As we approach the final primaries; I thought it might be helpful to write my personal reasons for why I support Hillary and will stand with her as long as she keeps going.

13...that's how old I was when my dad passed away. It's crazy how much something like that can affect a teenager. My mom was left with the difficult task of raising me on her own after that.

It's difficult enough for a single mom, but it was compounded for her. My mom was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis at the age of 19. By the time my dad died; she was in a wheelchair and unable to work.

Rent, bills, groceries...we were able to get by thanks to Social Security. $980 bucks a month...

Health Care? We were fortunate to be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid/MediCal and finally Medicare.

When the Republicans took over Congress; they tried to pass draconian cuts in the Medicare program. Bill Clinton fought them and fought them strong. My mom and I felt the benefits of that fight on the ground level.

When I was accepted into UCLA it was thanks to Pell grants, Cal grants, and subsized stafford loans that we were able to afford it. When the MS got so bad my mom could no longer live on her own she moved into a nursing home. She lost the ability to walk, talk, and eat. The medical bills totaled in the hundreds of thousands; if not the millions. But she was taken care of; because we had Medicare.

She passed away three years ago...MS is a progressive disease and she couldn't fight any longer.

I don't know if this will ever be read by those outside our community but I truly hope it is...

Earlier today I was waiting in line at the grocery store when I started reading the news on my phone (yes I'm completely addicted). Imagine my shock when I see a story titled "Clinton cites RFK assassination as reason to stay in race!"

What? What the hell is going on? I scroll through trying to understand...it is implied to me that Hillary Clinton is saying she should stay in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated.

I don't believe it...I dig deeper as soon as I get home...

It turns out that wasn't what she was saying at all.

HRC: People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.

Q: Why?

HRC: I don't know. I don't know. I find it curious. Because it is unprecedented in history. I don't understand it. Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. And historically, that makes no sense. So I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: So you don't buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don't because again I've been around long enough.

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it. There's lots of speculation about why it is.

Q: What is your speculation?

I don't know. I find it curious. And I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don't really know, but it's a historical curiosity to me.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=7806

I ask you...members of the media...why is it that the editorial board didn't see it that way? Why is it they were able to understand she was pointing out that the Primary season often lasted until June?

Here's what they had to say:

"The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=7807

Hell, here's what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to say:
"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

Does this matter to you? Will you call off the dogs?

Or will I continue to hear that Hillary was answering the question "Why won't you drop out" with the answer "Because Bobby was assassinated in June" (implication Obama might be).

Why are you doing this? Why are you so dead set on swiftboating this woman?

I ask those of you with the ability to do something...do it...and do it fast because this fire needs to be put out NOW!

"I wouldn't vote for that bitch or nigger if you paid me...I'm a McCain man"

I just got that response from a voter in Oregon two minutes ago.

Seriously...whoever is the nominee deserves our full support!

This is about something much bigger than I think we realize now...

Back to the phones for me...

Wow...what an election season! For a political junkie like myself this was truly the gold standard of a primary season.

As we enter the final contests there are powerful statistics out there we would be wise not to ignore...

The fact is that nearly one third of Clinton supporters and nearly one third of Obama supporters say they would NOT support the other in the general election.

The days of "I'm sure her supporters would vote for me but I'm not sure my supporters would vote for her" are long...long...gone.

I am a strong, strong Hillary supporter. However, I am well aware of how catostrophic a McCain presidency would be. Therefor, I do not fall into the above category. That being said, I know many, many people who feel DEEPLY offended at the way she has been treated by the media, the party leaders, and many of Obama's supporters. They plan to either stay home or even go so far as to send a protest vote to McCain.

You know the "outrage" people say African Americans and young people would feel if Obama was "denied" the nomination. Well...millions of Women, Latinos, and Older Democrats feel that way right now.

I truly hope that should Obama win; his campaign realizes this outrage is both real and heartfelt. Personally, I cannot see any solution other than the two of them running together.

On that note, both have ammassed enough delegates that neither could be denied the VP slot IF they wanted it.

"Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama has "in a real sense" won the Democratic nomination and that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention."

"...pledged delegates are under no obligation to stick by their candidate and that Johnson is free to defect if he chooses."

"The freedom to change your mind or change your vote does exist," Paulson said. "They're not like superdelegates, but they do have this flexibility."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554_ 2.html

Well...if pledged delegates are free to change their mind...and super delegates are free to change their mind...then the delegate count as is is basically meaningless!

Since Obama has not rejected the switch of a pledged Clinton delegate; I don't see how he could complain about the switch of any pledged Obama delegates.

We're headed to Denver!

P.S. No more talk about "the will of the voters!" This guy was a "pledged" Clinton delegate elected by the voters!

I don't know how the MSM missed this one!

"Sen. Hillary Clinton will take her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way to the party's convention this summer if she or Barack Obama hasn't won enough delegates to clinch the party's nomination, her campaign adviser said Friday."

Thank you! On May 31st the Rules committee will be meeting, and in all likelihood, whatever compromise is achieved will raise the bar from 2,024 delegates to 2,209!

"Clinton's camp asserted she will campaign until someone reaches 2,209 delegates, the number needed if the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida were to be included."

On to West Virginia!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2 008/05/10/20080510hillary-democrats510.h tml

This is bothering me more and more every day!

I hear constantly that the Clinton campaign is "moving the goal posts" and trying to "change the rules."

But the Democratic party makes no distinction between "pledged delegates" and automatic delegates.

The "automatic delegates" or "super delegates" are no more important or less important than any other delegates.

In addition, for a campaign so big on following the rules that we will finish the primary system without the input of two of the largest states in the country I am fascinated by the attempt to steamrole over the rules in regards to automatic delegates.

So; the idea that Obama will win once he collects a majority of pledged delegates is nonscense.

We will have a nominee when one of the candidates collects 2,024 delegates (without Florida & Michigan) or 2,209 (with Florida and Michigan)

And if the party is so opposed to the campaign stretching until June; I have an idea...don't schedule any primaries for June!

West Virginia is voting on Tuesday; and as long as Hillary is fighting I'm right there with her!

There is one simple truth in this campaign:

Whether it's 2,024 delegates we're talking about or 2,203; the votes that matter won't be cast until August.

That's when between 4400 pledged and unpledged (super) delegates will make their voices heard.

Kennedy waged a battle in 1980 to ensure that "pledged" delegates have the right to switch their vote if they want.

In addition, as Joe Andrew and George McGovern have made clear over the last few days, super delegates can switch at will as well.

So; Hillary Clinton can and should continue her quest for the nomination of the Democratic Party all the way to the floor of the convention!

Why? Because NEITHER candidate will have the ncessary number of pledged delegates by the time voting ends in June! And the super delegates (as well as "pledged" delegates) have an obligation to the party to cast their vote for the person who they feel is the most electable candidate.

As far as I and millions of other Democrats see it, the Obama coalition is the same coaltion that failed to deliver in '72, '80, '84, '88, '00, & '04!

Hillary's coaltion looks remarkably similar to the one that succeeded in '76, '92, and '96!

I don't know about you but I'm not about to cede two or three Supreme Court nominations because someone is "ahead" in pledged delegate votes...it ain't over till it's over...and that means one thing...Denver!