The People's Choice?

What Jay Cost said yesterday looks exactly right today: Hillary has a chance at victory, but only if she can pull ahead in the overall popular vote, including Florida (she's already ahead if you include Michigan, but of course Obama wasn't on the ballot there), and then argue, to the superdelegates but also to the public, that as the choice of the majority of voters in the Democratic nominating process she has a "moral claim" on the nomination. (There's also the possibility of a "re-vote" in Michigan and Florida, as Marc points out today.) To a political junkie like myself, weaned on delegate counts and caucus regulations and all the rest, this argument sounds moderately far-fetched: The nominating process has rules, arbitrary and inconsistent as they may be, that both candidates are obliged to play by, and by the rules Obama's almost certainly going to come out with more delegates. But to a public that isn't steeped in the arcana of the process, that probably doesn't really understand the difference between a primary and a caucus and that's going to wake up today to grapple with the weirdness of being told that Obama won more delegates in Texas even though Hillary won the primary - well, you can see how if Hillary wins Pennsylvania convincingly and pulls ahead in the popular vote, a "people's choice," "let the majority rule" argument might find some traction. And you can bet that the superdelegates will have their fingers in the wind.

In this vein, Cost's point today seems spot-on:

The Obama campaign is proclaiming they won the Texas caucus by double digits. Indeed, that seems to be the case. Nevertheless, they need to be careful not to proclaim this too loudly. How will it look if Clinton wins a majority of the more than 2.5 million Texans who voted in the primary, but Obama wins the caucus in which about 100,000 people participated? That might help Clinton because it is evidence that the caucuses are not a good gauge of voter preferences. Obama needs to talk up his pledged delegate lead, without reminding people of how it is heavily dependent upon the caucuses. The Clinton camp is going to start attacking these caucuses.

Now of course, there's a simple way for Obama to take care of this: He just need to stay ahead of Hillary in the popular vote, where even with Florida included he currently leads by almost 300,000 votes. And if he really is the liberal Reagan, the change we can believe in, and all the rest of it, that shouldn't be too hard.

Photo by Flickr user Daniella Zalcman used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Now two information leaks from the Canadian government rocked Barack Obama's campaign for the U.S. presidency showing he has been caught in a public lie again. The Government of Canada says it will only investigate one of them.

EACH WEEK WE HEAR ANOTHER CORRUPT BACKER WITH HUSSEN OBAMA!!! OBAMA IS CONSTANLY SURROUNDED BY CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE CAMPAGINE FUNDS ARE CONCERNED WHERES CNN? MSNBC? FOX/ ROLAND MARTIN? IDIOT TUCKER CARLSON? BILL KRISTOL? TIM RUSSETT? AND ANYOTHER SO-CALLED TABLOID ENQUIRER TYPE ANTI FEMALE JOURALIST

We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! Another indictment former Dallas Mayor Hill, Obama camp financial contributor and supporter charged with federal bribery, extortion and conspiracy. Again has their hand full with other publically indicted bankrollers like Rezko. A company related to Another Obama “financial friend” Rep. Rick Renzi indicted Friday on multiple federal charges, law enforcement sources tell CNN. In a 35-count indictment handed up by a grand jury in Arizona, Renzi is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering extortion and insurance fraud. The indictment stem from Renzi's efforts to use his position in Congress to promote “land deals” Again more corrupt camp donations for Obama. Now two information leaks from the Canadian government rocked Barack Obama's campaign for the U.S. presidency showing he has been caught in a public lie again. The Government of Canada says it will only investigate one of them.

Obama and his team have ducked "legitimate questions" about Rezko, who faces federal corruption charges most centrally involved with Gov. Blagojevich's administration. "Now the trial is beginning, it will be more difficult for him to avoid these various serious questions. I can guarantee you that. Obama's Relationship with Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions from Accused Fixer's (REZKO) Wife and Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows. Obama opportuned Rezko to obtain jobs in the Blagojevich administration for Obama allies. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced it SO-CALLED shedding more donations
According to court documents, Mr Rezko's lawyer said his client had "longstanding indebtedness" to Mr Auchi's GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million

Posted by Malone | March 5, 2008 8:25 AM

Clinton's entire background is corruption. WhiteWater on down.

I am happy I left America when Bush got elected. Now I will watch the Democratic Party implode. Obama should run as an independent.

Live free or die.

Posted by THI | March 5, 2008 8:36 AM

The above poster spelled Hussein wrong. You spelled it Hussen and that is incorrect, you also used it as his first name and that is incorrect as well.
His first name is Barak, and his middle name is Hussein.
I cannot see where Barak Obama has lied. But I can tell that Hillary has gone to some extreme and tawdry measures to "blacken" his record and perhaps his pictures too.
Racism is alive in the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Anna | March 5, 2008 8:36 AM

The thing I see is that people's opinions are still gelling on Obama. The media did us no favors by uncritically accepting this WONDERFUL, FRESH BLACK candidate while avoiding analysis of his background and his "SUPERIOR JUDGMENT".

Now the spotlight is finally on the guy and by the time Pennsylvania is done voting, we may have a fair picture of Obama with both his strengths and WEAKNESSES - which is to be fair to both Hillary whose baggage and credits are well-known, and the Democratic Party which faces a known, tested McCain and doesn't need another imploding Kerry disaster.

One thing that should be revisited is Obama's now-famous speech to a small rally in Chicago - which has now become his centerpiece claim to the Presidency. A speech he distanced himself from by 2004, saying if he was a standing Senator, told like them what evidence existed even if the evidence was later found to be faulty despite assurances from the UK, Russia, France, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the head of the CIA, even Iran -he wasn't sure how he would have voted. Just like half the Democrats like Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein. When Irag looked to be going bad by mid- 2005, he dusted his "Great Speech" off, and put it back up on his Presidential campaign websites.

His speech was the basis of a request by a former SDS member that he join her, two former terrorists (Ayers & Dohrn), Jesse, some rich Hard Left Donors (Saltzman, Pitzker, Crown Family) and have a good old Vietnam-style Protest where he could join the old Lefties revisting their Halycon days of the "March on Washington". Obama delivered because he wanted those rich people to go with the hardest Left candidate interested in being the next Senator. He talked to 300 people after Jesse's harangue, mostly post-communist old hippie-Left folks, not Youth looking for a Black Messiah...

Now, despite the circumstances of his Maginificent Speech if you take Obama's claim that anyone who gave a anti-Iraq War speech in late 2002 showed superior judgment then you have to credit others making the same case as Obama with the same superior judgment and worthiness to be President on that alone, for "being right when others were wrong".

