Neal pushing Clinton for VP

I got this via email ... and then saw it posted on the Dome. Seems like a terrible idea to me.

Former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal is lobbying for Hillary Clinton for vice president. The Chapel Hill investment banker, who lost the Democratic primary to state Sen. Kay Hagan in May, is the spokesman for Draft Obama Clinton in North Carolina.

Yuck.

Comments

Agreed. Seems like a very bad idea both for

Jim and Sen. Obama. Not sure what Neal is thinking. His progressive views wouldn't seem to mesh well with Clinton's win, win, win mantra.

And the country does not need a confused, three way push me-pull you-shove him triumvirate.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Where is President Obama?

And the country does not need a confused, three way push me-pull you-shove him triumvirate.*PD

7 months ago! It was a Clinton/Obama ticket, A sure winner and the perfect storm coming together. No doubt in a perfect world of politics, But President Obama term would be the shortest in the history of the president.

I can see another movement emerging from this story.

" It was a inside job that got Obama"

I'm thinking

of nothing other than how to best maximize the probability of an Obama victory in 2008.

Nothing else-- for me, or anyone else.

As I've said many times, if you agreed with me on everything....then I'd be disappointed with myself.

The best way to an Obama victory is for Obama

to clearly define himself as the better alternative to McCain. He can do that without Hillary's "help." I'd be terribly disappointed if he aked her to be on the ticket. It wouldn't, however, be the first time I've been disappointed.

Stan Bozarth

Jim, I understand where

Jim,

I understand where you're coming from, but an Obama/Clinton ticket is unlikely and, in my humble opinion, not the best for the party. There are two reasons for this, part of which are not Clinton's fault.

First, if Obama does ask Clinton, which I believe is possible, it will be viewed as him being pressured into doing so by the party machinery. That makes him appear weak and we know what appearing weak did for Kerry and Gore. I suppose its possible there could be a way to spin this to make it appear as though this were Obama's choice, but I don't know if that could be sold as genuine. There were some very sharp elbows traded in this process and their relationship will need some time to mend. My suggestion for Obama is to let Hillary lead the charge in the senate for Universal Health Care. I think she can continue to be a great senator, and with Obama's leadership this can be a cornerstone for her legacy.

Second, Bill Clinton was willing to put up with inquiries into his financial dealings if it meant the presidency for Hillary. I'm not sure he's willing to do that for the Veep slot. Obama should be very concerned about what those skeletons could be, as they could amount to a huge distraction for the campaign. The power play of a Obama/Clinton ticket would also be a distraction, in my opinion.

I think it's a great idea

Then again, I'm kind of an idiot. :)

I've actually been talking about this for a few months, as my son can attest to.

First off, even though Obama is leading and will probably cinch the nomination real soon, a ticket like this should nullify most of the negative (I won't vote for so-and-so) numbers we've been seeing for both candidates' followers. Meaning, they would be virtually unbeatable come November.

Secondly, it would represent two "firsts" (black President, female VP).

Thirdly (I'm not sure if that's a real word), our country used to give the top two most popular candidates the top two jobs (opposing parties, no less), and government didn't come to a screeching halt.

I don't know. To me, it seems like the best way to represent the wishes of the most voters, anyway.

Nope

Worst idea since King Duncan asked Lady Macbeth if she would be a dear and put the cutlery away after dinner.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Hey Dear! What this Ronald MacDonald invited doing here?

Worst idea since King Duncan asked Lady Macbeth if she would be a dear and put the cutlery away after dinner* Kosh

Or keeping with Scottish myths! When The Campbell Klan was invited to the MacDonalds Klan cookout.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

A friend of mine proposed the notion of a "unity ticket" via e-mail. My response was a succinct:

NO. NO. NO. NO.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Probably the only way to reunite the party quickly

but I still think it's a terrible idea. Jim's going to have work pretty hard to convince me to support this.

A band-aid at best

It would unite the party in the short term. But would it guarantee a November victory? Seeing as how bitter this has become, would a pairing such as this be a believable partnership? How long before a proverbial knife in the back? Can you trust Hillary would have the best interest of the country and the administration at heart? Even if she did, every move she made would be dissected and over-analyzed. Could an Obama/Clinton administrator survive the microscope?

Somehow I think not.

I don't know, Grace

I think a lot will depend on Clinton's behavior in the next week or so. If she gracefully accepts her loss and encourages her supporters to back Obama, most of them probably will. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything recently that would lead me to believe she'll do that. If she does, I'm still not sure having both of them on the ticket is a good idea for all the reasons you mentioned.

You know the current atmosphere as well

as do I.

