Gov. Rendell: Hillary Clinton may run again

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

DENVER — Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will probably run for president again despite failing to secure the Democratic nomination this year.

"Yeah, she wants to run again," Rendell told USA TODAY Sunday morning at the site of the Democratic National Convention.

Rendell was a Clinton supporter and campaigned with her throughout his home state. He said she clearly enjoyed the process and reached a comfort level with voters the longer she stayed on the road.

Rendell recalled a night in an industrial area south of Pittsburgh shortly before the state's primary when 2,500 supporters filled an outdoor amphitheater despite a downpour to rally for the New York senator. Moments like those, Rendell said, will propel her to run again.

"By the end of the campaign, when she had really connected with American voters, particularly working-class voters, I think she was having a great time," he said.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-rendell-denver_N.htm

---

STFU Fast Eddie - you're almost making me wish I had voted for Lynn Swann! Clinton lost! Get the F over it! Get behind Obama/Biden you big jerk!

Yeah I remember that rally in the rain. It was in my hometown of McKeesport. Great photo for Hillary! But I also remember she only stayed for 15 minutes! Now I'm not blaming her.

You're making me think Hillary and Bill are going for the 2012 scenario.

This and you're getting out there today and attacking MSNBC for being the "Obama network" tells me you're still stuck in the primaries.

You Fast Eddie if I need to remind you were the DNC chair when Gore lost the recount battle to W. Between you, Warren Christopher and Lieberman no wonder Gore lost the PR war in that one and hence let the 5 partisans in the Scotus steal the damn election. Look what you all brought us.

So again you need to STFU this week or get behind Obama/Biden 100%! You make me sick that you are my governor!

[bluestateguy]

1. If she helps Obama win, I will be open to supporting her in 2016

But if she does not, and Obama loses, I will remember in 2012 and in any future campaign she runs.

[roguevalley]

22. I'm sick of them all. All of them go away. What an awful thing to be

saying when this election is still to be finished. Asses. All of them.

[Igel]

45. In the general spirit of good will and collegiality here ...

What you're saying is if she helps and Obama loses, you'll bail from the 2012 election if your guy doesn't get the nod and cede the field to the repubs.

Or, if she doesn't help because Obama tells her to sit it out, and Obama loses, you'll bail from the 2012 election if your guy doesn't get the nod and cede the field.

Leaving on only way for her to win your support: Support your man this time. Then we can debate whether dems should get your vote next time, or you'll help let the repubs win it.

Remember: Obama is controlling his team as well as or better than * did, and is already apparently annoyed that he hasn't controlled it better. Transparency isn't operative in this campaign. If she sits it out, you have no way of knowing if she's doing what he wants or not.

If he wins, and she hurts his chances, it hurts hers in the future. If he loses, and she hurts his chances noticeably--not just possibly, or maybe, but something that actually has something more than innuendo and suspicion as it's "proof"--she hurts her chances.

As for Rendell, he's a supporter. Not necessarily a "surrogate"--unless you can prove that he's a wholly owned subsidiary. He's not a serf or boundsman.

[w4rma]

66. The hell with that. I will not vote for Hillary in 2012. This BS drama that she has started will not

be forgiven. She went heavily negative with right-wing talking points near the end of the primary and now after she *lost*, and before the general election, her surrogates are putting out a 2012 run. She needs to be run out of the party at this point. Sneaky, underhanded witch.

[DrDan]

73. so you would not vote for Hillary if it came down to a Jeb Bush v Hillary in 2012?

Am I hearing you correctly?

Is your hatred that deep?

[lark]

86. Makes no sense

Hillary can no more single handedly assure an Obama win than she did a Clinton win! Good grief! Obama's lack of response to McCain attack ads and refusal to attack McSame are what could kill his candidacy. He's the one that needs to get with the program. This laid back candidate schtick doesn't work for Dems and never will when it's up against rabid attack dog Rove trained Repugs. He keeps talking about attacking back, but somehow never gets around to doing it. Politics aren't pretty Obama, it's a dirty game and you can win if you just stay true to your prinicipals and ATTACK BACK!!

