Can Clinton Win The Popular Vote?

By Big Tent Democrat

Ben Smith of Politico thinks it will be very difficult for Hillary Clinton to catch Barack Obama in a universally accepted popular vote count in the Democratic Presidential nomination contest since Florida and Michigan will not revote (So do I). Since neither Obama nor Clinton will have the necessary number of delegates to capture the nomination without Super Delegate support, the popular vote contest, though unofficial, becomes significant. Smith cites Bill Clinton:

"If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, 'Which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November?'” former President Bill Clinton told ABC earlier this week.

Indeed. Now, as I said, like Smith, I think it becomes extremely difficult, to say the least, for Clinton to catch Obama without Florida and Michigan counting. Smith's analysis seems reasonable to me regarding the upcoming states. But here's the rub - it is just Smith's analysis. It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up. Who are we to decide what the voters will do? The voters get to decide. Not the pundits. Not NBC. Not the Left blogs.

But contempt for the voters, of Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and beyond is the new watchword for Obama supporters - from NBC on down. It is quite unseemly imo.

Note: comments closed.

< Friday Open Thread | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    PA is a very important state for her (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    Not only are there lots of voters to turn out, but a big margin will likely be supporting Hillary.

    And you were very nice not to highlight (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    "It would be a particularly poisonous Pyhrric victory if she gets the nomination after losing the delegate count and the popular vote," said Dan Gerstein, a political consultant who said he supports Obama.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by badger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    Dan Gerstein is Lieberman's political consultant, and Lieberman has already endorsed -- McCain.

    Dan Gerstein, Lieberman supporter and very much (none / 0) (#170)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    against Lamont.

    That Gerstein.


    If she just smokes Obama (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    In Pennsylvania and West Virginia what is a super delegate to do?  I checked in at orange today.  It's almost a waste of time doing that though anymore.  Hillary has lost!  Hillary has lost!  My God, Good Lord this thing is far from over....especially now.  If she smokes Obama in Pennsylvania and West Virginia might there not be changes of all sorts of heart about Michigan and Florida and will their be time to do something about it.  If Obama keeps free falling in the polls or can't come back after will changes of heart and closed doors open next week?  Democrats in Florida say that their revote options haven't been fully visited yet.

    I stopped going to Orangetown a month ago (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    The Great Orange Satan's (per Atrios) roost is a lost cause - they've made it all personal. So much so that they've created mental barriers to all contrary notions and the still many unknowns that could result in a Clinton nomination. But they are so invested in Obamamania and 'my way or the highwayism' over there that they are likely to work against Clinton in the general election (as they do now in their demonizing of Clinton) if she wins - they certainly won't be supporting her in any meaningful way.

    The denizens of Orangeville have demonstrated infatuation with themselves and their hardened notions of Obama as the only legitimate democratic nominee, rather than the ONLY truly important result of keeping a republican out of the White House.


    It becomes impossible (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    For Obama to be considered a legitimate winner of the primary contest without MI and FL counting.

    I think if the pop vote is even close (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    that becomes a relevant point. Given the size of those two states, I think 500,000 votes counts as close.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    And as we go into these next primaries, if Clinton gets the momentum, then it's going to mean a lot.  The perception of being a winner will carry the day.  To have such wide margins (if polling holds) in less homogenous states is telling.

    Buyers remorse (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    How will that be measured with current gaffes?  

    For my money not at all (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    Ditching MI and FL still looms as a catastrophic blunder.

    If the credentials committee, controlled by Obama people, disallows seating MI and FL (AS VOTED) and it comes down to a floor fight; what will superdelegates do if polls continue to favor Hillary (especially if Hillary wins big in PA and WV)?

    I'm assuming that superdelegates are also allowed to vote in these matters.

    The popular vote is problematic it seems to me.  Since Obama received so much of his support from independents and crossovers, Hillary actually will have a lead in popular votes among Democrats only.

    That SHOULD count for something unless the party leadership wants to screw the rank-and-file faithful including the low level grunt foot soldiers that do so much of the crap work on campaigns.

    The way the party leadership has a talent for shooting itself in the foot, nothing would surprise me.


    MI and Fla votes should be in popular vote tally (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by debcoop on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    The delegates may not be seated but the voters voted.  In Michigan assign Obama the uncommitted number which is probably 10% more than he deserves as Edwards was still running and some of that is his.  But between Fla and Mi that adds almost 4i0,000 which cuts down his popular vote lead to 300,000. Add in Washington state count the much larger primary instead of the caucus...which is arguable but that cuts his lead by another 60,000 votes and then his lead is about 250,000 votes.

    She could get that number out of Pennsylvania.  She can still lead in the popular vote.

    Obama can't deny revotes to assign delegates and not seat the delegates and not count their voters. this is a case that can be made to the media and the superdelegates.  


    Yeah, that gets at the real fallacy (none / 0) (#186)
    by frankly0 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    underlying this Politico article: the refusal to consider the previous votes in FL and MI to the popular vote total.

    Yet the Clinton case there is going to be strong, most obviously in FL. Even in MI, there are, I believe, exit polls that can be used to disentangle the "uncommitted" vote into the portions for Obama and Edwards. Flawed, of course, but far less flawed than ignoring it altogether.

    The fact that Hillary sought to get revotes in FL and MI and Obama passive aggressively sabotaged the efforts will confer a far greater sense of legitimacy on those votes as being fair to include.

    And what I strongly suspect too is that at the time when reckoning the entire popular vote will become important, polls in MI and FL will back up strongly the sort of results found in those original contests. It's hard to see how the Wright effect won't damage Obama's numbers badly in FL and MI.

    With the FL and MI results included, it should not be hard for Hillary to win the popular vote, most especially in this post-Wright segment of the campaign.

    Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama lose every primary from here on out, with the exception of Oregon. I can even see him losing NC, where he should have enjoyed major advantages.


    Well, it's interesting. My husband got a (none / 0) (#253)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    push poll here in NC from the Obama camp the other day. He was on the fence between Hillary and Obama and the push poll made him so angry that he asked the guy who was calling, "who are you working for?" and the fellow said he didn't know.   My husband told him he was an idiot to do such a thing and not even know who he was working for and told him that he had been on the fence but that now he would NEVER vote for Obama.

    I've tried to press him on what the guy said, but I haven't been able to worm the details out of him. He just gets outraged all over again.  I'll let you know when I find out.


    Wow. Must have been bad. Please do (none / 0) (#259)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    tell more, if he tells you.

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    The scenario you describe in your second graf is exactly the one I worry about.  There's more than one way for this race to become too close to call.  The votes and delegates can be very close, with all the momentum behind Clinton.

    I think it's clear by their actions that the D(ean)NC favors Obama.  Just their proclamation that they wouldn't pay for a revote was very telling.  I think they've bought into this bizarre myth that Clinton would be attacked more viciously than Obama in the GE, so they're looking for any way they can to avoid that scenario.

    I say this in all sincerity: I desperately want to be wrong, but I have this growing, nagging feeling that a year or so from now, after Obama's been ripped to pieces by the right wing attack machine, that this "we can't let Clinton run because the Republicans don't like her" decision will be seen as an even bigger strategic blunder than the MI+FL train wreck.


    Considering the going price for SDs (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    He still has money and can do some more shopping.  But remember he does not take lobbyist money.  

    Clinton's updated total to superdelegates, who include Democratic members of Congress, Democratic National Committee members, former party leaders and state governors, is $236,100 for 2005-2008, compared to Obama's $710,900
    Shopping for SDS

    more bait (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    worms are looking peeked.

    Surprisingly, answers you seek (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    are in the link.

    Okay (none / 0) (#40)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    this is new to me.  They have to BUY SDs?  Yup, best democracy money can buy!

    This election is showing some really disturbing stuff about our political system.


    Jeebus this has been an expensive primary. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    For everyone.

    I just hope we don't run Democratic coffers dry before the convention. This long, torturous episode is only the warm-up, after all. We still have to take on the real bad guys when we're done.

    HP (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    As this is the second time you've brought this up, I think it's important to remember a couple of things:

    1.  He outspent her 2 and 3 to one in OH and TX and still lost.

    2.  There comes a point where money does not matter.  McCain certainly showed us that.

    and let's throw this in, too: she's still raising money.  She pulled in millions after her wins and keeps going strong.

    HP (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    you probably know this, but it bears repeating:

    90% of Obama's donations were from people giving $1,000 or more.

    I think Clinton's ability to win core democrats by wide margins over Obama will be looked at as well.


    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kid oakland on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    via Ambinder March 8th:

    By the numbers, Sen. Barack Obama announced today that he has raised more than $54 million for the primaries from a stunning 727,972 contributors -- fully 385,101 of whom were new. $45 million was raised online; 90% of the donations were $100 or smaller; 50% was $25 or smaller. The campaign says that a third of the new donors also participated in some sort of volunteer activity for the campaign.

