Clinton ends campaign, urges supporters to work to elect Obama

DanManjt:

But all that is water under the bride.

Must've been a shotgun wedding! LOL!

Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)

SezWho2:

The only things liberal about the US media is that journalists tend to be educated, are usually capable of critical analysis and tend to vote Democratic.

If they were truly capable of "critical analysis", you would think they would see how and why the socialist policies of the modern American leftist are designed to fail, just as they have when implented anywhere else in the world. Maybe it's because -like leftist politicians- they feel they have to pander to certain demographics so people will like them. Or maybe it's because -like leftists themselves- they've changed the definition of "critical analysis" to 'spinning the truth to justify one's preconceived notions'. Changing a definition is common practice for leftists.

If you'd like a true critical analysis, look to an expert on the subject instead of a newscaster with a God complex. On economic policies, for example, check with a noted economist. Somebody like, say, Thomas Sowell.

Democrats themselves are not liberal. They tend to be conservative of the principles embedded within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Really? Where in the DoI or BoR are "progressive" federal taxes and wealth redistribution called for? Gun control? Partial-birth abortion 'rights'? the National Endowment of the Arts? Labor unions? The carbon credit scam?

But you're right that modern American Democrats are not liberal in the traditional sense of the term. A more accurate term would be leftist. Others would be socialist, Marxist, communist, collectivist, etc.

SushiSake3:

Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party.

And we all know it's more important to feel good about ourselves than to have a safe country with a strong economy.

Yeesh.

How many of those donors are employed by lobbyists? How many of those registering Democrat in the primaries were actually Republicans doing so to drag out the process? If Obama has generated so much excited, how come Hillary still got more votes?

Even though Hillary is pledging her support to Obama, enough of her supporters have promised to vote for McCain or practice electoral abstinence (Like that one? I just made it up.) that any attempts at predicting the general election would still be premature. Similarly, there were many Obama supporters who likewise promised to stay home on election day. Notice that they didn't threaten to vote for McCain. Considering each DNC candidate's demographics, one could suggest that middle-aged white women are more open-minded than blacks and college students. But then, one might be labeled a sexist or racist for doing so. Such is the trap of identity politics as created by the superficial PC left.

Back on the GOP side, many conservatives have threatened to stay home on election day in protest of their party being represented by someone who sides with Teddy Kennedy on too many issues. Which makes wonder how Democrat voters could be so opposed to McCain and, in turn, opposed to George W. Bush, since they've alleged that McCain would be a "third Bush term".

Considering the scale of threatened protest votes on each side, we could be seeing a low turnout. The critical vote would then be decided by the illegal aliens registered to vote by the DNC at last year's protest rallies.

...

Superlib, thanks very much for the small print LOL! :-)

The money game has yet to play out, Sushi. Clinton and Obama were neck and neck in a race for their lives. McCain already had the nomination in his pocket. Obviously Clinton and Obama supporters felt more of a sense of urgency than McCain supporters did. We really won't know how the donations will play out until the coming months. I'm betting that Obama will do better but it won't be $685 million to $75 million. We need to wait a little bit before conclusions can be made.

The above is just a statement about the comments you made. It is in no way an endorsement of anything or anyone at all including, but not limited to, McCain, Republicans, NeoCons, President Bush, the War in Iraq, the current economic situation in the US, the price of gas, the Phoenix lander, Iran, the strength of the dollar, or anything else, either real or imagined. The above was written by an Obama supporter and a lifelong Democrat.

Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party."

this is the truest statement you have made to date. 1.5 million small donors, means he can go back to them again and again until they reach the legal limit.

Sen. McCain is in a very shaky position.

Obama raked in $385-odd million through May. Clinton pulled in $300-odd million.

McCain eked by with $75-odd million.

Combine Obama's amount with Clinton's ability to pull in money and McCain should start looking at shutting down his campaign before the tsunami hits it.

