Just because I will vote for a Democrat for President in November doesn't mean I will not question or candidate. I believe Obama's positions on the issues should be continuously scrutinized, and criticized when appropriate. I'm particularly upset about the newest so-called compromise FISA bill being debated in Congress and Obama's support. It's actually everything the Bush Administration wants.

I'm not the kind of supporter who lets my adoration of the man overpower reality, and I'm not going to trust that Obama, with his "divine" wisdom, knows what's best for us normal people. He says the new FISA bill is good because it puts an end to Bush's illegal spying on Americans.

Well, he's right, in a way. The bill puts an end to illegal spying because it will make it legal! I want Obama to explain it to us, in detail, why it's a good idea to give all Presidents the freedom to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant. If we don't have all the facts, he needs to let explain it to us. Why is it a good idea to give what the ACLU says is "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans." We cannot afford to just take it on his word or anyone else's that this is a good idea. I don't accept the excuse that withholding the facts supporting the need for warrantless surveilllance makes our country more secure. Trust no one. That includes those that want us to trust unconditionally.

If he doesn't share his divine wisdom, I can only come to one conclusion: He and the Democrats in Congress have betrayed us on this matter.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."

If you guessed Bush, you'd be partially wrong. Those particular words were spoken last Friday by Barack Obama. Sounds a lot like George Bush. Don't believe me, read on.

On the same day, Bush said the bill "allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home." It's uncanny.

Obama and the Democratic leadership want us to believe that this bill protects our liberties by providing judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance. In reality, according to the ACLU, the bill "permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment."

In the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill, the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues. That process can take months. In other words, there will be no effective judicial oversight with this bill.

Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise "a farce" and "political cover." In my opinion, it's specifically designed to provide political cover for Obama. Feingold says "Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they've even read it."

All Democrats, all Americans should question any politician who claims the latest FISA bill is good for America. Don't let your adoration blind you from the facts. We are being betrayed. Call your Congressional representatives and let them know, in no uncertain terms, you will not be betrayed on this issue.

Last night, I watched Comedy Central's Daily Show. I just love that show. Mr. Stewart pointed out that, three months ago, during one of his rare press conferences, Bush II feigned surprised at a reporter's assertion that $4 a gallon gasoline was on the horizon. Bush II said that he hadn't heard that and even treated the reporter's comments with contempt. Later, in that same press conference, McCain's mentor said that, if Congress would just defeat any attempt to end corporate welfare to oil companies, it would prevent $4 a gallon gasoline.

Fast forward to today. Congress didn't pass any measure to end welfare to big oil, and we have $4 a gallon gasoline! It seems Bush III (aka McCain aka McBush) doesn't have to try very hard to look exactly like Bush II. They share fundamental ideas and beliefs, especially when it comes to doling out welfare to big oil. I wonder if McBush knows about $4 a gallon gasoline? As I'm sure it's occurred to everyone else, unless McCain denounces everything about Bush, I mean every single thing, there's no way in hell he can get elected President! The beauty of it is, if he does denounce Bush, he still doesn't have a chance!

We all know what the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee did on Saturday. I guess, for us to move one, it had to be done, but not like this. What kind of message does it say to voters when the Democratic National Committee says "Your vote is worth only half on account of where you live, but everyone else gets a full vote"? What part of fair and democratic voting does the DNC not understand? One of the things they did was take four delegates away from Clinton (that she earned) and awarded them to Obama. He did not earn them. This had the effect of changing the votes of 600,000 people in Michigan.

How is this democratic? How is this even legal?

Of course this made a lot of people angry. It's the sort of thing that goes on in corrupt governments and dictatorships. It should never happen in the United States... but it has.

Washington, DC - U.S. Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-Miramar) issued the following statement today in response to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Rules and Bylaws Committee's ruling to seat Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention with only 1/2 of a vote per person.

