W.Va: It Counts, Deal With It

BTD referenced MyDD's post by Jerome on West Virginia earlier. I have more to say about it. I want to highlight his lead-in:

I'd humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen. While I'm at it, I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you'll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site. ...You don't like that? Fine, its a big wide blogosphere, go find a blog that has its head in the sand. Are the ground rules understood?

CNN just flashed a poll showing Hillary ahead with 66% of the vote. It said a big W. VA win will show that "a lot of Democrats aren't ready to get on Obama's bandwagon."

CNN says W.Va. used to be solidly Democratic until 2000 when George Bush took it. Social issues are big there. Guns are even bigger. The LA Times also says W. Va could spell trouble for Obama in November.[More...]

One other note from Jerome:

Barack Obama has planned a party to claim the nomination in Portland, based on his own campaigns measurement. He can say whatever he wants, but it's an insult to intelligence to believe it until it happens by the rules. As Howard Dean has said many times, MI and FL are going to be resolved and seated. Obama has now agreed with that position. Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209. There's not a rule that says if you get a plurality of the pledged delegates, you win.

The Obama campaign will declare that there's never been a candidate denied the election who had the most pledged delegates. True. But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes? I don't think so. But neither of those metrics matters. 2209, or whatever the number is after the resolution of MI and FL happens to be, is all that matters. Until then, we don't have a nominee.

I'm with Jerome on this one. And message to Obama supporters who comment here. Follow the site's commenting rules, don't chatter and try to dominate or hijack the discussion, don't call people racist or accuse them of not being Democrats, and don't insult either the writers here or the commenters. Don't post false information. We do not yet have a nominee. If you disagree with something you see written here, express it in civil terms. After making your point and defending it if called on it, move on.

Do not low rate comments because you disagree with the point of view. All of your comment ratings will be erased if you do that.

For the one-millionth time, TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat and I will support the Democratic nominee against John McCain. Any Democrat is better than what the Republicans are offering. There's plenty of time. We're still in a primary race and until one candidate drops out or the votes have been cast at the Convention in August, that time has not arrived.

Comment limits: 10 a day for all commenters here less than 30 days. 20 a day for chatterers, see the comment rules.

Final note to TL readers: If you see a comment that violates the site rules or that a particular commenter is repeatedly violating the rules, send me an email. I can't read all the comments but I can read those you direct me to.

< Obama Camp Not Interested In Unity | Paying For Denial "Science" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    OMIGOD....66%? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    That's devastating.

    sorry, I meant (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    she has 66% of the voters, not that she is 66% ahead. I fixed it.

    We can hope!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    50% may be possible.

    Rasmussen poll: very strange results (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    In the May 10 Rasmussen Daily  presential tracking poll analysis, they say:

    "In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama holds a 48% to 43% advantage over Clinton nationally"

    Then the detail-page that's linked to shows Clinton leading 48% to 43%.  Was that a typo by them in the chart rather than in the analysis?
    I imagine so, as they would note the huge swing in their analysis of what that chart shows.

    And I Thought Rasmussen Wasn't Going To (none / 0) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    track Hillary anymore...I believe that was what was said.

    Even so (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    That's looking like Mississippi in reverse.

    That's what I meant by.....Omigod.

    It's a psychological blow.


    If she can keep (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    it close in Oregon or even win it, along with another Obama crushing defeat in KY next week. I am not so sure he has this locked up. That is why they want her out soooo bad. Her win map is starting to look like Bill Clintons 1996 GE win map.

    The Democratic leaders have a MAJOR problem.

    1-Florida and Michigan is still out there, which Hillary won no matter how you slice it.
    2-Obama is still going to get crushed in some states. Such as WV and KY, how is that going to look for a front runner?.... (And I dare the Obama camp to use the word racist.)
    3-Hillary is more electable by the states she has won
    4-Hillary has more potential electoral college votes
    5-Hillary polls better against McCain in swing states

    If Obama comes out and says he wins on May 20th without really winning, there maybe some backlash. She is still a loved NY Senator and a former First Lady after all.


    We will take 66% of the voters....that is a very (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    good start and it may go even higher, as good things come to those who wait!!  :)

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sas on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    consider making calls for Hillary.

    I used to live in WV and I (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    pulled out my old datebook and called everyone I know there. And got numbers of their families from them and called them. I had to recharge my phone twice..LOL They are all pro-Hillary. She is very popular there and they just adore Bill. When he was running for President the first time, there was a joke going around about the DC types talking about the Clintons..went like this.. "I don't mind that they are from Arkansas, really I don't, but did their names have to be Hill and Billy?" They loved that joke in the hollow I lived in. I must have heard it 20 times a week during the election campaign. Bill is a bubba, just like they are. And Hillary resonates with a lot of WV women. They don't quit when the going gets tough either, they dig in and keep on going.

    Yes, and she may get more... (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:27 PM EST
    It turns out that Fla/Mich is being set up for a compromise in a way that intentionally will not change the numbers sufficiently to hurt Obama, as they've put it. That's the Dean/Brazile/Pelosi crowd, all of whom probably don't want to answer to a Madame President, especially this one, it would seem.

    I heard a calculation on one of the msnbc shows Wednesday night (either Abrams or Matthews) which showed that if Florida and Michigan are counted as voted, then Clinton could actually lead in the popular vote IF she won WVa and Kentucky by 20 and lost Oregon, Montana and SDakota by less than 10. This is just a computation.

    Rasmussen on the night of May 8 showed her leading in WVa by 40! (it went down and then went back up) and SUSA has her leading in Kentucky by 34 !  (But they were too optimistic on Indiana.)  Those were the only pollers this week on either of those states.

    Obama's ahead in Oregon but I've seen the polls tightening on that in the last 2 weeks.

    While the mainstream and liberal rags don't give us superdelegate-names very much with current stances, here's one from May 6 (evening) which shows why superdelegate movement was stalled before North Carolina. It's been
    relatively still halted (no flood) and, as tv people have said, about 90% of remaining undecided superdelegates plan to not do a thing until the end of the primaries.

    = HERE's the key article It also names undecided delegates with explanations from them so it's probably good to read them but not with vitriol and they'll be read more if the notes are short.(Excerpts)

    The Hill
    By Alexander Bolton
    Posted: 05/06/08 07:57 PM [ET]

    Superdelegates say, we will decide

    Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won't necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their

    Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.

    ... But Pelosi's troops on Capitol Hill say they are more concerned about electability, plus each candidate's momentum heading toward the convention, and how their own constituents voted.

    ...But even superdelegates who say the delegate count will be decisive in their own decision-making add a caveat:

    * They warn that the delegate count will be less important if the leading candidate has not also won a majority of the popular vote.* [emphasis mine]

    Many more details at the link, along with interviewed superdelegates' names.

    So, the hostility from Obama forces may be due to their realizing, without talking about it openly, that she still actually has a chance.  And that's another reason for Obama trying to proclaim his own nomination on May 20.

