Barack is one of the best speakers and most charismatic politicians I've ever seen, the only problem I have is that there is no message coming out of his mouth. And the problem with all three of them is that they are politicians...America needs a courageous leader who can deal with problems by giving us the whole truth without the spin. Washington's dirty little secrets need to be exposed, only then will Americans truly thrive.

john, Cottage Grove,

Dear Glen vanGogh:

Hmmm. The "miracle" economy of the 90s as I recall ended in the bursting of the dot.com bubble, the stock market crash, a recession -- all of which were inherited by GWB. He also inherited a plot to attack the United States that was hatched, funded, trained for, and overlooked on Clinton's watch. Relative peace? I'll say. The peace of ignoring the danger that was gathering all through the 90s. But by God, we had a surplus!

CW, Dallas, TX

Why does everyone tiptoe around the 800 lb elephant at the table. Hillary can't make decisions. She couldn't put her husband in place, instead calling not one, not two but many of Bill's admitted affiars lies. She can't "decide" to protect the party by bending to the popular vote and will. And she cant "decide" that she really has no experience either.... I have been a democrate all my life, but everyone in our garden club (all dems) will vote against her if she cant make the right "decision".

barb, Sacramento, CA

Perhaps we should call in the UN observers to oversee the rest of the Democratic primaries and their convention?

Ubipetros, Altoona, PA

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be. 


He has a million little donors. He has brought many, many Republicans and Independents to the brink of re-thinking their relationship with the Democratic party. And he has won the majority of primaries and caucuses and has a majority of the delegates and popular vote. This has been a staggering achievement - one that has already made campaign history. If the Clintons, after having already enjoyed presidential power for eight long years, destroy this movement in order to preserve their own grip on privilege and influence in Democratic circles, it will be more than old-fashioned politics. It will be a generational moment - as formative as 1968. Killing it will be remembered for a very, very long time. And everyone will remember who did it - and why.

maureen, novato, ca

Hillary will be a great President, and we all know that we need one.

Anne , LA, USA

as a lifelong Loyalist, I say keep a stiff upper lip to Rudy G. he may be gone , but he'll be back in '12

gerard pawling, simsbury, usa/connecticut

Obama might as well start getting dirty fighting Clinton..., because if he doesn't learn how to do that now he has no hope of defeating the GOP machine

P Damien Cunningham, Camden, SC/USA

TO Cathy from Georgia, this is certainly where Hillary is wrong. Her campaign is harping about how Obama didn't win NY, CA -- the "big" states, and therefore couldn't win them against McCain. And GA doesn't matter to Hillary because it's not a big state. Well, NY, CA are blue anyway and will be Democrat in the general election. But Obama has won in Idaho, Wyoming, traditionally red states, and by massive margins, with Dem voters turning out in huge record numbers. With that kind of enthusiasm behind Obama, he does stand a chance of turning states like yours for the Democrats when he can motivate those types of numbers to come out to the polls. This is where Hillary's "logic" is completely illogical. But then, a lot of what she's saying is illogical, like offering Obama the VP spot on her ticket. Here are the facts: Obama is the leader -- he has won the most states, he leads in delegates, he leads in the popular vote count. What part of this isn't crystal clear? He's the nominee!

Julia in Florida, Miami, USA FL

Hillary is doing an outstanding job of turning the hope many young voters are feeling into hopelessness. We are getting a sour reality check with politics, thanks to the Clinton campaign.

If she were to wretch the nomination from the people, I will not vote for her. I will protest and vote for anyone but her.

TX Democrat, Arlington Texas, USA

Do you know that France is having a web site concerning the Lisbonne Treaty? We have sent a resquest against this Treaty to the Europeen Human Rights Court and this complain have been accepted. The adress of the web site is 29mai.eu.

It would help if English people wopuld attack England (the govnernment) as we do, and try to make Europe democratically.

Thank you, please excuse my english which is very bad!

I have a "blog" on the french magazine : Le Nouvel Observateur, called "Intrigante Europe".

Thanks,

Pascale MIR

Pascale MIR, Paris, France

Hillarys three ways to win: LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL! typical clinton gameplan.

brian, Simi Valley, ca

For most of the superdelegates, there's no question about who they'd like to vote for - after all, Sen Clinton is one of their own, part of the Democrat establishment. But if, as seems increasingly likely, they'd have to overrule the states to do so, the only candidate they'd help would be John McCain.