"It is with reluctance and disappointment that I accept the DNC's decision today. I do so not because I agree with the decision but because it is time for us to move on and focus on winning in November.

"I applaud Karen Thurman and the Florida Democratic Party, Robert Wexler, Bill Nelson and others who represented our state and the candidates for doing the best they could with a bad situation.

"Florida Democrats have been serially abused and the DNC is the latest of offenders. How the DNC has the authority to ignore the votes of `Jack and Jane Lunch Bucket' is beyond my understanding. The insiders who actively sought to disillusion and disenfranchise the more than 1.75 million Florida Democrats who voted on January 29 give new meaning to collective arrogance.

"The DNC's decision today ignores the core principle of our great democracy: the right to vote. I know that the 1.75 million Democrats who voted on January 29 count and don't give a damn what the DNC rules pronounce.

"Going to a party's convention is a privilege. Courts have said that political parties have a right to make their rules. In this case, the DNC has chosen to take away that privilege from people who I believe have earned the right to participate in the National Convention in Denver with a full vote. As Americans, we should never insinuate or give vent to taking away the constitutional, time honored, died for, and cherished rights of voters from any state. Yet that is what today's decision has done to the people of Florida and Michigan.

"I suppose the DNC has the right to block Democrats in Florida from attending the National Convention. They also have the right to be stupid, and stupid they are.

"At the beginning of our great country's history my ancestors were counted as only 2/3 of a person. Until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, they weren't allowed to vote. During that same time and until 1920, women could not vote. White men who did not own property could not vote at one point in our history as well.

"Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors' progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also. For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's `I Have a Dream' speech, the DNC's decision today is tragically ironic.

"As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

"Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country. Together, we will do whatever it takes to increase our majority in the House and Senate and win the Presidency.

"While I cannot speak for others, I do not intend to take any further legal action against the DNC. If I believed that we could win, believe me, I would act and so would others. But based on case history, it is an uphill battle screaming for a change in federal law.

"I will, however, spend enormous energy on convincing my colleagues in Congress that we must create a rotating regional Presidential primary system. 30 political insiders - nearly all of whom ain't ever been elected to a damn thing in their lives- must never again have the ability to reject the will of and unilaterally disenfranchise 1.75 million voters.

"This election is bigger than Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is certainly bigger than the DNC. There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured, gas and energy costs are spiraling out of control, America's economy is faltering, and U.S. troops are dying nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.

"As Florida voters have demonstrated time and time again, we will rise above those who have sought to silence our voices and vote big and win in November."

Representative Hastings joined Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Representative Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville) in suing the DNC in December 2007 on the grounds that the DNC's decision to strip Florida Democrats of their votes at the DNC National Convention in Denver is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For the last six months, Representative Hastings has led efforts calling on the DNC to reinstate Florida's 211 delegates to the National Convention. A leader in Congressional election reform efforts, Representative Hastings was the former Vice Chair of the Democratic Special Committee on Election Reform following the 2000 election debacle and recently authored bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation establishing a rotating regional Presidential primary system.

The Democratic Party came to the wrong conclusion yesterday. What they did was wholly UNdemocratic. How can anyone, especially if they live in Florida or Michigan, ever have faith in that party again? It's bad enough that the Republicans shit on Florida in 2000, but now the Democrats have shit on them in 2008. This is not good for the country.

The problems with the Florida primary were entirely caused by Republicans. Everything else about their primary was legitimate. The only fair thing to do was to have re-instated Florida's delegates fully as if the primary had happened in March. The Democratic Party did not do this.

The problems with Michigan were caused by the Democrats themselves. They should not have given Iowa and New Hampshire any more preference over any other states in scheduling their primaries. Additionally, all of the candidates besides Clinton chose to have their names removed from the ballots, and they paid for lawyers to have this done. The only fair thing to do is to give Clinton all the delegates she earned, and allow the remaining delegates to go to the convention as "uncommitted", exactly as the ballot showed. This was, after all, the intent of the remaining candidates. The Democratic Party did not do this.