    And they want to do everything they can to kill the idea that he is not actually the nominee yet, including
    making much to-do about Clinton's 'white' statements today (which were from an AP story talking exit-poll style about her strength with various groups) which even Keith Olbermann felt were probably misinterpreted or at the most mis-stated.

    The trend is to try to find a way to seat Fla/Mich in a fair way, meaning counting their votes, but if they can't, Clinton can still make an argument about what the voters did do, re the popular vote.  If her victories coming up are as huge as they seem, it will unsettle many superdelegates, especially if Obama doesn't do as well as expected in Oregon.


    great commentary - thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    Stand Firm (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:52:36 PM EST
    I believe Hillary should not agree to any proposal on counting/seating the FL & MICH delegates unless fair; perhaps I'm wrong, but
    I don't see how Obama, if nominated, could win
    the general election without Florida & Michigan, and I believe many pro-Obama DNC types realize this.

    I think what we are failing to understand (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    is that Obama is running a 50 state race.  And with 58 states he can afford to lose WV.  Silly bloggers.

    Best comment of the week! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    Or a 58-state race (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    per his comment yesterday.  Obama is getting very tired.  But when he misstates, it's okay, it seems.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST
    If Hillary had said that it would have been a "senior moment". But since it has been all of two weeks since Obama's had a mini-vacation we really should cut him some slack, don't ya think?

    66% Would Be Great....Hope It Holds (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    As I have iterated and reiterated....this isn't over.

    It's not over. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    But someone better tell Time magazine.

    Sounds like the Obamatons are worried (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Raven15 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST
    ...about defections. And they should be. They've brought it on themselves. Wonder if they'll ever realize this.

    They seem to always forget (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    that supers don't vote until August

    How Nice For Them....NOT. Apparently It (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    is okie dokie for obama to change the rulz when necessary to benefit him.  I despise his arrogance.

    Has anyone told him that he won't get (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    the nomination until the convention, if then?? If not, someone should, don't you think? If he announces himself as the candidate in May, I hope the SDs say, "Oh no, you aren't!!" and vote enmasse for Hillary. The problem with Obama is that he demands respect for himself, but fails to give it to anyone else. That doesn't work for long. Especially not in politics which is very much "tit for tat".

    Perhaps their true concern (none / 0) (#194)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    is to head off any more "surprises"
    such as Reverend Wright.

    Just a note (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    As has been the case on many subjects, Jeralyn and I so not agree on everything. she and I believe that it makes for a more interesting site when our different perspectives are presented to our readers.

    I expect you will see us both discuss the same issues in different posts and from different perspective a great deal.

    well-said, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    that's cool (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    we'll just agree with whoever mirrors our own opinions and think the other person is wrong!

    I do wonder what a huge win in WVA (and then KY) will do to the dynamics of this race.  This late in the game, anything over 20% is a huge slap in the face.  Obama couldn't break that in NC post-Wright.

    I don't think this will be like the Potomac primaries, etc, wherein Obama's wins were basically ignored until the "big states" came into play.  We are so down to the wire, and the scrutiny is being heightened.  People are going to start looking at demographics and wonder what is going on.

    As I have stated many times before, Clinton is still in this thing to win, and I am still supporting my girl.


    I Fear (none / 0) (#193)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    however that if Obama wins Oregon, the media will paint it as Obama wins Oregon handily and Hillary took the small states of WVA and KY as expected.

    i also commend ya'll for the timeliness (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    of your diaries. when something happens i see it analyzied and put forth for consideration faster than any blog i know.

    What has happened? (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by ricosuave on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    Why is that even something that needs to be explained?  It used to be OK to disagree about things among liberals and within the Democratic party.  There are pro-choice and pro-life members, pro- and anti-death penalty, single-payer insurance proponents and free marketeers, etc.  It is the republicans that seem to demand toe-ing the ideological purity line.

    The fact that this site shows a variety of opinions is what drew me here in the first place, and the lack of support for diversity is one of the main reasons I have abandoned sites like TPM and big orange.

    So please keep it up, and no need to explain or justify your differences.


    Why should we be ok with... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Thanin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    anti choice members?  I dont think most women here are ok with that.

    What Do You Think About Obama Declaring (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    himself the winner on May 20th?

    Well, in England (none / 0) (#182)
    by aquarian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:43:51 PM EST
    The London Times says it best:
    He is planning to declare a victory of sorts on May 20.
    Too bad I have to go overseas to get an honest take of U.S. politics.

    26% undecided voters (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    Make phone calls! We want to keep the gap  :)


    I am excited and re-energized (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    after feeling like all was lost.  Go Clinton!  And than you to all the people here who have raised my spirits by staying focused and agreeing to keep going and keep fighting until the magic number is reached by someone.

    There really is much to this primary. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    WV offers 39 delegates, 28 via the election.  With 3 congressional districts at 6 delegates each, Sen. Clinton may be able to take 4 to 2 in each of them at her current vote percentages.

    Then there are 7 at-large & 3 pledged PLEOs to be apportioned on the statewide percentage.  If she can hold 66%, that yields 7 Clinton to 3 for the other candidate.  Wow.

    Sen. Clinton could come out of WV with 19 advantage over 9 for Sen. Obama.

    Need to Nominate 2,209.0
    B Obama             1,932.5
    H Clinton             1,889.0

    Her closing the gap to 1,941.5 vs. 1,908 does matter, a great deal.

    Even by the fuzzy maths, using the 2025 shorter yardstick:
    Need to Nominate 2,025.0
    B Obama             1,859.5
    H Clinton             1,696.0

    She would have 1,715 to his 1,868.5 and takes away some of the leeway on attracting superdelegates.

    Every time Sen. Clinton goes up by any number she makes it that more implausible that Sen. Obama can gain the true 2,209 needed to end the nomination process on the first ballot.

    your comment was fine (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    but it fails to consider anything but pledged delegates.

    There are pledged, unpledged, add-on and superdelegates. All must be counted. The superdelegates can decide or change their mind up until the last minute in August at the convention.

    Pledged delegate lead is but one facet of the equation. It's not the end-all.

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:56:16 PM EST
    I would delete this comment because it is intentionally inflammatory.

    As you may know, I am a front paghe poster at this site and I believe Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee.

    But I must say that his online supporters, such as yourself, have exhibited such poor taste, such poor judgment that a part of me wants to see you folks get a comeuppance.

    In short, if it was my choice, you would be suspended for the day for your deliberately provocative comments.


    I think you confirm my judgment (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    It is up to Jeralyn. you are spoiling for an argument.

    You will not get it from me.


    the remaining Superdelegates are not (none / 0) (#157)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:18:43 PM EST
    rushing to endorse Obama

    Also, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    Dean, Pelosi and Carter don't control the superdelegates. In my view, you are crediting them with more clout than they actually yield.

    As a new poster, you have make up to 10 comments today.

    I just deleted (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    a race-baiting comment from a Hillary supporter in response to your comment.

    This is the funny part of your comment (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    "Dean, Pelosi, and Carter have all said that the superdelegates will not override the pledged delegate winner."

