Interesting news day. Now, it's rumored that Jimmie, and Al have been selected to "convince" the Clinton campaign that they should abandon the primary process

Am I alone in thinking it silly that these two loser's, number one, represent CHANGE in any way, shape, manner, or form. And, that they could convince anyone that OHM should have no opposition. Especially now?

Plus, I got this press release in today's email.
*************************************************
Oregon for Hillary Salem Grand Office Opening with Campaign Chair Terry McAuliffe
Oregon for Hillary Salem Office
189 NE Liberty St, Suite 205
Salem, OR 97201
Please RSVP at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/actioncenter/event/view/?id=12973

Join Terry tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1:00 PM for the opening of the Salem field office! The lights are on, internet is running and we already have thousands of volunteers and supporters signed up statewide.
***************************************
Glad to see that!

BHO has finally made it crystal clear whom he's seeking to represent, and those of us who he is not.

If you agree with him about the people, we confused, bitter, gun toting, ignorant, suburban, or small town (white?) citizen's who just refuse to acknowledge his right to an uncontested Coronation, please accept our apology for continuing to deny Him that. It's just our nature.

I wouldn't call Jimmy Carter or Al Gore losers by any stretch of the imagination. However, I don't agree with their desire to see Clinton hang it up. I think the process is doing what's it's suppose to be doing even with all it's negative political banter.

I think Clinton should give it up. She's not the leader and she started a pretty nasty trend, endorsing the Republican McCain.

Been pretty ugly from there.

Obama rules! He's going to be a change President. If he gets the nod, McCain is toast.

Really, it's academic for me though. I'll not be voting for a Republican this time.

I would prefer that Obama lose the primary rather than the election!

I don't think the current primary process is bad at all. Let the two of them go through all the primaries. After the last primary, if Clinton clearly has no chance - no strong argument for "majority of popular vote" or anything like that - I think she'll drop out before the convention.

But this contest has energized a lot of people. It's given voters who have for decades had no say in choosing a party candidate to weigh in. Just look at all the excitement this is generating in Oregon. Suppose Clinton drops out before Oregon. Does that really give Obama a big shot in the arm? I don't think so. It may even help him by keeping the Democratic candidates in the headlines. When's the last time John McCain made news about anything?

Andrew

"these two loser's"

You mean the same two losers that are Nobel prize winners?

stonewall sez: "two loser's,"

You lost me right there. If you had anything important to say, many of us will never know because we stopped reading when you announced that you were some kind of jerk-clown.

Andrew,

Can't argue with you about the late primary voter's finally having some ability to affect the choice for a change being a good thing.

The primary process, especially in the Democrat Party though, stinks, in my opinion. Hell, there are two large states being denied participation at all in the choice of a candidate!

And, in the greater scheme of things, of what real value is Caucuses in determining the will of the people in a State? Some small fraction of the eligible voters choosing for all. Hardly democratic. Especially, as they're limited in geography through some mysterious process.

Then, there are states like Texas who have both primary votes, and caucuses. Without most voters there even knowing about it.

And of course, there are the super delegates. Tell me why they're needed.

"And of course, there are the super delegates. Tell me why they're needed."

Why don't you look it up yourself.
It's out there.

Michigan and Florida changed their dates and were penalized. This is old news. Very very old, like buttoned-up over and done with last fall, kind of news. It has been spun by an increasingly erratic and dishonest Clinton campaign, and it remains a well-flogged dead horse.

If the Clinton camp wants to back out of a signed pledge, wants to deny that they were fully supportive of the DNC rules, wants to ignore the fact that under the penalty system they would lose delegates in both states for running advertising and public appearances, then they can go right ahead. It is just more of the same.

Gore and Carter took what teaspoon of influence they had and put it enthusiastically toward a better future. Clinton has used his own bully pulpit to help corrupt governments, large foreign corporations and questionable money making schemes. Two elder statesmen with Nobel prizes pitted against a brazen opportunist is no contest.

I believe the American voter deserves far more than they would ever get from another term of this nasty dynasty. I think that a "loser" is someone who uses our military as a media distraction, or lies about an affair under oath, or destroys our economy in an orgy of globalism, or votes for the worst blunder in the history of American foreign policy.

The people of this country are being given a chance to really look at this family for what it is and reevaluate what makes them powerful. Folks in their circle disappearing without a trace, Tuzla "sniper" stories, dodges of questions of transparency and vast efforts to reinforce racial, economic and power divisions are just par for the course.

