home

There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries

The media is not going to determine the future of the Democratic party. Voters are.

There are five states left to go. Hillary Clinton will do very well in Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Obama has a lead in Oregon. MT and SD are tiny.

The Democrats cannot expect to win Florida or Michigan in November if the 2.5 million who voted there don't have a say in choosing our nominee. They should be seated full-strength. And regardless of how the DNC decides to apportion their delegates, their popular vote count stands as is. The Democrats will not win in November without Florida and/or Michigan.

The Democrats need PA and Ohio. Hillary can win those states and other big swing and toss-up states. Barack Obama's ability to win them is unknown. He's untested. Hillary may have shown him how to be a stronger candidate, but she can't guide him to the finish line, no matter how hard she campaigns for him if he's the nominee. [More...]

Superdelegates can make up their mind any time before the convention. They can switch, as many have done, from one candidate to another.

We need a Democrat back in the White House. Hillary Clinton has shown in all of the big states except Obama's home state of Illinois, that she is the stronger candidate in these states. And if she's the candidate, Democrats will likely win Illinois as well.

We are getting down to the wire. Superdelegates were given the responsibility of voting for the nominee who has the best chance of winning the presidency. It's not just a matter of pledged delegates in the individual races.

The candidate who can win back the presidency in November is Hillary Clinton. The Superdelegates need to slow down, and the voters of the remaining 5 states need to come out in force. And the DNC needs to come to its senses and end this charade of a 48 state vote. This nation was founded on the principle of one person, one vote. Every vote needs to be honored. That's the American way.

Comments now closed.

< Childers Wins MS-01 Race | Media Misses the Electoral Map Issues >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank You! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:18 PM EST
    Thank you for this postive post! You are 100% correct! There is no WINNER until one candidate crosses the FINISH LINE! That finish line is in AUGUST! Until then, there is no winner! The number to target is 2209. Superdelegates can endorse whoever they wish now, but ultimately is their vote in August which COUNTS! They can change at ANY TIME until that vote! Hillary is in this til the end and we must support her all the way!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    "That finish line is in AUGUST! Until then, (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by tornsneaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    there is no winner."  Absolutely! The MSM still acts as if they don't understand the process - are they just dumb, or co-opted?  We need to get them to stop falsifying the nominating process.

    [ Parent ]
    We need to do it quickly. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by itsadryheat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Donna Brazille said on CNN tonight that the number is 2025 until the rules committee meets May 31.  She then said that Obama will reach 2025  on May 20th and will therefore win the nomination.  When questioned she insisted those were the rules.  She said Michigan and Florida would have nothing to do with it because they have no voice till May 31!

    Nobody corrected her.  There are two ways to be the nominee: cause all other candidates to concede or win the vote count at the convention.  There is no other path to the nomination.  Just guessing that you might win some number that will not be the real number at the convention and to guess it four months early and then have a rally and crown yourself is ...what?  Isn;t there a name for that?

    Cannot believe there was nobody on the tv set who could see that they had just been totally bamboozled by Brazille and Obama.  We have very little time to teach Anderson and Wolf and John and Tweety and Campbell and Suzanne that you win an election to be the nominee AFTER the election, unless no one else is running.  If you "take the title" earlier, you stole it.

    [ Parent ]

    CNN??!! (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    Don't expect any truth to come out of the screen of CNN! And especially don't expect any truth to come out of the mouth of Donna B - massive Obama supporter who continues to fraudulently parade herself on CNN as a "neutral pundit". Disgraceful.

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    [ Parent ]

    look what CNN considers slim - lol (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    (CNN) -- Exit polling shows Hillary Clinton winning a slim majority of independent voters in West Virginia's Democratic primary. Eighteen percent of the voters in today's Democratic contest identified themselves as independents; they went for Clinton over Obama, 53 percent to 40 percent.

    [ Parent ]
    Welcome to the (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:40 PM EST
    UNDEMOCRATIC Party, with your host Howard D. and Donna B.  Sit back, turn off critical mental functions and have a drink, cause cognitive thinking is bad and won't get you a pony.

