Bill Richardson lays out an endgame

Did Bill Richardson move ever so slightly toward Barack Obama's corner today?

For a split second, during his appearance on the CBS talk show "Face the Nation," it sounded like he did. But then he added a clause that muddied the waters (as he so often did as a candidate himself for the Democratic presidential nomination, when he struggled in the early debates by often giving answers that were hard to decipher).

Richardson, during his chat this morning with newsman Bob Schieffer, characterized Tuesday's face-offs in Ohio and Texas between Obama and Hillary Clinton as "D-Day."

Expressing concern, like an increasing number of leading Democrats of late, that an extended Obama-Clinton battle could start tearing the party apart, he added: "We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee."

Clinton may well win in both Ohio and Texas but, based on the way delegates are allotted, her margins may not be large enough to overtake Obama in the overall delegate count. So was Richardson, who remains uncommitted in the race, saying she still should drop out?

The catch, of course, was his caveat about one of the candidates claiming "a clear lead." That will be in the eye of the beholder (and subject to all manner of spinning by the two campaigns).

Here is the latest...

...delegate tally by various news organizations, conscientiously compiled by Time magazine's The Page:

ABC — Obama 1,380, Clinton 1,276
AP — Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,277
CBS — Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,265
CNN — Obama 1,369, Clinton 1,267
MSNBC — Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037 (does not include superdelegates, who are named by party leaders, rather than selected through the primary/caucus process)

Richardson may have left us confused about his criteria for determining whether someone should call it quits Wednesday morning, but he was clear about this:

"I think after Tuesday, we as a party nationally — voters, leaders — have got to see whether it makes sense to continue a very divisive primary between now and Pennsylvania, and then the convention."

— Don Frederick

Comments

[IG]

The delegate numbers as they stand now seem quite clear to me, Obama over Clinton by about 100 or more. What can other interpretation be possible? Your article suggests it is muddier. I don't see it.

[Carolyn Barnes]

If Clinton wins Tx and Oh narrowly, can she still win the nomination? (I am not considering Ri or Vt at this point.)

[Tiffany]

One thing the media seems to continually omit when discussing Obama's recent string of wins is that the number of people in all of those states combined does not equal the number of voters in California, New York and New Jersey, states that Clinton won by a large margin. When Obama talks about the party following "the will of the people," it seems he is leaving out the huge number of people that support Hillary Clinton. Obama's arrogance has been apparent to me since he first announced his candidacy. It was as if he was doing everybody a favor by running, and that was one of the two main reasons I didn't vote for him.

[Valjean]

Depending on Tuesday's results it may be time for the Dem Superdelegates and others to begin thinking of an alternative candidate to be selected at the convention. Both O and C may have done too much damage to one another to unite their people given all those who have claimed if A or B is the nominee I'll vote for McCain. A Democrat leader who has been through the mill at other times might be their best opportunity to carry the day in November. Who would you choose if it came to that? Too bad Powell couldn't be persuaded to run as a Democrat...or could he? How many would vote for him? or Gore?

[JC]

IG, if you think 100 delegates is a "clear lead", why didn't you urge Obama to drop out a month ago when he was down by the same margins? 100 delegates is less than 5% of the number needed to win, and as has been pointed out, Obama has collected the overrepresented small state delegates, many in states that no Democrat will carry.

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can win based on next week's primaries. Over a third of this country hasn't voted yet. For the first time that anyone can remember, the Democratic primaries actually mean something. We won't get saddled with a lame duck like Kerry in 2004. The reason this primary season has gone on so long is because there are two excellent choices. It's not divisive.

The people that are concerned are just having regrets about scheduling the convention so late. That was THEIR mistake, not the candidates or the voters, and to deprive either would simply be criminal.

[soflindie]

I disagree Tiffany - I remember a very confident HRC telling Katie Couric she WILL be the nominee - no ifs ands or buts.
This country is in dire need of no more Dynasties in the WH.
Do yourself a favor , please check out Obama's website and u may be surprised. I am asking out of respect .