When the Constitution was adopted, it treated black people as 3/5 of a person--not a whole person--just 60 of a person. This, of course, was wrong and took nearly 100 years, a Constitutional Amendment, and the costliest war in American history to remedy. What kind of message does it say to voters when the Democratic Party says "Your vote is worth only half on account of where you live, but everyone else gets a full vote"? How is this different than saying "You're only counted as 3/5 of a person due to your skin color, but everyone else gets counted as a whole person"? What part of fair and democratic voting does the party not understand?

One of the things they did was take four delegates away from Clinton (that she earned) and awarded them to Obama (he did not earn them). This had the effect of changing the votes of 600,000 people in Michigan. How is this democratic? How is this even legal? Of course this made a lot of people angry. It's the sort of thing that goes on in corrupt governments and dictatorships. It should never happen in the United States... but it has.

I can tell you now that there will be TV and radio advertisements in both states that say "The Democratic Party took your vote away. They don't want you to vote, and they don't care about you. Vote for McCain, instead. We care about you! We counted all of our votes. Paid for by the Republican Party." How is that going to help defeat the Republicans in November? It won't.

Here are some things that people at the meeting yesterday had to say about it:

"I am astonished that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters. Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the credentials committee." -- Harold Ickes, committee member

"Denver! Denver! Denver!" --Hecklers, booing the committee and the Obama supporters, suggesting the fight be taken to the National Convention

"The Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate black male." -- Harriet Christian (New York)

(True, it had never occurred to me that he was "inadequate", but that is the best adjective to describe his experience and credentials.)

"This is outrageous to have four delegates just taken away. I don't feel like we have any voice in this party." -- Joan Lipkin (Missouri)

"The committee sold out to Obama. Obama gamed the system. That's the Obama game. He talks about new politics, but he plays dishonest politics." -- Lyn Forester de Rothschild (New York)

Yep. I've always been saying "Change? What change? Obama has never said what he plans to change to. He's doing the same thing as everyone else, but alienating those who would play the game on his side." People believe he's playing a new type of political game (and therefore a clean game), but it's just a different kind of dirty. At least with Clinton we know exactly what kind of mud there is and that we can fling it and win.

I believe that the Democratic Party chose (long ago) to have Obama as the candidate. Unfortunately, his chances of winning against McCain were slim before the RBC decision, and now they're slimmer. That McCain is the next president means that there will be no restoration of civil rights, no restoration of environmental policies, no attempt at universal health care. Rather, the opposite: health care will get more expensive, the government will break more laws, the environment will continue to be raped for a profit until it dies (taking us with it), and a nuclear war with Iran is statistical likelihood.

I've seen these kinds of political fraud happening on the news in communist countries, dictatorships, third-world countries where democracy is a joke and everyone knows that they don't have any real power there, but I never thought I would see these kinds of things in the United States. Then it happened in 2000 with the Republican Party... now it's happening in 2008 with the Democratic Party. Haven't we been habitually chastising those countries for the undemocratic elections? Nevertheless, we've turned into them. You know, for the first time ever, I truly feel doomed."

After yesterday's disastrous ruling by the RBC, this monring, I found a wonderful editorial from the Denver Post's editorial page editor, Dan Haley. This is for the many Clinton supporters out there on MyDD.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic presidential nomination: I developed a bit of a crush on Hillary Clinton. Not a full-on, lovey-dovey crush, but an admiration for Clinton that I never thought was possible.

My conservative friends will want to wash my mouth out with whatever swill Hillary was tossing back at that working-class Pennsylvania bar a few weeks ago, but it's true. She's really grown on me. It's not the pantsuits. It certainly not her monotone speech pattern or her long, wonkish policy talks.

It's the spunk. It's the fact she actually campaigned, hard, in Puerto Rico of all places. It's the never- say-die attitude. I like that no one questions her toughness, the perennial knock on female candidates. And just when you think she's John Wayne incarnate, ready to take a poke at someone, she gets all emotional and sob-sister on us.

