Hillary will make the right decision if people just sit back and give her time to bow out gracefully.
There are a few more primaries left and she should be allowed to continue through them.
Obama supporters shouldn't get to smug
if they really want unity.
Ed Schultz is a prime example of those that are turning off the Clinton supporters big time.
My email showed that for days.
His appearance on Larry King last week
was that of a school yard bully.
Hillary had just about everything going for her to set her up for a big win in Indiana. Yet, she barely squeaked by in Indiana, basically getting a tie in delegates, while Obama obliterated her in North Carolina. I think Hillary demonstrated that despite her past criticisms of Obama, that she in fact is the one who just can't seal the deal. Meanwhile, Obama has proven that he can take hit after hit after hit, smearboating lies, FOX news distortions, Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to support Hillary etc, and still he comes out on top. I think Obama will do just fine against McCain. But I agree with Hasslington's post on his blog, that Hillary should stay in at least until after May 20th, so that Obama can legitimately close the deal.
"Meanwhile, Obama has proven that he can take hit after hit after hit.."
Actually, Obama has helped the Democrats prove to the general public that for them, the bar really can't get low enough, Linda.
The GOP (McCain) has been in the enviable position of being able to sit back and watch these two disasters unfold without any assistance what so ever.
The ads that are surely in the offing will be nothing more than straight up video documentaries of the primary.
It's really all been said already.
But you go with what works for you, hon.
Senator Clinton should stay in the race up to and including the May 20 primaries. That will give her two wins (West Virginia and Kentucky) to his one win (Oregon) between the dates of May 13 and May 20.
She can then bow out gracefully, from a position of strength. This will allow her to put pressure on Senator Reid to step down from the Senate Majority Leader status effective January of 2009, so that she can step into that very powerful position.
I believe that she has earned the right to be Senate Majority Leader, and I believe that she would be more effective in the position than Senator Reid (though, to be fair to him, he hasn't had much of a workable majority with which to work). It would also assuage many of her supporters.
Finally, this would also free Senator Obama up to choose someone with whom he is more comfortable as a running mate.
By the way, Linda, I have the sense that you were the "yay" commenter from the "Notions, Vol. 4" post....
Hasslington,
Actually I wasn't the "yay" commenter. I read your blog but didn't have time to post a comment at the time. I guess I have another kindred spirit out there. 
I agree, it is time.
Whatever 'baggage' Obama's detractor's may claim, he is unique from Clinton and McCain, he is looking to have an actual dialogue on long-standing issues, and to address the terrible trajectory the plight of the middle-class has been on over the past 28 plus years. Whatever you may think "traditionally" about politics, it is irrefutable that we (middle class Americans) are simply not doing as well today as in 1978 (a time when we used terms like 'misery index'). There are some very selfish people who would prefer to continue to embolden the power of the already exceptionally powerful, perhaps out of a misguided belief they'll wind up in that classification - but to dismiss the plight of America, and it's everyday working-class citizens - in comments like "but I'M doing better", is as repellent as George Bush's stance on torture.
It is time for actual change.
"I'm doing better...because I'm trying harder."
(Enter Democrat "change")
"Somebody, anybody saaaave me!"
The 'misery index' was necessitated by a Democrat in office that brought our country into a generalized malaise.
Oh yeah, we want that.
Obama can take hit after hit and keep on going because the majority of his supporters don't see beyond the stage of his stardom. He has enough new voters in heavy urban population centers to carry the overall regions.
The general in winner take all process will prove more of a challenge. It will be a race between moderate experience versus very liberal neophyte.
Hang on to your pocketbook as Obama will not find a new tax or ressurected tax he doesn't like.and spending will explode as long as Republicans pay for it.
I talked recently with some workers who were frustrated at trying to get ahead working overtime. They could not believe the amount of taxes that got sucked out of their paychecks. They all said it is hardly worth it to work the Saturday and extra time each day. They said they felt like they were being punished.
Of course the liberal response is you have to because you can and that is only fair.
What is fair about making twice as much as you neighbor but having to pay ten times more in taxes?
Obama wants change though, expect that change to be more like 15 times....because you are able to pay and punishing success will be they next liberal sport of choice if they control the house senate AND presidency....Can you tax them?...yes we can....
I think this is nicely put--from Niall Stanage of the Guardian:
"Senator Clinton promised to play the same old game better than anyone else. Senator Obama said the game itself could change."
Maybe Senator Obama is the right candidate to win the presidency in 2008, or maybe he's a bit too far ahead of the curve. But this world is changing quickly, our influence is slip' slidin' away, and therefore there is nothing wrong with believing in Change with a capital "C" when the only other thing you're offered is old-fashioned, political machine-style change with a lower-case "c."
She would indeed play the old game better than anyone else, which means that she would most likely be an effective, slightly insular president. Call it silly idealism (I prefer to call it incresingly-modern and clear-eyed), but I'd still rather have us move onward and--please, please--OUTWARD in a more sophisticated, worldly manner. I think that means that Senator Obama should be our next president.
Swift,
You need a history lesson, badly.
So Carter, in 2 years, by doing what exactly, brought about the Oil embargo of 1974, brought about the NORMAL economic downturn after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975?
Talk about living in a cave...
You give Reagan credit for the economic expansion of the 1990's, do you give Carter credit for the psuedo-expansion of the 1980's?