Have a good evening

[David]

Hillary Clinton cannot catch Barack Obama in the number of pledged delegates -- even if she wins both Ohio and Texas by 5% -- without winning ove 66.66% of the vote in the remaining primaries after Tuesday. No one who is currently not attempting to buy the Brooklyn Bridge believes she can do this.

So, Barack Obama -- who has won far more states, far more popular votes, and more delegates -- can only lose the nomination if the the superdelegates vote against the democratic will. Currently, even the superdelegates who are members of the Senate and House favor him. Only the old guard superdelegates on the DNC favor Hillary and only by a small margin.

My wife and I went through Yale Law with the Clintons and worked on Bill's campaign. We think we know what kind of President Hillary would be. We strongly favor Obama over our old friend(s), and we think she -- for the sake of the Party and the country -- should get out now.

[Figgins]

I have a question for all the supporters of HRC that claim big wins in CA, NY make Hillary the better candidate. Are you suggesting that a candidate can win the general election by only winning the large coastal states? The whole point of the Electoral College is to make sure the big states don't dominate/override the smaller states.

If Her Royal Clintoness can't win the small states, she will do no better than 2nd place come November.

[Shelley]

So, when does senator Clinton stop being "Hillary the Candidate" and start being "Hillary the Spoiled Child"?

[ZoeC]

This is nonsense about Sen. Clinton being told to drop out if she does not win on Tuesday by whatever the margin of the day is for Obama supporters. Why is he precluded from having to garner all needed delegates in a primary battle like other candidates in democratic party history? why are we telling his opponent who trails only by a hundred delegates she must quit? If he is afraid of competition, it won't get easier. If Sen.Obama is truly a candidate for democracy, one would think he would want as many voters to have their say in the process as possible.
By empowering ALL voters and not short circuiting the process, I would be more inclined to think of the Democratic nominee as part of a cultural movement rather than simply yet another well-funded marketing ploy. ZoeC

[Mike]

Tiffany, the delegates are awarded propotrionally to the percentage of votes received and the total delegate count is determined by the population of the state. Under that system, the candidate with the most delegates is there COMPLETELY because of the will of the people. Nothing really to omit.

[barbara]

Currently Obama leads in both the pledged delegate count and the total number of votes cast (by about 1 million).If this is still the case after Tuesday,it is time for Clinton to bow out.

[JS]

@Tiffany, by all counts, Obama leads in the popular vote count as well and that includes both Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot and Florida. Have a look for yourself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

This is a national primary, not a primary of the 4 or 5 largest states. That is what is meant by the will of the people. So sorry that Hillary's coronation will be delayed by 4-8 years.

[Styles]

Tiffany, you bring up a good point. However, I offer a rebuttal as an independent who is fed up with the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Satan years: Barack Obama leads in the national polls. If the will of the people as a whole is examined, Barack Obama seems to be the clear winner. He also appeals to independents (the plurality of the voting public) whereas Hillary Clinton tends to marginalize and be as divisive as Bush and Kerry were four years ago. If the general mood of the nation is one of discontent with the status quo, again it seems to be Barack Obama that best addresses the political zeitgeist of 2008. I'm not advocating Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, I'm offering a counterpoint to your argument with the purpose of exhibiting how difficult it is to decide exactly what the "will of the people" really is in this particular case. I'm very interested in finding out how you would address this conundrum logically and rationally.

[Ramos333]

Bill Richarson all but endorsed Obama a long time ago, but it seems the Clintons have been begging him not to formalize it.

The very fact that Richardson has not endorsed Clinton should be a statement in and of itself for anybody old enough to observe the Bill Clinton presidency when Richardson worked closely with Clinton.

About two weeks ago, Richardson appeared briefly on TV, and his interviewer tried hard to pin down his stance and who and when he would endorse. At first, Richardson tried to play down the importance of endorsement as a way of dodging the question.

His interviewer did not relent. As a superdelegate, would he endorse the person who won the most votes? "I think that would be the right thing to do." Does that mean that since Hilary Clinton won the most votes in New Mexico? "But she won by only 1 percent of the votes." When the interviewer inisted, "But she won," Richardson said, "Look, I don't think it will get to that."