The big factor here is - when you combine the fundraising abilities of the two Democrats, they are going to be able to blanket more states with more adverts than McCain, who, as I am led to believe, agreed to draw from State funds, which limits his fundraising capabilities.

Another couple of very interesting things...

1/ When McCain became the Republican nominee, there was no major spike in his fundraising. It was almost as if Republicans just weren't excited about the old guy, or his prospects.

Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party.

The second point is connected to the first point and that is that because of the above point, "special interests" will very likely have less pull over an Obama administration because special interests are not likely to be the big time donors. It's the hundreds of thousands of small time donors who are - collectively - showing Obama most of the money.

And then, of course, there is the question of Sen. McCain's age.

He's not young, you know....

HRC should say no to the VP and Obama should not offer it to her. Hillary and Bill have waaaay too much baggage, and both are involved in a civil case that could potentially go criminal (campaign fraud) for HRC. Obama does not need such liabilities and further, Bill and Hill would be a nightmare in office and harder to stop, control or stifle as the DNC had with HRC this time. The two are just a nightmare and most of us, don''t want to see it. Only HRC supporters want the VP because they want a consolation prize, if they can''t get the Presidency. But this is not a game show--above HRC getting in office, there are the ramifications of her style of governing, bumping head in an ugly way with Obama''s intent on change.

Most of Sen. Clinton's supporters will "come home" to the Democratic nominee come November - McCain's support for a continued presence in Iraq and free trade and his opposition to abortion will see to that. But McCain may be able to peel away a significant minority of the disaffected, or keep them on the sidelines. Depite the efforts of Sen. Obama and the Dems to paint him as Bush, Sen. McCain's an altogether different sort of Republican with the potential for cross-over appeal. What's more he knows that he's not going to be able win by simply rallying his base a ala GWB. Hispanics, whites, women, blue collar workers and Catholics who could have been reliably counted on to pull the lever for Clinton may give McCain a look if he makes a decent outreach.

Obama's got to guard against the kind of hubris that toppled Clinton. His recent comment that he'll be president come the the 2012 Olympics should be setting off alarm bells.

Hillary only suspended her campaign, because that way she can continue to collect campaign contributions. Her campaign is indebt. If she ends her campaign, she can not collect any more funds; as I understand it."

You mean she can still collect fund? I was not aware of that. How do you raise fund for a campaign after it is known you are not going to win?

Also, what is she going to say when she is asked about that infamous commercial she ran about waking up at 3am in the morning?

I understand Obama would like to get her supporters, but I still think staying away from her is the best thing.

Now, in order for Obama to catch those independent voters, he is going to have to come up with some sort of accepted flip flop on Iran and the war in Iraq. As many independents do seem to have a concern about Islamic Terrorism and Islamic lead countries posing a threat. Most of them pro-Israel, most like the idea of not having a law to ban guns but very few are conservative where as they are pro-choice, non-religious, and tilt to anti-affirmative action and race based quotas, are concerned about taxes going up and think about crime in their neighborhoods as a major problem, and are also seemingly anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants..

What is the current count of independents? Will they have an impact? Perhaps Obama or McCain could do better by choosing an independent for VP..

yabits - that was a good post

Gawd, the hate. I could start a fire with the heat.

Hillary only suspended her campaign, because that way she can continue to collect campaign contributions. Her campaign is indebt. If she ends her campaign, she can not collect any more funds; as I understand it.

When Hillary went in front of the American people and said she was backing Barack Obama was just as it was. She told the American people right there she wasn't running for the presidency anymore and she threw her support behind Obama.

But continue to spin. < :-)

RR - Romney only suspended his campaign as well, didn't he? But I doubt he's going to challenge McCain again, and I doubt Hillary is going to challenge Obama again - at least not until 2012.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her pioneering campaign for the presidency on Saturday..."

Hillary isn't giving up no matter what she says. She has changed her image like a chamelion changes color to match the background. There's a lot of time between now and late August. When more skeletons fall out of barack's closet, hillary will be there waiting in the wings.

