat. I don’t think California is suddenly going to go for McCain or New York. On the flip side, the republican base seems to be a little depressed which could make for some prime pickup opportunities.

She isn’t running as McCain? From the amount of praise she’s heaping on him she might as well. She’s made a huge mistake. The whole Obama isn’t ready to be commander in chief thing will just backfire. Claiming she’s more experienced or more ready is one thing, by trying to trash Obama by saying McCain is more qualified is another. In a general election, McCain will take that as his own and Hillary won’t have any response. Obama on the other hand, can point out sound judgement counts more.

As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, a do-over will never happen and seating all the delegates isn’t exactly fair either. Seating half is eminently doable and practical and is what the republicans did. Better still, just strip those states of their super delegates and seat the others. After all, it isn’t the voters but the party elites that decided to screw up those primaries.

Next, Hillary has no control over the media. Guess what, McCain does. Obama is the only one that can counter that.

Hillary has run a terrible campaign. She had huge advantages in polling, money, name recognition etc. All have disappeared. Obama has run a pretty strong campaign as an underdog. He is raising money at will and his war chest will not run out like Hillary’s apparently will. He has won more pledged delegates and erased Hillary’s party insider advantage in super delegates while forging a lead in the popular vote.

Seriously, you are demonstrating the complete failure of the Hillary campaign. You expect and demand that Obama just fold up and get out of her way. It’s the same expectation that Hillary had that left her “Bush in Iraq” unprepared after super Tuesday. When she wins a state it’s the only one that’s important, and she doesn’t seem to show up in the one’s she trails in. Obama on the other hand seems to fight even for the states he has no hope in, erasing some of Hillary’s lead or taking the state outright. She needs to earn the nomination not run on her husband’s connections and record. Hillary seems to be running on entitlement while Obama seems to be fighter.

Yup, just like it was clear as day before this whole thing started that Clinton was unassailable and inevitable and Obama would be easy for her to defeat. Uh, except for that pesky fact that Obama has lead since the race began.

Wellstone: Hillary is about the BASE, about the majorities who elect Democrats.

S’funny. I keep hearing that it actually comes down to the independents and swing voters that decide things.

Wellstone: but as a Hillary supporter I strongly argue either a do-over, or seat them as is.

Would you consider at all sticking with the rules that were clearly known and agreed to by all candidates?

Wellstone: He will end up costing Hillary her war chest,

Seriously? It’s his fault that she’s spent a lot in states she didn’t win?

Serious question: If Obama’s such a “weak, fragile, terrible candidate”, then how is it she’s had such a difficult time trying to beat him? That media which Hillary had no control over certainly was promoting the myth of her inevitability when this all started. Yet she’s been trailing since Iowa.

Hillary is about the BASE, about the majorities who elect Democrats. Women, and the working class voters who represent the backbone of the Dem Party.

They are the reasons she carried Ohio, California, Texas, and the other major states.

the ONLY state with more than 100 delegates won by OBama was Illinois, his home state. Obama wins in caucuses, he wins in GOP red states, he wins in open-primary states where you dont have to be a Dem to cast a vote. Hell, there was a story that in one of the states, someone even wrote”FOR ONE DAY ONLY” when they cast their vote.

She is not running as McCain at all. She has said she will get us out of Iraq, period. SHe has said she will not be extending the Bush tax cuts, she has said she will be returning the regulatory agencies and Science to where t was pre-Bush.

I have no idea where the “half-the-delegates” claptrap comes from, but as a Hillary supporter I strongly argue either a do-over, or seat them as is.

Hillary had no control over the media, who blew the Obama myth up into a cult; it has cost the Dem Party dearly so far, and may even cost us the White House.

Obama has been shown clearly to be a weak, fragile, terrible candidate to pin our hopes on in November. He just does not have the wherewithall to fight off Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and FOX and CNN and the pilers-on who killed Howard Dean last time. Truth.

He will end up costing Hillary her war chest, and Dems their best chance for a 3-branch Administration and the control of the Supreme Court, all just to prove “WE CAN”

Obama needs to get off the defensive and return to agent of change. He also needs to advocate seating half the delegates of Michigan and Florida despite Hillary’s advantage.

Last points, Hillary’s campaign has sucked so far. You want to talk about blowing a lead? She had everything going into the primaries and she’s been trounced. She’s been touting ‘experience’, which pretty much plays against her being an ‘agent of change’. McCain on the other hand has a reputation as a “maverick” which he should be able to parlay into ‘agent of change’ status against Hillary.

“…After spending about $31 million in her efforts to keep up with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton finished February with more than $33 million in cash on hand, but $21.5 million of that is earmarked exclusively for the general election, leaving her with $11.7 million for the primary…”

I guess if you want to S-T-R-E-T-C-H this statement a little, you can try and make this argument that’s she’s in the red, but you really have to be an Obama partisan to buy it. Ooops! You bought it.

Once again, the calls for Hillary to step down are premature and irresposible.

After the Wright episode, you Obama Kool-Aid vendors and drinkers SHOULD have had a bucket of cold water thrown on your irrational exuberance: It should have been clear as day last Wednesday just how vulnerable and easy to defeat Obama is for the GOP.

In four days, he dropped double digits against Hillary. Imagine against McCain? See just how easily the GOP’s media machine will find a clumsy, static, foolish Obama target and pick it apart until his negatives grow HUUUGE?

Why is it so hard for you numbskulls to accept the fact that Obama is now a forever-wounded, defective candidate who will be MUCH easier to beat than Hillary in November?

But, no, I know where I’m posting. You will all go down in flames with your boy.

As a former Deaniac, I know dreams die hard. But you gotta let’em go and move on.

Obama should quit now, for the good of the party.

1) Hire staff who squandered a massive war-chest in states that she ultimately lost.
2) Gone belly-up financially to the point that she had to lend her own campaign money.
3) And today manages to be operating in the red.

She’s clearly crossed the threshold of the Presidency, if your standards are the Reagan and Bush years at the economic helm.

We’ve had 7 years of a “leader” who is pathologically unable to accept something hasn’t gone the way they wanted.

Drop out, Hillary. Drop out now.