Enhancing the Clinton legacy by dropping out now

I disagree that she should pull out. She,IMO, represents a great leap for women...a woman with the possibility of becoming the first woman president of the United States....something that is long,long, overdue. Male dominance in that office needs to be checked. If she pulled out now, "for the good of the party" I feel that the chatter would be that she gave up in the face of the male who has a better chance of winning. But then again, the first black male is running with a chance of winning the office. Who would/could have predicted that 2 "firsts" would be in the same election cycle...1st woman and 1st black man. Ironic.

McCain is a lucky man - who would have guessed a few months ago he'd sew up the nomination, and whilst the Dems go down to the wire, he is free to set HIS agenda/policy, etc., from the comfort of being the nominee.

Ms. Clinton. So she's a woman. That doesn't make her more qualified than anyone else. She blew it with healthcare back in the 90s, she and Bill had how many scandals - law PARTNERS who went to jail or worse (Foster committed suicide), nominees who had to back out (Baird and Wood I believe; Guanier), what about that whole file thing and Livingstone? Bill lost his law license. Some people wouldn't think 'standing by yer man' was the wise thing to do (how many women???). Who wants his philandering for another 4 years? He's doing it in Westchester... She has done NOTHING in a state she did not live in prior to winning said state (ask Buffalo if her talk has given them anything to take to the bank). Her husband let Bin Laden go when he was handed to the U.S. on a platter back in the early 90s. Remember the first World Trade Centers attack was on the Clinton watch.

Did you know they get tax breaks because (supposedly) the Secret Service has built lodging on their estate in Chappaqua? That you the taxpayer pay for? Did you know that said building is nary more than an out-house of sorts and the Secret Service were housed (paid by taxpayer monies) in homes on a company property down the road? Again, not sure of the status of this now - but it was true a few years ago.

I'm just saying that she comes with some pretty gnarly issues that seem to be overlooked/forgotten/squashed.

No one is perfect. But I am tired of hearing she's so wonderful - she's not.

I don't think Obama is a bad person. I don't think he is a closet Muslim or the Anti-Christ. But, I also don't think he's ready to be President, nor do I believe that he would necessarily be a good President. Hillary should not drop out - she's the best candidate for the job, and John McCain's the next best. Hillary may have huge negatives, but at least she's an adult. She isn't selling soap (or, in Obama's case, soap bubbles that are soon to burst).

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I'll probably vote for John McCain.

I was thinking about this more last evening, and I think, with all due respect to David Kuo and others who are calling for Hillary to quit the race, this is an outrageous and ludicrous suggestion. At some point, obviously, one of these two candidates will need to concede, or risk blowing up the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic Party.

Until then, the idea that Hillary, who just won two major state primaries, should concede the race to Obama, is laughable. Can you imagine the hay that the Republicans would make out of this -- a primary process in which the "party influential" suggest that Hillary make way for Obama because of his "historic black candidacy"?

The implication is that Obama isn't good enough to win the nomination on his own, that he can't compete, that he needs "affirmative action." If the Democratic Party pulls something like this, they deserve to lose the White House yet again.

sorry, previous comment (the one that says "Hillary doesn't either") somehow went up without my name

Personally, I have Obama's position on issues from his website bookmarked so that I can read the entire thing, though I confess I'm not in a huge hurry to do so, I will definitely get around to it in the next couple of weeks. And will do the same for Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's positions.

That said, I have heard it said in the media numerous times that "Obama's and Clinton's positions on issues are virtually the same" and that Obama's positions are fairly standard boilerplate. I will judge for myself. However, based on his public performance during the campaign (what I've seen of it) I have grave reservations about the degree to which Obama has worked out the details of his plans.

When he dismissed those details (during the California debate) as "bureaucracy" my respect for him went down several notches. There is a reason why people say, "the Devil is in the details."

Just had a student write an editorial about how infrequently we have mass at school. It was pointed out that mass was celebrated at 7 am weekly. Her response was that - "it was too much trouble to get up that early". Part of our responsibility in voting is to follow each candidate's statements, what is being placed as positions on web sites, read their written work, research their voting records etc. To allow the media to tell you what they said is simply irresponsible on your part. I created a little spread sheet almost a year ago and thought about the issues that were important to me as a Christian. I then began to fill in the spaces on every candidate. Some were dismissed right away. Others ignore some issues I find important and yet are going the right direction as far as recognizing the dignity of all human beings. The manner in which they treat one another, manipulate the media, - tells me a lot. At this point - none has clean hands on life issues, all are becoming less specific - the closer the nominations come to fruition. There are three fine human beings left. I have major disagreements with all three, but will continue to do my homework. At this point - Obama has the least baggage and the most possibility. He will respect the Constitution and that is at the top of my list right now. He's promising too much in speeches, but calling for personal responsibility. His written work reveals a complex thinker who can deal with a global community and regain respect that has been lost. McCain is gathering baggage rapidly - has not said anything about the economy that differes from Bush. However, he has often been willing to go against the status quo, against the radical right, and for compassion and reason. He has little written work. His web site has little about his positions as yet. His voting record - well - I disagree with many things he has voted for. Clinton's methods are increasingly reprehensible, but her written work and voting record (especially for children's issues) are often admirable. To allow the media to define what you think is simply irresponsible. Media has a vested interest in conflict, in the unimportant, in maintaining the status quo. A responsible citizen should go beyond that.

Thinker, I'm glad to know you've done your homework. When I've done mine, perhaps you'll give me a gold star. :-)

James Curtis -- couldn't agree with you more. I have noticed rather thinly veiled Hillary insults in David's writing and find his bias against her troubling. I also find remarks like Thinker's about Hillary having reprehensible tactics troubling. Thinker usually comes pretty close to the mark, but this ia a generalized disparagement without any specific FACTS. Too much of the political discussion consists of unsupported opinions that seem to be just passing along of gossip. That is especially true of the MSM which seems to only care about reporting what they consider juicy tidbits, and in fact I have heard reporters decline to discuss candidates' statements on the big factual issues because they are boring.
I have been watching more of this campaign than any human should have to and I don't see that any one candidate has the corner on negative or hard-nose campaigning. In fact, it seems pretty tame so far.Words like reprehensible should perhaps be reserved for outrageous conduct like the blatant lies we all remember from the last go-around, swift-boating, smearing of McCain by the Bush campaign in the south, etc.
Looks more like the MSM and the Republicans are really just trying to create a fight where there's only a tiff. Nothing else will help the Republicans at least hold some power next time around and of course the MSM wants us all to keep tuned in for the next installment of today's skirmish.

Umm, with regards to this idea that Obama and Clinton are virtually the same. Yes, the media is saying that. But I remember in 2000 how the media said that Al Gore and George W. Bush were 'virtually the same'. i.e. - Moderates. They implied that it really didn't matter which one won the White House.

They were wrong, as the last painful six years have shown us as our Constitutions and any moral authority we once claimed as a nation has been shredded.