Stay tuned.

RR

RomeoRamenII,

I'm not an American? When did that happen?

If you're not bitter, that's a good thing. Nonetheless, sarcasm and contempt will always look, sound and play bitter. Adages about ducks spring to mind.

There is no Lord Soros. The only things liberal about the US media is that journalists tend to be educated, are usually capable of critical analysis and tend to vote Democratic. Democrats themselves are not liberal. They tend to be conservative of the principles embedded within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And the DNC did change the rules, but it changed them in Hillary's favor. Had it not changed them, Hillary would have received no votes at all from the state which Obama withdrew from.

Sez,

Not bitter. Far from it. Just find it interesting that Lord Soros, the liberal U.S. media and the DNC kept telling hillary to bow out and she kept winning and won big. When that happened the rules were changed to prevent her for locking up the nomination. Example: obama gets 59 delegates in a state he himself withdrew from.

Being a non-American you're not expected to understand this concept, Sez, so let me help you better grasp this idea: It's like Paula, Randy and Simon choosing who the next "American Idol" should be.

RR

All anyone has to know is that the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are good.

That's a bit too simplistic. Conservatives tend to put a lot of faith in the "invisible hand" of the market. And when the hand condemns hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens to lives of poverty and despair, conservatives tend to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, that's just the way it goes." Kind of a Darwinian survivial of the fittest. On the positive side, conservatives talk a lot about personal responsiblity, which is good. (Unless and until their kids or their companies get into trouble; then, it's "bailout time.")

Liberals like Obama believe that a better outcome for more people can be achieved when human beings use their brains to engineer those outcomes, rather than leaving things to the capricious will of an "invisible hand." On the negative side is the law of unintended consequences. But rather than falling back on some doctrine, liberals adapt and change to the conditions.

Obama will save America, all hail Obama!

Obama will save the World, all hail Obama!

Obama will save the planet, all hail Obama.

How the Messiah goes about saving us from ourselves is still a mystery. He cares soooooo much for the common man, the weak, the forgotten its not really important.

All anyone has to know is that the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are good. The Democrats will finally restore a tax system to keep the gap between the rich and poor in check. The Democrats will now have an opportunity to control even more of the economy and provide people the ability to become even more entitled. We need a Health Care system ain the same vein as Social Security is to senior citizens and run as efficient as all other government programs.

All hail Obama!

A

RomeoRamenII,

It begins to look as though you are determined to be bitter. I hope not, though, as bitterness tends to make the world a worse place.

Yes, I heard the boos too. My most recent thought--since we are all speculating--was that perhaps Rush Limbaugh sent them. But, whatever, the boos were certainly not in the majority.

In such an emotional and tight campaign, I don't think it's realistic to expect people to immediately drop their loyalties. (I mean, why did people continue to vote for Huckabee after the nomination was a gimme for McCain?) However, that she was able to elicit majority approval for her endorsement of Obama seemed to me to be a rather good sign for hopeful Democrats.

Hillary surprised me. It was a fairly classy speech.

Maybe you're right ramen. Perhaps those boos coming from Sen. Clinton's supporters weren't in regard to her dropping out of the race. Perhaps, they were, as you implied, sending a message to "Lord Soros." Very astute of you.

No. Really.

Taka

Ah, but 13, if everyone was in the tank so deeply about obama as you then no one at the suspension speech would have been booing.

Unlike you, those booing don't buy into Lord Soros' taking over the democrat party.

RR

Loud boos competed with applause.

Did you ever think that perhaps the boos were in regards to Sen. Clinton dropping out of the race?

Never mind. Could have stopped typing after the 4th word. Answer would be the same.

Taka

Loud boos competed with applause.

But, but, but .... if you read/see everything approved by Lord Soros, everyone loves barack.

