when it comes to Hillary, "Fighthing" on. This effort typifies what the Clintons are like in a lot of ways. "It's about me, me, me..." In the end they cost us money. When Bill got intimate with Monica, it cost us money(the investigation--which could've been avoided if Bill would've told the truth)

No one may really knows the reason why Hillary is doing this, but I would bet deep down it's not about the party or the country, it's about an opportunity for HER. Possibly in 2012. It'll be interesting to see how she campaigns for Obama this Fall--Hopefully in ernest.

She should take a page from Mary Sue Terry's book back in 1989 when she did the second term as Attorney General instead of running against Doug Wilder. She did it for the good of the party. There's a good chance she would've beaten Wilder, but it would've gotten pretty messy.

Bottom line is I am having a hard time thinking that Hillary is doing this for the good of the country, it's all about HER. In my opinion Senator Obama would be crazy to ask her on the ticket--as Gloria Borgia said, it would be like a bad marriage. I don't care how much pressure is put on Obama, I would advise him not to put her on the ticket. Besides there's been a lot of pressure for her to give up her run and she wouldn't do it--so why should Obama ask her to be VP when her people try to pressure him?

Having Hillary as a number two would be one hell of distraction for Obama when he becomes president. And Obama does not need that. On the flip side I wouldn't blame her for not asking him either. The people of New York need Hillary to stay on continue her job there.

On Election Day 2012, Hillary will be eligible for Social Security. Democrats don't win with seniors; that's for the GOP. The median age of successful Democratic presidential candidates when the other party controls the White House is 49. Only Andrew Jackson among that group was older than 55.

It's now or never for Clinton, and she knows it. And she is close in delegates, as impossible as it may seem for her to actually get ahead. Any damage she may have done to her reputation is there already. She really has nothing to lose at this point.

Hillary won't get another chance.  This was it.  If she had another chance, she would've already gracefully stepped down.  It's obvious that both Bill and Hillary know this, and that's why it's all or nothing for them.

Me thinks the "friends of Hill" are making much ado about nothing. Making up numbers, changing the rules, etc. are a distraction.
Geraldine Ferraro on Today show this a.m. was a travesty.
A pure travesty. The woman is one angry person.
Intervention may be in order.

because I was doing other things. What happened?

When Obama's supporters attempt to rush her out, he's a brute and a sexist.  When he says she should stay in, he's condescending and a sexist.  Ferraro should be placed in a tomb for the remainder of the year and be forced to shut up.  

Ferraro is becoming an embarassment.

several months ago.  Actually, I believe the word is "traitor."

Ferraro's broom wouldn't start one morning on her way to work and she took it out on everybody?

Kind of like Pelosi when Hillary tossed her off her broom when flying in mid air.

1.  Why is it a bad thing to continue this process until all primaries are completed?  

2.  Do you believe that Hillary Clinton has inflicted a grievous wound on you personally or the party in general?  And if so, what is it?  And can you move past that for party unity?  In general, is it something that you cannot get over?

3.  Do you think that telling Senator Clinton what to do,  or disparaging her or her campaign (maybe not you personally, but others) will hinder party unity?

to Clinton continuing through the end of the primary.  I applaud her campaign too for ratcheting down the tone a bit.

Some of the b.s. though surrounding creative victory measures just leaves me shaking my head (e.g. the outcome should be based on a popular vote measure which includes Florida/includes Clinton's Michigan numbers (but excludes Obama's numbers), and excludes vote tallies from caucus contests).  How does advancing those kind of bogus measures advance the interests of party unity?  

It's a primary, and she is playing to win.  The arguments to support her winning don't bother me.  I see it for what it is, like you do.  I don't think that hinders party unity though.  Unless people get the sense that the nomination was stolen from them, only then do we get to discord.  But these arguments about why she should be nominee don't get us to discord, in my mind.

Throwing out a bogus popular vote number I don't see as an argument for a candidacy -- so much as it is an attempt to muddy the waters and delegitimize a process late in the game.

The negative impact may ultimately be limited, but I still don't see it as a constructive maneuver.  

that I got as many votes in Michigan as Barack did, and Hillary is counting all her votes from Michigan, the whole exercise is in the realm of Peter Pan.  

The way I see it, Hillary has nothing to gain at this point. We all know that she is a fighter for the Democratic cause--she doesn't have to prove that anymore. She can't win the delegate count...and she is claiming that she has gotten the popular vote...at this point she can't claim that. She's hoping for a LONG shot at trying to convince the super delegates to go into her camp, and it's not going to happen--so there is no point in continuing--unless she's hoping that someone comes out claiming that Obama has a wide stance or something.  

That's not even one of the questions.  =)  But to your points, even if she can't win, maybe she puts herself in a good place to negotiate for her supporters for something.