So I ask you to think about which ticket gets Sen Obama to the White House easiest?

About 17 million Dems have voted for Sen Clinton and you know that I endorsed Sen Obama. I want to see him in the White House next January.

This is, in light of the vitriolic nature of the Presidential primary, what I deem to be in the best interest of such happening.

Hi, Jim... voted for you in

Hi, Jim... voted for you in the primary.

The problem is, does Hillary bring in the undecideds or drive them away?

I have a snowball's chance of bringing in the disillusioned Republican members of my family for Obama if he picks a militarily-experienced VP. I have none if he picks Hillary. Right or wrong, these folks won't vote for her no matter what, in any capacity.

We might also be able to bring in the military vote more easily if we bring in someone else.

Bad idea.

Too many strong-willed people in one room. Too polarizing down-ticket. Too much bad-blood still lingering (between the candidates, their supporters, and their staff).

Finally, I am sick of hearing the words Obama/Clinton in the same sentence. After this primary, just hearing those words together is makes my stomach knot.

P.S. Generally speaking, you want a VP who fully supports the president. Not one who has been arguing for months that he sucks. That should eliminate Clark and Vilsack from the equation as well.

P.P.S. For what it's worth, I like Richardson, although he has been damaged as someone who can heal the wounds between the two camps after Bill and Carville laid into him.

There is Unity

There is unity and then there is unity. I think that Clinton as VP would actually make things less unified. The "what could have been factor" will be huge, and they would probably try to run 2 campaigns, much like Kerry accused Edwards of doing post 04.

The much more productive choice in my mind would be a Clinton supporter who also helps Obama. Someone like Wes Clark would be a huge asset for Obama and would help unify the party. (Even if I am still annoyed at Clark over his anti-Edwards comments months and months ago)

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Check Hagel

I know I am might be dreaming, and I know it might not be received well by some in the grassroots, but I have my hopes set on Chuck Hagel. I admired the John McCain of 2000. I thought he was a principled man who stood up for what he believed in, even if it was not popular nor always what I believed. Now he has sold his soul to the right to get elected President. I believe that Chuck Hagel is the real John McCain, the John McCain I thought I knew in 2000.

If he could be convinced to join the ticket, it would be a powerful sign of "change." We cannot continue Washington as usual. We need serious reform on issues such as immigration and social security. We need someone with the courage to take on the special interests.

With the exception of Iraq

Hagel is an ultra-conservative. He is about as acceptable as McCain.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

So long as Hagel is Anti-Choice...

I'm Anti-Hagel. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Outside of that: Go Yanks!

You are the Anti-Hagel.

or the Anti-Bagel.

or something.

I respect Hagel as a Repbulican, and think that if McCain picks him we'd have a hard time beating that ticket. But I don't want him in our administration.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Hagel is the Anti-Christ

Or at least a minion of the dude, anyway. And the only reason he's in the Senate is because he knows some skillful programmers:

The Ahmanson family sold their shares in American Information Systems to the McCarthy Group and the World Herald Company, Inc. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel disclosed in public documents that he was the Chairman of American Information Systems and claimed between a $1 to 5 million investment in the McCarthy Group. In 1997, American Information Systems purchased Business Records Corp. (BRC), formerly Texas-based election company Cronus Industries, to become ES&S. One of the BRC owners was Carolyn Hunt of the right-wing Hunt oil family, which supplied much of the original money for the Council on National Policy.

In 1996, Hagel became the first elected Republican Nebraska senator in 24 years when he did surprisingly well in an election where the votes were verified by the company he served as chairman and maintained a financial investment. In both the 1996 and 2002 elections, Hagel’s ES&S counted an estimated 80% of his winning votes. Due to the contracting out of services, confidentiality agreements between the State of Nebraska and the company kept this matter out of the public eye. Hagel’s first election victory was described as a “stunning upset” by one Nebraska newspaper.

Chuck Hagel?

If Hagel is McCain in 2000, we can rest assured that he will be batshit crazy by 2012.

Hell, why not Joe Lieberman for that matter? Oh, that's right.. I remember why not!
Because it's a fucking dumb idea.

horrible idea

Put her in the cabinet not vp

"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy

Why Are We Be Talking About Unifying the Party?

It should be a natural thing when one or the other is not the frontrunner after tomorrow June 3rd. It appears that Clinton is the one who has attempted to divide the party because Obama has done everything he can to unify everyone. He has divorced his pastor and now his church. I think ... will freeze over before they can get him to divorce his wife.

Obama Clinton Ticket? No way. Clinton and Clinton did it to themselves and didn't care that one day it may come down to this. She should have acted like a lady and not an ....