[Frances]

2. Stay calm

Rendell does support Obama and Pennsylvania will go for Obama

[RamboLiberal]

3. This is what set me off today on Rendell

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell was supposed to give “closing remarks” during this afternoon’s Shorenstein Center-sponsored panel discussion with all three Sunday show moderators — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous and CBS’s Bob Schieffer — but instead, he opened up a can of worms about bias in 2008 election coverage

"Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0808/Rendell_Obama_coverage_was_embarrassing.html

[Jim Sagle]

11. Every single word he said was undisputable truth.

BTW, isn't primary season over?

[KittyWampus]

54. if the primary season was over Rendell would shut the fuck up. And MSNBC was little better

than every other media outlet that whored for Hillary.

[Zhade]

60. Utter horseshit, of course.

Obama won fair and square. Get over it.

[Jim Sagle]

68. He didn't even win YET, genius.

[Zhade]

69. Oh, you think you can overturn the nomination?

:rofl:

Give it up, deadender.

[Jim Sagle]

70. Yes, I'll overturn it singlehanded.

Actually, I'll use two hands - one to hold the beer and the other to work the remote. ;)

[karynnj]

81. Not for Rendell it seems

also CNN was extremely pro-Clinton as was FOX, both at least as much as MSNBC was pro-Obama.

[jbnow]

40. The coverage of Obama really was embarrassing and still is

How long have we heard "He talks about change but we never hear what kind of change?"
Yes, if you only listen to his major televised speech after primaries you didn't hear much specifics. Imagine that.
It is embarrassing that they couldn't take the time to listen to the other rallies, the town halls, read his plans. It was January when the Washington post in an article complaining about Obama Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press

One media narrative that seems to be taking root is of Obama as the candidate of lofty rhetoric and Clinton as the maven of pedestrian policy talk. At a rally at Furman University here Tuesday, Obama brought the audience to several peaks, raising his voice over the applause while describing how his days as a community organizer "taught me that ordinary people can do extraordinary things" and how "the dream that so many generations fought for feels like it is slipping away."
But the address was saturated with proposals.

They go on to note him talking about taxes,Social Security checks, unemployment insurance, mortgage aid for those facing foreclosure, raising the minimum wage,protecting pensions, college tuition credits, alternative energy

How, then, has Obama been saddled with an image of being long on inspiration and short on details? The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr. without making his talk explicitly about race. Sen. Clinton already owned the policy-wonk slot, so by default, Obama was cast as the poetic one.

They are still whining about no details, just "Yes We Can" People who are paid to know better let alone some of the delegates or superdelegates. Complaining is easier than researching.

The Wright coverage was embarrassing. Not just those clips being played over and over and over but they still mutter "How could he go `hear that hateful speech for 20 years?". Most of all when have you ever heard such one sided reporting. The church gets threats and hate mails along with Wright, but hey, collateral damage.
In late March on "This Week" George asked Jay Carney of Time magazine when they'd hear more about what Wright had said. Carney said they had gotten a hold of years and years of sermons and his reporters had gotten through them all and just hadn't found anything that controversial. Just basic sermons. The "newsworthy" clips had been shown already and there just wasn't anything to report.
Oh. Decades of sermons and there weren't other very controversial statements...and that isn't news? That isn't big? Obviously not to George who went on to hit Obama on Wright in the ABC debate later. But not to anyone? Obama says he didn't hear that kind of talk, we know he wasn't at those sermons but while people keep saying he listened to hate for 20 years or that he was lying...but that isn't news?
I have so many links to when journalists who had gone to the church for some time or whose family did or why interviewed dozens of people who did brought up the fact that the sermons were nothing like that, was even too conservative for some because of it's emphasis on family, responsibility, lifting your own self up, helping others, that people who had gone for years had never heard anything like that...and they brought it up on some cable show...big news, right? They either got no response except a change of subject or something like Larry King snapping "That wasn't the question" or Chris Matthews saying "I find that hard to believe" and then they change the subject.
I know Wright has lived up to his caricature via his press conference, though I get why he was angry going from being a man of honor, a PhD, 3 commendations from Vietnam, devoted and so on to having his 30+ years boiled down to a few out of context minutes...
But the way that story and church were treated was so embarrassing and really shameful. They slime 10,000 parishioners to have a hot story that is a misleading and vastly distorted picture.