It then became clear how Obama came within hundreds of votes of winning the state, despite Bill Clinton trying to force the impression of a camadarie with Richardson that was not there when Clinton watched the Super Bowl with Richardson in New Mexico just before Super Tuesday.

It also got me thinking: If people who worked with the Clintons and know them best are so reluctant to endorse them, there is certainly something they know that we do not.

That was one of the MANY reasons that persuaded to go Obama.

[kww]

Tiffany take your hood off and look in the mirror...you did not vote for Obama because of your racist xenophobia but before you rush out to buy a dictionary let me break it down to you in monosyllabic terms that you can handle-"dark skin" ummm the fact that he is half black not his alledged arrogance is what has your knickers in a wedgie, admit it...remember only black men are arrogant right? Obama is half black so that only makes him half arrogant...whatever...racist liberals slay me...at least we Repubs are honest about our bigotry which is far less then what I see amongst the Dems...liberal media leading the way focusing on race and gender to a lesser degree...what if Obama whined about being called black all the time even though he is only half black?

Hillary whines about the unfair treatment because she is a woman...you rarely hear she is pulling the gender card ...Obama has not the luxury to use race as an excuse...although he would never go there because it is not true... But the media and racist libs say he is black because he has dark skin and married to a black woman. If he were more fair and married a white woman, hispanic or an asian I imagine we would never here him being labeled "black". GIve me a break...racism is a cancer and I think Obama just might be the cure!

[Anne]

Ramos333 right on...well said! Unfortunately a picture says a thousand words...the media showed them watching that game and implied and inferred there was more there than met the eye. People are still thinking that Richardson holds a March 4th surprise based on the buzz leading up to this Tuesdays caucuses. Personally I think Richardson would be the best choice for Obama's running mate. Richardson completes the experience and foreign policy gaps perfectly and without the baggage. I think Obama should call Clintons bluff and announce his running mate before Tuesday! If it is Richardson it would totally take the steam out to the Clinton machine. And everyone could rally behind the nominee and focus on the general election before McCain starts picking off independents, and rallying his forces.

[Janezworld]

Well David and his wife are not alone. I personally know a fellow in Ohio that knows the Clintons quite well and worked on there campaign, fund raised for them, used their many connections to bear on the Clinton's behalf that is now applying their efforts toward the Obama campaign full force. Slow to make up his mind but when he did there was no stopping him...110 percent.

[Jennifer]

It is absolutely disgusting that people would even suggest that HRC drop out of the race if she doesn't beat BO by "large numbers" on Tuesday. I remember BO's people saying if he was within 150 delegates at the convention they could make a legitamite fight for his nomination. How quickly that's been forgotten!

[Chester Allen]

If Barack Obama has a clear lead after Tuesday, and I believe he will, and HRC does not drop out, she will give the GOP more fodder in the fall. If this is supposed to be about the Democratic Party (as she said in the second to last debate) and she wants what is best for everyone of us, she'll quit. Having said that, I'm sure she'll hang on and claw out as many delegates and do as much damage as possible, but if she does that, and if somehow she manages to be chosen in spite of the popular vote, I know I won't vote for her in the fall. Not because I want John McCain, but because at some point, it is more important to take the loss and make a statement than to yet again let the process be stolen away a la w in 2000 & 2004. I will still vote, I just won't vote for her. Many of us don't like her, don't trust her, don't want her as our President, and for you hard-core HRC supporters, you need to ask yourself a question: how badly do you want a Democrat in 2008? Because the answer is, if you want one, don't choose her. NOTHING will mobilize the right faster than an HRC candidacy, and at this point, she can't even run a campaign, bring all of us together, and win the nomination convincingly, so how the heck is she going to do that with an entire country? Answer is: SHE WON'T. Like we say in Texas, "think about it darlin'"

[irene]

The democratic party candidate will carry California and NY and the other big states, whether it is Clinton or Obama. To suggest that only Hillary Clinton can deliver the blue states in a general election is absurd, especially when the vast majority of democracts have already said they would be happy with either candidate. If consideration of how a candidate will do in the general election is the primary factor, then Obama makes the most sense, and not because of what Democrats will do. Hillary inflames the right in the Republican party. If she is at the top of the ticket she will bring out the one group of republicans that McCain himself can't manage to woo. She has high negatives and always has had them. Obama has had nothing to do with why so many Americans really dislike Hillary. He's just providing many of them with a very worthy alternative.