The general trait of all of them is that they mostly gave their Obama-like speeches and opposition not on facts as to why they opposed the War, but from pure ideology. Hard Lefties, "All War is Immoral!!!" pacifists safe behind warrior-citizens that do not share their views in stable, prosperous countries, and those with "you cannot attack our fellow Muslims!!," solidarity.
That would be, for example:

1. The brilliantly astute judgement of such anti-war speechmakers of 6 years ago as Vladimir Putin, the vehemently anti-Iraw war speeches of leaders of Muslim political parties from Morocco to Indonesia. "Red" Ken Livingston of London. The oratorical brilliance of "Baghdad Bob".

2. The Euroweenie Greenies, Jacques De Villepin, the Saddam-Bribed UN officials of Kofi's, the anti-war wisdom of Saddam himself in his speeches. The warnings of Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran that it was a dumb war, despite the Ayatollah confirming Iran had WMD by his intelligence sources.

3. And inside the US, the 2002 anti-War oratorical brilliance of others who Obama seems to be arguing, match his main claim to be President. Barbara Boxer, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, Noam Chomsky and other fellow-travellers of the Hard Left Jewish Intelligensia. The 9/11 Truther Crowd who argued that Bush did 9/11 so he could "seize all the oil". The stupendous speeches of Teddy Kennedy and Jane Fonda saying the war was awful and would kill 2 million innocent Iraqi children by starvation.

Obamites all.

Posted by chris ford | March 5, 2008 9:06 AM

And if he really is the liberal Reagan, the change we can believe in, and all the rest of it, that shouldn't be too hard.

A fine conclusion. At this point, I give Obama a 55 percent chance of winning the nomination. It's probably going to come down to weird back-room stuff that can't really be predicted at this point.

It's a great morning for the GOP-- two more months of "he's inexperienced"/"she's a Clinton," with no one out there hitting McCain.

Malone, you're completely insane. Renzi is a MCCAIN CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR in Arizona; he doesn't have anything to do with Obama, except to the extent that they are both Congressmen.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 5, 2008 9:07 AM

The silver lining may be that Obama makes an extented effort to win Pennsylvania.

He has weaknesses as a candidate; he doesnt get white blue-collar votes.

He should listen to these people and find a message that appeals to them because it gives them hope.

So far he's got nothing.

Posted by Kim | March 5, 2008 9:14 AM

People are getting a little nuts here. Malone is insane as is Chris Ford

I fear that the democratic party is once again preparing to defeat itself. We have such an opportunity at this point as the country is is tired and disgusted with Bush and the republicans. However now huge amounts of money and time and emotional fervor will be spent on the Obama/Clinton fight through the convention. Both sides are digging in for the long haul and it is bound to end in bad feelings on both sides. As a Obama supporter, right now I feeling angry and unsupportive of Hilliary.

Posted by ann | March 5, 2008 9:42 AM

Hmmm... I always thought that people who read the Atlantic Monthly knew how to spell.

Posted by Lanark77 | March 5, 2008 9:42 AM

Chris,

Say what you want about Putin's morality, but he is brilliantly astute. He's also arguably benefited more directly from the war in Iraq than any one other major leader.

Posted by vanya | March 5, 2008 9:47 AM

>> The Clinton camp is going to start attacking these caucuses.

Start??????????

Posted by MSOliver | March 5, 2008 10:06 AM

Impeccable logic, chris ford.

Say, did you know that Stalin opposed Hitler? It's true! Therefore, you shouldn't vote for anyone who says anything negative about Hitler, because they're all just a front for Stalin.

Picking out enemies is sure a lot easier than thinking-- more fun, too!

Posted by anonymous | March 5, 2008 10:10 AM

Hillary took a page from Bill's book: "It's the Economy, Stupid!" But voters shouldn't be fooled that the economic prosperity of the Bill Clinton era was his doing -- he inherited the situation from his republican predecessors.

Voters with incomes over $100K voted overwhelmingly for Obama, while middle and low income earners voted for Clinton. There is no shortage of economic anxiety in OH, PA and MI who have higher unemployment and a good share of sub-prime loans.

Obama needs to demonstrate to voters that he understands balancing the family budget and the federal budget.

I hope Obama takes Tuesday as a wake-up call and addresses voter fears with substantive solutions. Hillary's ability to make empty promises does not equate with the abilty to deliver.

Posted by SDoyle | March 5, 2008 10:14 AM

Chris Ford is against Obama? Well that is another reason to vote for him.

Die in a fire, painfully, Chris, you monster.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 10:17 AM

The nominating process has rules, arbitrary and inconsistent as they may be, that both candidates are obliged to play by, and by the rules Obama's almost certainly going to come out with more delegates.

The nominating process does have rules, but one of the rules is that the superdelegates can vote for anyone they want. I don't see why "vote for the candidate most Democrats voted for" is a less compelling argument than "vote for the candidate who won a primary/caucus in a particular state."

I think you have things reversed--people steeped in the minutia of the caucus/primary/convention process will see Hillary Clinton trying to game the system, whereas casual observers will say, "Hey, most Democrats voted for her--why shouldn't she try to convince superdelegates to respect that?

Posted by JB | March 5, 2008 10:33 AM

I think you have things reversed--people steeped in the minutia of the caucus/primary/convention process will see Hillary Clinton trying to game the system, whereas casual observers will say, "Hey, most Democrats voted for her--why shouldn't she try to convince superdelegates to respect that?

In related news, I can't read. I see that you were actually making exactly that point. Sorry.

Posted by JB | March 5, 2008 10:35 AM

"He just need to stay ahead of Hillary in the popular vote, where even with Florida included he currently leads by almost 300,000 votes. And if he really is the liberal Reagan, the change we can believe in, and all the rest of it, that shouldn't be too hard."

Exactly. As you say, even with the Florida/Michigan BS, Obama is way, way ahead here. Obama didn't campaign in either Florida or Michigan due to the DNC rules, and he wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but just as you say, even if you do count Florida, he has a 300,000 vote edge. And he'll quite likely win some of the states ahead, as well.

FWIW I doubt that FL or MI would be doing a re-vote. The idea was floated in Florida and it was just about laughed out of the room by the state's Democratic Party, while the people in Michigan have been sniping bitterly about even the most basic details of how such a re-vote would take place. Besides, Howard Dean himself has his own credibility on the line, and he needs to enforce the rules that he himself declared. The only way for states to respect the rules of the DNC, is for those rules to have bite-- any capitulation would just invite other states in future primaries to also move themselves into January if they figured they'd be forgiven anyway, and the whole primary process would collapse into chaos and disaster.

It probably won't matter, anyway-- there will be a loud and clear delegate leader in the next several months, and I do suspect that the superdelegates will back the leader among pledged delegates. They'd be risking disaster for themselves and for the party otherwise-- many are elected officials and they'd face a hellish wrath from the voters.

Plus, the racially-charged element of the selection would make any countermanding of the pledged delegate leader into an explosive situation. It's unfortunate that identity politics are so central to US elections, but regrettably, that's how it is. And African-Americans are enraged at what they see (rightly) to be race-baiting by the Clintons, during Nevada and South Carolina in particular and especially recently, with that photograph of Obama in Somali garb on a state visit, for example.