The only way out for them would be to no longer have a contest by the time the convention comes round. If Clinton doesn't manage a substantial win in Pennsylvania, or if she receives heavy defeats two weeks later in Indiana and North Carolina - both quite likely outcomes - there will be enormous pressure on her to withdraw from within the party. That way, senior members of the party wouldn't have a decision to make, which no doubt would relieve them greatly.

The question then becomes whether or not the Clintons are willing to put the wider party first, or whether they'd see defeating Obama as enough, regardless of what happens in November.

Do they have big egos, then?
Clearly, yes.

Rob, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

The Times writes: "Obama cannot publicly blame racism for the slowing of his momentum, although his team has little doubt in private that it was a factor in Ohio last week."

In fact, Obama's proxies have been accusing his rivals and critics of being racists since New Hampshire, when Donna Brazile and Bob Herbert twisted Bill Clinton's "fairytale" comment to give it a racist meaning that it did not have.

The media has been playing along with this, claiming exit polling suggests some white voters in Ohio voted for Hillary for racial reasons, but ignoring the fact that the Black vote in Ohio was far more significantly defined by race than the white vote.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton did very well in rural Ohio because Bill Clinton did very much for this region when he was President, and Ohio's rural Democrats remember that. But the dull-witted media--who predictably always look for a racial angle first-- jumps on the Obama campaigns cynical "racist" spin.

Thomas, Zanesville, Ohio

she may get elected but will have polarized the country so that there will be no way she can govern, She is not presidential in stature, character, demeaner, or any other feature one would expect from a leader of a great nation.

Walt. Hannan, Livingston, WI

I'm a registered Republican but I will definitly vote for Obama
as long as Hillary The Shrew isn't on the ticket !

marsha, lake elsinore, ca, usa

Amazing;
My comments on "team Clinton" are:-
Whitewater.
Paula Jones,
"I did not have sex with that woman"
No tax returns.
Americans have veru short memories.

torun chakrabarty, Hong Kong,

I find it offensive that I don't matter to Hillary, because my state traditionally votes Republican in the general election. Since I don't matter to her, she didn't matter to me -- I voted for Obama. ALL states matter, no matter how small -- or how red!

Cathy, Athens, GA

Obama has won small red states, add all the population of all these states he won is not equal to California, in general election these states will go to McCain not to democrates. Clinton is winning the big states and in general election to win the presidency these states has to be won by democratic nominee. More over she is winning the big states by big margines.

k4329, Arlington Hts, IL

This article is so full of it, trying to make a bad guy out of Hillary, who is very tough and has heart, both presidential qualities. Fascinating to see the rightwing Brit ties with the USA rightwing: the politics of white male cynicism and personal attack.

don, acton, mass, usa

Clinton realizes that the only way for her to get the nomination is to get the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegate decision. She knows that Obama will have the pledged delegate lead going into the convention, if it goes that long. It's not surprising that she is floating the idea of having Obama join her on the ticket cause that's the only way she can hold on to his supporters if they somehow steal the nomination with the super delegates.

Harry, LA, Ca

What I don't understand is this:

MI and FL broke the rules, i.e., cheated, and rightfully got thrown out of the game. Now Hillary, et al want to let them back in. Even if we let the delegates count by a re-vote, we're basically giving MI and FL the biggest trophy of all - the ability to be the "deciders" of this election. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE???? What incentive is there for any state to follow the rules in the future. What incentive does any future candidate have to follow the rules in the future?

COME ON PEOPLE - DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS.

DDB, USA,

It's sickening how far Hilary is seemingly willing to go, but her political career will be finished for good when all is said and done so I suppose there will be a major payoff in the end.

She does appear to be trying her hardest to destroy Obama's chances in hopes of having the opportunity to run again in 2012. There is only one major problem with that though. She will soon be one of the most detested politicians in this Country for her selfish, petty, dishonest and dirty campaign tactics.

She is better off just dropping out to save face, but that would be the smart thing to do so she, instead, prefers to fight it out till the bitter end in hopes of adding to the embarrassment. You want to know what kind of President Hilary would be? Look at how she has run her campaign. It is a disaster of biblical proportions. How does she expect to run a Country when she can't run a campaign? She would validate John McCain and Bush's policies before doing so for someone in her own party.

Mike, Bronx, NY

This a choice for the Democrat Party - honesty vs chicanery. As a long time supporter of Clinton, it came with a price - the choice between a flawed and deficient character vs the alternative political dogma of the conservatives. We had to make that choice with Bill, but why to we need to hold our noses again? Obama is too much a gentlemen to hit Hillary with the truth about why she is doing so poorly as a candidate - she is fundamental self-centered and dishonest. She will do anything to further her goals. This is not the leadership we need.