RR

In the end I think Obama and Clinton didn't really create too many problems. The attacks on each other could have been much, much worse.

Everything that comes out of hillary's mouth is a lie.

That would not make her unique. For a politician or a JT poster.

<strong>Moderator: Please keep the discussion civil. Implying that any JT poster is a liar is impolite.</strong>

Bingo,

Obama won because he ran a better campaign.

And more felt a better candidate.

But all that is water under the bride. As Hillay herself said this morning

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward."

Obama 08

This notion of there being a glass ceiling for women in this campaign is ridiculous. Hillery was just a whisper away from the nomination, and lost because Obama ran a smarter campaign based on change rather than the singular inherent redundancy of experience.

Hillery started by advancing the idea of being a candidate with the requisite experience who just happens to be a woman. Now she is saying that being a woman somehow had impaired her campaign and women need to continue to fight in order to shatter this glass ceiling. If ever there was a full circle we have seen it in her speech. Out the door went experience a central platform and in came the disadvantage of being a woman.

We have seen what experience has brought us, the collective assumed know how and political longevity that is contained in the experience of Bush, Rumsfeld and Chaney has led us to the untenable position we are in day.

It is the concept of change that defeated Hillery. The Clinton machine essentially had no answer to the grass roots organizational ability that turned to the web, where Obama had secured most of his campaign funding thus establishing a new paradigm in raising funs for political campaigns.

What we are witnessing is a dramatic shift in American political ethos, one that is more about the people rather than established corporate interests that have shaped American political outcomes in the last century. Obama will be regarded in history as providing the impetus for this change. We will be talking about him 50 years from now as the father of a new political awareness in America.

ramen,

Everything that comes out of hillary's mouth is a lie.

So, when Sen. Clinton said the following, was it a lie too?

I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House.

When shrieking points collide, tonight, on FOX!

Taka

How can you throw your support behind a megalomaniac buffoon like Obama?

Accepting the nomination the other day:

"...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."

Creepy.

The media's sacralization of this guy is going to his head.

Dananator - Everything that comes out of hillary's mouth is a lie.

RR

Clinton really gave her party what it and Obama what he needs:

So today, I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes we can.

Followed by, no less than five Dem platforms points, concluded with

That’s why we need to help elect Barack Obama our President.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7903

Way to go, Mrs. Clinton. You've done your party and our county a great favor today.

Clinton ... summoned supporters ... to put Barack Obama in the White House.

But, but, but .... during her campaign hillary stated that she and Mr. McCain were much more experienced to be the next president than obama. How is she now going to say he has the experience to be president without everyone knowing she's lying?

RR

taka - Is the button as big in your mind as the memory of the dotted line you said you signed fresh out of uni and against your own better judgement?

Now now delegate, are you asking me a question? You know the rules. You have to earn answers from me. You cannot fall back on your sense of entitlement in this case. You are taking a long time to learn this lesson.

Taka

What a shameless about-face.

OK, so you and a fellow soldier are in the same platoon, arguing over a girl. It gets really nasty, and you pretty much hate each other. Then the enemy comes in with both guns blazing, and you fight for your platoon.

Would that be a "shameless about face"?

Infighting does not alter the goal of the team. Infighting does not even effect the sincerity of the team's goal. Anyone with a mental age over 8 knows this.

On a personal note, I hate you with the burning intensity of 1000 suns for making me come to the defense of Hilary Clinton :P

What a shameless about-face.

Looks to me more like it's someone's first political campaign.

USNinJapan,

What a shameless about-face.

O.K., let's just say for a second, that is the case.

Where on the scale of about-faces would you put Sen. McCain's embrace of bush, the man whose campaign led people to believe that Sen. McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby and had impugned his military career? Would that be shameless as well or is it a not-quite shameless about-face?

Taka

This is interesting:

www.gop.com/clintonvsobama

How so? Did you expect her to urge her supporters to support McCain?

What a shameless about-face.