If the superdelegates were to go against the pledged delegate count, won by popular vote, and against Obama, it would be horrifically explosive-- it would mean not only the end of the Democratic Party, but quite possibly urban riots and rage.

(Notice also, we're not taking into account those 700,000 Independent ballots in California-- mostly pro-Obama-- that were "canceled" due to some abstruse BS about affiliation on the ballots. Nevermind the Harlem precincts where the voting machines fouled up and showed Obama with no votes there!)

The key is for Obama to win both the popular vote and the pledged delegates, which is just about certain. Hillary is simply too far behind-- you can't lose 11 states like that, and by blowout margins, and hope to come back.

Obama just needs to continue campaigning hard, and most especially, he needs to start hitting Hillary hard-- politely, but firmly-- on things like her tax returns, the Clinton library, and those shady dealings with the Kazakh uranium mines, for example. And all the states matter-- let's not get into this stupid media narrative about how Pennsylvania would somehow be any more or less decisive than the other states. Wyoming, Mississippi, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, North Carolina and so on, all are important states. But if Hillary continues to trail in the delegates and in the popular vote, she really must step down for the good of the party and the nation. Otherwise, she will cause damage to the party and the country with such political paralysis, and she will utterly destroy her own political career.

Posted by Davis | March 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Hey Malone, buddy, pal-- you know, that's cyanide-laced Kool-Aid you're sipping, bud. Step away from the pitcher...

Dude, that has to be about the dumbest assemblage of utter flamebait crap I've seen in a while. Obama fundraisers corrupt? Try the Clintons' fundraising team-- Norman Hsu leading the list of a dozen others, still under indictment. Not to mention the Clintons' long history of corruption before that.

Dude, you are seriously in fantasy, delusion-land if you think any of that would have an impact.

Frankly, Hillary's in ever-growing piles of doo-doo because of her own income tax returns, the Clinton foundation problems and of course, Bill Clinton's own shady past with the Kazakh leader and the uranium mines. Any attempt to smear Obama on something like this, would return to slam here 100-fold worse in response.

As quite a few people have said, it's over for Hillary. It's clear that the March 4th primaries were basically a draw-- the delegate count is going to be about even, and Obama might even gain a slight edge. Hillary needed to win all these states by something like 25 or 30 points to even marginally reduce Obama's delegate lead from basically winning 11 straight states by blowouts.

She failed miserably.

It's time for her to step down while she still has some honor left. If she continues, it is an entirely futile act on her part, since she will still be well short of the necessary delegates and lose the nomination-- having lost the popular vote, the delegate counts and the states-- yet cause permanent damage to the Democratic Party. She would, again, destroy her own political career in the process.

Posted by Davis | March 5, 2008 10:48 AM

Hillary was not the choice of the Democratic voters in Texas. She was the choice of Republican voters who desperately want to avoid a general election against Barack Obama. Conservative radio has been promoting this strategy for a while now.
20% of the vote for Hillary was "the uneducated white vote" This is the bread and butter of conservative radio because they believe the rumor, innuendo and fear mongering promoted by this medium.
The reason that Hillary has fought and will fight caucus results is that it shows the most involved, actual,and pasionate Democrats are solidly behind Barack Obama and these results are devoid of Republican influence.
Ultimately the super delegates will realize this and ratify the will of the people.

Posted by Davide | March 5, 2008 11:17 AM

I had to do some research to find out who Obama is...Turns out he is nothing more than a slick talking Harvard Lawyer. He is winning the votes with talk and I see nothing concrete to back up his talk. The people are fooled by this. Everyone is so eager to support this man.. but who is he really? He is looking more and more like a snake oil salesman.

Look at his history-
His history includes his Kenya father doing some government job in Kenya. Left when he was 2. There was also some sketchy information about his overpriced mansion and questionable info about how he acquired this piece of property. Other than that ...nothing. I am not on the Obama bandwagon or any band wagon at this point. I think the voters need to look at the facts and vote according to who is the best qualified to take us into the next 4 years.

Posted by Pat | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

The next time a white or Latino person runs for any office...African American should boycott the election. Then let hear all of you racist start bitching...

Posted by Obama 08 | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM

the republicans who vote for Hillary do not have the courage to go to the caucus for her.
they afraid that their friend will see them.
that is the reason they did could not caucus for Hillary.
they responded to the Rush Limbaugh to go vote for Hillary because they are afraid of Obama as the poll reflected. McCain could beat Hilliary but NOT Obama

Posted by Richard Andre | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM

Many of you people on this message board are the reason our country is in such a mess and why Bush won the presidency. We have become a nation of idiots because of the simple minded and ignorant mentality of many people in our country.

Barack Obama is a great human being who can bring prosperity and respect back to our country after 8 years of the right wing Republican agenda of waging war, and feeding the rich and hating the poor. I don't want 100 more years of record setting costs of oil, 100 more years of war, 100 more years of right wing conservative justices who destroy our constitutional rights to freedom, 100 more years of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Do you know that our dollar is now valued lower then the Canadian dollar?

Stop your whining and complaining and hating and be thankful that we have a candidate like Barack Obama who can beat McCain and win the Presidency in November.

Barack Obama still has over a 100 delegate lead, and he is without a doubt the best Democrat to beat McCain and win in November. Barack Obama can reach the 2,025 delegates that he needs before the Democratic convention in Denver if he does well in the upcoming primary states.

I like the Clinton's, and I like Barack Obama because they stand and believe in the important issues that make me a Democrat. Check out my Homepage website:

www.greatestofalltime.homestead.com/intropage.html

AND LET'S GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!

Posted by Dan1967 | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM

Exactly. As you say, even with the Florida/Michigan BS, Obama is way, way ahead here.

Huh? 300,000 Votes cast out of 25 million is "way ahead?" Sounds to me more like, er, one percent. If this is what the Obama camp considers "way ahead," Hillary might as well start ordering White House drapes this week.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM

There is one huge hole in the Clinton camp's argument that the caucuses are not a fair representation of the people. Namely, it's hypocritical to take that stance (in the name of democracy, one person one vote) and at the same time say the superdelegates should have disproportionate power.
If they retort, "The DNC set up the system of superdelegates, don't blame us for their superior power," then they need to have the same respect to the state Democratic parties that set up the caucuses.

Posted by Manny | March 5, 2008 3:11 PM

How will it look if Clinton wins a majority of the more than 2.5 million Texans who voted in the primary, but Obama wins the caucus in which about 100,000 people participated?

According to Burnt Orange Report, around 1.1 million voters (not 100,000) participated in the caucuses. That's a decent number.

