Absolutely great news! Just two days ago, the press was shouting about Clinton being down and out across the nation, but she has claimed the biggest states in the union — Michigan, Florida, New York, and California. There should be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is still in this race!

Just two days ago, Obama was ahead by 10% in California — tonight, Clinton has once again proven that her message transcends polls.

Now I can go to bed with a smile after hearing Hillary won California and the most important states in the nation. Once again, substance win over charisma and glitter.

jay, what poll was obama 10% ahead in? I really find this expectations game really annoying.

I’m going to wait until Wednesday for the official tally and not the forecast.

I am soooo glad that Hillary won California and the other states that are rich in delegates. It’s a good night and I hope tomorrow is even better!!

HRC lost Missouri, a key bellweather state. And she has not been the underdog. She is being beaten by an unknown. She is the one who cannot reach cross-sections of the nation. Obama’s states may be smaller but are you really prepared to discount the message that is sent when he wins a majority of states from all over. Change is in the air. Billary will not be revived -even if she, God forbid, beats Obama, she cannot beat McCain. Here’s to a democratic nominee who can win the general election: Obama.

ps FL and MI were not real races(no campaigns and no delegates) and will not be counted. Stop cheating HRC and her supporters!

*over? I should add that at 30% reporting, CA is not in the bag. I hope when I wake up, the AP has to eat crow again! (see MO)

pls, vote us :
http://www.jurnale.ro/concurs/index.php?pag=61&poza_id=1973&action=vote

HRC winning CA, NY, MA, NJ is really not the story. A Democrat will win those states regardless of the candidate. The electoral votes are the same whether they win by one vote or a million. What is significant is that Obama won most of the mountain, middle and southern states where the electoral votes may be up for grabs. Obama has shown that he is a sure winner throughout the country; HRC hasn’t.

Jim K, Clinton winning CA, NY, MA, NJ would be huge in any election. Stop devaluing Clinton’s wins. Obama did well in many states that are known Republican and in caucuses.

I don’t know how much through the country you get when you win CA, NY, MA, NJ, AR, TN, FL, MI, AZ…

These are all states, I remind you, that swing either way in an election. They also count for a massive part of the electorate. Clinton won many of them by over 10% of Obama. You cannot discount them because Obama won in every caucus.

i am a conservative republican but i am willing to support a moderate GOP nominee for president. the moderates in our party have supported our conservative candidates in the past; it is just fair that we support the moderate candidates of our party now as well.

the choice between “principle” and “party” has no place in this discussion. think of what would have happened with our conservative candidates had the moderate wing of our party been guided by the same “choice”.

it is not right to say to the moderate wing: “vote for us but don’t expect us to vote for you”. if the moderate nominee wins “fair and square”, then i will have no problem voting for him.

Jay,

I’m not “devaluing” Hillary’s wins in CA, NY, MA, NJ. My point was clearly that these are strong Democrat states which either candidate will win in the general election. Most are certainly not, as you put it, “all states that swing either way”. It certainly helps enormously to win those states, but Gore won CA, MA, MI NJ and NY and still didn’t win.

However, my point was that Obama has shown a broader appeal in many potential swing states which may be necessary for a Democratic victory. Witness 2000 - it doesn’t take much to swing the election one way or the other. I think the Democrats will most likely win with either HRC or Obama, but I believe Obama now has the broader appeal with all voters and is the “safer” candidate. Against McCain, the polls (if one can believe any of them anymore) consistently show Obama winning and HRC neck-and-neck or losing. After all, it’s not just how many Democrat votes you can get in the primaries, but how many independents, and even Republicans, you can get in the general election.

Go Clinton!!!!
Hillary has a plan and a good one. Change is Obamas word, but in the end Hillary is the one who has the plan for change. Obama has no plan just words many speek change but have no plan. Hillary has one that will work. She can make the biggest change here as she has already helped run the country and knows how it works. She can bring us back. This is how I see it and I believe that Hillarys CHANGE is better than Obamas and she can bring us back.
Jaime

While i agree either Dem is a much better choice than the Rep’s are offering is HRC really going to change anything, she has been in politics for “35″ years now and all of a sudden she is now speaking of change, i am reminded of an old saying ” you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. And what about electability, Obama can stand much firmer on many more issues against the republican’s than can HRC ie Iraq, tax cuts, outsourcing american jobs.

I am not one to normally post comments escpecially political, but i feel that people need to understand that if positive change is what they want Obama is the only choice, otherwise Washington will stay the same for 4 more years no matter whom you vote for.

I am amazed by the amount of people who claim to have so much knowledge with regards to which candidate is better suited to lead this country. Yet everyone forgets one large piece of the equation and that is the fact unless either person is able to work with Congress and get them to put aside their bickering differences to get something done we could vote Mickey Mouse into office and it still wouldn’t matter.
Just ask yourself this simple question: Is it not congress that has the powers to draft legislation and determine the budgets and polices for which the President must decide to accept or reject. So if they are not able to work together and the last time I looked they had a lower rating then Bush has now, so who is best equipped to lead this country and to bring unity to our Government?

I have talked and listened to numerous people and have read a number of media articles regarding their decision to support Hillary and have come up with some of those reasons why. These are in no particular order;
1) Because she is a woman and this may be the only time in my life to see a woman President.
2) Because of the Clinton Administration during the nineties.
3) Because Bill Clinton will be there to help her.
4) Because the Clinton name recognition.
5) Because of her experience as First Lady.

So now answer the following using this scenario;
1) Bill Clinton was never President or that she was ever First Lady.
2) She was not named Clinton simply Hillary Rodham.
3) Disregard any allegations of scandals.

1) Would she have even run for the Senate?
2) Would you even know who she was?
3) Would she still have the experience or ability to be President?
4) If the only thing she had done was be a Senator on her own namesake would she still be the best choice?
5) If there was not the war going on and we didn’t have the financial crisis, with only her personal experience would she still be your choice?
After answering these questions and looking at her opponent based on his credentials, would your decision be the same?

Because I have found that other then voting solely on the fact that she is a woman, there is not that much of a difference and some have even changed their minds. So I would like to hear your thoughts.

I love it. All the Dems here are arguing over which is better. A blowhard liberal whose only plan is to raise taxes and give more to those who do nothing for the economy, or a blowhard liberal who would raise taxes even more to give more to those who do nothing for the economy. The nice thing about collectivists is that while they are universally mentally challenged, at least they are consistent.

[...] HRC wins CA, MO Still Up In the Air? [...]

Hillary Clinton would get my vote, no matter what….
Why? Because she has a better plan to do great things for our country and she has the ability to do it! She will be fair to all of us, not just a chosen group of people. She will bring change for the better for this country. I only hope she will be strong on security in and around this country and border control.
Obama will take too much time getting started in the White House, to learn the ropes….and…he simply doesn’t explain himself to the American people…he would make a good preacher or a great cheer leading coach but he needs to get his feet wet and we need to know more about him before he is given the high office of our land…I think we have enough to “worry” about in our country today than to add one more by electing him our President!

Cee Coughlin;

One thing you are forgetting is it doesn’t matter what promises a candidate makes, what matters is who can get congress to believe in those plans and get them passed.
Any candidate can promise you the moon and stars, but it comes back to congress because like or not they have the power to get things done. So one must ask themselves which candidate is better suited to work along with the other party to get things done for the American people in place of their own personal agendas. This could be the very reason why Obama isn’t targeting specifics or making promises on his plans, rather he is expressing his ideas. Until the members put forth budgets that don’t include wasteful spending and stick to the issue at hand nothing will change other then the name plate on the desk in the oval office.