    First, it is false. Dean NEVER said that. Pelosi and Carter said they should not do it.

    Second, if Obama loses all the rest of the contests 80-20, he will not be the nominee.

    Third, of course Obama is NOT going to lose the remaining contest by those margins.

    fourth, I guarantee you Obama will campaign his butt off in Oregon after next Tuesday.

    Armando, isn't pledge delegates sort of (none / 0) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    a misnomer?  Since according to the rules even they can vote their conscience.  They really only expected to vote as was voted in the primaries/caucuses of their states.

    Sure (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    But it is safe to assume they will vote fro the candidate they are committed to.

    Do you think that some delegates (none / 0) (#56)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    have changed their mind and if it went to the convention would change their vote on a second ballot?  
    I ask because I know several folks whose opinion has changed since our primary (not that they are delegates)

    aren't some... (none / 0) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    Isn't there some sort of "first ballot" rule, BTD?   My impression during the whole silly "Clinton is trying to steal pledged Obama delegates" controversy is that her campaign was talking to them about switching after the first ballot...

    It is important to understand Rool 12J (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    so FactCheck.org checked it out:

    Pledged delegates vote for ... well, whomever they please. Unlike delegates to the Electoral College (many of whom are bound by state law to vote for whichever candidate won their state), the DNC does not require that delegates be bound to a particular candidate. Indeed, the DNC's rules state that:

    DNC Delegate Selection Rules (Rule 12J): Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

    In an e-mail to Time magazine, a DNC spokesperson explained rule 12J to mean that "delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot." The rule was intended to allow the convention to function "as a deliberative body" and to free delegates "to vote for the presumptive nominee" in the event that the candidate to which they were pledged has since dropped out of the race.

    In practice, pledged delegates are unlikely to change their votes. DNC rules allow candidates to vet their list of pledged delegates and to remove any delegates they wish. Thus, pledged delegates are likely to consist of a candidate's most fervent partisans.

    Note too the interesting fact (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST
    that it was largely because of longshot candidate Ted Kennedy, current major Barack backer, who kept his campaign going to the convention in 1980 where he fought (unsuccessfully) what his camp called the "robot rule" that absolutely bound delegates, that resulted in the revisions we now see in our current more flexible (if rarely mentioned in the MCM) rule.

    Yes, HRC doesn't have a great shot at it currently, but you never know.

    In 1980, had Ted been smarter about spending time in the SupTues (June 3) state of OH, he might well have achieved a huge sweep of states that day and made a very compelling case about his electability, and Carter's unpopularity, to the convention.  Alas, he listened to his (stupid) pollster about OH being "too far gone", made only one 11th hour visit, and the rest is history ...


    That is intriguing; thanks! (nt) (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    Dean, Pelosi, and Carter (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by daria g on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Aren't able to make this decision by themselves.

    Dean has said 'electability' is now the thing (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    You've not been keeping up.

    In an interview with The Financial Times, Howard Dean told them the following:
    [as reported -- here are some excerpts]

    The Democratic party's "superdelegates" have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election, according to Howard Dean, chairman of the US Democratic National Committee.
     . . .
    He said there was nothing in the DNC's rules that would prevent the party's unelected superdelegates, who make up about a fifth of the overall delegate tally and who will ultimately pick the winner, from "doing what they want".
     . . .
    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    (If I were sure my candidate had won the nomination but it just wasn't official, I wouldn't be invading forums friendly to them to try to shove the idea down the throats of people whose vote the candidate will need in November.)

    yeah, but he only said that (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    because he thought, for just a second, that Obama might not get the pledged delegate lead.

    Actually, Dean said that on April 26 (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    Obama already had "the math on his side" which MSNBC has been saying for over a month.

      Dean's words were startling, actually.  And it indicates some doubt somewhere, when he talks about the last 6-8 races.  
    His saying "or anything else" was pretty clear-cut.

      You can see which are the last 6-8 races, and WVa and Kentucky are among those.


    I appreciate this post, Jeralyn (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by bridget on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    it was good to find this topic discussed and I have to say I have also been impressed with Jerome Armstrong. Only recently found out he supported Hillary because I started to read his posts on Mydd only a couple months ago. I find his posts civil and professional. It's also v. good to see he takes a strong stand against those who accuse Clinton supporters of racism.  

    I doubt it will help, however. I also don't think Paul Krugman's advice re same issue will have an impact on those Obama supporters who follow that route because calling Bill Clinton esp. and Hillary and her supporters racially motivated early on in this primary did  work for the Obama campaign and the media had a field day with it. And many A list bloggers did "come out" for Obama after the Jackson remark was spun by same into a tight web.  

    We don't have a nominee yet no matter what Obama supporting pundits and pols are writing and telling everyone these days. Good to see that JA reminds bloggers of that fact even if Obama himself seems to think otherwise. Just read that he is ready to "talk" to HC about her helping role in his campaign for Prez ... but not just yet because she is still running.

    But why insult Hillary and her supporters even further by planning a victory party now and making it public ... for the media support?

    The victory party talk (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    Is all about lowering voter turnout and making Clinton supporters think they shouldn't even bother to vote.  Obama and his campaign know better.  The politics of it is deplorable.

    consider this! (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    i noticed that the dem convention is set around the time of the mlk famous speech. that is a great idea in itself and well deserved by the king family. i couldn't help but wonder if it also had something to do with deciding in advance that obama would be the one speaking there even before any real primaries began. color my cynical.

    WV+AR = 11 electoral votes. (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by davnee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    Clinton has a far better chance to win in these two states in Nov. than Obama has to win in the mythical CO.  But let's grant them their exclusive victories in each of these states, because we know these are the states that are only open to one of the Dems.  News flash:  CO has 10 electoral votes.  11>10.  So how is Obama the safer bet in this election?

    Look, it is possible that Obama is electable.  I have my serious doubts, but given current economic conditions and severe Bush fatigue, it just may be that the Dems could even run a pig wearing lipstick and still win this cycle.  But why on Earth are we condemning ourselves to testing this hypothesis?  Clinton has morphed into an awesome candidate.  She's peaking at the right time.  Obama is bleeding out, and we haven't even hit the GE campaign yet, when he'll targeted with bazookas instead of a gloved hand.  This is madness!

    BTD talked about this a while back (5.00 / 9) (#99)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    Obama is a roll of the dice while Clinton is the more sure thing.

    I'm not a gambler.  I've got a nephew in Afghanistan who got shot yesterday (just a flesh wound; he's fine and he's staying over there to be with his buddies).  Why would I gamble with his life?  Why would I gamble with the lives of other family members serving in Iraq and working with our troops in Germany?  Even if they were strangers to me, who am I to take such chances?

    It boggles the mind.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by dissenter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    I'm headed back next week and a BO presidency scares me way more than 100 years of war John McCain. That is pretty sad isn't it.

