Did Hillary really "win" Pennsylvania?

The same argument could be made, why is the preemptive democratic nominee with over $42 million funds, with all the momentum going for him, yet can't win a big industrial state?

cause the state's full of poor uneducated fools who lap up Hillary's negative ad campaigning just like the media's taught them to.

Well, it is also true that these poor uneducated fools hold over 70 electoral votes combined in the general election - without them, the Democrats cannot win the White House.

I reject the notion that if Obama becomes the candidate the lemmings will instantly and in unision vote for McCain -- who is practically polar opposite of Hillary on every single policy point.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Hillary likes to cluck her tongue and "warn" us that if she doesn't get the nomination, well, then all her supporters will have to go with McCain.

Huh?

Considering that McCain is opposite Hillary on almost every single major issue (from the War to Healthcare) how would that make any sense?

It doesn't. It's a subtle threat to scare us into voting for her because she can't convince us to do it based soley on her experience (which, apparently, now runs 75 years in politics) or her (ahem) "personality."

Hillary can't unite the Dems to get behind her in any decisive fashion -- how is she going to magically bring Independents and Republicans into her camp if she wins the nomination?

It's Obama that's bringing in the new votes, the independents, the Republicans, etc.

In order to win the White House we're going to need crossover voters. Obama has consistently been doing that. Hillary is BARELY able to keep just the white Dems in her camp.

Will people really vote for Mr. Obama? There is the John Bradley/David Duke effect. People all said they would vote for Bradley in his first LA bid for mayor because they didn't want to admit they would not vote for a Black man. His polls were strong and his election results disappointing. Same with David Duke. No one would admit, in polls, that they would vote for a white racist. Duke's election results were much higher than his polling indicated.

Dems never like their candidate. While the republicans goose step behind their candidate we circle our wagons and shoot at each other.

Just because you're uneducated does not mean you are a "fool" You all should get out and meet blue collar America.

Will people really vote for Hillary in a general election?

They aren't voting for her now.

I do congratulate her on a winning a state that was....predicted to go for her anyway. So good job meeting expectations Hillary! Well, actually she was predictaed to win by 20 points and came in much lower than that, but still! Good job! You tried really hard and managed to keep your lead from totally evaporating just in the nick of time. If that doesn't say "winner" I don't know what does.

And we shouldn't downplay the following Hillary has created in her campaign. I mean she is setting records in terms of fund raising and crowd attendance!

Oh wait.

That is Obama breaking all those records, getting all those delegates and setting all those fund raising records.

But good job winning a state Hillary! You did it!

Guam here we come!

seriously, I feel like the primary election is throwing people off. I feel like my friends aren't convinced that the primaries don't necessarily mean that the candidate WINS. it's just a little test.

96thdayofrage wrote "Part of her 35 years of experience was as a Republican before she became a political opportunist."

Hillary finds the term "political opportunist" offensive. She perfers we say "Practitioner of Clintonia Triangulation."

For those unfamilair with the term is means, "Saying whatever the pollsters tell you to say in order to win an election regardless of whether you mean it or not" (see also: George W. Bush and his staunch stance against "arrogant foreign policy" and "nation building")

Clintonia Triangulation also means voting in such a way as to make you more electable as opposed to benefiting the country.

Authorizing the war was a calculated vote designed to cover her ass during her re-election bid or Presidential run.

Her bankruptcy bill vote was also calculated to give her cover from Republicans during an election.

I also recall a weird bill that would classify the Iranian military as a "terrorist group" that everyone rejected as typical Republican grandstanding -- but she consulted her Clintonia Triangulation Machine and voted for it so she could look "tough" during an election and her Republican foes wouldn't be able to use it against her.

"Clintonia Triangulation also means voting in such a way as to make you more electable as opposed to benefiting the country."

The last time I checked, we had peace and prosperity under the Clintons. Our welfare system was reformed and we were on the path of billions of surpluses. Also, Al Gore was proudly part of that economic boom.

How much of that peace and prosperity was DIRECTLY attributable to Clinton's policies is debatable. Economies ebb and flow to certain degrees based on world events regardless of who happens to be getting a blow jo...er...I mean, who happens to be President at the time.