So again my question is why are we talking about unifying the party? The only answer I come up with is that Clinton is the one who has divided the party so the best thing for her to do is to get on the sidelines with me.

The struggle continues,
Curmilus Dancy II
Grassroots Effective Community Activist
Talk Show Host/Columnist/Blogger
http://www.thepoliticalagitator.com

"I swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Weisel

C. Dancy

Thanks for the comment ... and for the link to your website. Lots to read there.

Welcome.

In re: Thanks for the comment . . .

I have been reading BlueNC for several months and wanted to post something however I couldn't think of anything I wanted to post here. Your post did it.

Thank you for such a thought prevoking post.

As always I am just stating my opinion and I always keep in mind that everybody has one and we are all entitled to voice our opinion.

Note: Deleted some wording in this post. I had thought that the original post was by Jim Neal himself however I see it is James. My mistake.

The struggle continues,
Curmilus Dancy II
Grassroots Effective Community Activist
Talk Show Host/Columnist/Blogger
http://www.thepoliticalagitator.com

"I swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Weisel

Okay, but....

First, I think most everyone here knows I'm an Obama supporter. So, I've got to ask: Act like a lady??

Give me a break. Give me a fucking break. I realize that's not ladylike speech, but if Senator Clinton had taken that advice, she never would have made it into the Senate, my friend. Say what you want, but leave your "act like a lady" crap at home.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

IF she were not married to Bill Clinton

Guilt by association? I do think that Senator Clinton has worked very hard all of her career and most recently as NY senator. However we know that the campaign is a time for political groups to publicize every pimple.

In my opinion, there is very little we could criticize McCain for, that one would not see parallels in HC's husband's life. He hs spent the years since his presidency cashing in on favors and monetary gain.

Read Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton. It makes the pastor stories and the tony rensko stories look like Humpty Dumpty stories.

In terms of electability' I consider the potential scandals, and I am not talking about young women, but also questionable businesses and fantastic amounts of money earned and just not the kind of life style that really encourages confidence.

It would seriously parallel the things we criticize bush, cheney and mcsame for.

A very weak position to be in.

I do not want Bill Clinton in this race.
I want ethical behaving people.

TurnNCBlue

The Hillary

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too …. !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

dolly

dolly

Obama/Clinton - horrible pairing

Obama has campaigned on changing DC; Clinton represents everything that's wrong with business as usual in Washington. With all the new registered Democratic voters seeking change, why go this route? Her debt-riddled, consultant class-laden campaign, the obvious sense of entitlement in her universe and the way she her team has polarized voters (and tried to capitalize on open wounds of racism) would only be validated by such a move. As others have said, it presents the same opportunities for Republican smears as if she were at the top of the ticket. They've been waiting and hoping for that opportunity.

That pairing would drag a lot of downticket races into the can.

There are other ways to unify the party than to compromise the Obama "brand" with this move; folks need to think outside of the box on this one. The disaffected Hillary supporters who would cast their vote for McCain before Obama should not be dismissed, but what kind of commitment do they have to party principles if they are willing to throw away Roe v. Wade, for example, in their anger?

For instance, I received this email twice yesterday. How many people do you think this supporter represents?

Your last chance for Women's "Equal Rights! 
 
Never again will most women voters in this upcoming Election have an opportunity to
choose a WOMAN as a Presidential Nominee, with a chance to be PRESIDENT!
Don't lose the one opportunity you may have in your lifetime, to finally bring the equality of:
 
 "Equal Rights"  for women?  It is guaranteed by the US Constitution!
 
Consider for a moment that:
 Women in 2008 are still fighting for 'Constitutionally guaranteed' "Equal Rights"!
 
Women are not fairly represented in the US Supreme Court! 1 woman---8 men!
 
Women were granted  the "Right to Vote"  50 years after  Afro-Americans!
 
Women are still paid much less than men when doing the very same job!
 
Most all State, and Government executive offices are held by men!
 
Women have never held the office of President of the US!
 
Women are not fairly represented in Congress!
 
Chauvinist men revel in their power over women.
  Men vote for men, and against women.
       Oddly, some women vote the same.  
 
  You can help!      Promote  &  VOTE    Hillary! 
 
  43 men----0 zero women!
 
Twenty four (24) years is eternity!   (Last women candidate!)
---------------------------------- 
If you really care for justice and equality Hillary is a MUST!