    Do you have a link for your claim?


    Both could be true (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    Actually, both claims could be true, and in this case I think they are.  Didn't Olbermann talk about this weeks ago?

    Say, for example, a candidate got 1,000 contributions.  900 for $10 each, for a total of $9,000, and 100 for $2,300 each, for a total of $230,000, grand total of all contributions is $239,000.

    90%(900/1000) of the donors gave $10.

    Over 96% (230,000/239,000) of the money came from people giving $2,300.

    It all depends on whether you're counting dollars or acts of giving.


    Numeracy! (none / 0) (#266)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:48:22 PM EST
    Did you see factcheck.org on this? (nt) (none / 0) (#271)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    Why? He's spending $1.5 million a day (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    and having to do so for an even longer haul has to raise concerns as to a ceiling on small-donor funds.

    So why do you see it as favorable in SDs' minds?  You keep repeating stats but don't give analysis.


    $1.5 million (none / 0) (#53)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:22:52 AM EST
    Why is he spending 1.5 million per month? He landed in Portland,OR last night. Obama's advance team arrived Monday. They opened a downtown Portland office, found four locations across the state for his speeches. The locations have to be paid for, sound systems, large screens for overflow crowds, transportation, paying the traveling staffers housing, flights, phone bills. It's been interesting to be in on the arrangements. Obama speaks tomorrow morning in my neck of the woods in Oregon. Secret Service, press credentials, the oh so popular ticket to the event..the tickets are being scalped!!! Live feeds, rope lines, rental cars, drivers,..thousands of emails begging for tickets. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    save the commercials for kos! thanks (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    Fingers in your ears (none / 0) (#82)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    I'd report the smae info if it were any other candidate. Cover your eyes.

    i don't have to jane. obama is losing (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    and the shame of it is he and many of his supporters don't care. identity politics limited to the few doesn't win. you can count out the blue collar dems, the latino vote, the older voter. what do you have left? the answer is not much! tata, you have a nice day.

    Obama "losing". I am curious how you arrived at that conclusion.

    frankly i am curious that you are curious. (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    obama won't be winning the general election. do you honestly believe he will? this whole thing is a major loss for the democratic party.

    your opinion. You made a statement as if it is a fact. Again,how you are defining Obama "losing"?

    well believe all you will i am surprised (none / 0) (#246)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    that you keep asking like you don't know. go to the polls. duh!

    Your eloquence has convinced me! (none / 0) (#263)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    and your sarcasm does not depress me. (none / 0) (#267)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    but heck, it's a free country, and every vote should count.

    I'm calling BS on your comment above (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    I've never seen you report anything here that didn't look like it was blastfaxed from Obama Central.

    oh, and by the way (none / 0) (#134)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    He's spending 1.5m PER DAY, not per month. And he's not getting a very good return on his money lately.

    It really is a lot of money (none / 0) (#218)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    to be spending in a state like Oregon, which he was expected to win anyway...

    No, 1jane, now don't misquote me and (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    Associated Press in the service of your master.

    Obama spends $1.5 million a DAY and still hasn't walked away with this.  It costs him that much to still be in essentially a tie with Clinton.

    That is another reason I see that Obama cannot win the GE.  Spending ungodly amounts, more than ever before, and with all the free "media darling" blitz he gets, and yet she spends only two-thirds a month and still has more Dems, still has polls trending her way, still hasn't made the major gaffes he has done. . . .  Nope, he can't do it in the GE.


    Yup, where's the diary at Orange (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST

    Maybe that will (none / 0) (#39)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    taper off.  One of our friends told us a month ago he was sending Obama $500 a month!

    Don't think Obama's base is working class people.


    Not so fast (none / 0) (#54)
    by dannyinla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    He outspent her 2 and 3 to one in OH and TX and still lost.

    Obama lost TX?

    As long as we're still going by delegate counts, Obama won TX.


    silly post, especially in light of diary title (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    we are discussing popular vote here

    Discuss all you want (none / 0) (#241)
    by dannyinla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    HRC has a plan to win the popular vote. Good for her.

    But silly Obama won the silly TX delegate count... and that's still what matters, Silly.


    which is really gonna help him in the GE (none / 0) (#254)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    See, these are exactly the kinds of arguments that make us tear our hair out. That Obama can "win" a weirdly rigged caucus process that defies the will of the voters, reflected by the results of the popular vote, does not give me a lot of confidence that he will do well in the fall.

    if you are trying to factor in those so (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    called caucuses, then please recount. obama lost texas.

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nemo52 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Do you still think Obama is the stronger candidate in the GE?  I have always thought Hillary might have an edge, but now I am even less sure that Obama could carry the general.

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    Obama had the edge when his Unity theme was intact.

    Now Unity! is beginning to fray around the edges and we won't know until April 23 how much that will cost Obama in soft supporters.

    I remember SupderDuper Tuesday and March 4 when everyone was sure those dates would be when we would Know.  Now it's looking like it's April 22.  


    Yes now that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    the Rush Limbaugh crowd hates him, he is finished.  He was really depending on those votes.

    oh, irony (none / 0) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    Obama benefitted tremendously from the crossover, Hillary-hating Republican vote in MANY of the early primaries.  Sean Hannity had a "stop Hillary express" and in places like Wisconsin the Republicans went for Obama overwhelmingly.

    They are never going to vote for him in a General election.  Independents maybe.  On Hillary's side, some Independent an Republican women might vote for her indeed, but she better not count on them.


    Peggy Noonan (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    likes Obama....Her most recent article in the Wall Street Journal was very complimentary of "The Speech" and was just shy of an outright endorsement....

    Obama will recover--he wasn't the one saying those things.....He has done nothing wrong...  


    Sadly (none / 0) (#158)
    by spit on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    whether one has, in fact, done anything wrong is often of little relevance in politics.

    I think it's going to take another week or so for the numbers to settle into something recognizable.


    you do know who Noonan is, don't you? (none / 0) (#199)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    Reagan's speech writer (none / 0) (#242)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    You mean she was Reagan's speech writer.

    Of course (none / 0) (#245)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    I disliked her for many years although I have always thought she was a gifted writer who used concrete images very well..... And very short sentences....

    She took a turn after Bush's inaugural speech in 2005--she said there was too much God in the speech.  She opposes the war in Iraq.  

    Her current column has not any of the old-Noonan heavy judgmentalism.  She genuinely likes Obama.  I am truly surprised...and not sure what to make of it....


    She adored Reagan (none / 0) (#247)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    So I'm not sure what to make of her judgement, except to say that she apparently likes someone who can wow a crowd.

    Yeah. well , come to think of it, Reagan (none / 0) (#255)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    and Obama have a lot in common.  Both of them pretend to be above the fray and use their "affable" personalities to make people think they are "one of them."   Can't you see Obama waving to the cameras as he walks past the reporters onto the waiting helicopter with a big smile on his face, while saying nothing of consequence?

    No wonder Peggy Noonan likes Obama.


    Been at dk too long. (none / 0) (#262)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    Or I would have come right out and said that Obama reminds of Reagan and not in a good way, either.

    At dk, I'd word that thought very carefully.


    Yeah. Well, that's why I no longer go to DK. (none / 0) (#265)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    Unity nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    I don't get the "unity" thing at all. I see it as a political-media domain invention that has zero impact on the actual election outcome. I don't see any average voters giving a rat's ass about it or craving civility. Quite the contrary, some grouse about negative advertising and incivility, but most seem to love the infotainment.

    And while Obama's unity shtick may be OK for getting republicans to vote for him in democratic primaries, it ain't gonna mean squat in the general election where nearly 100% of republicans will voe republican, not crossover.


    Unity means (none / 0) (#251)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    I'm everything to everybody!

    Which is utter baloney of course, but his memes of Hope and Unity are are intentionally vague and feel goody.  I have nothing against the ideals, but I don't like emotional much.  Every politican should be able to appeal to emotions, but they need a LOT more than that.


    New Faux poll on Wright and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    It's from Faux, but it's still telling: 72 percent of Americans know about Wright's comments.  57 percent do not believe Obama shares Wright's views -- but 24 percent believe he does share Wright's views and have doubts about Obama because of them.

    Especially crucial for Obama is loss of Independents.  One in five Independents (20 percent) and one in six Democrats (17 percent) think Obama shares Wright's controversial and unpatriotic views. Whites (25 percent) are more likely than blacks (15 percent) to think so.

    Over a third of all voters(35 percent) and a quarter of Democrats (26 percent) and independents (27 percent) say Obama's relationship with Wright has caused them to have doubts about Obama.  