Posted by Scott de B. | March 5, 2008 3:43 PM

I think the author raises some very good points. I want to bring up something that I was positive I heard last night- briefly- but didn't hear any more about after regarding that caucus. I heard that Obama staff was breaking the party rules by having voters fill in caucus papers and sign them WHILE THE PRIMARY WAS STILL RUNNING. If true, this could easily account for him winning the caucus in large numbers. If this is true, Hillary needs to stand up for herself and not let him win via dishonest methods. I wish that statement regarding the caucus papers would come up again.... and do some digging to find out if it's true or not. That needs to be investigated.

Posted by Karen | March 5, 2008 3:44 PM

Superdelagates, are obliged by their definition to make a "independent" decision and vote for the candidate they feel best represents the party and has the best chance of winning in November. They are not obliged to vote for mr. Obama if he has some more delegates at the end but loses the majority of key states needed to win in november, their also is a realistic chance that Hillary will win the popular vote. She could come out of Pennsylvania with a 300,000 net vote gain. Another factor helping Hillary in Pennsylvania is alot of democrats from South Jersey will be heading to Philadelphia to mobilize the white "blue collar", China town, Jewish strongholds in Philadelphia. Likewise Pittsburgh will be innovated with Ohio's helpers. The middle of the state should be strong "Clinton" Country. On top of the that Ed Rendell won the State by 22%. Hillary probably will win this State by 14%. Pennsylvania has a "closed" primary. Obama will get little independent and Republican help. This will start the movement in the later states of W. Virginia, Indiana (Eveyn Bayh), Kentucky and I believe North Carolina (latest polls have it very close) to be substantial wins for Hillary. If this happens SUPER DELEGATES are obliged to vote for the best candidate or they should give up their status or next primary elections real democrats will remove the status for them.

Posted by JD | March 5, 2008 3:47 PM

Please, republicans made up 9% of the vote count in Texas. In other states the vast majority of Republicans, were legit...they were 'former' republicans, who crossed part lines, per the allowed rules in those states, to vote for Obama, and good for them....welcome new democrats.

But what happened in Texas, is dittoheads, following Rush Limbaugh's orders came in to vote for Clinton.

That may have been great fun to do, and it looks like they may have given Hillary her slim margin of victory in the Primaries...

But in the Caucus's, those dittoheads weren't there...c'mon...and maybe even many other types of voters weren't there...

I think its legit to see what the party faithful really want, and because in the long run, over the course time, these are the influence leaders that really decide where the party goes...

Hillary can be proud of the high school drop out vote, but these voters tend to be less informed and voting more on name recognition... Democracies are never perfect, Caucuses do have their place.

I disagree with you...most people either understand and agree with Caucuses, or they don't get them at all...either way promoting his win, will be good. Yes, win in a Caucus...or Yes, win, in whatever that was....

Posted by Rob | March 5, 2008 3:55 PM

Scott de B -

I've never heard of "BurnedOrange", but the CNN website lists 38% of precincts reporting in the Texas caucuses, and so far about 39,000 votes have been counted.

That suggests the 100,000 participant guess is much more accurate than a one million estimate.

Posted by lorac | March 5, 2008 3:59 PM

How is Obama the best candidate against McCain when Hillary is now outperforming him against MCCain in Head-to-head polls!

Posted by JD | March 5, 2008 4:01 PM

I've never heard of "BurnedOrange", but the CNN website lists 38% of precincts reporting in the Texas caucuses, and so far about 39,000 votes have been counted.

It's Burntorangereport.com, one of the largest Democratic blogs in Texas. Those are delegates elected by caucuses, not a tally of caucusgoers.

Posted by Scott de B. | March 5, 2008 4:02 PM

How is the one-man-one vote rule fair to Mrs. Clinton when Obama has established a lead among pledged delegates by winning certain districts that disproportionately offer more delegates based on past elections. If I dont live in one of these districts my vote doesn't count as much. I know the rules are the rules but Obama supporters and the media should not try to change the definition of Super-delegates = independent voters. Should Ted Kennedy, John Kerry be forced to vote for Clinton, She won their state by 17%.

Posted by JD | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM

The flaw in this argument is that the popular vote she is referring to doesn't takes into account the primary states and not the caucus states...

Posted by Scott | March 5, 2008 4:12 PM

With the help of the media Clinton now proclaims a comeback but nothing has changed.

Michigan and Florida will not be seated unless they want to destroy the Democratic party for good

Posted by JJ | March 5, 2008 4:17 PM

With the help of the media Clinton now proclaims a comeback but nothing has changed.

Michigan and Florida will not be seated unless they want to destroy the Democratic party for good

Posted by JJ | March 5, 2008 4:17 PM

The whole premise of the Kool Aid candidate is his “I was against the war from day 1″ as being the only qualification he needs to run for president. Without privy to any intelligence report, what was his judgement based on? clayvoyancy? witchcraft? or just a closet peacenik that he is against all wars? As for being a uniter, what bipartisan bill has he sponsored in the senate? and how can you unite if you are the leftmost senator of the US senate. The list just go on and on. So far all you get from this guy is vapor and his campaign staffers are no snow white either. But the whining is just disgusting, so

Go back to drinking your Kool Aid, and go follow Jim Jones 2

Posted by KoolAid Buster | March 5, 2008 4:24 PM

The DNC proclaimed that Florida and Michigan were off limits, meaning no campaigning there and no counting of their votes. The candidates signed an agreement to abide by the DNC's edit. Now, at the 11th hour Hillary is asking to count the votes in the very same states where she was the only candidate campaigning. This is honesty? This is integrity? She has yet to release her tax returns to show the source of her new found wealth (ont want to do that since hubby is the puppet and recipient of Dubai's largess). But somehow Mr. Obama is dishonest? What a joke. It is even more frightening that a significant percentage of American "voters" cannot see through her. Hey, what am I saying, the exit polls shows that the majority of her supporters are uneducated and poor. It also showed that the educated voters, rejected her. Ahh, the results of not having education. To paraphase: "Who woudda thunk it"? LOL

Posted by Munk | March 5, 2008 4:25 PM

My biggest nightmare is that the general election will offer us a choice between two people who created the mess in Iraq. Hillary vs McCain? Which war criminal do you prefer?

Hillary should resign from the race, and from the Senate. McCain should hang himself.

Posted by BWF | March 5, 2008 4:35 PM

She has every right to stay in the race. She can do it. But should she?

She can't win by votes. There's not enough states left that are her demographic. She can't catch up.

If she is seen as "stealing" the nomination by backroom deals, it will be a deathblow to the party, and they will lose all the new voters as well as African Americans for decades possibly. Superdelegates know this, so they won't do that either.

Since she can't catch up, and can't swindle her path to victory, it is probably a fruitless exercise. She will spend her supporters and donor's money. She will fling a lot of mud, and have some flung back at her. And for what?