The part that disturbs me is the idea that there is some sort of line of social progression that must be followed, and Obama's legitimate win (by the standards set by the party) is somehow jumping ahead in line as a black man before a woman. No matter that this is toxic thinking, but it completely leaves out the position women of color are in. Are we to choose between our gender or our race, or are we just some irrelevant group somewhere way back in the social progression line? It's dismissive, myopic thinking that has gone on throughout this primary race, and it's divisive and damaging -- but not surprising given our country's inability to rationally discuss gender and race matters.

An honest question -- for Clinton supporters who are disappointed but pragmatic, is there any scenario that is acceptable if she is not the VP?

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

Never Again?

Wow. So most women voters will be dead or on another planet by the next election cycle?
Viva Clairvoyance!

The part that disturbs me...

The part that disturbs me is that those same supporters will walk away from the primary cycle and convention believing that (1) the Democratic nomination was stolen by (2) an "inadequate black male" (to use the language of very vocal, but hopefully not a representative, Clinton supporter)* who (3) didn't count every vote and as a result, (4) McCain is the better choice... for women.

* The "inadequate black male" comment comes from this interview conducted with a Clinton supporter after Saturday's RBC meeting. I don't think it's representative but I know it isn't helpful.

And to finish my own sentence...

... and then, I find a story like this that makes me hopeful that the party can reconcile and move forward (or at least make a clear case for why we should do so).

There will be other women

And their will be a woman president.

She will NOT be Hillary Clinton. (I'll be happy to consider Chelsea when she is 35, but I think she has too much sense to run).

The best thing that Obama could do to short circuit the Hillary crowd is pick a woman as VP. It is sad that Elizabeth Edwards is ill, she would be great.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

There are good female VP candidates

Off the top of my head, Kathleen Sebelius comes to mind. Her downfall is that she is a midwesterner and we all know region plays a part in selection.

Janet Napolitano is another. As Governor of Arizona, she could serious put a dent in some of McCain's southwest support.

Ya'll are killing me :)

"Now listen, America. We know you got your heart set on putting a woman in the White House, and we think that's a great idea! But not this woman. She's a bad woman. Here's the one you need, and she should get along just fine with the President. Now now, don't cry. When you grow up you'll understand."

Oh yeah, that will go over well...

The Corollary to Not This Woman

But the corollary to Not This Woman is that the argument is no longer about putting a woman, even a capable woman, into the White House... it's about putting Hillary Clinton into the White House.

And at that point, I don't think it can fairly be characterized as a pro-woman movement, but has to be characterized as a Hillary Clinton movement. Not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary.

Getting back to Jim Neal

Would anyone from his campaign like to confirm with BLUENC that Jim Neal is really taking a position on the VP candidacy of HC?
and what moves him to make this decision?

I would almost not believe that he would take this position. The people I know on his campaign seem like well grounded people and there seems like no point for him to take a position on this issue. It could be true that he looks toward a role in her administration? And he truly sees her as the better candidate? There could be good reasons for him to take this position. But I am suspicious that it is a rumor that will prove to be false.

TurnNCBlue

The Google..

The Google only brings up draftobamaclinton.com, where one of those reliable online petitions has a whole 98 names on it. One of the most recent is Jim Neal. Of course, the most recent is Phil McCracken... so ...

Well it's true

from the horse's mouth.

Speaking out for what I believe to be the best presidential ticket, the one with the highest probability of prevailing in November, has absolutely nothing to do with how I personally feel about any particular candidate. What is relevant is taking back the White House and defeating a host of formidable Republicans (READ: Senator Dole, Pat McCrory and the list continues.)

Sen Obama is the change candidate-- for sure. I endorsed his candidacy enthusiastically a long time ago.

However, I've never seen the Democratic party so divided.

An Obama-Clinton ticket will I believe put North Carolina into play. If that's the case, Kay wins, Bev wins and so on down the ticket.

Look- at the end of the day I have my differences with many people running in our party. So do many of you. However, I'd challenge you-- as I have myself-- to think long and hard what's best for North Carolina and America? Some of you will agree and others will not.

We'll all agree that it's certainly not John McCain, not Elizabeth Dole and not Pat McCrory. Democrats and Independents, regardless of where one rests on the pendulum between far right and far left, are a helluva lot better off with Democrats in office in 2008.

This election is the most important of my lifetime. And I know that in light of the daunting challenges before our nation and our state, change starts anew every day with what we have: the nominees of the Democratic party.

Work with them. Help to shape their POVs: your voices do matter, less all of the candidates past and present would not be appealing to you for your support.

Thanks.

I agree with Jim Neal

And I know this isn't Jim's term for it, but we're hamstrung here. An Obama Clinton ticket is simply the easiest route to unity. The alternatives are frought with the peril that Camp Clinton would continue to telegraph the kind of poisonous fratricidal hoodoo we've seen during the primary.