It was so embarrassing to keep hearing "What is Obama's problem with white voters?" Or "The white working class" or "Whites without a college degree"
Yes, let us ignore the many polls that showed Obama and Clinton did the same against McCain with the white working class and make it a HUGE thing that low information voters went for a name they knew so well. One time I heard a TV guy say "Why is Clintoin having such a problem with college educated voters? Why aren't we looking at that?" It was treated like a funny joke.

And so on. I just have to agree with Rendell. The coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing, very embarrassing.

[City Lights]

56. Consider your post recommended!

:applause:

[Zhade]

61. Ahhhh, truth.

Sounds so much better than the whining lies from sore clinton deadenders.

[Tutonic]

14. Ok but can he stick to the script? Did he forget to take the meds that

I left beside the hotel bed?

[movonne]

26. I heard him speak yesterday and he sounded like h supported

Obama...and also gave him some very good points to use against mc cain

[GoesTo11]

4. Clinton surrogates are signaling to her supporters

All this "If Obama loses in 2008, Hillary can run again -- you all know what to do" crap is getting pretty obvious. I am now about 80% sure the Clintons have decided to try to sandbag Obama. Their time to show it's not true is growing awfully short.

[blm]

19. I'm glad more Dems are opening their eyes to what the Clintons and their camp are about.

They are NOT there for US or other Dem lawmakers. They proved it when they undermined Gore and again when they undermined Kerry in 2004 and Carville even sabotaged Ohio Dem voters on election night just to make sure 2008 was open for Hillary.

[snake in the grass]

42. She also killed

JFK and stuck her tongue out at me.

[blm]

79. Response typical of those who emulate the RW. When truth is told, step on it with meaningless BS.

Some will laugh, but most Dems are realizing how selfish and how willing the Clintons have been to prop up BushInc while sabotaging our party.

[lark]

87. paranoid much?

[blm]

92. read much?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/10/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_k/

[DrDan]

74. you really should have a little confidence in the nominee

give up the Clinton-hatred . . .

[YDogg]

5. who?

[dsc]

6. so it would be OK if people who don't like Obama vote for McCain

after all you seem to think it would have been OK to vote for Swann.

[RamboLiberal]

10. I said almost vote for Swann - and no I'm not saying vote for McCain

I'm pissed at Rendell today. I'm no fan of Rendell, even back then I was holding my nose voting for him. But I was the loyal Dem and did so.

And you know what - at state and local levels there's nothing wrong with voting for the Repub if they are the better alternative. In PA we have some big time crooks in the Democratic party that deserve to get their asses voted out and sometimes the only alternative if you can't vote them out during the primary is to vote against them during the general.

This is not the situation obviously at the national level.

[saracat]

46. It is not acceptable to advocate voting for a Republican on any level. Period.

"And you know what - at state and local levels there's nothing wrong with voting for the Repub if they are the better alternative. In PA we have some big time crooks in the Democratic party that deserve to get their asses voted out and sometimes the only alternative if you can't vote them out during the primary is to vote against them during the general."

This is NOT acceptable.

[wvbygod]

75. Our party wright or wrong

No matter how criminal, abusive or dino we must always pull the D lever and
never consider who we are voting for. What's next....someone like Bernie Sanders
getting elected? Yes, black/white, 1/0, true/false we must never look at the candidate
and only pull the big D.

[lark]

88. That's how the Repugs took over FL

they started at the local level decades ago.

[saracat]

91. And that is how they took over power but some folks think that the presidential race

is the only think that matter when it is actually the least important. Oh well.

[Ewellian]

7. Let us never let that name

pass our lips again! :sarcasm:

From the quote it's obvious he was answering a direct question. Calm down.

[summer borealis]

8. Hey gasbag Rendell ...

go back to the most corrupt state government in the country. The one where you could fire 90 percent of state employees tomorrow and the remaining 10 percent still wouldn't have enough to do.
Except hold hands with the oversized General Assembly.