    The racial split:  40 percent of whites and 2 percent of blacks have doubts about Obama because of Wright.

    "It's unclear how much damage, if any, the situation will do to Obama's standing in his head-to-head race with Hillary Clinton, as Democrats so far are still almost evenly divided in their preference: 40 percent say they want Clinton to be the nominee and 38 percent want Obama. In February, the vote preference was tied at 44 percent each," says the Fox pollster.


    Half of the (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    10 primaries are closed... PA, Guam, OR, KY, SD which she has a better chance of getting the poplular vote.

    The rest are NC, WV, IN, MT and Puerto Rico.

    WV looks good for her right now.

    That makes 6 of the next 10 she may do well in pop vote.

    If the ecomony keeps tanking.. she just might pull it off.

    We (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    are living in KY this semester.  We stopped in at a Cracker Barrel last weekend and I was wearing my Hillary button.  Very favorable reception!  Her bus had stopped at that restaurant the day before, people were really excited.

    Surprised me a little,but I hope it's a sign that she has support in these southern states.


    Since we were not suppose to be in play in PA (none / 0) (#85)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    When the Obamamania group & NBC was saying that Hillary should drop out before Texas and Ohio, I was thinking. Fine, being in Penna is no fun when first Edwards, and then Hillary. Like we are totally disenfrancised here too. And then, lo and behold, our vote matters. And the excitement is building too. Saw the first political signs out yesterday. All Hillary and I was thinking, I have to order them and did last night. And 2 gold tone pins too.

    shouldn't surprise you (none / 0) (#256)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    I don't thin KY being for Hillary is surprising. It borders Ohio, Tenn., & W.V. which did and should go heavily Hillary. Strong Appalachia contingent.

    What do you mean.... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    "IF the economy keeps tanking?"  "IF?"

    I hope (none / 0) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    she starts hammering on the Economy!!

    I have no doubt the economy is tanking... but I'm not sure how fast the downhill momentum is at the time. At some point they will not be able to lower the interest rate ... thenwe are in BIG trouble.


    The bad economy is going to be great for HRC (none / 0) (#155)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
     - at least to get elected. It gives her all kinds of opportunity to remind voters of the "Clinton Economy" of the 90s.

    If she does manage to get elected and have to actually deal with the problem....that could be another story.


    Well, they inherited very similar problems from (none / 0) (#260)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    Reagan. Clinton got the then Democratic congress to raise taxes. Not one Republican voted for it.  But that started a whole era of prosperity, helped along, of course, by the Tech revolution. The budget was in a huge deficit in Reagan's term of office and even in GHW Bush's (he was drummed out of office for raising them too -much to his credit). But it  became a huge surplus by the time  Bill left office. The current situation is much worse, but at least the Clintons  have experience dealing with it.

    i've lived through lots of Presidencies and, although Republicans were fiscally responsible up through Nixon, since Reagan they've stripped the treasury every time they get into office and give the $ to their rich friends and the corporations. Then they complain, "there's no money, no money" for the government to do anything for people.

    It's always the Democrats who provide the true "trickle down" effect, by raising needed taxes to adequately fund the government rather than running up huge deficits and supporting social programs that help the poor and middle class.


    I (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:14 AM EST
     believe that it is nearly impossible for Hillary to catch Obama. But not statistically impossible. Every political junkie knows that a week is a lifetime in politics. Just look at what the past week has wrought. And when did progressives stop believing in allowing people to vote? Oh yeh, when they decided that Obama was the One.

    And even if/when Obama wins the nomination, which I believe he will because the media and the Democratic Party leadership want him to I believe the Democratic Party will be divided past curing. He can seat the FL and MI delegates til the cows come home AFTER he wins the nomination. Then it will mean nothing. And voters will neither forgive nor forget.

    Oh yes, beware the evil McCain. But people don't loathe McCain the way they loathed Bush. And many don't think he will be like a 3rd term for Bush.

    I don't see anyway that this election turns out anything but ugly for the Dems. Disenfranchising voters, is no way to convince people that the Republicans are the only ones with a culture of corruption.


    Agree totally (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    This is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. Really, I'm beginning to question that they deserve the support of people who want democracy.  These things are always ugly, but maybe there is now hope of another viable party.  I was thinking yesterday looking at all the Rev. Wright stuff, one thing that is wrong with our system is that we only have two perspectives on everything, unlike other First World nations.  There's no room for analyzing complexities and nuances because one party stakes out a position aimed at pulling in votes and then the other party must adopt the opposite position. Disturbing.  

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#107)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    I suspect this primary season may be the beginning of the end for the Republican Party, too.

    Social conservatives are not pleased. Since they can't seem to hijack a party so easily anymore, they might splinter off. A whole new Christian Coalition!

    Who knows. Perhaps this season of "change" will underdo the whole two party system. That would be pleasant.


    Yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    More parties would be good if they are viable. However, it that is the case, the electoral system would have to be replaced at the very same time and that is no easy feat.

    Otherwise, nobody is going to get to the magic number of EVs and it will go into the House every time.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    but I wouldn't mind seeing that go either.

    They didn't loathe Bush when they were (none / 0) (#58)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    voting for him. The loathing comes after

    Average voter (none / 0) (#77)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    The average voter won't remember MI or FL. The Dems I meet with are focused on one thing...NOVEMBER. The apathy regarding FL and MI is overwhelming. The average Dem just wants this primary stuff to end and move on. My county Dem organization has already planned a victory party on Nov. 4th. We just want a Dem candidate to take back our country. The longer this contest between the Dem candidates go on the stronger the John McCain campaign gets. November! November! November!

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    But I'm concerned how the voters in MI and Fl might feel about it. I don't know how many would vote for McCain because of this but why would any political party take that chance going into a general election?  

    I'm an average voter (none / 0) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    Many voters that are very involved this year are average voters.  Lots of average voters have computers and know much more about the election process than ever.

    That just felt like 'low knowledge' to me.


    The average voter nationwide? (none / 0) (#125)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Or the average voter in Michigan and Florida?  I don't think it will matter whether or not the average person in other states recall the primaries but if there is a close race in November, the Dem nominee will really need one or both of those states to win the election.  

    That's the rub (none / 0) (#238)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more.  This is not a national election, but a series of state-level elections, and it would be the biggest surprise in recent political history for the Dems to lose both MI and FL and still somehow win in the the electoral college.

    Assuming nothing changes and there is no revote in either FL or MI, I would not want to be in charge of the GOTV effort for the Dems in those states this fall.


    I just read a column (none / 0) (#244)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    in the WSJ urging Dean to strike a bargain to get re-votes in Fl and MI.  He thinks there is still time but I'm not sure if that is true.  If there is a way, I think the best bet for the Dems to win in November is to have a shot at these states.  

    Trust This...in November (none / 0) (#228)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    McCain has Charlie Crist on his short list of VP's

    As an average voter, use your computer to find out if you think that FL will be of NO IMPORTANCE in the GE with a Republican VP going unopposed
    with a disenfranchised FL Dem vote.


    FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    must be included in the popular vote count.

    Unfortunately I envision a lot of wrangling over what is the popular vote. Part of why Obama derailed the revotes no doubt. But noone considering the popular vote OBJECTIVELY can exclude those two states. Alas objectivity is hard to come by these days.

    Off Topic : Hillary's Passport also breached (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Paladin on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    I know it's off topic but perhaps another thread should be started?  It's a developing headline on CNN.

    nahhh... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    The Clintons had their spies in the State Department breach her records to make it appear the Clintons weren't involved in breaching Obama's passport.

    And McCain called (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    They got his too.  He did not want to be left out. They probably looked at BTD too. Heh.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    Contempt. Yep. He'll lose because of it. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    It's not just MI and FL.  I have recently heard someone on the news say something to the effect that Clinton's other states lack completeness without MI and FL.  And if that meme is starting to get talked up, it won't be long before the big states realize that they've been swindled by Obama.  Without MI and FL, OUR votes mean diddly squat.  Expect the 24% of the voters in Florida who plan to sit it out in November to spread to other states.  
    We're going to be mad as hell.  

    It will take a miracle (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    I don't see how it could happen at this point. But the election should continue, nonetheless. You don't quit. If the general election shows that McCain has 55% of the vote while Obama has 45%, I'll bet my house that nobody suggests that Obama should just drop out. That's not the way the system works.

    It's odd that Obama seems to be the candidate who is willing to slander his opponents, disenfranchise voter's, threaten superdelegates, and use legal tecnhicalities to gain electoral votes, but Clinton is the candidate who will "do anything to win".

    He's going to get part of what he wants. He'll be the first black candidate to run for President. But unless McCain implodes, he is unlikely to be the first black President.