John Michael Rowan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Your last comment -- "Some cynics believe that she is willing to undermine Obama sufficiently for him to lose to McCain in November, freeing her to take another shot at the presidency in 2012" -- probably sums up Hillary Clinton and her priorities better than any other observation I have read so far from anyone.

There is nothing in Hillary Clinton's past that suggests she is interested in anything but promoting her own interests (and, if Bill Clinton is helpful, his).

She is in this presidential race to win. And if she doesn't, she has no qualms about battering her Democratic rival so badly that he loses to the Republicans in November (who, wisely, would probably use her own arguments against Mr. Obama.) A Democratic win in November that wasn't hers, after all, reduces her chances of winning the presidency in 2012.

The Clintons are notoriously selfish. And that trait is on full display now.

Elizabeth Nicolson, Alexandria, Virginia USA

My only question is this: Why is the American public even allowing Clinton to run for ANY public office given the historic record and body trails (figurative and literal)? The ONLY position that Hillary's experience qualifies her for is head of the Soprano crime family. Both she and Bill should be treated as known child molesters trying to enter a playground and banned from even attempting to obtain ANY position that requires the public trust.

Dave, Tampa,

"I'm a right-winger to the extreme and I'd have no problem voting for a black man... so long as he was a CONSERVATIVE black man!! Good grief, is that so hard for you liberals to get through your heads?"

So what you're saying, Edward, is that the Democrats should attempt to win the votes of "right-wingers to the extreme" by nominating the *correct* black man? Thanks for the laugh. "We liberals" simply aren't interested in courting your vote at the expense of five or ten others, especially given that we're fairly certain you'll be pulling the lever for McCain in November anyway. Is that so hard for you to get through *your* head?

Wouldn't you be better off taking it up with your own party? It's not as though you don't have some solid options. Either Rice or Powell would be a formidable choice for VP.

And with that, I'll stop giving political advice to the loyal opposition.

Ethan, Palo Alto, CA

A lesson in delegates and super delegates: The MSM, for the purpose of supporting Barack Obama, would have you believe, only Super delegates get to exercise their own judgment in voting and that is somehow wrong, underhanded or a set up to steal the election from one or the other candidate. That is not true. Any delegate can exercise their own preference when they vote in Denver. A pledged delegate is expected to vote for the candidate they are pledged to; the superdelgate goes without any such expectations. Even when a superdelegate pledges support it can be rescinded; i.e., John Lewis. So when Barack Obama's house of cards fall and the MSM finally follows the leads of the Globe and the National Enquirer, and investigate this man, those delegates will be compelled to vote their consciouses, as the rules allow, and Obama will not be voted in, in Denver. You non-believers, haters and those ignorant of the rules (like me until I asked) check this out call the DNC 202-863-8000.

Truth, Florence, SC

Well it really doesn't matter for both of these junior Senators.

One who is a rookie and being promoted to death by our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack, Obama.

And the second......................well it's the Clinton's need I say more.

John McCain is the man.....................if only he had our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press promoting him as much as they promote Obama.

Allen Ridge, Annapolis, USA Md

"And, without debate, really, she is the single most divisive person in American political history, save Richard Nixon."

That figures..."without debate"...

"King W" is at the top of that "decisive list". He is the main reason we have the devisiveness in this country we are experiencing even before, and now, leading up to this current election.

yombio, Lancaster, OH

"Obama leads Clinton by nearly 600,000 in the number of votes cast to date, but trails her by 30,000 if the votes of the two “rogue” states are counted."

This is a false argument.
#1, you can't "count" Michigan because Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary got 300,000+ votes in Michigan but Obama got zero because his name wasn't on the ballot, though the "uncommitted" line got 40% and presumably hundreds of thousands of votes but they were not counted for Obama. That won't be able to stand as it's patently unfair. So take 300,000+ votes off Hillary's total or add roughly the same to Obama's total.
#2, the popular votes from Washington, Maine, Nevada and Iowa have not been calculated yet (they were caucuses). Obama won 3 of 4 so once those votes are calculated, his popular vote lead will grow from the roughly 600,000 it is now.
Bottom line: She can't catch up.

Lisa, New York,

According to The New York Times of today's date (9 March) Hilary Clinton leads with 65 to 61 delegates, with the caucus delegates "To be determined." I would say that a victory at the polls had more credence than a caucus where aggressive tactics may be used to coerce those in attendance.

David Cunard, Los Angeles, United States

Why even count delegates if the Super Delegates will determine who the democratic nominee will be?????

mary, slidell, louisiana

It is interesting that Obama's camp are playing the race card - "..preventing the first black president" - and yet should anyone else mention the issue it is some srot of creim - and when Hillary 'plays the female card' she is acting underhandly.