    Be safe! Thanks for your service. (none / 0) (#200)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    Amazed and confused (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MikeB08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST
    I continue to be amazed and confused that so many Obama supporters don't see the importance of allowing this process to play out fairly and completely.  No matter which way you count it, there will be less than 2% difference in the final total between these two Democrats. If he is the nominee and only 25% turned against him in the GE, it would be devastating.  Continuing to try to brute force Sen. Clinton out is like giving her supporters a reason to follow a different path in the GE. I commend Sen. Obama for treading very lightly when it comes to claiming a false victory and his talking heads and bloggers should follow suit. If one or the other's delegate total does not reflect 2209, then the contest continues until it does.

    Not buyin' it ... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    the good cop / bad cop routine coming out of the Obama campaign seems pretty transparent.  In addition, the statements from Obama on the issue strike me as subtly condescending and dismissive, as if in his mind he's already decided he's won and now fully entitled to the nomination.  Clinton seems to have become just another annoyance, like reporters asking uncomfortable questions while he's trying to enjoy his waffle.

    Some of it is CDS (none / 0) (#101)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    some of it is fear that the process continuing will leave little time to heal the party and lay the foundation for November.  People have become used to the nomination contest ending early.  The fact that it hasn't is creating uneasiness among those who believe the race to be over.

    And I don't think it is an unreasonable opinion to hold that the race is all but over given the math, no doubt because I believe it is.  But Obama has not won conclusively as many here point out.  There remains a chance Clinton can win.  But the odds are high and I hope the party is not irreparably damaged at the end of the process.


    Bill Clinton's wasn't resolved until June (none / 0) (#141)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    He did win.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:57:08 AM EST
    But that race was not nearly so hotly contested.

    mike, it is more than that. (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM EST
    the dnc and many bloggers are inviting many groups the core supporters of the democratic party to in affect leave. they are no longer wanted per brazile and others.

    Everyone... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    We need you out there making phone calls.

    The Obama campaign and the press is trying to downplay the results of West Virginia, saying that the race is already over and thus depressing the turnout there.

    We need not only a huge margin, but a huge number of votes. Let's all do our part!

    Here's how: (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    Phone bank for Clinton by clicking here.

    You can also donate.  If you're maxed out to Clinton, then Emily's List is doing a great GOTV program to get women united for Clinton.  Call their DC number on Monday (202) 326-1400, and ask to have your donation go directly toward GOTV for Hillary.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!


    47 States or 58 States Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    Which is it?

    His not campaigning in WV just paints an even larger picture of the "elitist in chief."  Don't think that for ONE minute the GOP won't exploit the fact that BHO didn't go to KY or WV to campaign.."see, he's OUT of TOUCH"

    SOB! GD! WTF?!  Is the DNC and its cabal so freaking outta orbit that they don't see what I see?  And I'm just a layman?  Someone posted how if BHO wins CO (doubt it thanks to some input from Jeralyn) that = 10 EV.  But if Clinton runs she could win AR & WV=11 EV.

    Once again, logic takes a back seat and common sense is no where to be found.  Gotta appease those creative class types so they can revel in their loss in November...but hey, you ran Obama!  Good for you!  There's a line over at Daily Kos: "We'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hlllary."

    I.loathe. every. single. one. of. them.

    He's campaigning in WV on Monday (none / 0) (#119)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    He has 11 regional offices throughout the state. He's running television and radio spots. There have been plenty of surrogates making his case.

    See, Clinton doesn't need surrogates (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    to make her case.  She actually goes to the voters--you know, the little people--and asks them to entrust her in seeking the dem nomination for the presidency of the United States.

    It's called respecting the voters.


    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#135)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    She has her own surrogates running around just as busily.

    yeah, silly time (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    not visiting one of the 57 states where he's about to have his waffle handed to him on a steaming platter.

    We already have a president who stays away from folks who might not think he's God.  Not working too well for us, is it?


    Reading is fundamental (none / 0) (#139)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    He will be in West Virginia, himself, campaigning.

    Is that clear enough?


    On Monday (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    one day before the election.

    If you think that's working hard for votes, I'd like to have your job.


    Yep (none / 0) (#170)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    1 day......nah*, he's not conceding.  :)

    But, many superdelegates have already gone (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    Dean, Pelosi, and Carter have all said that the superdelegates will not override the pledged delegate winner.

    Against the pledged delegate "winner". Dean, Pelosi and Carter aren't at the top of my list of people with credibility right now. They make these comments, but they forget to include known truths:

    1. Numerous superdelegates pledged AND publicly endorsed a candidate before a determination of who the "delegate winner" could be known.

    2. Numerous superdelegates have endorsed the candidate that is contrary to their state voters choice. (this is true for both candidates)

    Those blanket statements have no basis in fact, but they do serve to establish an expectation to the voters. Makes it easier to diminish all hope in the Clinton supporters.

    It's not over -- until Hillary says it's over (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:54:32 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no mechanism to force Clinton out of the race.  If the Obama campaign, in collusion with the MSM and DNC, unilaterally declares victory (ala Bush 2000), the response of the Clinton campaign needs to be (scratch that -- has to be) "see you in Denver."  This type of power politics can't be tolerated in the Democratic Party, and must be met with an equally aggressive counter response.  Over 16.4M Americans have already cast votes for Clinton and that has earned her the right to determine if/when she leaves the race.  The super delegates don't get their turn to actually vote until August.

    WV won't count if our media have a say (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Richjo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    We can be assured that our friends in the press will use the results of West Virginia to try to further smear white working class voters as racist. They have already begun that process. What we will never hear is the truth- that Barack Obama is an under qualified, untested, unaccomplished candidate whose core constituencies are willing to overlook those shortcomings because of their personal affinity for that candidate.

    It is not suprising, or unreasonable, that African Americans would like to see one of their own elected after years of discrimination and injustice. This is a savvy and intelligent group of voters, and ever since Obama's Iowa win they have been overwhelmingly supporting him. Once Obama proved he could win, they were willing to support him strongly. To point this out is of course branded as racism, allowing the Obama camp to further cement their support amongst this group. There is no doubt that many woman support Hillary because of their desire to see a woman elected, but saying this is no where near as controversial because Hillary does not suffer from the perception that she is untested or under qualified.

    Obama's lack of appeal to working class voters should not be suprising. McGovern, Dukakis, And Kerry all had the same problem, and Obama is very much in that mold. His unfortunate comments about this group in San Francisco don't help in this area either. He wouldn't be winning them if he was white and had the same background, attitudes, and policies. An African American with the right approach could win them- Colin Powell for example.

    Obama's other base is affluent white liberals. These voters have always prided themselves on being non racist. They have finally found a black candidate like them- Private School and Ivy League educated, professional, and who looks down on the people who actually engage in the tough work that is politics. (As if they how somehow above all of that.) The opportunity to prove how non racist they are, coupled with the ability to vote for someone just like them is too much to resist. The Clintons don't fit their ideal mode because they come from Arkansas, and have the nerve to seek the middle ground in order to govern effectively. (It is OK to do this in the abstract so one can claim to be above partisan bickering, but once you have actually had the responsibility of governing your motives in doing so with undoubtebly be impugned by some hyporcritical fraud trying to move up the ladder themself and who can get away with such hypocrisy because so little is known about them.)