Maybe she planned it as strategy, or maybe it just emanated from the strain of a long campaign, but she finally let us see her softer, more human side. Heck, I even like the fact that I can't figure out why she's still running. Is it to weaken Barack Obama to the point he loses to John McCain and she can run in four years as the "I-told-you-so" candidate? Does she really think she has a chance? Or does she just have too much pride to pull out now after being dismissed by the punditry, her opponent and half of her party?

With all of this intrigue, the woman we thought we knew all too well is suddenly mysterious. Be still my heart. Of course, she frequently gives me reasons to end my silly crush, such as the Clintonesque way she counts votes, saying she's ahead in the popular vote. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "popular vote" is, eh, Hillary?

And then there's the whole Bobby Kennedy didn't get assassinated until June theory and the obligatory, almost forced looks of adoration she shoots at her husband on the stump. Ugh. Any reminder of the Clinton family megalomania of the 1990s is a real turn-off.

Yet, as the campaign wore on, I found myself drawn to Hillary if for no other reason than the fact she can't see anyone besides herself being president. There's a certain amount of comfort in that confidence, after nearly eight years of an administration seemingly adrift.

The duties of the Oval Office won't chew her up and spit her out like some Jimmy Carter retread.

Truth be told, I also think part of my newfound affection stems from the estrogen level in my household. I'm outnumbered by females, three to one. I often tell my 6-year-old how blessed she is to live in a country where she can be anything she wants to be. I truly want her to believe it, because most days I believe it, too. Not too long ago, she was singing along to a "Hannah Montana" song in the car: "Who says? Who says I can't be president?" I turned to my wife and, only half-jokingly, said, "Well, she can run for president anyway . . . ."

Assuming Hillary's campaign will come to an end soon -- and yes, I realize that's quite an assumption -- I hope history remembers it for how she obliterated the traditional barriers that have stood in the way of other women becoming president. No one should question whether a woman is tough enough or competent enough to be president.

Hillary weathered enough sexism on the campaign trail that it should empower an entire generation of young women to someday sing with some certainty, "Who says I can't be president?" Even if Hillary Clinton never makes it to the White House, I'll tell my daughters about how she blazed the trail.

I believe that the Democratic Party rested on the laurels of 8 years of the Clinton Administration, and didn't do enough to fight for its principles and maintain power despite the previous 12 years of Republican disaster and the concurrent 8 years of Republican mongering during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

In effect, the Democratic Party took a blue-skies attitude and would not see the Republican Party for the insidious machine that it is. The fact that much of the American voting public was dragged along with it was only more telling of how skillful the Republican Party is at deceiving everyone for its own ends.

Even though the Democratic Party won the popular presidential vote in 2000, they nevertheless managed to lose the election in the Electoral College because, I believe, of their own shortsightedness. The did not plan to fail, they failed to plan.

The following 6 years of the Bush II Administration showed how weak and ineffective and irrelevant the Democratic Party had become. Even though they did not have control of either house of Congress, nor the executive branch, I believe they could have done much more to at least slow destructive forces in our country.

In fact, the Democratic Party is so weak, they could not stop, nor slow, the continued destruction of our country at the hands of the Republican Party, who became the minority party in 2006 in both houses of Congress.

If the Republicans can do whatever they want in Congress as a minority party after 2006, why couldn't the Democrats have at least stopped them in 2000-2006 when they were the minority party? It's because, I believe, the Democratic Party may be nearing the end of its power, the end of its relevancy, and the end of its life.

In the 2008 election, the Republicans went through the charade of having primaries even though the party itself had probably already decided on who they wanted to be their nominee. The years 1980-2006 are a classic example of how a political machine like the Republican Party can orchestrate the national landscape to suit the personal needs of the orchestra leaders. Puppets may look alive, singing and dancing on a stage, but they're nothing by objects manipulated by a puppet master. And so the Republican Party, with all its presidents, congressmen, governors, legislators, and registered voters are to the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove (and whoever else there that we don't know about, like perhaps the owners of oil companies and pharmaceutical companies).