And, of course, there is a point to continuing.  If you truly believe in your cause, what obstacle is insurmountable?  Is there some thing you believe in that long odds will not deter you?  Look at some of the people on here, they struggle against the Dominion coal plant in SW VA.  It is futile, but still they struggle.  That is what life is about.  I encourage you to read Camus's The Plague.

Geraldine was over the top. Rachel Maddown just looked at here in disbelief!!
Ferraro ranted about how in one debate they actually went after HER. OMG. Someone actually challenged her.
I don't think Rachel got to say three words.
I think if you go to the today show website you can see it.
How very sad.

I just saw a clip of Hillary in Kentucky with Bill. After being introduced, she turned aroung and the look on her face was like looking at the Incredible Hulk. You looked wide eyed and well wild.

1.  Why is it a bad thing to continue this process until all primaries are completed? Because she continues to run up debt that someone is going to have to pay.  Currently they are talking about an Al Gore fundraiser, this money being raised to pay Senator Clinton's debt could have been used by the DNC towards the general election and low ticket candidates.  Yet we will be paying off Senator Clinton's debt which continues to grow.  The question is why keep creating additonal debt in a absolutely no win situation?    

2.  Do you believe that Hillary Clinton has inflicted a grievous wound on you personally or the party in general?
Slightly.

And if so, what is it? Pushing the argument for FL & MI as if Obama broke the rules and creating friction between Obama and some in those states that are uninformed who may think he had something to do with them being punished.

And can you move past that for party unity?  I can and will because McSame would be a huge problem for the USA.

In general, is it something that you cannot get over? No.

3.  Do you think that telling Senator Clinton what to do,  or disparaging her or her campaign (maybe not you personally, but others) will hinder party unity?   Yes!

Wins by 40 points or so.  

...greatly disturbs me. If this is true, it is yet another reason how the Clintons are costing us money. What the hell is with them wasting money that could be spent for better purposes--are they that self absorbed?

Remember Bill Clinton's plane trip to Hollywood and his $200.00 haircut?

What about the huge tax payer funded office stipend Bill was granted in NYC which was far above that issued a former President of the United States?

How about Bill Clinton even considering himself for the office of Commander In Chief of the US military (President of the USA) while dodging the draft and heading to Europe when called to serve his country during the Vietnam War?

Then there is NYC and the Clinton's desicion to move there in the first place, a calculated move to usurp power from the people of the state of New York solely so Hillary could jockey herself into the best position available for higher office.

The Bush family did the same. George, Jr., went to Texas, Jeb went to Florida, the other drunken son went to California. All states with the most electoral votes.

Self absorbed? Between the Clinton and Bush wannabe Royal Families of the USA, they don't get anymore self absorbed.

is that the haircut was for Hillary and the cost was something on the order of $2,000.  The issue was that the plane had to wait on the tarmac for the haircut to happen.

This isn't a huge issue in my view.  I would be surprised if other politicos hadn't done the same -- in the big scheme of things too the cost to taxpayers was a drop in the bucket.  

The White House Lincoln bedroom fundraisers I found to be a bit more troubling.  Not quite on the same level as selling legislation to big oil -- or letting the special interest lobbies write policy in secret (Cheney's Energy Task Force).  Still though a case of poor judgment period.

The Clinton haircut on the tarmac at LAX did not require planes to wait for take-off or delay a single landing.

Newsday debunked the story on June 30, 1993. Media Matters wrote about it here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

This has been a test of the historical inaccuracy warning system. Had this been a meaningful historical inaccuracy, you would have been directed to appropriate source material.

We now rerun of the Hillary Hate Fest, already in progress.

I had completely forgotten the LAX traffic delay angle to the story.

In real terms those delays would have cost much more than $2,000 -- I can't even begin to guess what the costs of tying up traffic on the runway of a major international airport would be -- $50,000? $100,000? $1,000,000?

Not $2,000.

This was 15 years ago -- a few facts on this one.

1. The story involves Bill, not Hil (this part I had wrong).
2. He received a $200 haircut from Christophe on the LAX tarmac.
3. There are costs to simply having Air Force One sitting idle on any runway for 30 minutes to an hour (I didn't factor in delays to other airlines in my recollection calculation.  In Clinton's defense this still may have been cheaper than having the secret service secure the area around a hair saloon in downtown Beverly Hills for a few hours -- e.g. it's probably much less costly to secure a location on the tarmac around Air Force One).

Interesting historical perspective on this one from Dee Dee Myers . . .

The president is here in Los Angeles and he gets a haircut from Christophe in May [1993]. And the press finds out about it. Did you know you had a PR disaster in the making?

