Super-er Tuesday! McCain clinches nomination, Clinton comes back

I really do not care who wins. I just want to know if America's Government can fix their monumental mistakes, take care of the American people and go to other Countries only on wars for charity.

Huckabee really dropped out?! Hmm... Didn't see that one coming...

96th day, I thought Paul dropped out?

I am very happy that Hillary has won what she did now because Oregon's little old primary is going to matter a lot more than it has in the past.

Many of the people I have talked to here in Oregon think that it is a good thing to have both candidates; Obama and Clinton at the convention; keeping each other on their toes and the rest of us all ears.

Once again, the talking heads of MSNBC and CNN were shown to be off the mark. Being stricken with "Obama Fever", they assumed that Barrack would sink Hillary. No chance. This is a sure sign that voters are paying more attention to details than some Media thought. Feels good, too.

I'm so happy Hillary won. It is very exciting to see her make a come back!

Im soooo happy that Hilary has won....keep going Hilary, so Michigan can have some one to vote for 2008 President.

While I am not really supporting either one I am gratified Clinton won as well because this is real Democracy in action and she showed the media a thing or two about "projecting." And yes, being a woman I am proud to see a strong woman fighting back. It's been a long time coming. It took us to 1920 to even get the vote in this country, and to see a woman fighting to win the presidency is on that level to me something that touches me knowing the oppression women have and still suffer in this world. I hope she stays in all the way.

Real democracy?

Why, exactly, did Hillary get soooo much further and earn soooo much more cash (almost instantly) than the real elder statesman of politics like Biden, Dodd, Dennis, and hell, especially Richardson who has basically done and see it all?

Oh, because Hillary has 40 years MORE experience than Biden or Dodd, right?

No, that's not it.

People accuse Obama of being nothing but flash and style, but the reality is that Hillary is where she is -- and beat Biden and Dodd and Richardson to a pulp -- NOT because she has so much more experience than those three, it's because she is the célebutante of the Dem party.

Biden knows more than she does.

Dodd knows more than she does.

Richardson knows more than she does.

But Hilary is a Democratic célebutante -- like Paris Hilton (well, okay, she's got some experience but no where near what she claims or the hype claims)

"My God! The wife of the legendary Bill Clinton is running? Let me get my check book and hand over piles of cash! What does she need? Money? Expert speech writers? Whatever she wants let's hand it over to her!"

Meanwhile Biden and Dodd and Richardson (with ACTUAL experience) we're looking around asking, "What about us?"

The answer came back, "Sorry Biden. You got the skills and the experience and have served on all the major committees, but you're not as COOL as the wife of Bill Clinton!"

She is where she is because she is Bill Clinton's wife.

That's not "misogynistic" -- that's just a fact.

And we keep glossing over the irrefutable fact that Hillary (who I think is a nice person) is HATED by, oh, 60 percent of the voters in this country and really, really hated by her Republican rivals in Washington -- meaning even if she wins the White House, oh boy, we get to enjoy 4 solid years of gridlock as the socially tone deaf Hillary has every single one of her brilliant "solutions" stonewalled by Republicans out of spite and in an effort to pander to their base during their re-election bids.

"Vote for me because I had the courage to stand up and defeat Hillary-care in 2010! I won't let those hated Clinton's push us around this time!"

Why can't her supporters see that part of the equation?

The goal should be passing legislation, not just electing Hillary.

Obama and Hillary's platforms are all but identical in all the major aspects -- why not elect the guy who ISN'T hated by a large portion of voters and despised by a large portion of Republicans and actually has a chance of passing important legislation ver the next 4 years?

What really upsets me about the above comments, is that while they frown and fret about the misogynist coverage of Clinton, they refuse to acknowledge the racism directed toward Obama.

Both candidates have worked very hard to get where they are, let's not diminish one while praising the other.

THIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES...
HATE TO SAY IT
BUT THIS COUNTRY IS WAY TOO SEXIST AND RACIST....

I am afriad both hillary and obama are to polarizing. Mccain, so has a shot because of these two.

if clinton supporters don't understand she can't bring congress together then obama supporters don't understand he can't bring congress together either. They are both democrats who have their democratic congress to report and stratigize with. These monkey's are doing business as usual now, and after 08.

only we the people can make congress work together. We need to recognize both democrats and republicans gotta go. new party, new change, and the people have to make it so. if not, its the same ol, same ol. revolt!

chauvinism and racism are nothing new. crob, you've got excellent opinions, but where's your factual back up? "open your eyes, kid!" doesn't cut it thick enough.