[Veronica.Franco]

24. Rendell needs a private phone call from Jimmy Carter ...

AND remind him that Rendell is OBAMA'S host ... what a crass bore ... suffering small man syndrome? ... always the need to draw attention to himself even if it's negative ...

[wvbygod]

76. most corrupt state government in the country

I believe NJ or IL could give PA a run for its money in that department.

[gateley]

9. I can understand his disappointment in Obama's victory. I can understand

if he really wants Clinton to get another chance at the Presidency. What I can't understand is WHY he would make statements like these, on the eve of the DNC, when more than ever, our party is fighting to take control in November.

I don't know how much his statements will hurt, but they certainly are NOT supportive and do NOT help!

[Frances]

12. Agree

The reason I said to stay calm is that if we get into arguments about Rendell, it's not helpful. That said, Rendell's remarks were just plain STUPID. Now back to the main show: let's do everything we can to focus on the positive about Obama and get him in the White House.

[Skip Intro]

13. In the very next paragrpah he says he supports Obama. So effin what if he talks about Hillary too?

Rendell said he has strongly supported Sen. Barack Obama since he became the presumptive nominee and embraced his choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate. Rendell acknowledged that Biden is not very well-known to Americans.

-------------------------------------------

Do you think Rendell went to USAToday and stared talking or do you think maybe he was responding to questions? And what difference does it make anyway?

Jesus, the limits some here seem to want to put on free speech and expression of honest opinion boggles the mind.

[RamboLiberal]

16. He's my governor and he pissed me off today

I wouldn't have been so mad at the Hillary wants to run again stuff if he hadn't also stupidly gone after MSNBC as the "Obama network". As far as I'm concerned both Obama and Hillary got a shitload of bad media coverage and Obama continues to get more than his share of negative coverage from MSM.

MSNBC with KO and now Rachel, and sometimes Tweety at least gives Dems some fair coverage. Yeah, KO went after Hillary during the primary but I think he was fair because she was playing very much from a Rove playbook at that point and some of the crap is now being used by McCain. Tweety was grossly unfair to Hillary till he got called on it.

But my gosh she sure got a lot of favorable coverage from Scarborough and Buchanan on MSNBC as well.

Plus the Clinton folks pissed me off for continuing to praise Faux as being fair and running to Dicky Mellon Scaife for coverage.

And what the hell kind of coverage did Rendell think Obama was getting, especially the non-stop Rev. Wright-athon we got for several weeks?

And hasn't Rendell heard the whispers from both RW and even many of us of a Clinton 2012 strategy? He's almost giving life to it here.

By 2016 she'd be 68 - would she be so eager to run? Who knows.

I think this convention already has too much bowing down to Clinton as is. I'm willing to see how it all works out. But come Thursday I want to see this whole party behind Obama and the Clintons working their butts off for him. And I want to see Clinton banished from Rendell's lips till after the election!

And I'm pissed at him for the sour grapes about MSNBC - heck they are the only ones with the guts to even being close to fair this election and acting to a counter at least for 2 hours on the crap from the McCain camp.

[endthewar]

15. Biden will be 73 years old in 2016

Obviously Hillary will want to run again if Biden appears too old for the job at that point in time.

[RamboLiberal]

17. Hillary will be 68 - which in my mind is pushing it a bit as well

One never knows where one will be in 8 years.

[endthewar]

20. I understand 68 is close to 73, but

it's a big symbolic difference. The main talking point in MSM will be that Biden is older than McCain was in 2008. Perception of age is more important than age itself. A great example of this was during the Republican primaries with Ron Paul and John McCain. Ron Paul is one year older than McCain, yet Paul never had any age issues come up that he had to defend himself against.

[movonne]

Maybe she could Biden's vice president....

[MaraJade]

32. This is

a JOKE, isn't it?


:grr:

[endthewar]

43. Well, it's early to annoint her as the 2016 presumptive Dem nominee

Plus if a Vice President wants to run, they normally have the inside track to getting the nomination.

[AZ Criminal JD]

49. Ron Pual was not a serious candidate and everyone knew it.

That why he was not questioned on age or a lot of other matters. Hillary at 68 would be too old to be the first woman president. That a fact for the general public whether a person agrees with it or not.