I think that many things about the Clintons deserve to come to light. After the WTC attack on your watch, not one peep of public warning about 9/11, sir? Were you not allowed briefings like any other former President? Did you urge the missus to get the Congress thinking about the terrorist threat? Why did you leave Richard Clarke as the lone voice if we were in such peril?

Bill, what about Florida is important now that was not important in 2000? Were you not a sitting President who could have asked the right questions, investigated the improprieties or at least demanded the truth? Hillary, did you bring this up on the floor of the Senate? Or do you only care when it is all about your power? These questions and thousands of others would not arise if the Clintons could be trusted.

The public opinion suicide of the Clintons and their unethical ilk will not destroy the Democrats. It will only create a new generation of active voters who endeavor to wrestle the Democratic Party from the jaws of the corporate machines. Will it leave a short-term divide? Sure. Taking out the trash is a job for stronger people than the folks who have been the vanguard for the past two decades, and the party is developing the muscle to do it.

Most folks in the Lone Star State knew about the "Texas Two-Step" primary process. This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, there were few changes of note in the rules in any of the 50 states this season. Except for changing dates, and some questionable machines, most elections went off like they always have. If voters did not know about the system in their state, then they needed to be educated, not belittled for their process.

Still, with all that said, I want Hillary to stay in the race every step of the way. I think her pathetic finger sniffing and pointing husband should also run his illusory legacy right into the ground. Since she wants to destroy herself, she should be forced to run along behind Obama to the finish line like the dog in National Lampoon's Vacation.

STONEDwall...
Are you a loser? What have you done in your life??? More than Carter and Gore?

The voters in Michigan and Florida had nothing to do with the primary date change, and in Florida, the republican legislature changed the date. So now the DNC is punishing the democratic voters in Florida, for something the republicans did?

Uh, yes. We'll go with " yes." I don't quite follow your question. But since you've asked it 10 times, you deserve an answer.

Yes.

There.

So now what? Are you outraged or something? Do you think it should be reversed? What?

They are not punishing them "now" and that is why this is a total canard. Michigan was in violation of the rules, every candidate agreed, signed a pledge and removed their name from contention except for Clinton, and I believe, Gravel and Kucinich. The vote was void before a ballot was cast. The time for the electorate in that state to be outraged was months and months ago. This current rehash is akin to being upset that the Pistons were knocked out of the 2007 NBA playoffs. The time to cheer, jeer and cajole is long over. If Michigan is upset, they ought to holler at the state party leadership that started this mess.

Florida is out of the running because the Republicans pulled a predictable move in the state legislature. Again, this was eons ago, and ought to have resulted in public outcry, protests, and petitions when it was still going on. The problem, again, is that the state party leadership did not organize an effort to react when it was a new issue, and they did not keep the pressure up until it was resolved. They went to the DNC, whined loudly, then went home, threw up their arms and quit fighting. The vote was not legitimate, and in violation of the rules, Hillary ran scores of ads, and even made an appearance on election night. Now that her subversion of the process benefits her, she is squawking about something she engineered to her benefit, rather than fight for the whole party. Again, where the hell was she in 2000?

If any candidate wants to holler about "disenfranchised" voters, they had better have a record of helping the grassroots party organize, register more voters and build the Democratic base. Again, the Clintons have done little or nothing to ensure that every vote counts, they have not worked to build downticket strength, and they have endorsed the GOP opponent. They are only good at calling in favors, and that list is dwindling. So, the Clintons are using these "disenfranchised" voters as tools to break the locks on the doors of the White House, in an only slightly different way than the Bush clan. There will be a compromise, FL & MI will be seated at the convention, and despite all of this "disenfranchised" voter spin, they will be voting in Denver.

By the way, in case you have forgotten, Terry McAuliffe is a unique kind of slimeball. Here are just two examples: Global Crossing was a scandal eerily similar to Enron. Like many other unethical folks, including the Shrub, McAuliffe made millions on an inside investment tip before the firm went belly up. Also, as head of the DNC, he withheld funds from Carl McCall when he was running for Governor of New York. He only reconsidered when it was too late to effect the outcome. Since that decision in 2002, fate has conspired against Terry's efforts, and whether he likes it or not, there is an African-American in the Governor's chair. I am sure he would squirm like a worm if folks asked him about this stuff in person.

I think Hillary should bow out. But, if I were her, I would not bow out. So, I don't blame her for sticking it out. She almost has too, even if she deep down wanted to drop out. The primary must play out further to solidify the trend that she can't win. Otherwise it would look like she's giving up.