Let's be honest - no-one gets to this position and is a nice person - NO-ONE.

dominic, Teddington, UK,

What is wrong w/ Democrat voters? How can they fall for the disingenuous bombast of Hillary Clinton? She is not experienced or tested in anything more than beating the wolves back from her doorstep about lies, scandals, political missteps and abuse of power. And, without debate, really, she is the single most divisive person in American political history, save Richard Nixon.
HRC's penchant to cause divisiveness is what really ought to scare Democrats, thrill Republicans, and cause deep deoression for any American who believes this election is going to turn The American ship around. Wake up, Democrats, don't be taken for a false Clinton Thrill Ride again!!

Doug, New York, NY

According to the Wall Street Journal Sen. Obama emerged from Texas's unique primary-and-caucus system with at least five more delegates than Sen. Clinton, even though she won the popular vote. They say that anomaly reflects the party's rules for allocating delegates proportionate to the candidates' votes in certain districts.

Since the purpose of this election was to aquire delegates how can Clinton be considered the winner in Texas?

Gene Bryant, Granbury, Texas

I'm amazed at the number of people who are WILLING to allow a candidate to RESCIND A RULE in order to gain.

The supporters of Hillary Clinton WANT a leader of the world with THAT type of character. Imagine what ELSE Hillary will do once elected-----INCLUDING what she will not do for her supporters once they've supported her.

EVIDENCE---Research what Hillary has done to the people of the states, of which she lost during the campaign----YET, OBVIOUSLY she had supporters.

Gregory, Cincinnati, US/OH

Further proof that the media is certainly not favoring or cuddling Obama. It was a myth when it was being put forth by a comedy show and the Clinton camp.

Want exact proof? If it were Obama that were 100 delegates behind Clinton right now the press would be reporting that it was over.

This is NOT a fair contest. Clinton is still in this on name and the fact that a year ago she was the assumed candidate. When ALL states were given a choice they chose change. Real change not words. Change such as college tuition to all citizens which will in turn require them to serve the public through a choice of charity work.

There is much more content. I am a lifelong Republican and have NEVER supported any candidate so steadfastly. If he can win over this Southern white boy there must be some content.

The Republicans are loving this though. My friends rejoice at the fact that Clinton will take out Obama with her negativity and they feel that can return the favor to her easily :(

Eric, Ayden, NC USA

I'm fairly certain that Mrs Clinton did not 'win' Texas. Obama won the caucuses and won a majority of the delegates. Perhaps the press should, oh I don't know, fact check?

GNelson, Seattle, WA

Please stop repeating the meme that Hillary Clinton won 3 out of 4 states last week.
She did NOT win Texas: after counting all the votes, primary + caucus, Obama came out the winner, with 5 more delegates there than Clinton.

Clinton and Obama each won two states (one large and one small), and now Obama has just taken Wyoming quite comfortably. That's not exactly a big stop to Obama's winning streak. You cannot seriously say that "Once again, Hillary is the comback kid", as I see in your slide show title.

Donna, Rome, Italy

Clinton didn't win texas, Obama won the caucus and therefore gained more delegates...the media is failing to report this. Rush Limbaugh was urging republicans to vote for Clinton as she is a weaker opposition to Mccain and many republicans switched over...and this has gone unnoticed and unchallenged. Hillary may act smug thinking shes getting her momentum back but in reality most of those voters will vote for Mccain in november....and if she continues to act the way she has she will continue to alienate her own supporters.
I hope this forthcoming peter paul trial helps put the clintons back in their place and finally reveal the truth about their shady deals.

clare, new york, NY

It’s long overdue of America to properly assume the global position and dynamics that modern history, when viewed by any fair minded and well intentioned person, should expect of such a great nation originally forged from all corners of the globe.

McCain, by a mile, appears the person most likely to affect this and teach America the lesson England learnt a while ago; you cannot please all the people all of the time so simply do what you measure to truly be best for LIFE.

Ian Wilkinson, Foshan, China

It's silly to say that Obama's momentum has been blunted by the elections last Tuesday. Rather, one should say "Wow! Look how incredibly far he has come to do that well."

Before Iowa, who would ever have believed he would be in the lead today. And, by the way, he hardly lost any ground at all in delegates last Tuesday, and may have done even better once Texas finally gets around to counting all the caucus ballots.