    [ Parent ]
    They LIE. (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    No, the media is not dumb. They just lie and misrepresent reality so as to to further inflate the candidacy of Barack Obama. It's shameful & irresponsible. And they should never be forgiven for colluding with Barack Obama in this political HOAX! Wake up America! Who is control - YOU or the MEDIA?!? Make a choice! There is now a very long list of reporters who should be completely discredite as "journalists" and "reporters" for their shockingly biased and dishonest "journalism" and "reporting" throughout this election. Clearly many of them skipped the ETHICS classes at journalism school because so many of them have stooped to a level which is beyond trashy, and into the zone of being UNFORGIVEABLE in their LIES about this election!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, few j-schools require an ethics course (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    or even offer one.  Sad but true.  I used to teach in the field and fought for such a course, to no avail.

    A course in ethics is one of the criteria of a true profession.  Journalism thus remains only a trade.

    And as for the broadcast track, I will not depress you with what are the required courses in too many journalism schools -- if they even take journalism.  Many come from other degree programs . . . if they have degrees.  I fear that more spend more time in makeup classes.

    [ Parent ]

    A Stellar Win with Big Gains in Popular Vote Count (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    I'm just glad the pundits in cable "news" have such a small audience. They sure can make a great victory, and an obvious shift of the winds into a downer.


    [ Parent ]
    Puerto Rico's Promise (none / 0) (#92)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    If Hillary is now running at almost 70% in Puerto Rico - about 2.2 million voters or so - can't she pick up a net gain of about 700,000 votes there?

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt the net gain would go that high... (none / 0) (#121)
    by rafaelh on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    People love to vote back in PR, but the average participation does go down a bit when it's not the general elections. And the national parties don't have that much meaning for a lot of people back there. Heck, I considered myself to be a Republican until I moved to the states and saw what their policies stood for. (I was very religious, anti-abortion back in PR, which had something to do with it.)

    I've been talking to a lot of friends and family and they don't seem as excited as people here. My sister wasn't even planning on going to vote. I tried to talk her into it but let's see what happens.  

    Back to the situation in PR, I think she'll win big but I doubt she might reach 70%. We had a woman governor and there were a lot of the usual misogynistic attitudes against her. (That said, that governor really sucked, so not all attacks against her were anti-women.) But those attitudes might affect Hillary.

    A couple of weeks is a lot in those circumstances, a lot will depend on the coverage here and the view of her chances to actually take the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh Jeralyn, (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    Brava! Clear, cogent, and unarguable.

    You must be one heck of an attorney. :-)

    Hillary And Jeralyn Both Deserve Kudos.... (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    Hillary gave a helluva speech and we can't let her down....no matter how small our contribution either by way of money or time spent volunteering.
    Really, I can't think of anyone who could ever deserve our support more....She is at 38% over obama right now!!

    YES SHE WILL!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Send this to the NY Times Editorial page (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST


    Please go vote for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    at CNN.com!

    [ Parent ]
    Amen! (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    I am literally sitting here slack-jawed at how stupid the MSM and people from Obamaland are in terms of being incapable of seeing the "elephant" in the room.

    Obama cannot win.  And yet they continue to march, like lemmings to the sea, toward defeat.

    I would really love to hear from someone who can (try and) explain this to me.

    They Know (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    But, they are so far into this fraud they can't - or their egos will not allow them to - back out now.

    [ Parent ]
    Welcome to the democratic party (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    Snatching defeat from jaws of victory since 1980...

    [ Parent ]
    C'mon, Give Them Credit (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:29 PM EST
    They've been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since at least 1972.

    [ Parent ]
    36 years (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    and counting! Woo hoo!

    Oh. Wait.

    I might even give them 1968 although RFK was not exactly our fault.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a proud democratic tradition (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    losing, that is. Why ruin our beautiful track record?

    [ Parent ]
    They still don't know (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    Democrats love underdogs (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST
    but better yet, to be one!  Having power, wealth, and success brings on the vertigo...