The Democrats however, refused to get organized and step behind the best candidate, and instead said "we'll let the voters decide." How much worse did this make the situation when one of the main candidates seemed to come from out of nowhere, with almost no national political experience. The fact that many of the party leaders are openly supporting a green, has-done-nothing-so-far, has-no-experience-or-plan candidate suggests they don't know what kind of forces they're up against. This has created a clear, near-equal division of the Democratic Party, one that they cannot possibly hope to be heal before the November election.

A terrible symptom of this problem is the Michigan and Florida primaries. The leadership of the Democratic Party has so far refused to acknowledge that, fundamentally, the date of the Florida primary was changed by the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor, that the minority Democrats in Tallahassee tried to have the date changed back, but were outvoted 2-to-1 by the Republicans. The fact that the date of the Florida primary broke Democratic Party rules is not the fault of the Democratic Party nor of the registered Democrat voters in Florida. Additionally, there was nothing illegitimate about the Florida primary: all the candidates were on the ballot there, and all candidates had the opportunity to campaign there (whether they chose to, or not). The reasons why Michigan changed their date is unclear, but it was Barack Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot. He did not have to do that, and it was at great expense. Michigan and Florida's votes should count, 100%, hands down. The rule that these states couldn't have their primaries when they did is unfair since it gives unfounded influence to Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of all other states.

The fact of the matter is, Florida and Michigan account for 9.3% of the total national population. If the Democratic Party thinks they can disenfranchise more than 1 out of every 11 people, all the while divided as it is among two nearly-equal candidates, and still win the election in November, they are very mistaken. George Bush I won the popular vote in 1988 by 7.8%. Bill Clinton won the popular vote in 1992 by 5.6% and again in 1996 by 8.5%. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by only 0.5%. George Bush II won the popular vote in 2004 by only 2.4%. No president has been elected by more than a 9% margin since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984. I don't think the Democrats can afford to make the voters of Florida and Michigan unhappy, especially since those states carry 44 votes in the electoral college!

I believe, the Democratic Party has made so many poor decisions when it comes to national strategy, that they could be considered to have a death wish. Their bias toward one candidate over another who is clearly more qualified, electable, and resistant to the Republican Party political machine is misguided. There's no new dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Republicans could possibly dish up that we haven't already heard about. But, I don't believe for one minute that Barack Obama can withstand a campaign assault by the Republican Party who will stop at nothing to get their way (remember, they started looking for ways to impeach Bill Clinton before he was even elected!), and still be able to carry out an effective presidency.

The fact of the matter is that today we have (1) a foreign policy that is a shambles and has alienated every international ally we had and has created new foreign enemies, (2) a military that is so overextended and worn out that it is no longer effective overseas and is not available to help in natural disasters at home, (2) a Constitution that has been weakened far beyond any other time in American history (the Civil War included) including a loss of civil liberties that puts us back to the early 19th Century, (3) a domestic policy that has degraded our health and education systems and our national infrastructure and the environment to the point that we're now on par with many third-world nations with dictatorial governments, (4) no energy policy at all that has created an unprecedented instability and potential collapse of our energy supplies, which is leading to (5) the slow collapse of the world economy not seen since 1929.

I honestly believe that we're in for some serious hard times globally, where there will be a financial crisis that will cause energy and food crises that will take many years to stabilize (like they did in the 1970s). I believe that conditions will only grow worse if a Republican is elected to the presidency in November. I believe that a Democrat cannot win the presidency in November if the Democratic Party doesn't select (1) the candidate most able to defeat the Republican Party and (2) allow full delegate counts to Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party must earn as many electoral votes as possible in November, or else we will have no hope of slowing down the collapse of the United States. Our way of life is already unsustainable and has been for decades and has toppled over the tipping point, but we need political leadership who will reduce the effects of the crash by steering us in a new direction. Republican leadership will only lead to a last-minute cash grab before impact. I do not believe, however, that the Democratic Party has the will to do what it takes to survive. Unfortunately, all of us will go with it.