No. God, I sound like a complete idiot, all the things that I didn't see coming. The president was here in Los Angeles. Christophe had cut his hair a few times during the campaign. He was friend through Harry and Linda Thomason, [a] delightful guy, really nice person. Of course he'd be happy to cut the president's hair. So he jumps on the plane -- the plane is sitting on the tarmac. And he gets his haircut. He's really kind of jolly. You know, hi, he's had a good trip to L.A. He loves California. He's out here.

And for the first time, maybe the second time of his entire presidency, he decides to take a trip back to visit the press, sitting in the press cabin on Air Force One, which he never does. So, he goes back there and says hello. Five minutes, you know. Wasn't it great to be here in California? He leaves. I believe it was John King who was then with the AP. He said "Did he just get his hair cut?" And, you know, what am I going to say? I said, "Yeah, he did." "And was that the guy we saw going down the back stairs of the plane, the long hair, that guy that used to be around the campaign sometimes?" "Yeah."

So, you know, he's like "This is funny. Oh, this is great." So I think John puts something on the AP that said that Clinton had gotten his hair cut. Well somebody called the FAA or something. Some unnamed source at the FAA said, "Yeah, delayed aircraft," which became "delayed aircraft all over the country" which never was really true. And so did I think I had a big problem? The president got his hair cut on Air Force One. What's the problem with that? Okay. It's not a great idea maybe to have this sort of high priced Beverly Hills coiffure. We just won a populist campaign, not a great idea. But it's not the end of the world. I mean who cares?

For $200.

As if the president paid $200 for his haircut, but, yes, he charges $200 a haircut and probably more. Then when it was married to this notion that air traffic was delayed and here was this, you know, populist, putting-people-first president just basking in the perks of his new power sitting on the runway, air travelers be damned. This is the story that got out there and by the time I realized that this was a serious problem it was off to the races. And that thing dominated the news for at least three days. I think it led ABC's broadcast on day two. Because it becomes such a symbolic thing. You have to be careful of these things that become metaphors.

I think George Bush not knowing how a grocery store scanner worked --which [was] absolutely not true -- but that became a metaphor for an out-of-touch president. Bill Clinton sitting on Air Force One getting his hair cut while people around the country cooled their heels and waited for him, became a metaphor for a populist president who had gotten drunk with the perks of his own power and was sort of, you know, not sensitive to what people wanted.

...And you know what? It took him years to overcome that because when I left the White House for years I would travel around and go, "How many of you know the president got his hair cut on Air Force One?" Every person in the audience would always raise their hand. ... It took years for people to get past that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

I now see what you are saying about the cost involved.

Of course, as you note, everything a president does costs money in security, employees, etc. The LAX story, however, as the media reported it (not you, however, as I reread your post) suggested Clinton inconvenienced hundreds of travelers for the sake of his haircut.

was clearly misleading at best.  

It sounds like the reporter noted that the plane (Air Force One) was delayed -- and then made an inference which went beyond that -- e.g. that there were multiple delays.  

It's strange looking back at this that the story received two days worth of coverage -- definitely not a lead-in story worth prime broadcast time.  

I could see this being noted in the Washington Post Style section on page 3 (e.g. the Reliable Source celebrity gossip section).  It's kind of interesting to note that a president would have a haircut on Air Force One, but the substance of the story didn't contain any hard news -- especially given that it didn't tie up traffic or delay any flights at a major airport.

Are we now as bad as the so-called MSM?

where no story, no matter how trite, out of date or discredited ever disappears. Even Craig Shergold is still floating around, and his cancer was cured 16 years ago.

The hair cut garbage, and the Kerry Swift Boat garbage, and the Al Gore "I invented the Internet" garbage, and the Obama-is-a-Muslim garbage will persist for decades, perhaps centuries. So will all that nasty truth that the people in charge don't want us to know about. There is a silver lining, but only as long as people are willing to fight for the truth.

that the Clintons are still in the race is to raise money to retire some of their campaign debts.  I would be curious to see what their current expenditures were since PA -- my sense is that they are doing a lot of things now on the cheap.

You're looking at contributions to Hillary Clinton as a pool that could have been spent on Obama, and that is not precise.  There is no way to know that the amount that Democratic Party had to spend would be the same had Hillary Clinton not run or had she chosen to drop out earlier.  And regardless of that, we find ourselves in a situation with a great deal more money than the Republicans.  

The cup overfloweth, why quibble over small points?

I guess when Leslye, Mark Warner, and Howard Dean ask me to give my money.  As I am a working, hardworking, hardworking white American I will just tell them that the cup overfloweth.

I was referring to the coffers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  They have a boat load of money.  Read their FEC filings.

The next time you read one of my comments, I would suggest you just ask for clarification first.  I am always happy to clarify any statements I make.  And as several can tell you, I am always happy to argue my points.