    The people voting for someone other than Obama are not being unfair in judging Obama, the turth is more that those who support him are being overly fair to him and are ignoring his major short comings as a candidate. Those shortcomings are, and will continue to be exposed. Hopefully in spite of all this people will simply say no to another Republican adminstration. The problem is John McCain is not a typical Republican. I am positive Obama could beat George W Bush (or Dick Cheney for that matter). The question is can he beat McCain. That I am not so sure about.

    Overly fair (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    is a nice way of saying that they expect very little and will not hold him accountable.

    My issue is with the party that has put this type of candidate forth.  No thanks.

    They aren't the party of solutions, and we very much need those.


    supporting the Democratic nominee (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by s5 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    I'm glad Jeralyn made it clear that she'll support the Democratic nominee against John McCain. I hope others follow her lead, no matter what taste is left in your mouth from this rather unpleasant primary, and no matter who comes out ahead.

    As a strong Obama supporter, I've always known that I would proudly vote for Hillary Clinton and help her win in November if she won the nomination. As much as I disliked her primary campaign and find her policies to be stale and impotent, she's still a Democrat, which makes her light years ahead of anyone the Republicans could possibly run. Even the worst Democrat is infinitely better than the best Republican. (And with Lieberman and Zell out of the party, I can say that without qualifiers.) I hope other Clinton supporters will remember this, just as I've been reminding my Obama supporting friends that we should be prepared to fight for Hillary Clinton.

    There's so much trash talk on both sides, and I think it's important to remember that half of us will be in the position of defending someone we didn't like in the primary. I defended Kerry even though I wanted Dean, because ultimately I knew he was light years ahead of Bush. It's important that once the primary is over, that we remember what a disaster McCain would be, regardless of which Democrat wins.

    The rules (1.00 / 6) (#77)
    by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    everybody agreed to from the start was 2025 delegates to win the nomination (even HRC).

    she signed a pledge stating she ageed with the punishment to Fl and MI. I guess she was having a Bosnia moment when she did that.

    It's more than obvious as to whom the sd's are going. Since 2/5/08 he has a net pickup of 90 while she has a net pickup of 12 according to RCP.

    W. Va does count, but it counts for nothing when it comes to changing the overall outcome of the primary.

    It may be sad, but when it comes to the sd's and powers of the democratic party she has become an after thought.

    It will be officially over on 6/3. She will not take it to the convention.

    Nooooo (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    No one agreed to that.

    You are ignorant of the facts or lying.

    Please stop it HERE. At other sites they may appreciate it. We have discussed those issues in great detail at this site and this post is not about that.

    If you can not refrain from falsehoods on that issue, please do not comment here.


    No, what part of that wasn't correct (none / 0) (#201)
    by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST
    I thought you were the one with the more objective view on this site. I can back up everything I said and I will. I'm sorry if the truth means nothing on this site anymore.

    Article #1 from: http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

    Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has suggested seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention, even though the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped them of their status. The DNC originally set itself up for trouble by denying these influential states a place at the convention as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early in the year. However, the fact remains that, since each and every Democratic presidential candidate pledged not to campaign in these states and to abide by the DNC's decision, these delegates should not be seated at the convention.

    On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC's decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton -- whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates -- is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

    Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn't campaign in the states, not that she wouldn't try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters' preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

    The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, "Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window." When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

    And I know my super delegate math is correct. So please inform of what I am wrong about. I'm not trying to be ignorant about it. I really want to know what the falsehoods are. Or is it just that I'm not a Hillary supporter that you are upset about.


    your comment will be deleted (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST
    because of the long url. If your'e not going to follow the comment rules, don't bother coming here.

    I'll leave it up for 1/2 hour or so in order to let you save your work. After that, it's gone.


    sorry (none / 0) (#203)
    by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:37 PM EST
    i'm fairly new to the blogging thing so I'm not sure exactly how to do some things.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    it's more interesting to note the number of her committed Dems who are not jumping.

    That's the real story.

    Now, let's review what we know about politicians.  We're not really talking about a gang which hardfast.  LOL*

    Yet, they haven't all jumped the wire.



    What Obama (none / 0) (#171)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    repeatedly said isn't necessarily agreement with everyone, which is why she is so close.

    This is just his ideas, which he's trying to insist that nearly 50% of the party swallow.


    Jeralyn? Anyone? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    Has any one confirmed the thing about the calls in WV from the Obama campaign were they told people not to vote in the primary?

    Well, (none / 0) (#10)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    that's politics.

    That is vote suppression tactics (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    something Obama is very familiar with remember Chicago 1996.

    why (none / 0) (#124)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    Regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, why would the Obama campaign tell people not to vote? What would be the benefit of that strategy?

    to suppress the vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    If people don't vote, as they suggest, then the numbers will not affect the popular vote total much, which is the danger for Obama now, with Hillary closing in WVa and Kentucky.  

    Since something like 70% of the people are more likely to vote for Clinton, it's a smart if another "Old Politics" move by him.

      Something about calling up people who plan to vote for another candidate and telling them the nominee's already been chosen, don't bother.  Since it's not true, what do they call that in this world?


    My song to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    and all of you turkeys who think this is over:

    Country Roads
    Take me Home
    To the Place
    I belong

    West Virginia
    Mountain Mama...

    Take me home...to the White House


    thanks (none / 0) (#145)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    I thought it was suggested that they would contact just their supporters and tell them not to vote....

    Reduce The Popular Vote Total (none / 0) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    Hillary needs to win the popular vote or get real close to be able to sell the SDs on the idea that she is the one most likely to win in November.

    West Virginia matters, but so do Oregon, (none / 0) (#17)
    by halstoon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    Montana, and South Dakota. Kentucky and Puerto Rico matter as well. Barack has made it very clear that he has not won anything. After Oregon and Kentucky, the campaign believes it will be clear that they will finish with the delegate lead, which is what the celebration is for. Whether the number is 2025 or 2209 really doesn't matter. What matters is that Sen. Clinton will not win the race for pledged delegates.

    All I would hope is that when Barack wins Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota the leaders of TL write this same kind of story about Clinton, insofar as those races indicate that not everyone is ready to nominate her, either. Those states also represent that Sen. Clinton has some issues in the West, which could be a determinitive region in this election.

    Supporting Clinton is not what I disagree with; I admire the passion on both sides. What I disagree with is slanting the discussion so that Barack is always put in the worst possible light.

    To do so while calling DK and others ostriches makes TL seem no better than those it criticizes.

    I think supporting Hillary is exactly (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    what you disagree with. About Montana, Oregon and S. Dakota, it's possible Hillary could gain some big time momentum from WVa, so I wouldn't count her out yet.

    I just recall (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    all the outrage, and the NY Times op-ed piece calling Clinton "unseemly" for going to Florida the night of the election and having a party.  I find it rather unseemly that Obama is declaring victory when he has not won.