[Tosher]

I think it's quite obvious that unless something radical happens, she can't catch him in pledged delegates. The Clinton campaign hoped that she would maintain a huge lead in superdelegates, but that's falling apart, and many people in the party, most prominently Nancy Pelosi who holds a lot of power over certain superdelegates, have basically taken Obama's side and said they probably won't by themselves decide the election. She was also hoping to do some maneuvering for Michigan and Florida and was rebuffed.

I think they're hoping for a total change in direction to keep things going and I have nothing but respect for that attitude right now, she deserves to give it her all. I do however think that some of her rhetoric has displayed a "win at all costs" mentality, tearing things down to play even if she's going to lose anyways, or bringing it to the convention. The bottom line is if you take away NY and neighboring New Jersey, she's won a few states like California and Massachussetts, and everything else for her has been close. Conversely, Obama's won more and all over the place and by a mile. He's won 11 in a row! Think about that streak! She can't catch up, and they were hoping to win by 20 in Texas and Ohio to catch up, and now she may not make up any ground at all... It's just a matter of time, and that's why he's gained close to 30 superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and she's LOST 6.

[shirlin]

The Clintons are heartless and relentless. The real truth to Hillary's vote for the war is not her lack of judgment but her judging that she needed to appear war-like in order to be taken seriously as a potential commander-in-chief. Should there be a 3 a.m. wake-up call, it would be a militiary problem created by a fear-mongering, war-mongering POTUS like Hillary would be. Can we depend on a President who uses tears and fears to win a negative campaign againts another Democratic candidate? Can we trust a leader who is willing to tear down a speaker for a younger generation fo citizens? Should the Clinton dynasty win as they well might, it would mean the end of the resurgent Democratic Party and the start to a third party of independents. The first woman president of the US, should Hillary win, would be MRS CLINTON, the wife of a publicly disgraced sex-addicted President, who stayed with him to achieve her lust for power.

[Joseph]

"Did Bill Richardson move ever so slightly toward Barack Obama's corner today?"

Slightly? Barring a miracle for Clinton, the only candidate who could possibly come out of Tuesday with a clear lead is Obama. Richardson's comment was anything but subtle.

[Dave]

Why is everybody asking Hillary to get out of the race and the DNC still has not resolve the Michigan and Florida issue. If you count us out, then count us out of the party. I'll write my own vote in on the ballot. It will be Hillary.

[WISE OWL]

Obama surrounds himself with black activists like Alfie Woodard whom I compare with Angela Davis and seemingly from the same mold. Halle Berry included.

A few days ago, I had a laugh from Fox news who said the salon owner booted Alfie out of his shop when she started causing disorderly conduct by mouthing off about Obama in his shop. I googled her and found that she is an Activist like the "Black Panthers" of the 60s.

Also, Fox news said Halle Berry was going to do whatever Obama told her to...I hope he will tell her to get married instead of walking around pregnant and unwed with no plans to do so and flauting imorality which is against what Christians believe in.

Kerry though he was a big shot like Obama, but in the end, he did not win.