[endthewar]

50. He was a serious candidate.

He was thrown under the bus by the Republican Party and FOX News because he refused to support the Iraq War. His Convention in Minneapolis will probably have almost as many people as the Republican Party Convention.

[AZ Criminal JD]

84. He consistently got a small (5%) of the vote.

He had all sorts of money but he had no real support. He was not serious. He was the Mike Gravel of the Republicans.

[karynnj]

82. By those ages, there is a huge variance in relative health

Fewer comments may have been made of Paul's age, as he had NO chance to win. From vague memory, he looked younger.

Women live longer in better health than men, on average. HRC looks healthy, but Bill doesn't - I think they're the same age. Biden was healthy enough not to seem exhausted by the rigors of campaigning, but forecasting anyone's health 8 years out is rather useless.

[janetblond]

47. Helloooo? Your MATH IS REALLY BAD!!

Hillary is only 60 now.
If she runs again (heaven forbid!) she'll only be 64.

[endthewar]

51. Helloooo? We're talking about 2016.

Assuming that Obama serves for 8 years, Hillary will still have a shot to run in 2016 if Biden is thought to be too old to run for President.

[Zhade]

64. Uh, if she runs again in 4 years against President Obama she'll be destroyed.

Utterly obliterated, just like her vision for Iran.

[janetblond]

48. 64 my dear, NOT 68. She's a pain in the @$$! nt

!!

[endthewar]

52. The post explicitly talks about 2016.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. That would be the WHITE working class she connected to

Mr. Rendell.

[Acadia Blue]

29. Bill's NAFTA destroyed the white working class. Are they idiots or

are they not. Will a DLC corporate democrat really help them. Bill and Hill are DLC corporate Dems.
People are so GD stupid.

[MaraJade]

31. Wait and see

what Obama does with the NAFTA issue. . .

[endthewar]

53. Exactly what he said he would do.

Next! :rofl:

[MaraJade]

57. And exactly WHAT was that. . .

. . .

What? What EXACTLY will he do? Please educate me. My sister also
wants to know, seeing as her job went away because of NAFTA.

[wvbygod]

77. Obama on NAFTA

The Interview With Fortune Magazine
If Obama had one opportunity to disprove all such criticism, his June 18 interview with Fortune Magazine was his chance. During the interview, Fortune journalist Nina Easton asked the Democratic presidential candidate if his position on free trade had changed since the primaries, when he described NAFTA as “devastating” and “a big mistake,” at the February 27 Democratic debate in Ohio. On that occasion, Obama asserted he would use “the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” However, months later, during the Fortune Magazine interview, Obama renounced his past feelings, stating, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” which he agreed could apply to some of his NAFTA statements. Still, Obama maintained during the interview that he has never planned to amend NAFTA unilaterally, but “looks forward to a conversation with .” Obama confirmed, “I’m a big believer in opening up dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.” Once again, without engaging in brazen flip-flopping, but still basically vacating his main point, Obama offered nebulous propositions for dealing with a contentious issue without outlining a firm plan for revising NAFTA. Progressives are becoming increasingly concerned over Obama’s ideological torques, anxious to learn which NAFTA revisions Obama will actually pursue if elected, and which ones will be discarded as “overheated” rhetoric.

The controversy unleashed by the Fortune interview immediately drew major media attention and criticism of the putative changes Obama would bring to NAFTA. Democrats and Republicans alike have since attacked Obama as a categorical “flip-flopper.” The Washington Post contended, “Obama is just another politician, calling his previous NAFTA rhetoric ‘overheated’ and that he now endorsed his senior economic advisor’s private conversation with the Canadian officials, dismissing ‘the anti-NAFTA stuff’ as being ‘nothing more than populist posturing.’”

[Wizard777]

21. Hopefully by 2016 everyone will have forgotten how some of her "supporters" showed their asses.

Doing more to sabotage her nomination than secure it.

[MaraJade]

33. I hope that people REMEMBER sooner than that

how some of O's supporters ARE NOW SHOWING their asses.