    Just like Bush during 00 saying he had won Florida.

    And Bush under the Mission Accomplished banner.

    Fool me once...


    Maybe KO will have a countdown (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    from the day Obama declares victory until the day someone actually gets the magic number, which will be even more fun if it ends up being Clinton!

    He hasn't declared victory (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    unless you have a handy link proving otherwise.

    Google search is so nice (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    Here is the first one of many:
    Obama to declare victory after Oregon

    That's 10 days from now (none / 0) (#43)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    Exactly. So the announcement (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    of the party is premature until the people speak, dontcha think?  I mean, of course, Obama clearly doesn't think it's premature, but it sounds like you're more aware of how unseemly this is to do.

    And has a new definition of "victory" (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    Which is the majority of pledged delegates...WTF...

    "Mission Accomplished"


    A little photoshop image would be nice (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    If Obama really does announce victory on the 20th, I'd like to see him photoshopped onto a picture of the famous "Mission Accomplished" battleship.

    Ask and ye shall receive (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    From blogtopus



    We do know (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    that particular image is going to be on posters, t-shirts, bumper stickers etc, don't we?

    Coffee mug?


    That's great - thanks (none / 0) (#153)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    So my question is (none / 0) (#189)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    Why announce the announcement??

    Just curious.


    I read it here that Obama is going to declare (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by stefystef on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    on May 20th after Oregon primaries.

    His triumphant march into Congress yesterday was that of a man claiming victory to me.

    Plenty of links and videos showing Obama getting the "rock start" treatment with politicians fawning all over him.


    No time for... (none / 0) (#196)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:25:59 PM EST
    What concerns me is Obama had time for a pre-victory spin around Congress, but, I believe, he missed 2 votes while doing so, and has not had time in a year or longer to hold hearings of the subcommittee he heads on Nato/Afghanistan.  To me this speaks volumes about what I fear are his real priorities.

    I didn't say he had, sounds like he plans to on (none / 0) (#41)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    May 20!

    Neither (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    Montana, South Dakota or Kentucky have a shot at going Democratic in November. Oregon will go Democratic whoever the nominee is.

    Talk about the battleground states, that's what counts in November and who is more likely to win them.

    W.Va. may be a battleground state, so may N.C. So may Colorado and New Mexico. Idaho, Wyoming, not a chance they will go Democratic.

    The biggest ones are Ohio, PA and Florida. Michigan is likely to be one too.


    Oregon not a slamdunk for Nov. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    In November Oregon will have a very important senate race. We hope to unseat Gordon Smith. I think, and this is just my opinion, the senate race could have a big effect on whether we go dem or rep in the presidential. Smith is still popular here, although we have a better chance this year to beat him. That said, if there is a big turnout for Gordon, we could lose the presidential.

    And Fla/Mich will both be lost if (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    ... if they don't fix that problem May 31, regardless of what Obama wants.  He seems to think that he'll just automatically win even those or that maybe he can have his guys toss McCain off the ballot or have him withdraw as in past runs with other opponents.

      Fla is looking tough for Dems but Clinton in polls was able to poll ahead of McCain whlie Obama definitely didn't, and that will be worse if Florida's votes aren't counted.

      If they (Obama) nix revotes, which would solve the early-voting problem, then they should seat them as-is.


    Michigan "as-is" (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    By 'as is' I mean letting Obama take the Uncommitted vote since he asked people to vote Uncommitted rather than voting for any of the 4 other candiates (Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel).

      As I've said, his call for them to vote Uncommitted was actually 'campaigning' even if only campaigning against others going for the nomination (which means maybe he doesn't get the Uncommitted votes since he actually asked for them, definitely a rather active participation rather than a no-touch leaving of the name).  His removing his own name was strategic per the Iowa Independent, as he was down 20 points at the time.


    What about (none / 0) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    the uncommitted for Edwards, Biden and Richardson?  Should Obama get those votes, too?

    While I appreciate the strategizing for the fall, (none / 0) (#34)
    by halstoon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    the fact is that the Democratic nominating process includes Democrats all over the country. Whether they live in Red or Blue states, all Democrats in the nation are asked to nominate a candidate. They matter very much, regardless of who won their state in '00 or '04.

     To continue saying that places like Idaho, Wyoming, Georgia, South Carolina, et. al. will not go blue simply guarantees that fact. It also disenchants those of us who do live in Red states, as if our votes for Congress, state races, and municipal contests are not really important to the national party.

    I know that you and others here are not in the mood to take a chance on Barack. I respect your opinion, but I'm glad that his efforts to move the party forward are being embraced by people all over the country, including in places like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

    Once this contest is over and we all come together, we'll be just fine in November.


    Is your implication, then, that Hillary doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    move the party forward? Or can't?

    Hillary argues that there is no point in (none / 0) (#204)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:57:27 AM EST
    changing the Gore/Kerry map, hence her focus on FL & OH. That's her stance, not mine, and it is not moving the party forward on electoral politics. My comment was not about any policy; it was about campaign strategy.

    Obama makes places like VA, NC, CO, etc. competitive. Clinton counts on winning Kerry + OH. Once moves beyond Kerry, one simply hopes to do better.


    What (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sas on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    makes you think we are going to come together?

    If you would prefer that McCain continue (none / 0) (#205)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:06 AM EST
    the war, continue to give your money to the rich people, continue to ignore poor schools, and continue to enrich the insurance industry at the expense of medical care for individuals, then I don't suppose we will.

    If you want to keep those things from happening, coming together is a good idea.


    Your idea (none / 0) (#174)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    that these states will go blue is naive.

    I'm hopeful. (none / 0) (#206)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:00:16 AM EST
    You're cynical.

    Hope is going to beat cynicism this time.

    Yes, it will.


    Current Poll On KY (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    McCain 48%  Clinton 46%  +2 McCain
    McCain 63%  Obama  29%  +34 McCain

    Big difference... (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    If Clinton wins in West Virginia by double digits, given all the hype about him being the nominee already, it means that there are a whole lot of voters out there who won't rally around Obama, and who will consider voting for McCain.

    McCain was in the same position after Super Tuesday that Obama is in now -- the "presumptive" nominee, but not one who has clinched the nomination.  After ST, McCain did very little campaigning.  Nevertheless, he got at least 50% of the popular vote in every state after ST, except for one state...Louisiana, which Huckabee took by a single percentage point (43%-42%).

    If a party's presumptive nominee loses a swing state, its trouble.  If s/he loses a swing state by double digits, it big trouble.  If s/he a swing state by 15 points, its a disaster...and a 20 point loss should be considered cataclysmic.

    We are talking about a state where Democrats have won 3 of the last five elections -- a state that Bill Clinton carried by double digits both times, and one where Michael Dukakis beat GWH Bush for crying out loud!  

    When the voters of a swing state like West Virginia say "no" to the presumtive nominee, the Party should be concerned.  And if they shout "NO F##KING WAY", the Party should panic.