If she cared about the party's chances in November she'd

1) leave sooner rather than later

2) fight a competitive race but not do anything that would harm the eventual nominee for the G.E.

This week she will be celebrating the end of her electoral drought. But after, does she have the character to gracefully concede after looking at the hard, cold numbers?

Of course, cynics would say Hillary is not honorable and doesn't care about the party, and only herself. That she would put her own ego above all else, that hers is a scorched earth campaign, and that if she can't have the nomination, she'd rather the DNC loses.

We'll see if the cynics are correct.

Posted by Jen | March 5, 2008 4:37 PM

To Pat who says Obama is nothing more than a slick oil salesman who has done nothing, let me direct you to a place where you can actually do some homework and perhaps learn something. It's called the Library of Congress and it has a website. There you can search by "bills authored by......." and see exactly what Obama has done during his tenure. BTW, his tenure in government is four years longer than our oh so experienced Hillary (I refuse to count her time as the First Lady since she didn't have National Security Clearance). You will find if you take some time to do your homework that Obama has authored and passed far more legislation than Clinton. His bills also get solid co-sponsorship from across the aisle. Very few of Clinton's bills have any co-sponsorship at all. This of course begs the question, is it legislation so poor nobody will back it or does she just write things up and drop them in the hopper so she can say she cares about that issue? I will vote for whomever the Democrats put on the ballot for November as long as they arrive there fairly and was really torn on whom to vote for until I did my homework and saw that of the two, Obama has a far more impressive record than Clinton.

Just some food for thought!

Posted by Met | March 5, 2008 4:39 PM

Rick Renzi is a conservative Republican congressman from Arizona and is a cohort of McCain's, not Obama's (look it up, like, anywhere).

But I guess we shouldn't expect you to check your facts before smearing a candidate.

Posted by Malone is way off | March 5, 2008 4:43 PM

http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html

Posted by Let's compare corruption! | March 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to crossover and vote for Hilary yesterday in the Democratic primaries.

Republican governor Charlie Crist thinks the Florida delegation should be seated.

Every right-wing pundit is doing all they can do to prop up Clinton's campaign.

Why might that be?

Maybe because the only way for Clinton to be the party nominee is to destroy the party? Maybe because they see her nomination not only as a way to win the general election, but as a way to commit the Democratic party to the irrelevance they will so richly deserve if she is the nominee?

The only people happier than Clinton and her supporters if she is the nominee will be the Republicans. Today, they are all but doing a jig over her gains last night.

Why? Ask yourself, how can that be a good thing for Democrats?

And so where does that leave the American people?

- Continuation of the war in Iraq

- Health care stymied yet again

- More gridlock and scoring political points as the goal of both sides

- More Republican federal judges, including SCOTUS judges

Hey, but don't let me interrupt your celebration.

Posted by JacksoNC | March 5, 2008 4:48 PM

It doesn't take a genius to forsee what would happen if we invaded a sovereign country with strong ethnic divisions who had been living under a dictator for generations (see: Yugoslavia)...

OCTOBER 2002 - Barack Obama

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Posted by to Koolaid Buster | March 5, 2008 4:50 PM

I wish I could say that we had intelligent, informed public that votes, but we do not.

Firstly, the race baiting that was attributed to the Clinton's is simply not true. Clinto was running ahead of Obama in most polls among blacks before South Carolina. There is no upside to angering the blacks at that point. Obama is the one who started all of that. His surrogates were pushing hard for the story and one or 2 out of context comments by the Clintons and their surrogates just made matters worse. What exactly did anyone say that is racist? I would bet you money you can't. And if you go back and read the actual quote, you will see there was nothing offensive about them. Obama's "spin" team took over and got the story to run their way. See the article http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Obama has run a classic Chicago style campaign. He has basically out "politics" Clinton. His talent in that regard is amazing. He has run an utterly brilliant campaign, no doubt about that.

What has helped him the most has been the press' reluctance to "go after" him with the same zeal as they do Hilary, or even McCain for that matter. How did this happen, white liberal guilt - plain and simple. One of Obama's strongest demographics is white, college educated liberlas. Who do you think journalists are? Obviously, there are blacks and hispanics and asians, etc - but most are white, college educated liberals. There is a reason the Republicans rant about the liberal media elite. They are tapping into what is a truism in America. The reason stereo-typing is so effective is because there tens to be some base truth, real or perceived, to it. As soon as the press started asking Obama questions and pushing for answers, things changed. He found himself with a press corps that was not fawning over rhetoric but actually looking for substance. He walked away.

You can throw all the words you want like Whitewater and File-gate and all of those other things around, but the simple fact is that those things happened 15 years ago. America is over it. And honestly, bringing those things up does 2 things. It reminds everyone how much the press has always hated Hillary and it allows Hillary to get sympathy which can only help her.

Obama actually can't throw any of that stuff at Hillary - either himself or his supporters. Remember, he wants to change the way politics is done. Hillary can basically bash him up until the cows come home and the minute he responds in kind, he will lose his aura of arrogant superiority and thus his claim to what makes him different. Don't think for one minute that Hillary will walk away scot free, Obama will get his pound of flesh but it will be much more subtle.

Regarding super-delegates - they should vote how they see fit. It is there choice, that is why the system was set up the way it is. In some prior election, they has issues with the old system and created this new one. Geraldine Ferraro was on that committee and wrote a great article about it. Read it here - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html

Two weeks ago, Obama's team was saying that the person with the popular vote should get the super delegates. He said they should vote based on how their state or congressional distric voted. The argument doesn't seem to be played anymore.

And here is a news flash - neither candidate will have enough super-delegates come Denver. Period. End of story. Even if Obama were to sweep everything that is left with 70 % of the vote, including Pennsylvania, he will not reach the 2025 of pledged delegates. Neither candidate will win on pledged delegates. We have known this since Super Tuesday. And by the way, if you go back and listen to any of the pundits on the day after Super Tuesday, you will hear EVERY single one of them say that Hillary will have problems because they expected her not to win another contest until Texas and Ohio. This is not made up, I heard it on Fox, MSNBC and CNN. How did the story go from "she is going to lose 11 contests but nothing will be decided because Obama will not have enough pledged delegates to finish her off" to "Why is she still in this race if she has lost 11 in a row." Honestly people, if you want to have a debate about these things, read for yourself, do research, don't listen to the soundbites. Ask questions and get answers. These are the same things that we as Democrats have been complaining about when it comes to Limbaugh and Fox and the right wing - they don't think. They're soundbite politicans. We're suppoed to be the party of the liberl, intellectual elite - remember?

Mind you, I am totally for Hillary. And I haven't been completely pleased with everything she has done, but I am trying to look at the big picture. I am trying to be as objective as I can be while advocating my preference. Obama gives one hell of a speech. The guys could probably motivate me to do anything he wanted if I were to hear him live. I admire talent. I wish he would have waited a bit and got some experience under his belt. Just imagine what he could have given the Democratic nominee to use against McCain had he held hearings of his sub-committee.