[atjrpsych]

23. It is time to put the Hillary subject to rest!!

Given the current state of our country, I don't think it is a good idea to keep bringing this topic up. Frankly, I am disappointed in Rendell (I live in PA-so he is my govenor)..he is being a poor sport and is not showing any unity. I will take it a step further and say that I think he is inappropriate. I am a little disgusted that Hillary doesn't seem to end this divisiveness by making a stronger statement of support for Obama and Biden.

[MaraJade]

34. Why does everyone think that Biden is a good

replacement for Hillary? That's what bothers me.

Biden is a good enough person and a nice guy, that is certainly true. But he is no
replacement for Hillary. It is both naive and foolish for Obama followers to think that
we should simply change direction instantly. If we were that FICKLE, we'd really be the idiots that
Obama people keep telling us we are. What thinking
person would even want supporters who change direction with every random gust of wind?

When one is used to eating Kobe Fillet Mignon, and one is then
handed 75% Ground Chuck, it is very difficult for one to get used to the difference. Both
of them are beef, but after that, all comparisons are off.

Nevertheless, I am actually glad that Hillary is totally out of it. Make no mistake about it--
words cannot describe how happy I am that Biden was chosen. I am looking forward to Hillary's
convention speech, which I am certain will be great. I am glad she will continue to be
in the Senate, carrying all of the issues that concern ME and those like me, and I am happy that
she will continue to be a part of the Checks and Balances that make this nation great. I only
hope that she stays in the Senate, and accepts NO POSITIONS of any type that are offered by the
Obama Administration. The further away she stays, the better.

[Zhade]

65. Replacement? clinton would have had to have been chosen to be replaced.

She was never going to get it. You should accept that and move on.

We only say anti-Obama PUMAs who want him to lose and are willing to vote for mcLame to that end are idiots.

You support Obama, right?

(And don't worry, she's as unlikely to be in his cabinet as she is to win the presidency. Ever.)

[No Elephants]

72. Biden has more experience than Obama. Hill doesn't.

[MJW]

25. who knows what the situation will be

in eight years? Who dreamed eight years ago that someone names Obama would be our candidate? That span of time is an eternity politically.

Personaly I think the Clinton brand is harmed beyond repair , and more the pity

[Acadia Blue]

27. I wish Bill would quit sulking and get with it and Hill too. They lost

and they are being so petty about expecting Obama to call them to get their opinion on who he should pick as a VP>
Get real Hill! Are you going to destroy the whole party with your DLC conservatism just because you did not win this one.
You are a Senator for goodness sake.

[MaraJade]

35. Yes, she is a Senator. . .

And I believe that she still can do a lot of good there by keeping OUR issues always to the
forefront, no matter what happens and no matter what certain special interest groups attempt
to do. While in the Senate, she can draft laws to see to it, and
she can still go to her supporters to get the pressure brought to bear that will get those
laws passed. While in the Senate, she can also help protect us.

[lark]

89. Hillary is a liberal compared to Obama

who voted for the god-awful FISA bill and who didn't???? Explain how he's such a liberal when he supports Repugs breaking the constitution? Yes, I am going to vote for him because he's better than McSame - but the margin is getting thinner and thinner. Obama needs to quit his damn triangulation and actually STAND for something instead of waffling so much. Otherwise he won't have to worry about 8 years in office - he will have zero.

[Tutankhamun]

28. If he wants to complain about media bias, he should start with McCain's free ride.

[WyldRogue]

30. Oh god...

... will you Drama Queens stop with the BS already?? He is behind Obama 100% and he was answering a question he was asked. Damn, the Primaries are over so enough already!!

We all know some of you hate Hillary but to keep with the divisive BS is not helping anyone, especially Obama. So why not sit here and stoke the embers and get the Dems fighting... or maybe that is your intent with this ridiculous rant you call a post.

[MaraJade]

36. Thank you so much for saying this!

:woohoo:

Eloquently said.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. No Shit?

What a surprise.

But, I'm sure that she and Bill work do whatever they can to help Obama win.

