After she won the Puerto Rico Democratic primary on Sunday, Sen. Hillary Clinton had faint
hope, but Tuesday that faint hope disappeared as she lost in Montana. Though she did actually beat Sen. Barack Obama in South Dakota, it wasn’t enough. She was bleeding superdelegates by that point, and Sen. Obama had gained enough delegates with pledged and superdelegates to guarantee him the Democratic nomination for President.
Wednesday, news broke that Sen. Clinton would announce on Saturday that she was suspending her campaign and endorsing Sen. Obama. Now, speculation can begin about what role she will play in his campaign. Did the campaign drive a wedge between them personally big enough to keep her from a high-level position, like Vice Presidential nominee? Does she want to be Vice President, or would she rather wait four or eight years to try to be nominated again. Vice Presidents are almost the nominee of their party after the Presidents they serve finish their terms (after being reelected), but they rarely win the election. President George H.W.






Barack Obama both getting big primary wins. Sen. Clinton won in Kentucky by 35 percentage points, and Sen. Obama won in Oregon by 16 percentage points. Obama was the big winner, however, since by most estimates he secured enough pledged delegates yesterday to give him a majority of those total pledged delegates.
Sen. Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary yesterday by a whopping 41 percentage points, but even this probably won’t save her campaign. It adds up to a net gain of ten delegates while over 20 superdelegates have committed to Sen. Barack Obama in the last week.
The title doesn’t say it all. Sen. Hillary Clinton won Indiana by only 2 percentage points while Sen. Barack Obama won in NC by 15 points. This means that Clinton will not get very many more delegates out of Indiana than Obama, and the difference between Obama’s delegates and Clinton’s delegates in NC will make up for Clinton’s Pennsylvania win two weeks ago. 

For a long time now, I’ve thought that there needed to be a change in the tone of the debate over abortion. I don’t adhere blindly to the well-worn belief that “bipartisanship is good.” Healthy debate is good, and there are times when people are elected because of what they believe in. No, the reason I think the tone of the abortion debate needs to change is that we pro-lifers aren’t getting anywhere the way we’re going now.

BlogoSquare