[Ellie]

Ya know, seeing someone accuse another of being racist because they called Barack Obama arrogant is ridiculous. I am a Hillary supporter and will continue to be a Hillary supporter. I too agree that Barack Obama and his supporters such as John Kerry are arrogant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his race. I'm getting married to an African American man (I'm white) and even he sees Obama as being full of crap. I think the Obama campaign has caused more hate and divisiveness then Hillary could ever have brought about all by herself. There is absolutely no reason at all why Hillary should give up her candidacy just because a bunch of arrogant men tell her she should. That is precisely why she should stay in the race. If she drops out, she gives in to the male dominated establishment. It makes me sick that Obama's campaign is even suggesting such a thing. Like he is the GOD of politics and how dare she fight to win and try to become president. LOL. Ridiculous. I hope people take his arrogance into consideration when they go to vote on Tuesday. I think it's quite unpresidential and disrespectful and rude. He's running on a speech he made in 2002 and winning on a vote she cast (along with John Kerry and many others) to authorize force in Iraq. And who is to say that the war will go down in history as being a complete mistake? And I think that is precisely why Hillary Clinton preserves her vote as being "sincere." We don't know the true outcome of the war until it's truly over and history has been written. To condemn her for a vote that many others including his insulting supporters cast is NONSENSE and I'm sick of reading and hearing about it. Let's look at the bigger picture here folks, the fact is she has in her corner a former president that for the most part when it comes to politics knows what the hell he is talking about. Experience is not a bad thing, considering it means a person has lived life and learned from their mistakes. That's called WISDOM. I know young people often THINK they know it all only to find out later they got themselves into a big mess by making a "boneheaded mistake." You don't see a majority of the older generation voting for Barack Obama for nothing. They are voting for Hillary. I think that says a lot as well. I just feel that although it may be too late for Hillary, that her opponent still has a whole lot to learn and unfortunately we are going to see him learning as he goes. I'm hoping America sees this and pulls this one off for her. I would absolutely love to see big victories for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to prove all of you dead wrong. GO HILLARY!!! Don't ever count her out.

[Paul]

"There is absolutely no reason at all why Hillary should give up her candidacy just because a bunch of arrogant men tell her she should."

Ellie, your comments reek of sexism. Not all Obama supports are men. Many democratic officials and voters who are supporting Obama are women. So are only the male Obama supporters arrogant, or the female ones as well? Pot. Kettle. Black.

That being said, I hope Obama wins and Hillary concedes. The best thing to happen to the Republicans would be for the Democrats to drag this process out for another 3 months.

That being said, I also hope that Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate. If Hillary some how does turn this around and shoot ahead, I hope she chooses Obama as her running mate. You can not speak of being able to unite your country if you are unable to unite with a fellow Democrat whom half the party wants as the nominee. Once the nominee is chosen, these two need to work together to defeat John McCain, otherwise we are going to throw our money at FOUR MORE YEARS IN IRAQ!

[Samantha]

"So, when does senator Clinton stop being "Hillary the Candidate" and start being "Hillary the Spoiled Child"?"
--Shelley

I think that happened right before she walked onto the stage in RI and mocked every American who had voted for Obama. It is sad because I believe the Nation should appreciate Bill Clinton's multiple accomplishments as president. However, after Bill's horrible behavior, and now Hillary's campaign of whines, lies, and multiple vacuous vicious attacks, how are we supposed to respect them enough to do that?

[mike]

If Hillary doesn't win big in both Texsa and Ohio, the party leaders will push to end this thing. If she doesn't quit, the super delegates at the urging of the leaders will swing behind Obama giving him a 400-500 delegate lead. At that point Richardson, Gore, Pelosi, Edwards all endorse Obama. The longer she stays in the more damage she does to herself, no leadership in the senate no viable future run. I predict she will quit this week after Tuesday.

[Steely]

Hillary will NEVER win a national race. Her negatives are so high it is impossible for her to win. In a two party race she can not win, she'd be lucky to get 40% in a national election. She is smart and a very hard worker, her best place would be as a leader in the Senate. Her talents would be wasted in a do nothing Veep job. Actually it may not be the job she wants right now, if she is serious about "helping" the country and getting things done she is better off in the Senate where she can spend the next 30 years passing laws and programs versus the next 4. Bush has this country so screwed up, because of the economy, not much will actually be fixed in the next 4 years no matter who is in office.

[Dan]

Hillary Clinton wants to stand on her record of her experience and expect us to judge her on that.
Well, there's the vote on Iraq, though she says she has become opposed to the war during the campaign.
Then there's NAFTA, which she promoted strongly, though she was not as enthusiastic as her husband.
So the record of stellar achievements is pretty short. Standing on it doesn't elevate Hillary much, as I see it.
Yes, we can change America. But not with more of the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasties.