One other point Swift (beyond that you're a troll) - Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Vollker, you know, the guy that Reagan eventually gave FULL and COMPLETE credit to for starving off inflation. Reagan bitched like hell about Volker in 1981, but renewed his tenure in (I believe) 1986, giving him enormous credit and commendation for steering the ship of fiscal policy.
Go read. You badly BADLY need to. You aren't consistent in your application of policy action vs. time, and show a profound ignorance of the realities of the early and mid-70's which both HE and Ford inherited and had little control over or impact on.
Doc,
The marginal rate, including state, federal and local taxes, for ALL quintiles, runs around 18-19%. Your anecdote reflects that excess income is often OVER taxed at the time, because dependent deductions (etc) aren't applied AT THAT TIME, by the choice of the employer (normally) - but regardless, they get the money back at the end of the year, they just don't get it.
The issue never was, and never will be, about paying everyone the same Doc - it's about people thinking they should enable the ultra-rich layabouts to dominate society, while the middle-class languishes. There isn't any credible way to refute the fact that the middle-class is FAR less well off today, than 1978. They have 1/3rd less free time, total compensation has fallen a few percentage points (despite people working more hours) and most especially access to health care and higher education costs FAR more, and isn't included in CPI evaluations of total inflation (and thus not included in calculating falls in average income).
Your friends who don't want to work overtime are effectively saying,"I would rather not get $500 today, and $300 at the end of the year, on $1000 earned. It's depressing that it's only $500 immediately, and I can't remember that I'll get that $300 at the end of the year, but I'm damn glad to get my refund.. I have no idea where it comes from." I understand the frustration, but making tax policy which bankrupts the country, relieves those who earn VAST sums of money from paying their fair share (and I don't mean your 'overtime' friends), and pushes ever more public subsidy into private hands is hardly the right reaction, now is it?
OK left out, for some reason my response to you did not post the other day, I will blame it on my Treo, basically i said your claims are not correct.
It is easy to quote quintiles quartiles and other average techniques to dance around the fairness issue with misleading information and justifying punitive tax codes.
Here is a very brief example using an online calculator, there are lots of them and while they vary only a little it serves the example of what I am talking about
Take 2 family of fours, husband wife and two small children. Gross Household income of $50k versus $150K 4 personal exemptions each. to make it clean nothing but the standard deductions for each
Just the federal taxes alone and yes please add in the FICA and the state income taxes to make my point even more clear for you.
The 150K household pays $24,273 fed
The 50K household pays $ 1,073 fed
can you tell me with three times the earnings what the multiple is that the higher earner pays compared to the lower?....Come on grab a calculator and let me know. I was being kind and was being very conservative in my comment above so lets do the math together to make sure were are correct.....And why? Just because they can is the most frequent response to this terribly unfair punishment. I agree there should be some level of higher payment but the gap is at obscene levels and is growing and will erupt even more out of control if liberals control everything.
Again what is fair about this?
I wish someone would punish me with an extra $75,000 in my pocket.
that's my point it is not an extra 75 K in your pocket. you get most of it confiscated.... add the FICA and state tax and it is no wonder those workers said it is hardly worth it.....
So again what is fair about the scenario....why have a spouse work as well? If you break it out and add up the extra taxes on wages on a spouse they are getting is it worth the punitive and repressive taxes.
So it looks more like 3 times income and 25 times the taxes. No wonder liberal base is so interested in taxing higher incomes. Most of their members dont have to pay for it
Well at least if things play out as expected the Republicans will maintain veto power over Democratic controlled congress after next election cycle.
By the way Flash Democrats wish and play lotto to get ahead, Republicans just do it.
.
"that's my point it is not an extra 75 K in your pocket. you get most of it confiscated"
Did you change the numbers on me. You are trying to argue a guy/family that gets an extra $75,000 in their pocket is being punished.
150 - 25 = 125000 - 50,000 = $75,000 more than the $50,000 guy.
Here, lets be fair (according to you), take what we need, divide by the population and every body pays that. So it works out to be about $8000 per capita that 18 year old just out of high school needs to come up with, the Mom and pa making 50,000 and has two kids, they need to find $32,000 and the same $8000 is all Richie Rich has to pay.
There is your fairness, Doc. Or would you maybe agree that ability to pay should be factored in.
Flash
First it is not"extra" $, it is what is earned and rightfully theirs, you brought up the 75 k figure and yes those higher earnings are being punished especially when it comes from a working spouse.
And there you go again putting words into my mouth and misrepresenting my statement to suit your benefit.( I know you ended it with a question which makes you think you are off the hook) Here is what I said, read it slowly so you can understand.
"I agree there should be some level of higher payment but the gap is at obscene levels and is growing"
Not to mention spending is out of control ( from both sides) which is fueling the "need"
3 times income = 25 times the taxes. No one has answered my question "what is fair about that? and don't say because they have the ability to pay. The 50k guy has the ability to pay much more...the door swings both ways.
It makes about as much sense as your previously idiotic statement (previous post comments) that a tax is not punitive until they take 1 penny more than what you earn.
Since no one can answer,(and I realize this is getting to be an old thread) one has to assume it is unfair (again I did not say equal) and hence punitive. I guess you indirectly prove my point.
left over is still trying to figure out how to turn his wacky calculator on to get his inaccurate numbers to jive.
Commenting by HaloScan