General question: If Hillary Clinton is so hated by Democrats (and I would like to see some proof that 60% of the voters in this country hate her when there isn't even a poll that could possibly poll every voter in this country regardless of who the person is) then why is this still so close? Seems the working class voters of Ohio don't hate her. Seems the Latinos in Texas and other states don't hate her. So as I originally stated, this is then real democracy if the people are allowed to have their voices heard. It isn't about my hating/liking her or Obama, but looking at the bigger picture. People are engaging in this process and wanting their voices heard whether they love or "hate" them, and that is something I think we should all be proud of even if it is for the two candidates the media wanted. I truly miss John Edwards in this debate.

There is some question about who exactly is supporting Hillary. In Texas Republicans could vote too -- and for some reason they seem to be desperate to get Hillary to face off against McCain. So we can't say shes winning over just Dems.

The big problem (in my mind) is that Hillary and her supporters keep glossing over all the history and baggage she is bringing with her tothe campaign against McCain (and possibly into the White House).

Politics is nothing but getting other people to agree with you and vote "Yes" on your proposed legislation.

Do Republicans dislike Obama and Hillary equally?

I think that is a fair question and I don't think anyone can honestly say yes to that. Hillary has a very long and very bitter relationship with Republicans in both the House and Senate and that will be a factor in her ability to implement "change."

Is there a siginifcant portion of just regular voters who still believe Hillary had Vince Foster murdered or that she somehow had witnesses to her Whitewater deal killed? As crazy as it sounds those people are still out there and love it or hate it they still have the legal right to vote (even though they still believe crazy conspiracy theories about the Clintons that have long ago been discredited).

I don't dislike Hillary. If you stripped away all the personal baggage and her long and bitter history with her Republican rivals, I would still only be luke-warm on her policies because I think she's way to traditional, too much of an insider and leans a little too much to the Right for my taste. But having said that I wouldn't really care if she got to be President. I could live with her just fine.

BUT you can't strip away her history. She does have a small army of haters out there who still to this day are writing conspiracy books about her. She still has a ton of Republicans in the House and Senate that just personally don't like her and (for better to worse) would obstructe her Admin. just out of spite.

Obama mirrors a lot of Hillary's positions. They may bicker on the details (like should there be pre-conditions for meeting with a leader of a foreign country) but they are more similiar (at least in the broadstrokes and the current campaign rhetoric) than different.

So why not pick the guy who doesn't have a small army of haters both in the voting populace and in the House and Senate?

It's a fair question, I think.

^Crob, I too think it's a fair question. The biggest problem with this country right now is how divided we are. Partisan politics is what we're all about.

Hillary and Obama are 95% the same on policies, yet we're going to need someone who can get in there and have both Reps and Dems come together to change things around. Especially after the mess we've been in for 8 years.I hate the idea that Reps will actually make it hard for Hillary but it'll definitely happen. So the question does still remain.

This feels like it's been the longest running presidential campaign ever and I'm ready for a dem nominee so we can start preparing to take back the White House.

Republicans can vote for Obama too and have in other states that had open primaries. Matter of fact it is the open primaries and caucuses that allowed Republicans to vote where he has done better. I also saw a flyer posted on Democratic Underground that the Obama campaign supposedly sent out in South Carolina to call Republicans to register to be a "Democrat for a Day" to kick her to the curb. So who knows? There are dirty tactics being employed on both sides of this. And just as an observation, if their platforms are so similar as you say, then how he is not old guard? How is he the candidate of change and she isn't? And why not pick him? Because perhaps there are Americans who aren't poltical junkies and don't know Obama from Adam. And I get that from other people as well. So in answer to your question I think for many it may go back to the adage of staying with the devil you know instead of the devil you don't know. People may believe they know what they will get with her and whether you like it or not, many do still remember the 90s and don't think they were even half as bad as the 2000s have been. Actually for me Obama turned me off completely after doing that interview in the Reno Gazette when he claimed that the 60s and 70s were times of "excess" and basically intimated that my generation lived through it by smoking dope and going to "love ins" as if to mock us. I don't take kindly to that because I was out here working my way through college and making my way in this world just as he did, and it was not as much a time of excess as it was a time of great social and political change that would not have happened unless people in my generation stood up for it. Mocking that then while only using JFK and MLK quotes when it suited his purposes didn't exactly endear me to his smug attitude about those who were born before 1980, especially when he claimed Republicans had the "good ideas" over the last 15 years ... I don't want to vote for a Democrat who wants to sit at the table with Neocons and sing Kumbaya after what they have done to this country. I want to vote for a Democrat who will finally stand up to them and not take anymore of their crap. Acquiessence is not bi-partisanship, it is acquiescence, and I've seen enough of that over the last eight years. That is why I supported John Edwards.

Well said, JanforGore! Hillary Clinton may just be the next best thing to John Edwards. She has shown the willingness to fight for the middle class and the ability to bounce back from blows. She is tough as diamonds and classy too.