    That miracle could (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    happen. If the Rev ends up like the Dean scream.

    Obama campaign is trying to head that off.. through endorsements and mud slinging. Let's see how it works.


    are they really? (none / 0) (#94)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    they just sent out a picture of Wright and Clinton last night to keep the story going, it seems.  

    I feel (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    that was a BIG misstep in the Obama campaign... makes him look like just another pol.

    What makes you (none / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    think I said that Hillary is running a clean campaign? Just because I see Sen Obama slinging mud does not automatical exclude the other campaign.

    Change the focus the Clinton is not going to work... Obams is now just another pol slinging mud. He got down in the mud... and now that image of above the politics is gone!


    The poster never said (none / 0) (#118)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    Hillary was running a clean campaign. S/he simply said that Obama was running a dirty campaign. That doesn't necessarily imply Hillary is doing the opposite (unless you think in terms of binaries, which is always a poor choice).

    The truth is, they've both run campaigns that have used dubious and dirty tactics. (Although, I would argue that it's worse for Obama because he claims to be above it.)


    yeahbut (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    in order to say something bad about Obama, you must be implicitly bashing Clinton as well.  two sides of the same coin.

    Clinton is a politician (none / 0) (#165)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    She is not pristine. I am, however, unaware of her slandering Obama, disenfranchising voter's, threatening superdelegates. She has used technicalities to get electorates and she (and some of her supporter's) have said mean things about Obama. Her campaign may have used some "dirty" tricks, but not as many as Obama's campaign has accused her of (they seem to think that every bad thing that happens to him is her fault - she is not that all-powerful).

    Hah, Clinton's passport breached (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    People will just accuse her of self-sabotage!

    sorry meant to post in open thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST

    Funny (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    Among the little noticed parts of Hillary's agenda is the elimination of contract workers in the Federal government. Which may be why AFSCME supported her from the start.

    The Obama passport snooping was by contract workers.

    Funny or maybe ironic.  Obama has said nothing about the very serious matter of contract workers.  He's even said he'll retain Blackwater's private army.  Hillary says they're out.

    Refresh my memory.  Why is it that so many "liberals" support Obama?


    The fact that passport application review (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    has been out-sourced to contract workers is quite startling; certainly news to me.  So much for privacy protections.  Sounds like the alert system for computer access was programed for high profile individuals, not the little people.

    That will be the next story (none / 0) (#176)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    As it should be. Most Americans aren't aware either that most passport applications now go to a contracted party, not federal government workers. That also goes for INS applications too..

    Well (none / 0) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    it may not have the connotation you think.  I do contract work in DC (did some work at the Dept of Commerce for a law firm) and I am an American citizen - it's not necessarily being shipped overseas.

    Neither my comment nor the reply to (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    my comment included any reference to information obtained by contract workers "being shipped overseas."  

    I am a contract worker too (none / 0) (#201)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    But I am telling you that this makes abuse easy and you should know that too. Further, it makes some workers totally unqualified for the job at hand. My husband's green card application was held in limbo for over a year because some contract worker didn't understand tax law. It took an intervention from my congressional office and a call to the head of the INS to get it cleared out. And we were lucky. Others have been in limbo for a lot longer and it has nothing to do with national security.

    I'm just saying, the outsourcing has gotten out of control - whether is leads to incompetence or abuse...the result is the same. Bad government.


    It's a disaster in my state -- privacy breaches (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    en masse, SS numbers printed on tax forms and other materials through the mails, and contract work costing much more than the workers it replaced.  Plus these workers are not accountable under civil service rules, in the state that pioneered them.  All so that our (Dem) gov can keep his campaign promise to cut lots and lots of state jobs.  

    And all have added to our economic problems, of course, now causing more budget slash-and-burn and less hiring of longterm state employees.  So we may not see for a while what it has meant at the national level, but to see the effect of outsourcing in one state, google "Wisconsin" and apt terms such as "privacy" in recent stories.


    She probably snuck in in the dead of night and (none / 0) (#261)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    tried to make it appear that someone ELSE had done it. But we all know the depths of evil to which she will descend in order to assuage her bottomless desire for POWER!

    Since when are Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    afraid of democracy?

    Absurd? (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up.

    I think it is absurd to call that absurd.  We aren't impartial observers.  I want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race as soon as possible.  Pointing out that Clinton can't win any of the metrics that will be used to decide the nomination is pretty standard fare in Presidential elections.  It puts pressure on Clinton and her supporters to drop out.  That is what is important to me because I believe continuing this nomination process will hurt us in November.  

    I really don't care if South Dakota hasn't voted yet.  This is how the system works.  South Dakotans aren't stupid.  They understand that scheduling a primary or caucus so late in the race means there is a good chance they won't have much of a say in who the nominee is.  

    You really need to look at the big picture and stop looking though the "voice of the voters" keyhole.  There is more at stake than making sure that every state, territory and district of the USA have a say in the nomination.  

    Uhm... (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    There is more at stake than making sure that every state, territory and district of the USA have a say in the nomination.  

    So, what you're saying is that Clinton needs to stop winning so Obama can take the nomination...for the good of the nation?

    And yet you don't think ignoring MI and FL (and PA and WV and PR and all the other remaining primaries) would be detrimental?

    I wonder if you were calling for Obama to drop out when the delegates and popular vote were against him.


    No, what I am saying is... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    ...I agree with NBC and the other Lefty Blogs when they say Clinton can't win the pledged delegate or the popular vote.  As a result, I think she should get out of the race.  To stay in would hurt Obama's chances in November.  

    And yet you don't think ignoring MI and FL (and PA and WV and PR and all the other remaining primaries) would be detrimental?

    That is correct.  What makes you think otherwise?

    I wonder if you were calling for Obama to drop out when the delegates and popular vote were against him.

    When was that?  


    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    I really am almost speechless. Let me ask you this...are you going to be happy if Obama gets the nomination and then loses in a landslide not seen since Mondale? That is what is going to happen...you do realize that don't you?

    Why because you say so? nt (none / 0) (#68)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    Because (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    I have commonsense.

    He can't win the Latino vote. He can't win the majority of women. He can't the blue collar white vote. He can't win the military vote. He can't win the Catholic vote. He can't win the senior vote.

    Where is this victory coming from? Not Democrats. And apparently the independents are fleeing in droves after his speech, comment on the speech, etc.

    You don't need to be a rocket scientists to figure this one out.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    He'll win DC and this time he won't even get MA like McGovern did.  

    It isn't Clinton who's hurting Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    chances - it's Obama.  When you shoot yourself in the foot, it's a lot harder to blame it on someone else when the whole world can see you with the gun in your hand...

    With contests yet to come, building momentum for Clinton, and Obama bleeding support in the only metric that matters in this lull - what the people are saying - and with the momentum all on Clinton's side, there is no argument for Clinton bowing out now that makes any sense.

    This change in the dynamic started before the March 4 primaries - he covered Texas and Ohio with advertising and spent 2-3 times what she did, and he lost.  These last couple of weeks, he has been everywhere - giving speeches, holding interviews - and none of it has helped - the slide continues.  She has an air of confident energy - and he looks and sounds desperate.  She sounds presidential - he sounds like he left his note cards at home.  

    Can she overtake him in the popular vote?  As many times as I have seen Hillary come back when everyone else had counted her out, I think anything is possible.


    Really? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    Can she overtake him in the popular vote?  As many times as I have seen Hillary come back when everyone else had counted her out, I think anything is possible.

    Unless she has a pair of ruby slippers I don't know about I don't see how it is possible.  Please game out a scenario in which Clinton wins the popular vote.  


    you can't be serious (none / 0) (#164)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    How about margins of victory large enough in most of the states to come?  LDO

    So learn us all then (none / 0) (#169)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    Which states does Clinton have to win and by how much does she have to win each state in order to overtake Obama's popular vote lead?

    Sen Obama (none / 0) (#203)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    is not running away with the popular vote...

    Popular vote

    Including caucuses, He only leads by 3%.

    Out of the remaining primaries, PA and NC have the biggest population count.

    IN, Puerto Rico and OR are next (in tht order)

    PA could be a huge win for Hillary in the popular vote.


    So how does Clinton catch him? nt (none / 0) (#215)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    its more fun to wait and see (none / 0) (#219)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    isnt it?

    Hey (none / 0) (#223)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    I'm putting the numbers out there.

    Try this... How much does Sen Obama have to maintain to still be ahead in the popular vote.... let me see the numbers!!


    Can you explain (none / 0) (#139)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    how Obama can win enough of the pledged delegates to secure the nomination without Hillary dropping out?  Isn't that what you would really like to see, Hillary drop out so that Obama can win.