    They won't panic (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    Everyone - the DNC, KO, DK, TPM, HuffPo, Axelrod - will just say that it doesn't matter because it's just a bunch of redneck crackers that wouldn't vote for Obama. That will be the narrative and it will be perpetrated ad nauseum.

    This racial polarization is so incredibly depressing. Turns out democrats are not so different from republicans in some regards.


    "DNC, KO, DK, TPM, HuffPo, Axelrod " (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by AX10 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    as well as the radio talkers are the core of the left wing activists.

    None of them will be happy because Hillary will not give up, as she must fight on.

    It would be only just if the "elitist" attitude of these groups comes back to haunt Mr. Obama and the entire party in the fall.


    Comparing Obama's problem (none / 0) (#175)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:38:11 PM EST
    to McCain's is precisely right.

    That is exactly what's going to happen.

    A lot of people will just stay home, on both sides.


    if the republican base thinks they can (none / 0) (#186)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    get back the wh, they'll come out. rest assured on that.

    NOT a race for "pledged delegates." (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nashville on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    That is an Obama talking point that was effectively sold to the MSM.

    pledged delegate (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by isaac on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    do not decide the race, neither has enough to win.  so it is a meaningless distinction worthy of nothing

    Parts (none / 0) (#47)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    of the west, but Obama does have problems there in the GE so, maybe the big picture is worth looking at.

    My family homesteaded in WY and I know those boys in the west as my family inhabits many of these states that comprise the "west"...  the last frontier...


    WV Voters are not quite in Play in GE (none / 0) (#29)
    by dem08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    I saw the CNN Report on WV at my Barber Shop this afternoon.

    WV Voters are pro-gun (CNN said 70% gun owners) and anti-abortion, anti-Civil Unions, and favoring an Amendment to the Constitution outlawing Gay Marriage by huge Majorities of Registered Voters. And, according to CNN, these are Values Voters who are enjoying a resurgent economy with Coal prices soaring.

    One thing I clearly do NOT understand, no irony or hidden agenda, is how these helps ANY Democratic candidate in November in WV. Doesn't McCain have a huge lead on all those issues?

    At the end of February (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    Here's (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    the catch though:
    Hillary has economic appeal to these voters where they might ignore the social issues. Neither McCain nor Obama offer much in the way of the economy so they will go back to voting based on social issues.

    Current polling shows Hillary winning WV and Obama losing. Obama has no hope of carrying that state.


    Sorry, But No... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Spike on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    The only economic issue that matters in W.Va. is coal. If she were the nominee and maintained her current position on global warming, she would have little chance against McCain.

    Sorry but no. (none / 0) (#192)
    by liminal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:07:17 PM EST
    The coal economy is important, but McCain is no more coal-friendly than Clinton, when it comes to that.  Moreover, despite the resurgent economy in WVa, we are still in essentially a permanent recession.  Gas prices are brutal for rural people, and high food prices hit working families hard.  Clinton has neutralized the gun issue.

    Beyond that, WV has a strong labor history and a strong labor movement.  Clinton can definitely win WV in the fall.  


    Hillary can beat McCain in WV (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    that is a fact.

    Obama can not.

    Of ocurse, Obama is alomst certainly going to be the nominee so that is another state not in play.


    No because (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    W. VA went solidly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. It's history is as a Democratic state. Bush won, but it was an anomaly according to the NY Times, and may have had to do with Gore's energy positions being seen as a threat to coal miners. From 2000:

    In politics, West Virginia is synonymous with Democrats. They have controlled the Legislature for 70 years. They outnumber Republicans more than two to one among registered voters. They supported their standard-bearer in presidential races all but three times in the last half century.

    Gore and Kerry are the only Dems to lose W. Va. in 50 years. Here's the NY Times on W. Va. and Kerry in 2004, before he lost.


    Dean has backed down on that (none / 0) (#31)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    comment I think.

    Here's how I would look at the ground rules (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    If you show up and want to talk about racist white people voting for Clinton.  Then that means that you have decided that the reason why such people voted for Clinton was skin color.

    Then you do have to contend with the possibility likewise that black people are voting for Obama because of skin color too.  Or some such subset thereof.

    So there's a choice to be made here.


    and of course....


    I put those statements in ALL CAPS to point out that that those are the other set of ground rules.

    Just to think this through further.

    There appears to be low grade 'isms (racism, sexism) and the more toxic menacing kind.  

    For instance, we talk a lot about identity politics.   Which presupposes this idea that the candidates are equal on competence issues and on the issues, and that the only thing that one will consider is a preference, women for Clinton, blacks for Obama, that is not only forgivable but encouraged.

    Nothing wrong with that at all.

    Anyway, I've been accused or race baiting twice on this blog.

    If this blog wants to conduct all discourse with the following two assumptions in mind:


    and of course....


    then OK then.

    Let's do it.

    To me, everything else is race baiting.  everything.

    Edgar...... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    You're not a race-baiter.

    Here's our dlimma.  Race is the key factor.  But we can't discuss it honestly.


    It's a real conundrum for Dems.

    But I also trust true progress.  This time it's a problem.  Next time, less so.

    My issue isn't with Obama.  My issue is with the Democratic party.  I don't like them anymore.

    That's that.

    I don't like the party itself.

    It no longer inspires me, represents me or even gets my respect.

    I hit a bottom.  It's fairly new to me to not like the party, but I'm sure of my new feelings.  That much I've got nailed.

    And I don't like this party now.


    Who does (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    Besides Obama supporters?

    Nearing the end (none / 0) (#54)
    by barryluda on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    It essentially comes down to a contest of which candidate convinces enough Super Delegates to put them over, with Obama going into the convention with whatever lead he retains after W. VA and the rest of the primaries and after the resolution of MI and FL.  While the Supers can change their mind up to the convention, it seems the most important thing to watch, now, is the trending in terms of who the Supers say they'll be supporting.

    If enough Supers declare before the convention to put one or the other over the 2,025 PLUS, hopefully the other will drop out and everyone here will follow Jeralyn's lead when she says:

    For the one-millionth time, TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat and I will support the Democratic nominee against John McCain. Any Democrat is better than what the Republicans are offering. There's plenty of time. We're still in a primary race and until one candidate drops out or the votes have been cast at the Convention in August, that time has not arrived.

    I hope I'm not the only one, but I'm proud of both of our excellent candidates.

    it's 2209 (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    and the MI/

    and MI/FL needs to be resolved before the nominee is chosen. It's not good enough to say they'll be seated afterwards. Those 2.3 million votes need to be counted now.


    It's EITHER 2209 OR resolving MI/FL that's needed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by barryluda on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    In other words, neither can claim a victory even if they get to 2025 delegates prior to the convention if we haven't resolved MI/FL.  On the other hand, if one of them somehow gets to 2209 delegates, then it doesn't matter whether or not they've resolved MI/FL, she or he's won.

    The reason I keep saying "2025 PLUS" (as I wrote here in my prior post) is that they might resolve MI/FL by reducing some of the delegates.