Pete, McLean, VA

I can't wait to be able to vote for Barack Obama!!!! And I am a college student and I know that he is the best guy for the job because after 8 years of BUSH anyone can do better. Mike us "young" people are going decide this election so you better just sit back & watch because change is a comin!!!

Steven, Huntington, WV, West Virginia

The press have failed to do their duty by letting the Clintons get away without explaining the gargantuan amounts of money they have accumulated since leaving office or the very questionable pardons Bill made just before leaving office.

The US and the world have had enough of the Bushs and Clintons. I've been a democrat all my life, but if the party nominates this unscrupulous pair of egomaniacs to run for the top job again, my vote will go to McCain.

Bob, Chicago, Illinois

Can you believe the gaul of the Clintons? Win at any cost. She may win but then you will see blacks and young voters stay home. Where is the "leadership" in the Democratic party? Where is screaming Howard Dean? Where is Ms Pelosi? Where is Al Gore? At least Bill Brady has the statesmanship to say whats going on. I hope for his sake she doesn't win or he will have his tax returns audited for eternity.

jeff, cincinnati,

Rove is a unpaid advisor to McCain and does not have to deal with the baggage his previous client had back is 2004 (but still won however).

I would be very worried regardless of who is the Dem nominee if I were a Democrat. Look, its just my 2 cents; don't hate me for being correct. :->

Gerry Linkletter, Tuxedo, USA/New York

Electing Obama would be like taking a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds one day and make him the CEO the next. If we want a motivational speaker as president there are many better, let's get Zig Ziegler or Tony Robbins on the ballot. What all these "young" people don't realize is that us older people were once young. The older and wiser you become the more you understand that in your college days you really didn't know anything.

Mike, Newnan,

I can't believe people are buying into this Hillary come back thing. If Hillary, a former first lady, with Clinton's name, and establishment 's support, has to work this hard to beat supposedly an obscure candidate like Obama, it's no brainer, she is a very weak candidate. How can she match up to McCain? don't the dems get it?

Lily, Wooster, Ohio

1.Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic party. No Dem should be endorsing McCain or praising him. This is scorched earth terrorism.

2. Hillary is a LOSER who has only won 14 states. Going against McCain with onyl 14 states?? Pure idiocy.

3. Obama will grow the party with his coattails and new voters. More importantly, he has a big lead and she can't catch up!

4. If Hillary tried to maneuver a backroom THEFT of the nomination after losing, it would mean civil war. Blacks are THE core constituency of the party and are by far the most loyal, voting 9-1 for Democrats. They are not going to allow the first black in history to have it stolen, in a throw back to Jim Crow-like disenfranchisement. The DNC is not this stupid. They would lose blacks and the youth and be damaged for a generation. And for what? Because won egomaniac woman doesn't have the character to lose gracefully?

Joan W., Phila, PA, USA

Obama will win the pledged (voted for) delegate count and the popular vote will be very close going one way or the other. The superdelegates will hand the nomination to Clinton saying she is the person who can beat McCain--in their estimation.

Our black population will see the Democratic Party for what it is and they will be the deciding factor in electing John McCain over Hillary Clinton. It is about time they abandoned the Democratic Party as the dems have done nothing buy give them lip service for years and years.

Obama I could vote for, but never another Clinton. It will be McCain instead of Clinton.

MikeinOhio, Canfield, Ohio

Why are so many for Obama, yet the media favors Clinton lately? Who gives a rip if she's won CA, TX & OH. They're going democratic in November regardless of which candidate is on the ticket (except TX--which will be a lot closer with Barack against McCain). Why doesn't the media bring that to light? That's not an argument at all. Barack is much stronger against McCain than Clinton. Clinton thinks she deserves the presidency.

Laffincrow, Battle Creek, MI

The thing I don't understand is how the democratic party is going to allow itself to be manipulated by the republicans yet again. It seems obvious to me that the republicans have decided their only real chance of keeping the whitehouse next year is by keeping Hillary Clinton viable as long as possible or if they are real lucky having her as the actual nominee.

I won't be surprised at all when we find out all of her new success in raising money is traced back to republican donors instead of actual democrats. As a person who votes for both parties on occasion I do consider myslef a moderate, I'm definetly tired of this country's politics, I have hoped Obama would be given a chance to change the dynamics of how things work, I'm getting this sick feeling its not going to happen now.

If I were Obama's advisors I would be quietly telling the democratic establishment that Obama will run for president as an independent if he gets screwed out of the nomination, maybe someone then will decide to get this mess over with and stop allowing the nomination process to be manipulated.