    Obama's chances in November depend heavily on (none / 0) (#264)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's supporters as well as the voters of Florida and Michigan perceiving the primary electoral process as fair to all, not just fair to Obama.

    If you think Obama is going to win in November by steamrolling those people, you are very deluded.


    Kathy... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    That is what they are saying.  My nephew, who used to be sane, with a straight face, said,"those idiots in Ohio and Texas did not vote for Hillary.  She just has to stop winning".  Honestly, they really wanted a coronation.  It really surprises them that people actually do not buy the Obama candidacy and are scared of an Obama presidency.  And furthermore, that these people are not right wing Bush types.    

    My nephew is in Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    so all he is saying is, "No way can Obama lead the military."  They are all so gung-ho Clinton over there that I think they'll throw down their weapons if Obama gets the nom instead.  He says that he is almost sick from waiting to see how it will turn out.

    Obama will lead (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    his supporters in to volunteering for the military.  With his Presidency he will rally them to step in so the weary and overburdened soldiers can come home to their families while Obama does the analysis for a withdrawal.  I would like Obama to try it out now.  Then I will know how committed they are.

    This is so OT.  I believe I will finally get deleted.


    I seem to recall (none / 0) (#157)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    this time 4 years ago we were going through another coronation ceremony.


    On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington, D.C., and former primary election opponents, Kerry accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination. The DNC's website acknowledged him as the party's nominee at that time, four and a half months prior to the Convention.

    Yeah that turned out good.


    What is absurd (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    Is that Obama thinks he is going to get my vote. It won't happen and I am not alone.

    You may pull this thing out - only to win the battle and lose the war. But then Obama was never a longterm vision kind of guy.


    I would probably vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    but.... no more of this typical white people stuff, now that I think about it though will I?  Does he really think so lowly of me?.....sigh....I respect your POV though and agree that Obama is not a longterm vision kind of guy.  Mostly ambiguous short term feel good.

    I know it. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    I was utterly behind voting for the Dem nominee. Until I realized that Obama and by extension his surrogates were willing to throw the Clintons under the bus to win and assume they had all their votes.

    Like someone said yesterday, audacity is right. Not to mention brattiness, rudeness, and hubris.


    Audacity? Chutzpah! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    i absolutely agree. obama would (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    rather continue this nose dive into a general election loss rather than go home and face michelle. i almost feel sorry for him facing her.

    And I absolutely agree (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    that the Obamacans threw the Clintons under the bus.  That's not coalition building.

    I declare, I do not understand people (none / 0) (#142)
    by ItsGreg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    I've tended to support Obama since Edwards dropped out, but I think Hillary would also be a terrific president. I do not understand how any Democrat would prefer to put McCain in the White House than to support either of the Democratic candidates.

    If, unlikely as it seems at this point, Hillary wins the nomination, I'll happily work for her and vote for her.


    I don't get it either. (none / 0) (#159)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    We have two great candidates - each with their own virtues and flaws, but great candidates none the less. You can barely squeeze a toothpick in between them on policy. I can definitely see why people would prefer one to the other, but I'm at a loss as to how any Democrat could prefer McCain to either.

    Really? Identical? No way (none / 0) (#236)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    Obama copies Clinton's policies and he's a liar to boot.  They are nothing alike, IMO.

    That's funny...Obama wouldn;t want her as VP (none / 0) (#233)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    and thinks she is not as experienced as he is.

    So how can you support Obama and then say you would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee?

    You can't destroy another candidate while pushing your cause for Obama. Then magically when you find out your candidates cause has racist overtones that don't fly nationally, minimal policy experience to show [ie. snips others policies and calls them his own], rhetoric that is hypocritical when preaching CHANGE as you trot out 2 senators that have been CAREER politicans.

    I have heard this jargon before. I don't want to have a beer with Mr. Obama just because Mr. Richardson NOW says he is a darn good guy.

    Let's vet the heck out of Mr. Obama and let ALL voters have a say. If he is still standing after taking all blows, so be it.

    So far Hillary has taken many a Blow and still stteps up to give it back. I want Rocky in my corner not a rope a dope strategy. Sorry no pun there but it appears to be an appropriate analogy
    in the sense that I want someone who can take a punch NOT SLIP ONE so as to make it on to the next ROUND.

    Sooner or later ONE punch will land square on Mr. Obama over TIME. Many democrats know this fact which is WHY they want Hillary out now so not to expose this.

    I would rather find out NOW rather than LATER when it would then be TOOOOOOOOO LATE.

    That is why you hear rumblings of SEAT FL AND MI
    and let all primaries  [CLOSED] be included which does NOT favor Mr. Obama.


    How? Here's how... (none / 0) (#243)
    by ItsGreg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    how can you support Obama and then say you would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee?

    Because I respect them both. Because I think either of them would be a better president than John McCain.

    If my preferred candidate isn't nominated, I'm not going to pout and sit in my room; I'm going to work to get my second choice elected. I originally preferred Edwards. When he dropped out, I supported Obama. If he fails to get the nomination, I'll support Hillary. What I refuse to do is give up and whine and let the Republicans win.


    I feel that way (none / 0) (#232)
    by alsace on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    about Obama after a visit to dk and some other blogs, where poster after poster swears to never vote for Hillary.  After reading an especially annoying thread, I even toyed with trying to get some signatures for Nader to help get him on our state's ballot.  Usually, though, I think Bush III would be even more dangerous than the novice.  

    You are forgetting the automatic delegates (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    Remember them?  And if MI and FL were added to her vote total, along with her prospects of winning PA, WV, KY and PR, we would be talking about asking Obama to get out.  
    Who the heck do you guys think you are anyway?  You're stupidly willing to write off Fl and Mi and by extension, MY vote in NJ and you expect to bluster and strut and impatiently demand that she get out because you want to move on.  I swear, Obama supporters have the biggest egos and hubris on the planet.  
    She;s not getting out and we're going to be in your faces until the last convention day in August.  Deal with it.  

    I think Obama (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    should drop out because he's utterly unelectable. But hey, I'm willing to wait and see what the rest of the country has to say in the matter.

    And she can most certainly catch him. I don't know why BTD thinks she can't. There's LOTS of people in PA, never mind the remainder of states. Let's see how he does. For being so behind a candidate, it surprises me that Obama supporters are so eager to have HRC drop out. Let your guy win it. Which, of course, he doesn't have the math to do either.


    I'll tell you what absurd is (5.00 / 6) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    Absurd is when one candidate wins 7 of the 9 most populous states in the union and is asked to drop out before the convention.  The nine most populous states constitute more than half of our population.

    Convenient that you call for a dropout just as your candidate is sliding in the polls.

    But YOU, NBC and many of the lefty blogs say oh hell, hang it up, for the good of ... who exactly benefits from this?

    In case you haven't noticed the "lefty" blogs have gone stark raving mad, NBC is; well General Electric.

    It took 3 ballots in 1932 to nominate FDR.  The 1948 convention blew up and several states walked out.  Won both of those elections.

    Now 2008 isn't 1932 or 1948 but an exciting convention may spark more not less interest.

    As for McCain, he can use the extra time without an opponent shooting himself in the foot and coronating Obama before the convention will make him the sole target of a nasty resourceful machine with more yet to disclose.

    Settling on the nominee at convention time is perfectly OK. There'll be ample time to campaign.  Dukakis was 19 points up in September and got trounced. two months is forever in a campaign.

    Settle this matter like YOU, NBC and some "lefty" blogs want to settle it (while Obama's on a downward trajectory) and a large number of low level grunts like me won't lift a finger for Obama. I won't work my precinct, I won't place signs, I won't phone bank, I won't write letters, I won't walk, I won't do GOTV.  NOTHING. And I'm not alone there are thousands of us who won't lift a finger. Unimportant. Maybe, but don't expect the whole party apparatus to pick up and start moving.

    And that peering through the keyhole at voters thing of yours, just happens to be why I'm proud to be an American.


    That is a "typical" viewpoint (none / 0) (#248)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    of an Obama supporter. They pigeon hole people so as to marginalize or discredit the facts. Even Mr. Obama on the radio used the words "typical white person" to describe how a "white" person FEELS when they see a black person they don't know coming down the street. One can only imagine if that is his black side speaking or his white side since he expresses to know how a "typical white person" reacts.

    Since Mr. Obama is speaking so eloquently, read his words carefully AFTER he speaks them. The "words" are very carefully crafted to minimize negative exposure and achieve maximum "attention". Dropping MLK and JFK in between the words of Rev. Wright's words would hardly fit yet they will be used in speeches by Mr. Obama to make his points.