    What is the latest update on that? n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    May 31 (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    May 31 the DNC RBC is scheduled to hear the appeal on Florida's delegates and superdelegates.

    Michigan is also supposed to be taken under consideration the same day, but I've seen mixed talk as to whether they will or not. Some seem to think Michigan has or may withdraw from their appeal but it's just rumors so we may have to wait and see.


    Joel Ferguson said (none / 0) (#79)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    he would withdraw his proposal.

    Ferguson said Thursday that he would withdraw a plan he and DNC member Jon Ausman of Florida -- both superdelegates -- submitted to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee. Their plan would have allocated the delegates based on the primary election results, but given each just half a vote. The superdelegates would have had full voting rights.



    Yes but (none / 0) (#100)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    My understanding was he was withdrawing because he was on board with that proposal. But Clinton has rejected the proposal so I'm not sure that Ferguson is still going to withdraw his appeal to the RBC.

    Hillary rejected a plan put forward (none / 0) (#66)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    by her own supporters in Michigan.

    She made a bad mistake there imo (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn disagrees with me on that.

    Indeed, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    IMO she ceded the moral high ground on the issue and left her supporters who worked hard on the deal hanging out to dry.

    It was the moral middle ground (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    by denying Michigan voters their full decision for whom to vote, taking away 4 delegates for her.  Why 69 delegates when it was 73?  

    So 73 delegates is the moral high ground.  Anything less is a compromise -- a compromise of people's votes -- and thus the moral middle ground.


    Hillary did the right thing. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by bridget on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    I would have been disappointed in a big way had she accepted the MI plan. It was not only unfair because it clearly was done to speed along Obama's path to the nom but it is an insult to Hillary and, well, intelligence IMHO.

    I still believe Hillary would be the nom now and the whole thing would be over had MI and Fl be counted THEN. Ignoring it until now derailed her campaign.

    The Obama cable stations and pundits still think it  is all a big joke. Just listening to 30 minutes late last Tuesday made that clear to me. For example, Gergen just ridiculed the suggestion to count MI and Fl. They are not helping my misinforming the viewers re MI and Fl. But what else is new.


    Because it was a bad deal. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by vicsan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    I don't blame her.

    Hah (none / 0) (#191)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    It was a bad deal.  A compromise that came from a reasonable solution from the Clinton camp and a completely nonsensical solution from the Obama camp.

    Simply put, it awards Obama delegates he did not earn and takes delegates away from the Clinton and the voters that voted for her.

    Clinton's solution did no such thing, and gave him more than he should be entitled to.  Bargaining or compromising is only fair when there are two reasonable offers on the table.  This was just not the case.


    her supporters? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST
    Detroit Free Press:

    The 69-59 split was proposed last week by four prominent Michigan Democrats who have been working for months to find a way to get Michigan's delegates seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver: U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and DNC member Debbie Dingell.

    Which ones are Hillary supporters?


    Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#64)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    Could you clarify what you mean by chattering?  I respect your right to set the ground rules and don't want to run afoul of them inadvertently.

    Thanks for the forum.

    I'll give you an example (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    Repeatedly commenting falsely that there was an agreement that the Magic number was 2025.

    That is a lie and posting that lie repeatedly is chattering.


    Got it, thanks. nt (none / 0) (#97)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    Chattering is defined (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:00:15 PM EST

    TalkLeft  will limit commenters to four comments a day if, in its sole discretion, the commenter is a "chatterer," loosely defined as one who  both holds opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft  and :

     * Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or

    *  Posts numerous times a day and insults or calls other commenters names or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters.

    A message will be left in the last thread that the commenter chattered on advising that he or she has been limited to four comments a day. All comments in excess of this amount will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned.

    This policy was created by me and has not changed since 2002.


    I think your math is (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    a little off.  If you are looking at pledged delegates, RCP 1604/1722, if you split the remaining 174/

    Pushed post on accident (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    split the remaining 174/43 gets them within 12. 30% within 30.  35% about 50.  My point is, the superdeez have never made their support contingent on just the pledged delegates.  Many have said if they are within 100, that criteria is a tie.  They will also look at popular vote, polling and who had momentum at the end.

    Pledged delegates is not the rule.  2209 is.


    That is NOT an agreement (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word.

    An AGREEMENT (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    Look it up.

    I can agree with a statement while not making an agreement.

    Now, it is time for you to leave this issue as you are now chattering.


    What she's doing (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Evie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    Acknowledging the situation while working to change it. She may vehemently disagree, but she cannot just ignore the implications of the DNC's absurdly draconian punishment of FL/MI.

    That is NOT an 'agreement' that it is ok to disenfranchise 2.3 million Democratic voters in two major states.


    Look at it this way (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    a quaterback's goal is to get 10 yards, the touchdowns come later

    You are on the wrong side (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST
    Of Democracy.

    Give Obama 80% of the pledged delegates (none / 0) (#154)
    by Exeter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    while you're at it... because he's shaping up to be the first candidate in the modern political era to win the pledged delegate count without winning the popular vote.

    Not only does it count (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    but it should go left this year. it has been ignored by dems for 8 years.

    Bend, OR (none / 0) (#163)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    where he has a chance.  Do you not understand that OR, WVA and KY are different states?

    So? (none / 0) (#164)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    You asserted that he wasn't out campaigning and working for votes. You also asserted that he wasn't going to make an appearance in WV.

    You were wrong on both counts. Hillary's just begging for money today.


    Wish (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:04:52 PM EST
    I had Oprah Winfrey giving me buckets of money on the DL.  I wouldn't EVER have to "beg" for money.  SO begging is what you call it?  When Obama does it, it's 'an investment for the future?"

    evening shift obama troll? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    Just a friendly fact checker (none / 0) (#177)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    and for gawd's sake, we can agree in the end that each candidate is hard working, dedicated to the voters and campaigning in earnest. This GOP tinged crap about Obama being "elite" and contemptuous of any American citizen is ridiculous. And plenty similar defenses can be made of Hillary against stupid, baseless criticisms.

    Oppose Barack, support Hillary - but do it honestly. It's fun to play in the we hate obama rumpus room and throw mud around, but try to have some perspective. Hillary is not an infallible icon of shining perfection and Barack isn't a putrid lying sack of excrement.


    I am. (none / 0) (#181)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    Oppose Barack, support Hillary - but do it honestly.



    it seems all you have to do is (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    declare it and therefore it is so. (snark)

    Oh My God (none / 0) (#188)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    Grasping much?  I guess Obama doesn't do fundraisers?  All his money is from the little people right? Uh, I can 'cling' to one situation that might not bear out that argument.  

    For you to insinuate that Clinton is not working hard for votes truly puts you in the delusional category.  Even I am astounded by the sheer fortitude that both Clinton's have shown on the campaign trail.  Going to 6-7 towns daily to shore up the vote?  You've got to respect their fighting spirit.  Barack and Michelle usually have much less scheduled and I don't begrudge them for it, but I WILL take issue with your argument about who is meeting with the people and working hard for votes.