Jeff, Martinsville, IN

any obama supporter that threatens to stay home in november is not a supporter of democracy, rather a spoiled brat who didn't get their shiny apple. go take your non-vote and move to china or north korean.

abe, ny, ny

In kenya where Obama's father hailed from, we had an election stolen last december. The tactics used by those who stole elections here in kenya is very similar to disturbing reports coming from the us elections. Of course when such things as stolen elections are hear, many people dismiss it as the third world problem. But isnt the disputed American election in 2000, the wired tactics of the clinton dynasty who think that americans vote for Hillary is right are using very third world. Whatever he strenghes are arent the american people tired of the sordid scandals of the clinton era?

Ahmed A., nairobi, kenya

I am a lifelong Democrat who once respected and liked Hillary. Now I would not vote for her under any circumstances. Even worse than her dishonesty and viciousness is her tactic of accusing the gentlemanly Obama of the very tactics she herself is employing. This sort of crazy-making distortion of reality is vintage Rove. I cannot bear to see it return to the White House. I will vote for Nader or stay home before I vote for Hillary. She makes Lady Macbeth look like Lady Bird.

Allison, Los Angeles, USA

As useual more whining about Obama and super delegate votes.No where anywhere does it say a simple majority of pledged delegates wins anything.
Seems Mr Obama had no idea he could win so had no plan for supers, now he finds he cant get enough pledged delegates so he wants to change the rules and have supers made irrelevant and his whining supporters moan they wont vote in Nov, I though Mr Obama was going to bring us all together ?, he cant unite the Dem party but he can bring in the GOP...yeah right

Pimpernel, Zebulon, nc

Florida and Michigan must be heard! That's Hillary's cry. But at the same time the hypocrite knows that in order for her to win, the popular vote and the delegate votes must be ignored. The supers will have to give it to her. Billary world. Two sets of rules.

Greg , Greenville, KY

The Democrat Party has done so much pandering to racial minorities over the past few decades that whites are now at a risk of being marginalized within that party. If Obama is nominated it will be difficult to ever nominate a white candidate in the future. That is the real fear. Blacks are no longer satisfied with being tokens and symbols within the Democrat Party, I'm a Republicans and fortunately we have not laid this trap for ourselves by getting involved with race.

Mike, USA,

I was not at all surprised by the vote in Ohio. Some white people would rather vote for a person that is glaringly divisive and dirty as long as the person is white. It is a real shame.

Speaking for myself and probably many others, if Hillary wins the nomination and there is a perception that it was not fair and square, a lot of Obama voters will either urge him to run as an independent or stay at home come November. I am also worried that a lot of rioting etc. will take place and split the party.

Garba Maigoro, Kennesaw,

How dare anyone inject race into these elections!

I mean nine out of ten blacks are NOT voting for Barak Obama just because he's black. It would be ludicrous to even suggest such a thing!

And as far as whites not voting for Barak Hussein Obama? He just cleaned Hllary's clock in Wyoming and there's probably ten blacks in the whole state so drop it!

Mike O'Brien, seattle, wa

Bradley is right, the Clinton's will stop at nothing to win. I truly believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton forgot what they were working for along the way. Back in the 1970s will Hillary was helping out on the Watergate hearings as a young lawyer I believe they were sticking to their principles, and focusing on what they believe.

After years in politics, perfecting spin, and tearing opponents to shreds I believe they have lost their bearing. They no longer have that little voice telling them the difference between right and wrong. There seems to be a belief in Camp Clinton that nothing is off limits, and unethical behavior is acceptable as long as it gets you to your overall goal. The problem is, other than winning, I don't believe they really understand what that goal is anymore.

Rough Air, Dayton, Ohio

The libs should be happy. Extreme left wing libs running for the dem nomination and just a lib running for the GOP nod. The American people will be the biggest loser in the long run. Never thought there were enough brain dead people in this republic. How has our choice for president come down to these three people. Shame......

Eugene Boyanton, Picayune, MS

People blame Clinton for saying that Obama may be not a good Commander in Chief, diminishing his chances in the general election.

On the other side, the Obama campaign yells since months that Clinton is a liar, corrupt, old Washington, a bad bad girl etc. What the hell else will that do but diminishing her chances in the general election? There is an amazing high level of double standard in this campaign. Calling a honoroured member of the own party, which gets the damn half of all the votes of the Party-members and which represents the democrats of New York, a "monster" is not just a slip. This is just a longtime strategy (to portray Hillary Clinton as the evil, bad blackhearted women from 101 Dalmatines or the like) which got a bit out of control.