She is quite honestly the only person in the country who could beat Obama in the general. I DO NOT TRUST THAT SHE WOULDN'T DO IT. It would be subtle, but her speech last night gives every indication that she would take him out.

If she starts eating some serious crow NOW, I may actually warm up to her by August. I can kind of half way see it being an authentically attractive idea at some time in the future (instead of a grudging compromise).

Right now, she's still pissing on my parade.

Wrong wrong wrong

I like Jim a lot, but he's wrong on this one.

Getting Clinton onto the ticket out of fear that she would try to destroy Obama is like staying in an abusive marriage because the husband will beat the crap out of you if you leave, even though he's already beating the crap out of you. Clinton's behavior in this campaign has made her toxic to anyone truly interested in changing how business gets done in DC.

She would have to do a 180 turn and surrender gracefully. She missed that opportunity last night.

From Realclearpolitics:

Popular Vote Count

Obama Clinton

17,389,253 48.1% 17,364,667 48.0%

I'm an Obama supporter, and I am relieved that he has (apparently) made it to the finish line slightly ahead of Clinton. Slightly. Meaning, a whole bunch of Democrats in this country are behind Clinton.

Now, if you folks want to assume those millions of Clinton supporters will (en masse) switch over to Obama, go ahead and assume that. Or if you want to delude yourselves into thinking we don't need them to beat McCain, you can believe that, too.

But make no mistake: even with all the new registered Democrats, and even if all those Dems join ranks behind Obama (and whoever), and even considering John McCain's questionable ability to energize Republicans, this race is going to be close as hell, and we'll need every single vote we can get.

See, those Clinton supporters don't have to vote for McCain to put him into office. They just have to stay home.

The majority..

is not always correct. If that were the case, we would have ended up an English-only, Christian-only, nation where LGBT people are subjected to discrimination and non-whites are enslaved by... you get the point.

Just because almost half the country wants her as the nominee, it doesn't mean she is the right person for the job. If we went solely on this type of criteria, McCain would serve as the VP to Obama or, scary thought that it is, vice-versa.

Is it really that many?

Just because almost half the country wants her as the nominee, it doesn't mean she is the right person for the job.

I believe quite a few Republicans voted for Hillary in the primaries because they felt she was easier to beat in the general due to high negatives, etc. It could easily be several million- more than enough to make the popular numbers not so close.

scharrison You're no idiot

I believe you sense the potential for trouble.

As if women can always be expected to acquiesce to the usurping of their voting block, a block which fielded the most qualified candidate in 2008, so that other self-identifying voter blocks and their supporting constituencies can “get their historic win on” with a lesser qualified candidate. As long as party unity is the lips of those throwing the women-voting block under the bus, we tell ourselves it is justified.

There are people who feel the party can no longer be trusted to uphold the basic principles of a democracy. When the women’s voting block is no longer respected in the party, when the votes for one of their women candidates is hijacked by the party itself and accepted by the male candidate for whom the votes were taken, it’s time to put teeth into a vote that can’t be taken or suppressed. A vote with your feet. Walking away from the party that no longer represents women as equals.

“I’m not even a second class citizen. I’m nothing” - Harriet Christian, On the DNC RBC Meeting, May 31, 2008"

what I don't understand

...is why the anger is directed at Obama and/or the DNC. One - Obama has led this race since Super Tuesday, playing by all the rules all of the candidates and the party agreed to at the outset. Why is the anger not focused on the people behind the Clinton campaign who ran it into the ground, despite the merits of the candidate herself? The sense of entitlement got the better of them when it came to strategic planning. My guess is that venting about that fact has no ability to change the outcome of this process, even though realistic options are now exhausted. While there was plenty of misogynistic treatment along the way, I don't see a "women's voting bloc" that is disrespected. Actually, I don't even know how one defines that term.

I only hear in the anger the charge of gender bias that somehow race trumps gender equality. If only that were true in the real world. For those of us who are women of color, we get it on all sides, so these arguments can ring hollow, because the discourse treats us as if we either don't exist, or don't/can't think independently when it comes to voting.

The situation with MI and FL was obviously a debacle, but all parties were aware of that from the beginning, and Clinton signed off on the process and rules herself. The punishment for those two states moving their primaries had nothing to do with suppressing one demographic over another. Even if Clinton somehow managed to get those 4 extra delegates that supporters are angry about (or even a full vote for all of them), she's bleeding superdelegates and still won't cross the finish line. The question is, if Obama has won fair and square, why is this still unacceptable to Hillary supporters?

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

Amen!

n/t

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Pages