Couple of things to note for the super-delegates. After we see Obama's reaction and how he tries to hit back at Hillary, we will know a lot about his character and what kind of candidate he will make. Right now, the glass jaw argument will gain some traction until he does. Just imagine what the Republicans will do. Hillary may bloody him up before this is done, but she is making a lot of the arguments that Republicans will and they, in the end, will help him. Also, don't committ to anything until the votes are all counted. This nomination is going to the convention. Look at what candidate is going to have a better chance of McCain. Look at what candidate can keep their base strong and pick up the other (Democratic) candidate's base easily and totally. If Clinton wins, polls show she loses 10 % of Barack's backers to McCain. If Obama wins, he loses 25 % of Clinton's backers to McCain. As the earlier poster tried to convince you that 20 % of Hillary's vote is because of Rush Limbaugh, ignore him. It would buck every poll which shows roughly 10 % of every open primary and caucus had cross over Republicans voting and they went something like 70-80 % for Obama. Without those votes, Obama doesn't have the delegate lead. They just couldn't resist the opportunity to take a swing at Hillary. Regarding the caucuses. Will someone please eliminate them? They're ridiculus. Texas is just insane. Talk about voter disenfranchisement. Some votes count twice but not all. For that matter, we should probably eliminate super delegates, too.

And please, please, please get Iowa and New Hampshire the hell out of the way.

Florida and Michigan may have to vote again for really no good reason. While I believe the party's rules should be upheld, a re-vote is not the right thing either. If you remember, at the time of those primariesm there were 8 candidates or so. Now there are only 2. If you were to do that, then what about the other states that had already voted who would love to vote now that it is down to 2 people. Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina? Nevada? Do you think that maybe some of these people would love to vote when they know that there outcome will determine the nominee?

So, in closing, let's just let the votes be counted. We will have to figure out something with Michigan and Florida. We certainly don't want to disenfranchise these voters. We can't win November without both of them. And let's bring the rhetoric down on both sides. In the end, the important part is November.

And by the way, neither candidate should drop out now. During the 7th inning stretch you get up, go to the bathroom, get the last beer and something to snack on. You don't go home before the game is finished. What are we - LA DOdger fans? :-)

C'mon, that was funny. :-)

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 5:05 PM

If we want more of the Hatfields against the McCoys elect Hillary.

The 22nd Amendment limits a President to two terms. We have had 3 terms of the Bushes and that has been terrible for the country. Another Clinton term will be full of paybacks and corruption.

Posted by Joan | March 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Met

Have you actually gone and looked at the research into his bills on the web-site? Here is the link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Click there, then type in “Obama” under Search Bill Text.

Pretty thin list, no?

Don't bring up his legislative accomplishments until he gets some. This is kind of my point from earlier.

I wish he would have waited and gotten some actual experience under his belt. Imagine how impressive he would be with his talent for public speaking if he had been in the Senate for 6 years, or even 10 come 2012 and had spent time on the Senate Foreigh Affairs Committee. Or maybe even gone back and run for Governor of Illinois.

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 5:21 PM

If I hear one more idiot use Barack Obama's middle name as a way of implying that he shouldn't run this country because his father was a Muslim, I'm going to have to rethink the fact that I've been pretty proud about our country lately.

In the last three weeks, the whole environment has started to become toxic. It amazes me the hate that seems to come out of all of this. Unfortunately, the hate is why negative attack ads seem to work. It's easy to put out rumors and ads about someone that appeal to the hate, mistrust, and fear in people. Just hint that Obama is Muslim or somehow unpatriotic, through his name, or some picture, or those internet e-mails about him that are full of lies, and the hate comes oozing out.

I certainly am an Obama supporter, but I don't hate Hillary or McCain. What I hate is the fact that they'll play the American public like a fiddle, appealing to the hate, fear, and mistrust in us. You can make fun of Obama's speeches and the sentiment of his supporters all you want, but at least there's a good message there. The message isn't, "Your kids are sleeping, the world is in peril, do you want a black Muslim in control." That's what Hillary pushed to the old ladies in Ohio.

Posted by Tom | March 5, 2008 5:22 PM

They said the same thing about FDR that is being said about Obama...no foreign policy, not tested, naive, green politically.etc etc.. Oh, neither FDR not JFK won in OHIO.

Posted by jetl | March 5, 2008 5:24 PM

Tom,

That is what is so frustrating about Obama supporters. You all think everyone is out to get him.

Do you honestly think that Hillary was saying in that ad that Barack is a "black Muslim in control?" You just smeared Hillary will trying to defend Barack from a smear.

Hillary was only talking about his experience. Taht is not a negative ad. It is a contrast ad. And do you think John McCain won't use something similiar? If you can't handle the argument when its a ctrast ad, how do you handle it when it really is an attack ad?

You can't have that "holier than though" attitude while ripping someone else down. That is politics as usual. That is not what you and Obama say he stands for. What - if he doesn't do it himself but let's someone else do it on his behalf is that different and okay?

The problem with righteous indignation is that it is usually supported by hypocrisy.

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 5:30 PM

K,

You make some good points in your well thought out post. However, I need to take you to task about Clinton's advisors predicting that they would lose 11 in a row til Texas and Ohio so we shouldn't have been surprised. I wasn't surprised that they spent more time setting unreasonably low expectations instead of fighting for states. Why are MD, ME, VA, LA, WA and WI not worth fighting for? That would be my argument against HRC, she seems to have a 15 state strategy and rather than fight for states that she might lose her campaign team plays silly expectations games.

Posted by Flaming Moderate | March 5, 2008 5:50 PM

K,

You make some good points in your well thought out post. However, I need to take you to task about Clinton's advisors predicting that they would lose 11 in a row til Texas and Ohio so we shouldn't have been surprised. I wasn't surprised that they spent more time setting unreasonably low expectations instead of fighting for states. Why are MD, ME, VA, LA, WA and WI not worth fighting for? That would be my argument against HRC, she seems to have a 15 state strategy and rather than fight for states that she might lose her campaign team plays silly expectations games.

Posted by Flaming Moderate | March 5, 2008 5:51 PM

One question that's not been asked in a while: John Edwards. He has 26 pledged delegates. That's not a lot, but it could be enough to secure Obama's lead or tip things in Hillary's direction if she can manage to pull close. Both Hillary and Barak have gone to NC to chat with him, but he's not tipping his hand. If we have a brokered convention, he COULD be the broker to see. Each superdelegate has one vote, John has 26. I guess that makes him the super-duper delegate.