Obama tries to use very old stereotypes about women and all the comments here and at other places show that it works. Elizabeth I, Thatcher, Merkel, Indira Ghandi, Bhutto all got the same image, I guess its genetic and not mysogynism

Fairfis, Bern, Switzerland

I think Mrs Clinton sees herself as running mate to MacCain. She knows she wont win against Obama but she must rubbish him sufficiently for the Republicans to win without a fight against him. Mrs Clinton is setting the Democratic party and America back decades by stocking divisions among Blacks and Latinos, Whites and Blacks, women and men at a time when democrats need to unte against the dangerous wave of conservatism that will in the long run destroy America if unchecked.

peter Wamulungwe, Gaborone, Botswana

obama is screwed, the party leadership pretty much all owe their positions to the clintons. they will swing the nomination for her.

zulu taruza, leipzig, germany

Sycophantic piece - No mention of Obama's recent wins, nor of the fact that it will be almost impossible for HRC to gain the majority of state delegates.

Shame on you

Mike, Cape Town,

Republicans need Obama to win. McCain v. Obama is a much better scenario than McCain v. Clinton.

Paul, Boca Raton, FL

It amazes me that people don't remember the miracle economy and relative peace we had in the 90s. It was like a paradise compared to the hell of the last 8 years.

AND I have to remind the newbies here that this is not a complete democracy. It's a slightly democratic republic.

In the General Election, the electoral votes are ALL-OR-NOTHING unlike the proportionate delegate vote that we are seeing in the Democratic Primary. Here Clinton is a powerhouse, winning just about ALL the Big states.

You can worship Obama if you want, but he is just a politician too, doing some nasty things too.

I think Team Clinton is the best in the General Election and the best for the economy.

Position-wise they aren't that different. And either one would be better than McBush.

Glen vanGogh, Linwood, NJ

People will take to the streets if Hillary steals the election. Forget monster she is the Queen of Mean.

Christine, Boston, Ma

Lets compare which Obama and HRC won.
I have left out MI, as that is disputed.

WA-Obama
OR-
CA-Clinton
MN-Obama
WI-Obama
IL-Obama
MI-
PA-
DC-Obama
MD-Obama
NJ-Clinton
NY -Clinton
CT-Obama
MA-Clinton
VT-Obama
NH-Clinton
DE-Obama
ME-Obama
So- Obama gets 10 states
Clinton gets 5 states
So you tell me who is winning 'blue' states.

Jake Katz, Hong Kong, China

If 70 % of Blacks are voting for Obama, then isn't fair that whites do the same and vote their race, for Clinton? Why are blacks aloud to vote race (and not be questioned about it) and not whites? It is obvious that blacks are voting for Obama because he is black. Whites should be proud of their race (as blacks are) and vote Clinton.

HillarySupporter, Hemstead/N.Y.,

There's a huge difference between being tough and well to quote Ms. Power a "monster".
Even Dick Nixon didn't stoop to the levels that these 2 pieces of garbage (aka The Clintons) are willing to stoop to. (At least he had his hacks to do his outrageous dirty tricks.)
Ms. Samantha Power should have apologized NOT to the wicked witch: Hillary Rotten Clinton. Barack and Samantha should however apologize to all monsters.
Similarly, I should apologize to GARBAGE and all WICKED WITCHES!

HR, Charlotte, NC/USA

If super delegates and the Clintons steal this nomination, I and every other caring Obama supporter will stay home in November. But, like the article says, theirs is a short term vision. They could care less about what they are doing to the party....as long as they win.

I am beginning to realize that there is real substance as to why so many people hate her.

john, Colorado Springs, USA

Obama has my vote. Hillary Clinton will never get my vote. Even if Obama is on the ticket. She is the worst thing possible for America. She only cares about winning and only about her resume.

David, Los Angeles, CA

I"m a right-winger to the extreme and I'd have no problem voting for a black man... so long as he was a CONSERVATIVE black man!! Good grief, is that so hard for you liberals to get through your heads?

Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Clarence Thomas....

Get it?

Edward, Houston,

It was the Clinton team that approached the Canadians to reassure them. The Canadians contacted Obama's team, and they re-iterated what he's been saying in public (parts of Nafta should be re-negotiated).

Jason, Tacoma, WA

African-Americans will be more than "horrified" if Barack Obama wins the popular vote, even if by a small margin, and the pledged delegate race but lose the nomination in the back room.

Maybe they'll take note of the fact that there have been 28 years of Republican presidents in the 44 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and no one has tried to repeal it.

Black voters punished the Republican for nominating Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Dems better watch out. If they screw Obama out of the nomination, they might face the same thing themselves. Goldwater, by the way, supported the aims of the civil rights act, but thought it ought to be left to the state to work it out.