    For those who say Mr. Obama did not speak the words or know of the words used by Rev. Wright, please answer if a minister connected to Ms. Clinton [one who was her "moral compass" for 20 years] were to have spoken the N word from the pulpit and any other related derogatory word such as Mr. Imus, would you LET Ms. Clinton SLIDE and ask to just MOVE ON without calling for her to STEP OUT?

    The republican machine will play Michelle Obama
    stating how angry she is/was at America along with Rev. Wright's words. They will question patriotism of ALL democrats.

    Is this not damaging to ALL democrats? Does it not split the Democratic party?  

    Obama pro persons will never admit this is an ISSUE because Mr. Obama is a man of "Change"

    The question that needs to be answered is whether it is GOOD CHANGE and not HARMFUL CHANGE or change for just the sake of SOMETHING DIFFERENT other than GWB.

    This is not a Monty Python sketch.


    I think the narrative is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    FL and MI did vote.  If the MSM, several bloggers, and the Obama camp choose to ignore that realty, so be it.  But It is a tied popular vote as of today.

    Whether Obama supporters like it or not (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    The Super D's must consider the voice of the people:

    1. The voice of the people of Florida or Michigan, who overwhelmingly support Hillary, regardless of circumstances that disenfranchise them. They will not forgive anyone who takes their votes away.

    2. The voice of the Democratic voters nationwide, who overwhelmingly support Hillary.

    3. The voice of the Big states, both swing and otherwise, who will determine the victor in the GE, who overwhelmingly support Hillary.

    They must also consider the unfairness of the system:

    1. The caucus system, which allows for bullying and peer pressure, as well as discriminates against the elderly, the infirm, and those who can't get off work.

    2. Open primaries that allow voices who could care less about Democratic principles to decide the Democratic candidate.

    3. Their own existence; why was it created? For what purpose? To rectify a situation where they can see the edge of the cliff and have the power to steer the party away from certain doom.

    that is Clintons narrative (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    except when she said it was not going to count.

    i live in florida (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    it is my narrative too.

    I and the Hillary Dems (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    support your right to have your vote counted.

    Live in Florida also (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    my narrative too.  :-)

    Past primaries have shown (none / 0) (#52)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    that at this stage in the election, a nominee is selected.  Well, it's a close race.  We now need all voters to have a voice to select the nominee.  So, now, they must count.

    Clinton won the popular vote in FL (none / 0) (#80)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    with ALL candidates on the ballot.
    But we should ignore that reality because of the date of the primary and statements the candidates made before the primary?

    Yes. Unless there is a real election n/t (none / 0) (#148)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    looks like it's as real as it's gonna get (none / 0) (#269)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    Inaccurate (none / 0) (#182)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    Forgetting the whole delegate issue no one ever said the POPULAR VOTES CAST wouldn't count, or considered. Not even in the pledge.

    This position is pretty much indefensible (imo), forgetting the whole delegate count issue.


    Lots of the word legitimate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    in the comments.  I don't even know what legitimate means anymore though in this primary ;)

    This is Dean's doing really (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    He did not define what legitimate is.

    And so we have been left to ourselves to define it to each of our candidate's self-interest.

    And it's solidified in the psyche's of both camps.

    If McCain wins in November, Dean must step down.


    If (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:21:03 AM EST
    McCain wins in November it won't even matter what Dean does.

    it will matter when he is booted from (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    the dnc. i want to see brazile also booted out and i think you'd have to drag her kicking and screaming. dean has a life and a profession whereas she has nothing else except of course her mouth.

    Why wait til November? Fire Dean NOW! (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    With all of the crap he's done over the MI and FL primaries, putting his thumb on the scales for the anti-Clinton candidate, he's put our party on the path to ruination in the fall.  But there's more!  Think of all of the congressional races that might be impacted by the split in the party.  AND if Dean is chasing the mountain states, which tend to be more conservative and libertarian, we'll end up with   more Bush Dogs in congress.  
    He needs to go.  The sooner the better.  

    Why wait til November? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    But the people who make this decision presumably would not.

    Might as well wait (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    and see if loyalty pays off in November with a new job...

    Are Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#87)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    calling Dean's bluff or is something else happening?

    Actually, the DNC defined "legitimate" (none / 0) (#115)
    by ItsGreg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    ...when the decision was made not to recognize delegates from any state that violated the rules pertaining to when primaries should be held. The state Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida bear the responsibility for disenfranchising their voters.

    Like so many other folks, I'm disgusted by the fact that the voters of Michigan and Florida have been hosed. But I really don't think we can lay the responsibility for that on Howard Dean. Those state Democratic parties were aware of the rules, they deliberately violated them knowing the consequences, and now are shifting the blame to the DNC.

    Maybe those rules shouldn't have been made...but that's another argument. The sad fact is, even stupid rules are rules and if you willingly violate them, you have to be prepared to pay the consequences.


    The rules have always allowed (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    for a re-vote.  Always.

    Too late to define (none / 0) (#121)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    what is legitimate.  Both camps have supporters that will deny the legitimacy of the nomination at this point.  I can't think of any scenario where some aren't going to be very angry.  Most people's heels are dug in and the mud is getting deeper.

    To quote Billie Holiday.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    "...the difficult, I'll do right now
    the impossible will take a little while..."

    Crazy he calls me (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    The voters get to decide. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
    thank you

    It will be the narrative (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:56:06 AM EST
    If she gets a big win in PA and WV, and if the demographics of those votes are split racially, I suspect that the issue of the popular vote total will matter a whole lot less.

    Just because the FL and MI popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    is not official according to DNC rules, does not mean it can't be considered by superdelegates to decide who is more electable in November.  There is not a checklist of things they are and are not allowed to consider.

    so, if the supers like, they can consider (none / 0) (#146)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    things like, twenty eight years of clinton/bush is enough.  

    they can consider that (none / 0) (#161)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    They also can consider Barack has no resume; a plurality of Hillary supporters will not support Barack; and McCain is the most viable candidate the Repubs could put up for this GE.

    I agree that (none / 0) (#168)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    the Bush years are enough...but I loved those Clinton years. I actually could pay my bills, afford gas for my car, received a huge bonus because my company was doing so well. I'll take it again!

    of course (none / 0) (#188)
    by jes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    and coattails remains an issue as well. I believe many were considering those when they endorsed Obama. They may indeed reconsider after the polls settle in Obama's coattail states.

    Everything is on the table, including the sinks.


    They do however have to live with (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    the criticism of their choice from the losing side, so they would prefer some hard numbers to back up their decision.  As others have said, the FL and MI debacle has really hurt everyone.

    And the Obama team has done a superlative job of convincing both liberal and mainstream media and the populace that a selection of Clinton is the same as stealing the nomination from Obama.  So I still see a Clinton nomination as highly unlikely unless the Obama campaign totally implodes, as I have said before, in Spitzerian proportions.


    If Clinton doesn't do very, very well (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    in PA then I suppose she should drop out.  Imagine if she did drop out right now.  With her poll numbers rising, and a state full of Super Ds who have endorsed her coming up, it would be a real bitter pill for Clinton supporters and PA citizens to swallow.  It's difficult for her to win, but because it isn't still impossible, she needs to stay in until it is, in order to confer more legitimacy upon Obama's victory if that victory occurs.  It ain't over til it's over, and if Obama's position seems to be weakening it is because of his campaign's recent episodes of self-destruction, NOT HER.  Sending out that picture of Pres. Clinton and Wright really, really confused me.  Who was responsible for that?

    The Obama campaign was responsible (none / 0) (#151)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    the admitted and practically bragged about it to the New York Times.  Very bizarre indeed.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    If she dropped out now when we don't even know how Wright will effect Obama it would almost seem like an act of REVENGE against Democrats.

    As others have said, no popular vote win without FL and MI and the supers will go with whomever's hiney they feel they need to kiss at the time (forget delegates, popular vote, integrity and doing 'the right thing', this is POLITICS).  But right now it would be almost wierd for her to get out.


    Bleh (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by spit on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    who knows? Personally, I've come to the conclusion that anybody who makes any particularly solid declaration about how this will all pan out in the end might as well be flipping coins.

    She could win the popular vote, but it's much harder without MI and FL. Some supers may decide the popular votes from them count, and some may not. If post-Wright elections move heavily in Clinton's favor, the momentum argument and the electability argument for the GE might sway some. If Obama shores up his poll numbers over the next few weeks, he's probably in fairly solid shape, but if he continues to tank in upcoming states and GE swing states, it's going to be hard for him to come out with a win no matter how many of his supporters want to toss around "the math".

    Either candidate could wind up with the nomination at the moment, IMO. Too many factors are in play right now for me to even venture a guess at the moment how this goes from here.

    There's no reason not to include the FL (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    popular vote in the SD's calculation.