[bluesmail]

38. There's the 'other' factor, and if I sound harsh I don't mean to be

There's two deceased superdelegates that were for Clinton then changed to Obama ad now are deceased. :shrug:

[justinboston2008]

39. Really??? Seriously???

Of course Hillary should run again, she would make a fantastic president. She will do what needs to be done to help Senator Obama win in November in spite of the vitriol from Obama supporters. The thing is if Senator Obama wins, it will be because of his magnificence and wonder. If he loses, it will be because of Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama passed the opportunity to engage Clinton supporters when he didn't even do a cursory vetting of Clinton. He has not done very much outreach expecting many to just fall in line after our treatment by his supporters. Many will not just get over it.

I hope he does win even though I personally can't stand him. Only reason he is getting my vote is that Dems are much better at running things. I think people are very over confident of his chances even with Joe Biden. No one in my family will be voting for Obama in November, and they live in NH a swing state. They aren'[t that thrilled with McCain and are trying to figure out what they are going to do. I hope I don't have to see this board melt down in November when we are talking about the McCain transition. The DNC is taking a gamble here and it may well not pay off the way we like.

[judasdisney]

41. Two U.S. political dynasties -- no room in town for Obama

"Pulmonary embolism" for Obama, dubious "bribery scandal" for Biden...

Hillary in 2012 in an Election of 1824 scenario.

[WolverineDG]

44. After what happened in the primaries

any Clinton is going to have a long hard row to hoe before I'll vote for them, especially after all this post-game drama queening.

dg

[kestrel91316]

55. She gonna try to split the party AGAIN in 2012??????

[MaraJade]

62. So Hillary is really the one behind the

disrespectful bashing, trashing and bullying of her own followers, thus causing the split in the Democratic Party?

Very interesting take on things. I never thought to look at it that way.

[Zhade]

58. Her choice. It's not like she'll win next time, either.

NT!

[tabasco]

59. But will Rendell be there to lick her ass again??

I guess it depends on how much clout she has left, which will be none.

[MellowDem]

63. She may say that now...

but 8 years from now, I doubt I she will.

[happygoluckytoyou]

67. HILLARY....2012 NO.....2016 YES.... she can make ALL OF this happen

and thank you hillary for teaching DEMOCRATS to fight...

[No Elephants]

71. She's 61. If she wants to run again, she's hoping for 2012.

[JCMach1]

78. Get over the fact that every Dem is not an Obama clone...

Refighting the primaries is not going to get Obama into the WH. In fact without a big majority of Hillary votes he won't get there as well.

[karynnj]

80. If that's the case, she and her spouse better be seen working their hearts out this year

to elect Obama and then she better return to the Senate and get some real solid accomplishments.

She will still have the high name recognition that she started the 2008 race with but, if nothing changes, she and Bill will have far less good will. She started 2008 polling in the 40s in a wide open race - in 2008, again if nothing changes, she will start with no more than that and over 50 percent likely not winnable by her. Consider people wouldn't give Kerry, who ran a classy campaign in 2004 and very nearly won a tough race, a second chance, I don't see it for HRC, especially if she gets part of the blame for losing 2008.

[lark]

90. Absolutely idiotic

She received a higher number of votes than anyone in the past, there are a LOT of people who like her. She also has a lot of people (mainly Repug, but some over ardent Obamites as well) who hate her guts. Obamites hate that she, a mere woman mind you, had the termity not to just swoon over him and get out of the race early like a nice little lady. They don't like her fighting spirit. Funny, they didn't have trouble attacking her, but sure are playing nice with McSame. She will not win or lose the race for him - it is Obama's job to win it. If he has made enemies, then it's his job to win them over - not hers. His snippy little sexist remarks were his, not hers. He's the one who's laying down and letting McSame take the race because it just isn't in him to actually gutter fight and that's what's required in politics today. He can stay nice and nicely lose if he wants - unfortunately he will also be squandering his nation's health. He can continue to have no position that he won't sell out and he will definitely lose, not because of her, because of himself.

[Infinite Hope]

83. People like him need to stick a sock in it. n/t

[marshall]

85. Close your eyes and imagine he is talking about a run for Senate re-election

It does wonders for your mental health.

[GetTheRightVote]

93. I am with the Hillary comments in this thread, I would have voted with Hillary on the ticket

but now I will be sitting this one out due to the fact I have no one I wish to vote for on any ticket.