    [ Parent ]
    "I Can't Hear You"..la..la..la (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    Best discussion tonight was Greta and Susan Estrich.  It was focused on the obvious fact that Obama has a lead built on red caucuses while Hillary has hard-won the big blue states.

    There is a willful indifference to the electoral potential of Hillary vs. Obama.  The tank is big and deep, and the chatter class is drowning in it.

    [ Parent ]

    damn, I am sorry I missed that (none / 0) (#111)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Wish I Still Believed the Party Cared about Nov. (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM EST


    Huzzah (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    Let's hear it for THE PEOPLE deciding instead of the media. There's a movement I can get behind. Personally, I'm rootingfor Clinton so I can watch Tweety's head explode and KO cry.

    treated fairly? (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    The guy has been given every break there is.  

    Obama has shown the party that he won't fight to win in November.  

    As far as the superdelegates are concerned, far more important that tonight's margins is Obama's refusal to introduce himself to West Virginia voters.  Clinton is out there competing for every vote -- even in North Carolina, where everyone expected her to lose by wide margins, she was in that state, telling voter who she was, what she stood for, and that she cared about their votes.

    Obama has a massive problem with the kind of voters you find in West Virginia -- he should have been in that state campaigning 24/7, because one thing voters don't like is being ignored.  

    He should have done a listening tour -- gotten groups of Clinton supporters to learn how to reach them -- not to tell them about himself, but to listen to them away from the media.

    So the party owes him nothing.  He has chosen his own path, and its a path to defeat in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely correct. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    They just don't get it - they have no idea about the hard work required to "win" and have simply been coasting on his initially "inspiring" speeches.

    The bloom is, indeed, off the rose!

    [ Parent ]

    thank you for bringing that up (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    I love how the Obama gang was excusing him for not campaigning in WV (in person, he did outspend Hillary 2-1, but they didn't mention that) because "he wasn't going to win anyway." I've said before: what the heck does that say about how he would be as President? If a difficult situation arose with little chance of success, would he just walk away from it? Ignore it? "Hope" for the best? And then say "yeah, we failed but that is ok because we didn't really try." WTF? I think it is disgraceful the way he handled WV and there is no excuse for it. I can't see how anyone in the remaining primaries would still vote for him after this un-presidential display.

    [ Parent ]
    Huge landslide victory (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    I think the results tonight were worse for Obama than many expected.  Despite the total pile-on by the media against Hillary for an entire week, his numbers didn't improve.  They actually became worse.

    The margins tonight are unprecedented.

    65%+ to 28%? Unelectable.

    Terrible Result for Obama! (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    The media-constructed "presumptive nominee" could not do better than 30%?!? Just goes to show what a complete SHAM the media coverage of this election is. A total DISGRACE! Obama outspent Clinton in West Virginia - as he does he everywhere - plus he had the MSM actively campaigning for him prior to the voting today (as he does for every primary). And he still LOST by more than 30 points! That's not just a loss - that is a complete flogging! But what this massive loss for Obama has done has highlighted once again the FRAUD which is the Obama/Media/DNC coalition! A total FRAUD!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    [ Parent ]

    I'm following the results on (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    the NYTimes website and her margin keeps on getting bigger. What will the media have to say if it's 40 or even more points? That's beyond a "thumping" as John King called it.

    [ Parent ]
    They will call it a "beauty contest".... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST
    ...the same term they used for her massive win in FL.

    I've already heard it used a couple times tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    The unity (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
    pony is looking kind of like an old nag now.

    [ Parent ]
    Clarification. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    The margins tonight are unprecedented.

    No, they're not. They're big, but not unprecendented. Obama won Hawaii 76% to 24%. He won Alaska 75% to 25%. He won Washington 68%
    to 31%, Georgia 67% to 31%, and Colorado 67% to 32%. In spite of all that, I doubt anyone would call Clinton unelectable.

    This is a big night for Clinton, but it doesn't mean Obama is doomed.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton wasn't the "presumptive" (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:19 PM EST
    nominee in HI, in case you forgot. That is what makes Obama's shellacking in WV so bad for him. Plus, the American people know Obama a lot better now than they did then. Guess to know him is not necessarily to love him.