[Update] The DNC Rules Committee just voted to disenfranchise 100's of thousands of voters who voted in good faith, regardless of what their party leaders might have or have not done. Hillary Clinton reserved the right to take this matter to the Credentials Committee. If the DNC does not reinstate ALL of the delegate votes, the Democratic party will lose the general election.

Update [2008-5-29 23:23:1 by zenful6219]: I am fed up with Obama supporters on MyDD telling Clinton supporters when it's time to stop talking about the crap Obama is associated with. We'll tell you when enough is enough. If you don't want to read yet another diary about Obama's pastor problems, then don't read any further. Just hit your back button. It's that simple.

Yet another Pastor, one who until recently, was also on the Obama campaign's pastoral advisory committee, has revealed himself as a "problem" child for Obama.

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us," he said. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

Well, all I can say is at least Obama didn't take as long as he did with Wright to "repudiate" Father Pfleger's hatred. What kind of church is this? Hillary Clinton was right when she said she would have found another church.

Pfleger issued a separate apology Thursday, saying his remarks were "inconsistent with Sen. Barack Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

What a sack of shit! If Obama had any integrity, he would resign from this sorry excuse for a church. Here are some of the comments for which Pfleger issued his disingenious apology:

“When Hillary was crying … I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine’,” he said, shouting at times. “Then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey I’m Barack Obama’. And she said, ‘Oh damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show’!”

"And then out of nowhere came him, Barack Obama. And she said: `Damn! Where did you come from?! I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

"She wasn't the only one crying!" he said. "There was a whole a lot of white people crying!"

“America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price for the rape. “

Pfleger’s support of Obama is well known in Chicago. He contributed to Obama’s state Senate campaign during his years in the Illinois legislature. While Obama was a state Senator in 2000, he secured a $100,000 earmark for the ARK Community Center, a center attached to Pfleger’s St. Sabina church.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again. Hillary Clinton will beat McCain in November. I'm losing my optimism for Obama's chances. Let's hope another scandal doesn't pop up for him.

In the coming days, superdelegates will have a clear choice: who is ready to serve as President on day one and who is best able to beat John McCain in November? When you look at her wins in the important swing states and her strength against Sen. McCain in head-to-head matchups, there's no question that Hillary is the strongest candidate.

In a letter and memo sent to superdelegates today, Hillary lays out the case for why she is the strongest candidate to put together a winning coalition and beat John McCain in the Fall.

THE LETTER TO DELEGATES:

The stakes in this election are so high: with two wars abroad, our economy in crisis here at home, and so many families struggling across America, the need for new leadership has never been greater.

At this point, we do not yet have a nominee - and when the last votes are cast on June 3, neither Senator Obama nor I will have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates like you to help choose our party's nominee, and I would like to tell you why I believe I am the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and would be the best President and Commander in Chief.

Voters in every state have made it clear that they want to be heard and counted as part of this historic race. And as we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee - more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. In the past two weeks alone, record numbers of voters participated in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they're not giving up on me - and I am not giving up on them either.

After seven years of feeling invisible to the Bush administration, Americans are seeking a President who is strong, experienced, and ready to take on our toughest challenges, from serving as Commander in Chief and ending the war in Iraq to turning our economy around. They want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and "gets" what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.

We simply cannot afford another four - or eight - years in the wilderness. That is why, everywhere I go, people come up to me, grip my hand or arm, and urge me to keep on running. That is why I continue in this race: because I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President - and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November.

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I've enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee - the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

I am in this race for them -- for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first woman ever to be in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to them.

Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.