he was going to bring back Terry McAuliffe.

I believe Jan 25th, was well after both IA & NH though.

it's political posturing. But comparing it to such epic struggles for justice will only sow resentment among her supporters. That's what makes it toxic.

those have been "the" swing states the past two elections, so it therefore follows that they will be  "the" swing states now and forevermore.

I agree. I think these comparisons are not just absurd, but toxic. They are designed to convince her supporters that she was cheated out of the nomination by some unprecedented historical wrong.

that to be cute. IA & NH are critical, because those are the states that have long been given the privilege of voting first in primaries. Criticism of IA & NH's first in the nation status is the third rail of primary politics. Look at what happened to Dean in 2004 when video of him questioning IA's right to be first surfaced.

If Hillary had questioned the DNC's decision to punish FL & MI in advance of IA & NH, she would have paid a high political price for it in those states. But if this is really the moral equivalent of women's suffrage or slavery, isn't that a burden she should have gladly accepted?

how I feel about the decision myself. I don't think IA & NH should have the protected status they have enjoyed for so long. I think it's good for IA & NH, but bad for the party. On the other hand, I can understand why the DNC needs to have the ability to enforce it's rules (whatever I think of them). But, frankly, I don't see it as the kind of black and white moral issue that Hillary now claims it is. Stupid, perhaps, but not on the same level (in moral terms) as slavery or women's suffrage.

if this is the moral equivalent of slavery, women's suffrage (as Clinton now argues), it was a real act of political cowardice for Clinton to agree to abide by the DNC's rules regardless of consequences, no?

Just saying.

For so many reasons seek help.

Bush launches a partisan, and fundamentally dishonest, attack from foreign soil, and many of Hillary's supporters here agree with him. Either these folks were Republicans all along, or they have completely lost their bearings due to blinding hatred.

doesn't have near enough credibility to damage anyone else's credibility. I hope the least popular president in American history attacks Obama twice a day between now and November. Hopefully they'll get Cheney in on the act too.

didn't want to support the loser. There isn't much more to it than that.

I think they could have waited until Clinton dropped out to endorse, and I can understand why Clinton and her supporters would feel this as a slap in the face. But politics is a brutal business. NARAL wants to have as much influence over an Obama administration as possible, and I image they felt endorsing now was the best way to ensure that.

This is a sorry excuse for a Dem site. I realize he still thinks there Hillary has a chance to win, but personal attacks on the likely Dem nominee are stupid and counterproductive. This site has become an irrelevant cesspool, which is sad considering it's proud history. And Jerome is an ass. Plain and simple.

you are an ass.