While Hillary will try to spin it in her favor, I don't think superdelegates are stupid enough to accept that the votes she got in FL and MI should count. Some SDs who WANT to vote for Hillary might try to use it as justification, but most of us are able to see through that lie. Superdelegates aren't SUPPOSED to be tied to tied to the vote leader or the pledged delegate leader, but if Obama wins both of those and the SDs hand the nomination to Hillary, you can bet there will be explosions in the Democratic Party, and rightly so.

But take a look at how is stands now. With so few delegates left to be taken, Hillary is farther behind than she can possibly make up. Her only hope of getting enough delegates or popular votes to beat Obama is to get the FL and MI delegations reinstated. If she does that, against Party rules, or if she wins on Superdelegates alone, she will be seen as an illegitimate contender and that would be a disaster for the party. McCain would be able to ask all summer, how can she win the White House if she can't even win the nomination?

If she wins fair and square, people will respect that and support her. If she wins through legal nonsense and back-room chicanery, say hello to President McCain, 4 more years of war in Iraq, and mounting national debt to pay for it.

Posted by Jim | March 5, 2008 6:05 PM

The bloom is off the rose. Obama is just another corrupt Chicago machine politician. He's been caught blatantly lying about his campaign not speaking to the Canadian government. He recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rezko for performing some sort of favor or favors (probably obtaining a visa for one of Rezko's friends and some other stuff we don't know about yet.)

As time goes on the love affair with Obama will wither, and the Democrats will wind up with a choice between two very bad candidates when the convention rolls around. Whoever that candidate is will lose to McCain, and once again the Democrats will be confused and wonder why their wonderful candidate lost in the general election. But, they won't learn anything, and next time around they'll nominate the same sort of far left, out of the mainstream candidate they nominated the time before. There's a reason why there have only been three Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years.

Posted by Eye Doc | March 5, 2008 6:07 PM

How will it look if Clinton wins a majority of the more than 2.5 million Texans who voted in the primary, but Obama wins the caucus in which about 100,000 people participated?

According to Burnt Orange Report, around 1.1 million voters (not 100,000) participated in the caucuses. That's a decent number.

-------------------------------

David Schuster(sp?) just reported the same thing on MSNBC. That's why it took so long to count the caucus votes!

As far as racism in the Clintons' campaign? Yes, it's sad and vile. But it's the Clinton's so what do you expect.

Posted by Cate | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

K,

I followed your advice (go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and see the list of bills that Obama has sponsored). Again I will give you credit for not ranting without any substantiated facts. What I don’t understand is that Obama has sponsored 113 bills in this session of Congress. You called that a short list. So it of course, begged the question how many bills has Clinton sponsored, the answer was 153.

So I am somewhat perplexed that you would think that this disparity is so great that it is a disqualifier to run for President. By the way McCain had just 37 bills.

Posted by Flaming Moderate | March 5, 2008 6:13 PM

Jasper,

Do you mean stealing the White House drapes like she did over $200,000 worth of White House artwork and furniture (that had been furnished in the WH before the Clintons) when the Clintons had to move out of the White House at the end of Bill's second term? Check it out....it's true. She had to return the furniture she stole. If Hellary would steal something as meaningless as furniture why not the election?

No Hellary Klepto 08

Posted by No Hellary Klepto 4 Me | March 5, 2008 6:24 PM

I love Texas and am so happy Hillary won the democratic popular vote last night.
I do think that Texas lawmakers made a mistake in not ensuring that all voters were able to make the second vote in the caucus.
My aunt is 85 years old, and she voted earlier that day. My cousin, ill and feeble did also. They were not able to return at 7:15pm and stand in line for hours to caucus. There should have been a way for their vote to count or do early caucus voting.

Furthermore, it is much too late in the evening, for people to get off work, drive through Houston traffic, arrive at a polling place, stand in line and vote. Then wait until 10:00pm or later to caucus. This was the experience of many of my friends and relatives.

My relatives favored Clinton, but they were disfranchised from their vote because of the extra process, which gave their votes to Obama. Hillary won! This must be clear and they need to give her ALL the votes not giving them to Obama on a caucus, when she won the vote. It was a larger Harris country precinct he received all these delegates. That needs to be dismissed.

Posted by cece | March 5, 2008 6:30 PM

JD,

Your quote below:
“Superdelagates, are obliged by their definition to make a "independent" decision and vote for the candidate they feel best represents the party and has the best chance of winning in November. They are not obliged to vote for mr. Obama if he has some more delegates at the end but loses the majority of key states needed to win in november, their also is a realistic chance that Hillary will win the popular vote.”

My comments
What is the “best candidate”? And what is “obliged”? Why are only Obama and Clinton’s the best candidate? If experience is the key why not vote for Biden, Dodd or Richardson? And then they can throw the convention to a 2nd ballot (wouldn’t that be fun). So I strenuously disagree that the SuperDelegates are to obliged to make “independent” decisions. They should have a strong case that would over turn the expressed will of the people. Perhaps if it was deemed that sordid facts came out about the leading candidate AFTER most people had voted, they would be right to overturn an election. Or perhaps an illness. But SuperDelegates are playing a dangerous game that after $300 million was spent on a campaign and perhaps 30,000,000 people voted that a majority of 800 elites could overturn the popular will. The real problem for the Dems is that the SD’s are not being the leaders that they are purported to be. They should grab both candidates by the “scruff of the neck” and tell them that they will vote enmass to go to the other candidate if they get too rough. SD’s should not be sitting idlely by and letting 1 (or 2) candidates destroy the party.

Posted by Flaming Moderate | March 5, 2008 6:31 PM

The challenge is to determine who is the best candidate for the upcoming National Election. Polls are someone useless, because a number of Clinton and Obama supporters are claiming that they will "walk" if they don't get their preferred candidate. If a candidate can be chosen quickly and it is deemed reasonably fair by the losing candidates supporters then there can be a reasonable coalescing around the winning candidate.

So I don't understand the "anger" expressed by both sides. Clinton has more experience (though some of it is really name recognition). Obama has "it". Some get so emotional about their candidate that they will risk going to future wars, losing Supreme Court and most importantly further wrecking the middle class by being stubborn about their choice.

Posted by Flaming Moderate | March 5, 2008 6:44 PM

Flaming Moderate,

Firstly, let me just correct one thing. I didn't write that Clinton said they would lose 11 in a row. I wrote the pundits said it. They didn't set the low expectations, the media did. Just go back and watch the joyful glee in the eyes of Matthews and Olbermann that night on MSNBC. That were ecstatic at the thought of her losing the rest of the February contests.

My larger argument was the disparity in the coverage. Four weeks ago, the predicitions were that what did happen would happen. Why did the discussion then change to Hillary is rebounding instead of the predictions coming true? Again, I was referring to the media's coverage of the campaigns. Incidentally, I will no longer watch MSNBC. I can't take that constant Hillary bashing. Including last night. I actually heard Olbermann say "We are calling Rhode Island for Clinton, but it is important to note how Obama closed the 20 point lead that Clinton had just a few weeks ago." But he never went back and corrected his comment when it turned out she didn't win by 5 (the margin at the time he said it) but she won by 18%. But that is another topic.