I've really come around on my opinion of her. While I haven't soured on Obama, I still hold him in high regard, Hillary Clinton got my vote a month ago. We know her, and she truly knows the challenges this country will face in the wake of Bush's legacy - torture, shredded constitution, global warming, $4 a gallon oil, a possible return to 70's style stagflation, 35 million Americans *still* don't have healthcare, etc... the list goes on and on. She's the one who truly gets it and her detailed positions show that she knows what exactly she has to do to set things right.

In short, I now support Hillary Clinton because she supports us.

ps. I wasn't there in the 60's, nor 70's, but I was a bit put off by Obama's dismissal of it. It is because of those two decades, that we saw human rights for racial minorities and women. Say what the critics will about flower children smoking pot, but they still managed to achieve equal rights for everybody. Not bad for some tokers!

Waitaminute.

Hillary is classy?

Like when she mocked Obama for his inspirational speeches? Remember the big laugh she had about how the clouds will part, the music will play and everyone will join hands and sing hymns?

Yeah. Classy.

Implying (oh so subtley) that Obama and all his supporters are just know-nothing hippie flower children with no concept of the realities of politics. Duh, we iz all stoopid, ain't we Hillary? Not taz smart as you iz.

Then she went even further releasing the infamous "3am" ad wherein she all but said we'd all die if we voted for Obama. Because, you know, Obama is a pansy coward without the guts to kill terrorists.

This is just politics as usual. Attacking your opponent is nothing new or surprising, but her methods are so hamfisted that one has to wonder, "Is this how she'll negotiate with Republicans? Is this how she'll sell her ideas to the America public once in office? Is this how she'll deal with world leaders?"

It might sound great on paper for her to imply she's gonna just kick open the doors, spit in everyone's face and call them all pussies unless they support her legislation (and I have no doubt that's exactly how she would handle it) -- but that tactic doesn't actually work in the real world.

We already had one cowboy President who tried that identical approach and it had disasterous results.

GO HILL! WE LOVE YOU! GO HILL!

phoenix fire-
to be totally honest, I have not completely warmed up to any candidate in this cycle except John Edwards and am still sad he is not in this debate now. However, I recently watched a video of Sen. Clinton questioning Al Gore when he went to Capitol Hill last March to testify about climate change and she seemed genuinely concerned about it and interested in his proposals, one being Connie Mae mortgages that to my surprise she actually has listed on her website now in her climate change platform. So I am seeing that perhaps out of them all she may now just be more open to other parts of Mr. Gore's proposal like a revenue neutral carbon tax, and actually changing the timeline on emissions reductions based on current scientific reports.

And since Sen. Barbara Boxer who is chairwoman of the Enviroment Committee endorsed her that may well also be a sign they are on the same page regarding what must be done. I have been totally disillusioned that climate change is not getting either the exposure or attention in this campaign that it should be getting, and I think a big part of that is because we the people are not demanding it more than likely because we may see no purpose to it because we believe it won't get done... a viscious cycle. So to see at least one of Mr. Gore's proposals in one of their platforms and to see them all at least looking to address it is perhaps a sign that they will be more open to listening to us as we get closer to November.

I wil say this, if by then I see either she or Obama at least working to make their platforms more evasive to meet this challenge, that will give me a more hopeful feeling about something being done. However, they will both have to reign in their nuclear ties, call for a moratorium on coal plants and nuclear plants, and call for evasive action regarding getting alternate energies to our pump (and not corn) along with a carbon tax.

Some may not care about this, but this is the core issue to me because this crisis now has the potential to not only effect our economy, our health, and our social structure, but our entire way of life. So to see her move closer to Al Gore's plan and in standing up to oil companies will actually sway me more in her direction in regards to this crisis. And yes, the 60s and 70s may well have seen its share of tokers (of which I wasn't one BTW, ;-)) but we sure did work hard for what was right and I am proud of that.

That is good news about her environmental platform if Boxer is endorsing her. I care about the global warming issue too. It is so important that everything else may be moot point if we don't have a livable planet.

I suspect the reason why we're not hearing a peep about global warming is because the "mainstream" media has blotted it out of all national conversation. CNN, MSNBC, Faux Noise, etc... Notice that none of the moderators at the debates asked a single question about it? The "news" channels' eery silence on this very important issue is not surprising considering that they are owned by GE, Halliburton, Exxon Valdez and other petroleum based companies.

And since most Americans get their news from TV, they're not going to hear about global warming. Though that's starting to change. Many more are going to the internet now, and to sites like this one.

Yes, and sites like this are a very good thing for getting out truth. I was not at all surprised either to see the debates on CNN sponsored by "clean coal." Kind of a slap in the face.These lobbies must be stood up to in order for us to have that liveable planet. I surely hope we can do it and I believe we can if we have knowledge which is definitely power. Thanks for your response.