Subsequent history tells us that it (the end of legal racial segregation) would have happened eventually, but with much more disruption and violence over several decades.

Goldwater to the contrary, the 14th Amendment congress gave congress the power to pass this law.

Mike F, Tacoma, WA, USA

I think that it is pretty clear that Clinton is counting on the bigot vote. The codeword for the bigot vote is working-class-whites. She actively appeals to their fears, with full knowledge of what she is doing. Political correctness will prevent this obvious truth from getting air time.

Fred, York, PA

Hillary Clinton has not "unnerved" anyone -- least of all the cool and calm Barack Obama. I cannot speak for the candidate I support, but she has started to disgust me with her "win at all cost" attitude.

Rebecca, Nokesville, USA

The popular vote argument is stupid. You can not compare votes from caucuses to votes from primaries. They are two totally different things. Look at Colorado and Oklahoma. Clinton won the raw vote count of these two combined states by 60,000. However, Obama won the bluer, more popular state (Colorado by 35%) and Clinton won the smaller, more red state by 25%. Do it make sense to say she got a mandate from these two states? Of course not. That is because one was a caucus and one was a primary. You are comparing apples and oranges......

Russell, Bloomington, IL

There's plenty of insulting sentiments in this article. although I give it credit for one thing: pointing out Clinton's "contrived" Southern drawl. This is a bizarre trait of hers that deserves to be mentioned--and it speaks to the level of her campaign strategy.

bob , san francisco , california

"It's also highly insulting to say that some conservative white Americans 'aren't ready' to vote for a black person. -Bob, Burns, WY"

Why is that insulting? It's true.

It's insulting that you use political correctness to avoid confronting the truth. If you deny the existence of the problem, it may make you feel better, but it will prevent reconciliation.

This kind of PC nonsense is the downfall of the left - and I'm pretty liberal myself.

Alex, San Francisco, CA

NO obama.......This guy sounds like a black richard nixon. he does not inspire he frightens

bill jones, n.soo city, union/sd

One of the reason's she won the Texas primary is the mass numbers of republicans who turned out to vote for her. The theory goes that republican John McCain can beat Clinton, but not Obama. The democratic primary process turned farcical.

Charles, Dallas, Texas, USA

A candidate like Obama comes along once in a generation. One can only hope Americans will have the courage to vote for him, and not give into Hilary's fear tactics. what's so wrong with Hope?
what so wrong with not wanting to run a dirty campaign. This is the guy we've been waiting for.

Zack, New Brunswick, NJ

"FRESH from her victories in three out of four states last week..."

I can accept the fact that this fiction is being prepetuated by the US media, but I generally expect better from the UK.

The primary process is measured by how many delegates you get. Obama got more delegates in Texas. I fail to understand how that translates to a 'win' for Clinton.

Kevin Atkinson, Seattle, WA

Hillary LOST TEXAS! As of the final count after the Tx caucus Hillary DID NOT win the delegate count, Obama won with 98 delegates to Hillary at 95 or less. She didn't even win the popular vote total.


ONCE AGAIN THE MEDIA FAILS TO CORRECT ITSELF AND PUSHES ERRONEOUS INFORMATION AS FACT.

Siren, Bay Area, Ca

Sure if you count Michigan she'd cut down Obama's lead considerably... because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

If they revote (and that's a big if) Clinton might still win Michigan, but it'll be close. Close enough that she won't make up much ground at all.

Rob, Indianapolis, IN

Hillary Clinton belong to neo-socialist ‘elements’. That's why she want to win US presidency at ANY cost.

The rich US neo-socialist ‘elements’ were capable of thinking, planning, starting and are carrying on an illegal ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan and Iraq to siphon of millions and millions of US taxpayer’s dollars for the sole benefit of arms manufacturers, oil traders and the security firms. It already had cost the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,500 US tropes, injured 200,00 Iraqi civilians and 75,000 US tropes and more than 2,000,000 displaced Iraqi refugees. They simply linked 9/11 to Afghanistan and then WMD to Iraq for initiating this illegal ‘war on terror’ moneymaking horror.

Uma Shankar, UK,

It's also highly insulting to say that some conservative white Americans 'aren't ready' to vote for a black person.

Bob, Burns, WY

It's highly insulting in this article to state that African-Americans will be horrified if the super delegates vote Clinton in if she doesn't get the popular vote. Anyone with a value on democracy would cringe at this tactic. Mrs Clinton should be ashamed of her desperation

AnneMarie, Cork,