Regarding MD, VA and LA - Clinton had no chance here. As soon as the black vote broke for Obama (South Carolina) Clinton had given up these states as unwinnable. WA had already had its primary, this was the caucus portion of their contest. And really, ME and WI there is just no excuse for. I personally think that she should have gone in there and fought to keep the numbers down. It kind of reminds me of Iowa. They toyed with the idea of not competing there but it turned out to be a good choice they did. They just didn't do it well or right.

I will give you this, she has run an assinine campaign. Mark Penn should never have been trusted with anything more than the polls - but spilled milk at this point.

Hillary certainly had an arrogant expectation of entitlement to the coronation she planned. She has not run a very good campaign. Though, they have picked it up, it is a shame of wasted opportunity. She should have put this to bed long ago. Obama out raised her (a surprise to everyone, including Obama), out manuvered her repeatedly, out organized her. His whole strategy was a 50 state, delegate by delegate strategy. As soon as Clinton realized this, she should have gone toe to toe with him and limit the damage.

All that being said, she still has a very solid argument for the super delegates voting for her. She won the states tht Democrats have to win. Let's leave Michigan out of the discussion. We must, however, include Florida in this conversation. Since no one campaigned there, it is a fair test of that point in the campaign and what everyone though of the candidates (including Edwards) at that time. That should be comforting and worrying to Clinton. As voters get to know Obama, he closes gaps really well. At this point he is not trying to win any state he is not forecasted to win, he is just trying to keep the percentages down to maintain the delegate lead. But without winning 2025 in delegates, his argument can be viewed as just a specious as hers.

But she did win the states that Democrats have to win in order to win the White House. Democrats in those states choose her. Are you saying that Democrats in the caucus states should choose who runs more than those in primary states? Is Obama going to carry Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and the like in the fall? Clinton's argument here is that her supporters could not spare the 2 hours on a weeknight (whether because of work or family obligations) whereas Obama's white collar and college aged crowd could. That is why caucuses must have the same footnote that any open primary has. Caucuses are about building the party in the particular precinct or state where they are held. They are not a true test of voter opinion, in my humble opinion. The only primary Obama has one that I can think of in a state that Democrats must win to win in November is Illinois. His home state. I think we shall say that the home field advantage helped. Just as it did in Clinton with Arkansas. But that state may be in play in November - will LA, GA, SC, WY?

And regarding the expectations game - Obama is just as guilty of it as Hillary is. It is politics as usual.

Let me suggest that you not listen to an Obama speech but rather read the text. Read full press briefings, not just the clips or sound bites. And do the same with Clinton. Compare them with a clear mind and try to be as objective as possible.

As a footnote. We just elected a president - twice - because people felt like they wanted to have a beer with him. He promised compassionate conservatism. He was going to unite us out of our partisan bickering. He said he was going to surrond himself with the best and the brightest to solve the problems of the country. Go back and read his speeches and the transcripts of the debates with Gore. Then ask yourself, did you get what you were promised and what you expected? Did the best and the brightest around him really fix antyhing? Did he unite us to common purpose and make us all strive to stop being partisan and be simply Americans? Go back and read Clinton's and Reagan's for that matter. Hope is powerful, but ask your self if you got what you were promised. The realism offered by Hillary, and McCain, is somewhat refreshing. Specifics vs. generalities. Realism vs. idealism.

Again, Obama would have me hook, line and sinker if he had something else in his pocket besides hope. He hasn't shown any ability to do the things he espouses. In 4 or 8 years, I will probably be beggin him to run. Much as I was Gore last year. :-)

But I also read everything I could get my hands on about Obama. I think Rezko is not going to hurt him. Canada and NAFTA is just too odd to not give me pause. The article I posted in the previous post. His rhetoric does not match his campaign or actions. Just my humble opinion. And I think the Swift Boating will kill us in November. What are they going to drag out against Hillary? Anything from her time as First Lady (AR and White House) can be countered by Keating 5. Antyhing new can be countered. Hillary will stand up and fight. And quite honestly, I don't know if Obama can or will. He can't do it effectively and still stay above the fray and knock the politics as usual. His mailers already showed his willingness to imbellish to "draw contrasts."

Besides, McCain likes Hillary a lot and has respect for her - her intelligence and abilities. And she feels the same about him. She has won over a lot of Republicans in the Senate using her intelligence and commitment. I think Obama and McCain hate each other.

Sorry I got so off topic. Not feeling really well and I am trying to get out of work.

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 6:47 PM

Flaming Moderate,

That means Hillary has 35 % more sponsorships (using your numbers) of legislation that Obama does this session of congress. I would have to research it a bit more to determine what constitues a "sponsorship." I think I read it but I can't seem to focus anymore. Stream of conscious is all I have left.

To extroploate a bit, Obama has a lead of roughly 150 pledged delegates out of 2500 (roughly) proportioned. 6 %. And not to mention, the way the delegates are proportioned with some votes worth more than others. And some voters in TX and WA getting 2 votes because of the prima-caucus systems.

Cece - you are making the argument Hillary's campaign has been making to the super delegates regarding the caucuses.

In the end, we need to ask the Democrats to adjust the entire system. It has never presented this problem before because there has never been a campaign under these rules that has gone on like this.

But I cannot stress this point enough - NEITHER CANDIDATE WILL HAVE ALL THE DELGATES NEEDED TO WIN THE NOMINATION OUTRIGHT. This campaign will be decided by the super delegates. We have known this since Super Tuesday. One person will have more delegates than the other. But you don't call a race or quit it because the other person is closer to the finish line. You finish the race. In this case, the tape will be broken by the super delegates, not either one of the candidates.

The question is, how do they decide? I don't have an answer. Any solution that you come up with is goig to favor on candidate or the other and one group of supporters will feel disenfranchised.

How much do any of us not want to be Howard Dean right now?

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 7:09 PM

THE TRUTH:
OHIO : Gave the world George W. Bush in 2004
TEXAS : Gave the world George W. Bush
OHIO : Four student protesters gunned down
TEXAS : JFK gunned down
OHIO : Votes for Hillary Clinton
TEXAS : Votes for Hillary Clinton
OHIO : Handed John McCain the Presidency
TEXAS : Handed John McCain the Presidency
Fools!!!
This was your last chance at something close to real and you blew it big time. If Hillary is the nominee NOTHING will change. America is doomed.
You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Posted by Harry Vest | March 5, 2008 7:15 PM

Well,

I case Harry Vest just made a rational argument that none of us can refute.

Just give it to McCain now.

Posted by K in San Diego | March 5, 2008 7:24 PM

Why do the Obama Zombies count Obama's time in the Illinois Senate