Last time I checked NAFTA screwed over (pardon my French) all the blue collar workers in this country and started us on the long, slow econoic decline that Bush only accelerated on his watch.

Did Hillary cheerlead NAFTA before, during and after its conception and implementation?

Oh! That's right, it was in the debates with Obama where she claimed that she was (shhh!) secretly against NAFTA the whole time and was really "fighting for us."

To which Obama quipped, "You can't secretly be against something and than champion it in the media and in your books! It doesn't work that way."

The danger of trashing Clinton or Obama too aggressively from the Democratic side is that we are using the language of the Republican machine on our own party. They would be all too happy to sit back and watch while we eat our own party. I feel the Republican media and possibly election fraud (skillfully directed by Republican hand) is helping to keep the two afloat. There are Clinton supporters who will decide to not vote because they are pissed their girl didn't win. And the other way around as well. I don't see the point of that. But that is the perfect result the Republicans could hope for. This election has brought a huge wave of Democrats out to vote and what the Republicans need now is for them to all jump ship. They will get their wish because of this "bitter" battle. I hope not too many Dems are that short sighted. They are already dreaming up the headlines for when McBUSH wins. ..something about how Americans are just not ready for a woman or black president....how they don't want an elitist (smart person) but would rather have their regular guy neighbor running the show (so they do not feel smaller than the guy in charge.) Indeed, the poor and uneducated are not always fools but simply have a limited way of seeing the world. The Republican talking points hold that limitation up as American Values while the Democrats ask them to choose a candidate who speaks FOR them and not LIKE them.

@96thdayofrage -- I don't know how important environmental issues are to you, but we do have to give Sen. Clinton credit in one important regard.

The Clinton Triangulation Machine runs purely on clean zero emission bullshit.

When she makes phony speeches about being an avid hunter and casts ass-covering-votes to help her in future elections -- she is doing so in a manner that does not add any CO2 to the atmosphere.

And for that we must acknowledge her efforts.

Although the smell from the Triangulation Machine is becoming a bit of an issue...

Hillary did NOT win. She's a fraud.

Try asking someone who has been outsourced like me!

2 1/2 years ago, my company Panasonic of North America sold it's National Diagnostic Center to ITC Group Inc.

We were told many things..and we were led to believe that we would be ok...

What they failed to mention was that they weren't talking about employees but their company.

We lost 75 jobs and I lost mine.

NAFTA? Yes BUT...

Is NAFTA a person? No, it's just a trade agreement.

And it's just an EXCUSE for CEO's to sell it's employees down the river.

I don't blame Bill Clinton and I don't blame Hillary either.

I do blame Republicans including GWB who loves the idea of outsourcing!

It is absolutely interesting to blame Hillary Clinton for any/all failures of her husband's policies but not credit her for any of the positives. Let's make up your mind gents/ladies, if you think she failed at NAFTA, then she should also be credited for the economic booms. If prosperity during the Clinton years was part of the economic cylce, she should not be blamed for NAFTA, etc.

Why is Obama not being blamed for the high crime rates in Chicago? He is a senator after all. Isn't that egregious? Exactly.

That is a good point PatrickEdwardMurray -- although I think Bill is at least as culpable as Bush.

Ross Perot (among many others) did try to warn the Clinton's that this was a bad idea and would lead to a race to the bottom in terms of outsourcing jobs. "A gaint sucking sound," was how Ross phrased it.

Neither Bill nor Hillary listened so they should share at least a little of the blame, shouldn't they?

I just want to say that the comments on here are way more intelligent then the comments on CNN.com. Sometimes it seems like the under 35 voter is so not represented yet we seem to be saying the most intelligent things.
As far as Clinton and Obama go, I just feel that Obama would maybe be the chance to get some new blood in to the White House and end the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

TooPolitical, you're mixing cause and effect.

The world markets were experiencing a general expansion at the time and Bill just happened to be President.

He didn't really "do" anything that any of us can point to, can we?