    [ Parent ]
    Apples to Apples Please (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
    Those were caucuses. Give me break.

    [ Parent ]
    Georgia, I'll Give You (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    The rest were caucuses.   As Texas, Washington, and now Nebraska show, the margins in caucuses don't represent the true margins among democratic voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Which of those were Caucuses, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    where the entire number of voters was a few thousand?

    [ Parent ]
    CNN Poll (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    Who would do better against McCain?

    Vote:

    http://www.cnn.com

    Just did - thanks! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Too late, Obamatrons are (none / 0) (#160)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST

    shilling the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    ... but I think Hillary needs some external validation to claim the nomination that will convince a large majority of Democrats, including a majority of African Americans, that she is a legitimate nominee. Something to the effect of ...

    (1) She leads in the popular vote by a reasonable measure. This can include Florida and Michigan, but Obama has to get something out of Michigan. It won't appear fair otherwise.

    or maybe

    (2) Obama is clearly going to lose in November; i.e. polls show him trailing significantly by the time of the convention. While a lot of people believe that he'll be crushed by the GOP machine, that's not a strong enough argument without some data to back it up.

    Just my opinion, of course.

    winning the popular vote is part of Clinton plan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    They keep saying they will be ahead in popular votes by the time everything is all settled.

    [ Parent ]
    Another thing to notice is (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    at this moment, Hillary is ahead in Nebraska.  Not by much, yet she's ahead with 30% of the vote in.  I wonder how they will spin it if she wins both?

    Please explain...their caucus was Feb 14. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    Is this the state convention?

    [ Parent ]
    Like Washington, NE has a primary (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    the democratic party just chooses to ignore it in favor of an undemocratic caucus.

    With 38% of the vote in, Obama and Clinton are tied at 48%.  You can see the results come in - here.

    [ Parent ]

    Well won't that just look good? He won the (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    caucus 68-32!

    [ Parent ]
    Those results worry me (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    It shows how red state caucuses do not represent the majority of people. She lost big in the caucus but is trailing by only 4 points in an actual vote.

    Maybe supers will realize this

    [ Parent ]

    It just adds to the proof that (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:26 PM EST

    caucuses are not representative of the people.

    WA Caucus results:

    Obama 67.51%........21,629 Delegates
    Clinton 31.2%..........9992 Delegates

    WA Primary Results:

    Obama: 51.22%..........354,112 votes
    Clinton: 45.67%..........315,744 votes

    (Uncommitted and other, I didn't include.)

    And now Nebraska.

    [ Parent ]

    First time for WA (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    This was the first time WA had both. WA is in the process of going to a mail-in/absentee voting process as the only way to vote in the state.

    The Republicans took the primary vote for their delegate selection, the Democrats took the caucus. Hillary lost both, but the vote by a much smaller margin. I'm hoping we've seen our last caucus.

    I just heard Donna Brazile say the May 31st meeting of the rules committee will be televised.


    [ Parent ]

    I hate to say this (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    and let me defend myself by saying I've been phone banking for hours on end for the last three weeks, but...Nebraska?

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Emma on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    What is up w/Nebraska?  I don't get what's going on.

    [ Parent ]
    The process for (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    selecting the actual delegates to the convention is a 3-step process in some states - and delegates can move or change.  For example, Obama was able to nab more delegates out of Iowa, I think about 8 or 9.  If Hillary is grabbing more delegates out of Nebraska as the process goes on - it shows people are changing their minds.  Buyer's remorse anyone?

    [ Parent ]
    AOL? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    Obama won that NE caucus in February. The Repubs are having one tonight.

    but there is this from AOL:
    http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/ne

    Wha?

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats Are Having One, Too (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    It's just like so many votes in the democratic primary process doesn't count.  Much better to allocate delegates according to a process that soldiers, police, and nurses can't participate in.

    [ Parent ]
    Results here ... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/ne

    Huge swing to Clinton, even if she loses by a narrow margin.