[Matha Davidson]

Clintons have a ANOTHER FRAUD CHARGE!!

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

(Story continues below)

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.

Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.

[hx]

Don't buy into the Clinton's "Insult 40 States" strategy.

And enough with Cal. and NY trumps the other states.
Obama leads by over 1 Million popular votes (including Florida and Mich.)
26 out of 37 contest and over 150 elected delegates.

If the Dems. had a winner take all system he would still lead in all the above categories. Do the math and stop the nonsense.
If Sen. Clinton does not win OH and TX by 20 points she will need to win by 30 points in all the remaining 12 contest to come close iin delegates.

The current polls all indicate that by Wed. morning Obama will still lead in votes, states and over 150 delegates.

Its time for Sen. Clinton to do what she has not done in losing the last 11 contest.
Its time for the junior Sen. from NY, to give a concession speech and congratulate the next President of the USA.

[Holly in Louisiana]

I have been watching this race with interest since the very beginning. HRC is getting so desperate with the mean spirited attack ads. Voters, as a whole, do not like this kind of tactic. As for her ''experience'', it doesn't wash. If she is such an advocate for health care, then why do so many people in my town not have it? I think Obama is right to take the high road and not respond in a negative way. However, he does respond in a very digified, respectable way...in my opinion. By the way...he took my state by a landslide. I have relatives in Texas who are keeping me informed. Looks like he may take Texas and possible Ohio.
I am so looking forward to March 4.

[Mrs Jones]

I am glad to see such excitement over two candidates in the Democratic party for once. Initially, I was in favor of this issue moving forward to the convention. However, now that Republican nomination is pretty much decided, I think that the Democrats should move on. There is too much work to do this year to win the election in November.

I have always had serious doubts as to whether or not HRC could win a national election. I think she is too devisive (whether or not that is her fault is another issue) and many independents and potential crossover Republicans will not vote for her.

Her ability to win 'big states' like California and NY are irrelevant since they are democratic strongholds. Democrats need a candidate that can help win states like Missouri, Ohio and Virginia, which are all 'up for grabs' this year. Obama has proven he can win Virginia, and Missouri (though Missouri was close). Ohio remains to be seen but doesn't look like a strong Clinton victory. If Clinton is unable to post large margins of victory, I feel she should bow out for the good of the party, rather than continue to trail by 100+ delegates (the lead seems as if it will only continue to grow) and still lose the nomination. If she loses both Ohio and Texas, it will be even worse for her. 13 losses in a row, no matter what size the states of her victories, is still 13 losses in a row. And let's remember that the Republicans didn't win California or New York in the last 2 elections, but still 'won' the presidential election.

Obama has proven he can take hits and keep going. He has also demonstrated that he will not a be candidate like John Kerry, who didn't challenge the lies being told about him. So far, the only thing Republicans have come up with is that he is secretly a Muslim operative with no open displays of patriotism. They have all kinds of mud to throw at HRC...

[J-Star]

I am an independent from California.
I will vote for JM in Nov. if Obama wins the nomination. I know I am not alone.
I just don't believe he is capable and sophisticated enough to deal with various complicated international issues. Pretty speech, friendly gesture, and simply passionate don’t work.

[not-a-lemming]

Big fat bill richardson should keep his trap shut. baiting comments such as his create unnecessary divisiveness. who cares if he endorses somebody or not. his endorsement doesn't amount to a hill of beans. he's hoping to be named barack obama's veepee. but given richardson's poor performance in his early presidential run, his corpulent presence would be nothing more than excessive weight on the ticket. get lost fatso.

[Doug]

The current difference in pledged delegates, 1093 to 1136, is about 7%. (Superdelegates blow like leaves in the wind.) In terms of elections, this really isn't that close. Also, Obama is leading by almost 1 million out of about 20 million in the popular vote. (realclearpolitics.com has lots of data if you want to check it out.)