Look at the massive dot com boom of the 90's -- exactly what did Bill "do" to create all those young dot com millionaires? Anything? It happened and he was President. There isn't much connection (if I'm wrong, please correct me).

The economy expanded. Bill was President.

Now that doesn't mean he nor any President couldn't make BAD decisions that would have effects years down the road.

He passed NAFTA which created a giant sucking sound as employers raced to fire expensive US employees and employ vastly cheaper Mexican labor....and later on even cheaper Chinese child labor.

Now let's forget Bill and focus on Hillary. Hillary is putting herself in a weird area by a) not being an elected offical at the time b) claiming credit for legislation that she didn't really draft nor vote on and c) now claims she was "secretly" against it the whole time now that we know it was a bad idea.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

There is an ad out that does blame Obama for gang crime in Chicago. But shouldn't we be thinking forward and not backward?

I don’t think poor and less educated voters deserve the scorn they're getting on this site and in the press. I agree that the republican's often exploit these voters and I wish they would take broader views, but they have the right to define their priorities any way they choose.

The failure is with the candidates, not with the voters. Sadly, Obama gave Clinton the opportunity with his poorly chosen (if not untrue) comments, and to exactly no ones surprise, Clinton desperately exploited that opportunity under that pathetic guise that "it's what the republicans will do in the general". Being poor and less educated doesn’t necessarily make a person bigoted or stupid. The fact that the term “blue collar” has become a pejorative to so many people is a big part of the problem. A problem I’d think it’s up to the democrats to fix…because God knows the republicans are very happy with things staying just the way they are.

Crob, it was just for simplistic argument. When Clinton took over Bush, he forced fiscal responsibility by cutting spending, reforming welfare, negotiating trade agreements to position US companies to compete in the global markets, increase funding in education and infrastructures, etc. This quickly brought down inflation, stabilized and strengthened the dollar and increased private investments. The economic cycle is just like a getting cold, if you don't do anything about it, it will take longer for you to get better, but if you apply the right prescriptions, you will not only get better quicker, but also sustain your health. To claim that the economic boom was there without Clinton's policies is to say the economic recession is not a result of Bush's failed policies.

Of course she won! Everyone should help our future president out and donate to her!!!!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute/N5KN

GO HILLARY 08

TooPolitical -- that is true, but only to a certain extent.

The health of the GLOBAL economy at any given time can't be dismissed and can have effects on the US that Presidents won't be able to adjust for at certain times.

We can't diminish the fact tha Bill was, in fact, in a prime position when things around the world were getting better.

Yes, he did make some sound fiscal decisions -- exactly how much of that "trickled down" to the average person is debatable. Again, if Bill was so "smart" when it came to the economy one has to ask the question, "How come he was so stupid when it came to NAFTA and how it would effect average blue collar workers?"

Personally I give Bill a pass on that one a little bit. I think Bill fell for the same BS everyone else did at the time.

"We need to be globally competitive!" was the slogan of the 90's -- which simply translated to, "We can only make larger profits if we use foreign slaves instead of these damn US workers!"

Were they right?

Yes!

The profits of the company went up, up, up once they transitioned over to slave labor, er, I mean foreign labor.

But let's not confuse the profits of a company with the health of a national economy -- as Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) often do.

If COMPANY XYZ fires all 50,000 US workers and replaces them with Chinese child labor -- wow! Their costs went way down and their profits shot waaay up! The company did great!

But let's take a closer look at the economy of the state (like Michigan) that now has 50,000 or 75,000 or 100,000 workers unemployed.

There are no jobs. They aren't buying anything. They aren't paying taxes. State coffers are drained because of the rampant unemployment and underemployment. Etc.

All the pro-globalization, pro-NAFTA people did was manage to enrich companies while bankrupting the nation.

The end result of all the is that in 2008 we now have companies making billions in profits and States literally going bankrupt as their entire population is either totally unemployed or making $7/hr at Burger King.

We desperatly need some protectionism to keep our national economy going (you can't run it soley on credit cards and Wal-mart jobs) and I wonder if Hillary really understands that or if she still believes outsourcing our entire manufacturing base makes sense like she seemed to think it did back in the 90's.