    This election (none / 0) (#268)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    is a textbook example of why the Super D's exist. They can look beyond the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense to see the way the wind blows. Hopefully that will be what they consider.

    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    Given that the popular vote isn't some sort of officially sanctioned DNC calculus, I think it's going to be hard to keep Florida out of that count.  Because that's a rationale for Super Delegates and while it would be nice to have some pure, unquestionable way to choose the nominee, unless one of them collapses or concedes, that isn't going to happen now that there will be no re-vote in Michigan and Florida.  That's the real problem - Obama hasn't just denied legitimacy to any Clinton win, he's denied it to his own.

    Why pretend there aren't consequences? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    Obviously it would be better for the Democratic Party to have their candidate now and be focussed on the Republicans and the GE.

    Just as obviously, if the Obama and Clinton positions were reversed, there would be enormous pressure on Obama to drop out, or quickly accept the VP slot. So I don't get the indignation directed at Obama supporters here.

    Also, it's easy to see why Clinton would have more supporters within the Dem party up to now. She's been around a lot longer than Obama. But it's absurd to deny, as many posters do, that Obama hasn't received huge support from within the Dem party as well. Sure, there are doubters. Why wouldn't there be? But in general, he's gaining more Dem supporters day by day-- why should that trend falter? Just because the Clinton campaign hopes it will?

    Really (none / 0) (#183)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    You must not have read the polls in the last two weeks. I hate to tell you this, but pastor wright and the "typical white person" comments can't be put back in the box.

    He is done.


    You mean you hope he's done. (none / 0) (#190)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    I guess you're betting Fox News will pick the next president.

    Pretty tiny view of politics you have.


    It's a pretty safe bet to make. (none / 0) (#202)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    Then you should join (none / 0) (#206)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    the pretty safe party.

    Your conclusion does not logically follow (none / 0) (#212)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    from my statement. Obama is pretty darn likely to lose a General Election. Even before Wright, he was likely to lose. Now, it will take a major, major scandal on McCain's part to change that.

    And I don't appreciate being told to leave the party. For the past year and a half I've been saying this would happen. And it did.


    I've been saying this would happen (none / 0) (#221)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM EST
    pointing that out got me called a racist sympathizer.

    I thought your earlier response (none / 0) (#224)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    was snarky. I replied in kind. Sorry for my mistake.

    In no way do I suggest you leave the party.

    What I am opposed to is defeatism dressed up as analysis.


    I'm not FOX News (none / 0) (#216)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:40 PM EST
    I am a staunch dem that never misses and election. I have also worked on several - presidential, gubernatorial, etc. I am telling you he can't recover from those comments. I don't listen to FOX but his comments and actions have solidified my impression of him from the beginning. An average voter doesn't vote because the media tells him to vote one way or another. If he finds someone offensive, he doesn't vote for them.

    It was one thing when he was calling the Clinton racists  but when he extended it to "a typical white person" he made it personal to a lot of white people. It was a stupid remark and he will pay and pay for it.


    independents (none / 0) (#231)
    by bigbay on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    It destroys him with independents, not really with Dems.

    Think you are wrong (none / 0) (#240)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    Dems will abandon him too.

    Me, I actually think he's going (none / 0) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    to win the primary (popular vote sans FL and MI, delegate count and supers), but will be morphed in to Farrakan(sp) for the general.

    There is a reason Farrakan never ran for president ;-).


    Nooo (none / 0) (#213)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    what I'm doing is taking Karl Rove and swiftboating into account.

    Between Wright, "typical white person," Michelle Obama's statements, and simply the Republican talent for evil, this is a no-brainer.

    Axelrod is a nasty pol, but he doesn't even go anywhere close to Rove's level of nasty.  It's like high school versus the pros.


    Interesting how you shift blame (none / 0) (#258)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    The statements that are being given to the Republican party are DIRECTLY from Obama supporters.

    The tapes of the sermons are being SOLD publicly. That is how the MSM got them. Also, Mr. Obama is attributed this to "typical white people" response and to average white people not being aware that this is the general "black church religion".

    Please represent what "black church religion" is exactly. Does it mean that the "typical white person" didn't know they were continuously being denigrated and set up as the pitfall for all failures of African Americans from the pulpit in perpetuity?

    I would like to know if Mr. Obama stood up in the church and gave an opposing view from his "typical white people" side of his heritage.

    Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Mr. Obama want the country to believe he represents ALL AMERICANS.

    I don't believe that is possible now that this is exposed with a 20 year "moral compass" history behind it.


    it is who is ignoring (none / 0) (#214)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    the Obama campaigns "direction and focus" that is debatable.

    put me down as one of those (none / 0) (#198)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    who would call for obama's concession speech if he were where clinton is mathematically.

    clinton lost the race in virginia/wisconsin.

    if she would have won as big in texas, as she did ohio, then there would be a case to make.

    if she cannot run the table, and no one believes she can, then the question you ask is not only fair, but unfortunate.  


    SUPERDELEGATES (none / 0) (#210)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    do we remember what they were created for.
    they were created so that if a all but certain nominee suddenly became, for whatever reason, unelectable they could step in.
    that is what is happening to Obama before our eyes.
    spin yourself right into the ground but it would be easier if you just started getting your mind around it.

    You want Superdelegates (none / 0) (#220)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    to erase racial conflict from the country? Wow. That would be super.

    I want them to nominate (none / 0) (#222)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    a candidate who can win.
    that is their job.

    What Obama is up against (none / 0) (#229)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    won't go away if the Superdelegates choose HRC.

    And the decision could fracture the party in many other ways as well.


    sorry thats nuts (none / 0) (#234)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    What is making Obama (none / 0) (#239)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    unelectable before our eyes?

    I'm assuming you're referring to something that has happened recently. I'll let you characterize it before defending myself from your designation of me as a nut.


    That's a Loonie reply (none / 0) (#227)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    pun intended.

    Popular Vote Argument is Falsely Framed... (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Exeter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    ...around a revote in Florida and Michigan and if this revote does not happen than the super delegates will magically be unable to see the two gigantic pink elephants in the room-- the fourth and fifth largest Democratic delegate states, Florida and Michigan.

    This is absurd. If a revote does not happen then the super delegates will still consider Florida and Michigan and for the sake of spin, Clinton should stop putting all the chips on the revote and just frame the argument like this:

    NEITHER candidate has enough delegates to win through the delegate route, so the fairest measure should simply be the winner of the most votes. If there is a not a revote in Michigan and Florida, then we can either go with the results of the earier election or estimate the results of an election based on current polling.

    I think it's perfectly (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    possible for her to catch him in the popular vote. PA is a huge state with a large amount of voters. And certainly, even if the delegates are not seated in FL and MI those voters should be taken into account for the popular vote count.

    This should all be about November (none / 0) (#22)
    by TrevorWynne on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    Attention on this false choice between Obama and Clinton is misguided. The media's real focus should be on defeating Republicans in November.
    -Trevor Wynne

    The media rarely focus... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    ...on defeating Republicans. Not in my lifetime, at least.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    its only the 7th inning the game isn't over (none / 0) (#57)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    until the 9th. Obama people NEVER say he doesn't have the magic number -- neither of them will. Tell it like it is, both are statistically EVEN!

    like Jeraly said, it will have to be decided by the supers at convention time or before by making some sort of deal behind the scenes.

    The rooolz don't say whoever is ahead by the time the convention comes along wins. the roolz say you need 2025 (?) to get the nom by convention time.

    Theres no 2 ways about it.

    I was disappointed that Bill R. didn't stay loyal to Hillary. He's from a poor state and needs friends in high places.

    My main point is this: (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    If you are so sure he'll win, then let the whole game play out. What are you scared of?!?!

    Obama Roolz (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    SD's do not have to reflect the will of "their people" constituents, when they endorse Obama.  But when it comes to Hillary, they can go against the voters in their district or state:  Richardson, Kerry, Kennedy...etc.  

    Kinda intersting too (none / 0) (#63)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:30:25 AM EST
    I don't think he is real popular in NM either. A friend of mine complains about him all the time (staunch Dem) and says he isn't well liked.

    richardson matters, but al and tipper (none / 0) (#81)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    are in tennessee as we speak having a chit chat with sixty minutes.  he is about to launch a 100 million dollar social awareness campaign on climate change.

    i wonder if the election will come up?


    Honestly (none / 0) (#88)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    I don't think endorsements matter to most voters. Politics is personal. People look at their own situations and make a judgment.

    agreed. as it goes with gore though, (1.00 / 0) (#92)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    he despises billary and he put the uper in super delegate.

    Don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    The party establishment abandoned him after the 2000 election. He was a man in the wilderness until he created his own comeback on climate. Most of the supers are the establishment and at the end of the day they want to win. If polls show Obama can't, they will dump him like they did Gore.

    I bet Gore says nothing on the candidates.


    We don't use terms like (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    "Billary" in our half of the nets...try red state

    As far as Gore goes (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:50:14 AM EST
    Climate Change is number one.

    If either candidate changed their position on Energy/Climate Change to be far more proactive, then I think Gore would consider endorsing them.  Right now, I'd expect Gore to endorse based soley on his issues and not for political points.

    A lot of people still think of Gore as a politician, but I haven't seen any real evidence of that for quite some time.  Important and influential, sure.  Playing politics for the sake of it, no.


    so (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    he despises Hillary but has not endorsed Obama.
    what do you think that says about Obama?

    Probable the same thing (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    the non-endorsement of Edwards has meant all this time.

    Gore has a new project (none / 0) (#200)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    Why would he endorse and lose a lot of people's interest. Everytime he had a book, he would be teasing the public that he was running by not saying, I will not be a candidate. I was for him but lost some respect when I felt he was using us for his own agenda of promoting his books. I still love the guy, but don't jump when he speaks anymore.

    when you are eighteen games below five (none / 0) (#207)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    hundred, the seventh inning is the least of your worries.

    well, she's not 18 games below 500 (none / 0) (#230)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    i'd say it's just a game or 2 if anything, and being a Yankee fan, I can tell ya that doesn't mean jack  ;)

    Clinton winning the popular vote far from miracle (none / 0) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    There are many scenarios in which she can very realistically achieve this.  For anyone on the blogs to pretend otherwise is insulting to anyone with average intelligence at the least.

    I see some of the same people who were dead-sure that Michigan and Florida WILL BE COUNTED no matter what by the time of the convention now saying that it would be nearly impossible for Hillary to catch up in the popular vote?  HUH?? So how does this square?  Because if they at least count Florida, then she is definitely within striking distance of closing that gap and perhaps as early as May.

    michigan and florida broke party rules and (none / 0) (#104)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    are in the corner until a candidate concedes.  whether you are right  or wrong, you would agree that clinton has to run the table from here on out, yes?

    there are no indicators/polls or otherwise that this will occur.  if she loses one or more of the remaining ten contests, then it will become impossible.

    anything is possible, but when you are clutching miracles, it begs the question; why continue?  


    two words (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    Pastor Wright

    i have not see mister wright's name on the (none / 0) (#136)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:02:38 PM EST
    ballot in past primaries.  is he a candidate for the general?

    He will be (none / 0) (#141)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    If Obama is on the ballot

    i did not know he was on (none / 0) (#154)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    obama's short list.

    he is around his neck (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    think millstone or albatross

    He is now thanks to the RNC (none / 0) (#217)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Denying that is just delusional.

    miracles (none / 0) (#108)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    Frankly, the way the Obama gaffe machine is going I think it might be a miracle if he wins another state. I mean seriously.

    no she doesn't have to run the table (none / 0) (#123)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    Obama is looking unelectable in the general election.  The only question in my mind is if the Democratic establishment was determined to get him nominated from the get-go no matter what and if they will continue to go over the cliff because their bridges with the Clintons have been burned quite badly.

    Their boats are sunk (none / 0) (#135)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    But nominating a loser isn't going to bring them back up either. Ironically, all of this may free Clinton in ways I could never have imagined. She will only owe voters. Not party hacks.

    it's the narrative (none / 0) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    the fact Hillary was able to survive that losing streak was because the narrative was laid out before hand that she may lose every contest in February after Super Tuesday but that then her "firewall" would be Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island.

    The "story" went exactly as scripted and therefore she is still alive.

    People don't really expect Clinton to win North Carolina, but they do expect her to win Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  PA and WV are first on the schedule so let's see how the results turn out there first and then we'll see if and how the narrative changes.


    Point? (none / 0) (#237)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    Not sure why it matters are this point. We are talking about popular vote totals, where things are today, etc.

    Not as far as popular vote totals go (none / 0) (#235)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Read the diary. Delegate or no delegate, seated or not, the popular vote still happened.

    heres the other thing (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    MI and FL may never be officially counted, I think they will in some form but even if they are not, the outcomes will still be considered by the supers.
    as they should be.

    yep (none / 0) (#128)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    Only someone willing to remove themselves from reality would pretend that the vote in Florida never happened.  Even today, the polls from Florida show it would be brutal from Obama in a re-vote.  The WILL of the people in Florida was and is to nominate Hillary.

    Sure, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    Does not seating the delegates mean we have to forget the voters?

    This is all opp operating under the assumption that no delegates counted, means no voters counted...this makes me sick because it is clearly the media regurgitating one campaigns spin...

    according to c-span this morning (none / 0) (#105)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    HRC and BHO each had about 30 mil on hand from this mornings FEC report.

    I believe she can win the GE (none / 0) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    As for popular vote, she will take the popular vote from this day forward and I suspect if we redid a whole bunch of states including Missouri, she would pick up a lot more votes also. But alas, we can't redo them.

    My way of thinking is that the KR thought of who he wants to run against would be Obama. HRC has been trashed for so many years that people are not surprised to hear anymore. But with BHO, being unvetted, he has enough to come out and upset the whole GE. I will be eating my hat (paper, of course) if he wins the primary and the GE. She could win because of the GOP women. And the AA base liked her already before. The new voters might not vote, but with him, you will have a lot of no shows and lose the GOP women. With Obama, you lose more than you have gained. Thus, she can win the Presidency. The GOP will have a field day with the candidate that they chose to run as the Democrat. And KR is in the backgroud crunching numbers.

    Do I need to go donate again (none / 0) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    to get you to keep bringing this up?

    oops .. quit (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    Did Talk Left participate in Obama (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    campaign's conference call today?  Attacking HRC's character.  

    Is TL invited to Obama calls? (none / 0) (#177)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Good question. (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    Why would popular votes in MI and FL not (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    be counted?

    Even if the delegates are not seated, the voters still voted, no?

    BTW, MSNBC is covering the entire Richardson event--all of Richardson's speech and now looks like it will be all of Obama's.

    I think Obama might be the MCM fave?

    After reading news like this... (none / 0) (#175)
    by hopeyfix on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    ... here on CNN I believe there must be something very dark to come after Obama, and because of that I think the race is so not over yet.

    So, Obama had his passport breached... Guess what, he is not the only one. He gets Richardson, but only after Texas and Ohio, so that's questionable by itself... there is some helium leaking in this campaign, I don't know.

    Without FL and MI (none / 0) (#205)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    It is also imposible for Obama to legitimately win the popular vote.

    It's like stopping the Superbowl with two minutes to go in the 4th quarter because one team is ahead.

    Caling for Hillary to drop out now is like calling for not playing the whole fourth quarter.

    now obama actually expects congress (none / 0) (#249)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    to investigate his passport bruhaha. what an arrogant, self involved piece of work! unseemly, the fed are perfectly capable of investigating it. duh! congress has other things to do like the business of the people.

    I really don't understand--- (none / 0) (#226)
    by JHFarr on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    But contempt for the voters, of Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and beyond is the new watchword for Obama supporters - from NBC on down. It is quite unseemly imo.

    But-but-but... the national party said don't change the primary dates or it wouldn't count. The state parties didn't pay any attention.


    That's when Dean's (none / 0) (#250)
    by alsace on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    50 state strategy became the 48 state tragedy.

    Where are her totals if you add Fl & MI? (none / 0) (#270)
    by magnetics on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Pretty good I bet.  What if you add Fl, and split MI? (since Obama took himself off the ballot there.)

    I don't see how you can ignore the will of the Fl primary voters.  Like it or lump it, it's there; and IMHO it should count.

    Clinton has "virtually no chance (none / 0) (#272)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    of winning" the nomination, per Politico:

    NO WAY

    Has the Wright contoversy disapeared? (none / 0) (#273)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    The MSM want to ignore it, but voters on the C-SPAN call in show were talking of nothing else.
    This will so destroy his campaign in the Fall.

    Has the Wright contoversy disapeared? (none / 0) (#274)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST
    The MSM want to ignore it, but voters on the C-SPAN call in show were talking of nothing else.
    This will so destroy his campaign in the Fall.

    Oh yes... (none / 0) (#276)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    Politico is such an unbiased source...as is TPM..yes...perfectly unbiased info regarding HRC..yep.

    "Hillary is rising in the polls"? (none / 0) (#277)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:22 AM EST
    Which polls?

    Not this one.  The Wright bump has peaked, and Obama is rising again after his Tuesday speech.

    Not this one, either.

    So in which poll is Hillary rising?

    "Left blogs" (none / 0) (#278)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    Terminological note:

    There are "Left Blogs" that are not pro-Obama. So I'm not sure this is the right phrase....