    I hope the Clinton surrogates push this story hard tomorrow!

    I wonder how the Obama camp will spin this result away?

    [ Parent ]

    The real nut in these results... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST
    ...is what they might auger for SD and MT (both primaries).

    [ Parent ]
    So then (none / 0) (#183)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:55 PM EST

    the primary vote MUST count in the popular vote count, right?  The people did vote, is Obama gonna disenfranchise them, too?

    [ Parent ]
    Shellacking (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:01 PM EST
    The universe anoints Barack Obama our nominee, and the members of the party who have a chance to vote say, "Wait a minute."  This did not happen to John Kerry.  We all were on-board fairly early on.  The Party ignores us Hillary supporters at its peril.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    Kerry would have been better and the party stronger (or even a stronger nominee) with an extended campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    wishful thinking (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pluege on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    The media is not going to determine the future of the Democratic party. Voters are.

    the media always picks the democratic nominee. They ran out the progressive - Edwards, and they have the strongest candidate against mccain - HRC, in an insurmountable position while fomenting division among democrats. So explain again how they're not picking the nominee.

    Obama hasn't won. (4.20 / 5) (#32)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    "Hillary may have shown him how to be a stronger candidate, but she can't guide him to the finish line, no matter how hard she campaigns for him if he's the nominee."

    Absolutely.  She can't make her voters vote for him.  And clearly many of us will not according to the polls.  And they ain't bluffing.  I live in PA and he would get his butt kicked in NEPA.

    Clinton country would turn to McCain country.

    They love their churches, guns and flags here and they really respect honesty.  He lied to them about the oil ad and they knew it and they will not forget it.

    largest turnout in florida's history (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    for a primary.

    that's what wolfson said on cnn.  

    folks, this is your strongest florida argument yet.  people voted.   not allowing those votes to count is unamerican, no matter how you feel about the issue.  how can anybody really look at this and say ignoring millions of voters is a good thing?  

    seriously (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
     if you woke up from a coma today and didn't know squat about the race but somebody told you that florida had a record turnout for their election but they weren't going to count it because of some rules they just sort of made up along the way, you'd think they were lying wouldn't you?

    ps. you've been in the coma since before the 2000 election.

    [ Parent ]

    CHANGING THE RULES (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    here is it folks.  listen carefully.

    the big argument is that florida simply broke the rules so now hillary wants to change the rules.

    i ask you this, where in the original rules did it say millions of florida voters wouldn't have a say?

    the easy counter to the rule changing argument is that the DNC changed the rules first!  seriously, go with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. Brazile, et al., DID change rules (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:27 PM EST
    after those primaries were scheduled, when the DNC penalty was like that in the GOP: lose half of the delegates.

    Not until last fall -- October, as I recall -- did Brazile and her lackeys on the Rules and Bylaws Committee change the rule, amending it to all of the delegates.

    As many of us saw here, that meeting is on video, in the C-Span archives.  It shows exactly what was done and who did it -- an Obama super-delegate made the amending motion, Brazile spoke most forcefully (and quite unpleasantly and disrespectfully to the Florida state chair) for it.  Then the same thing was followed as a precedent for Michigan.

    I really cannot stand the Obamans who claim that the current situation is following the rules.  They are either really low-information voters, if they do not know that the rules were changed.  Or they're outright liars.

    [ Parent ]

    CHANGING THE RULES II (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:25 PM EST
    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/michigan_democrat s_blast_dnc.php

    Quote:
    Two top Michigan Democrats, anticipating that the Democratic National Committee will strip them of all their convention delegates now that the state has scheduled its primary for Jan. 15, sent a letter to DNC chairman Howard Dean protesting the party's "selective enforcement" of its calendar rules.

    Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

    "Someone has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire's expressed intent to violate the DNC rules," the two write.

    Quote:
    On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

    • at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
    • at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
    • at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
    • at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

    The Iowa caucuses were held on January 3
    The Nevada contest was held when it was supposed to on January 19
    The New Hampshire primary was held January 8
    The South Carolina primary was held on January 26

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by akaEloise on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    if in another day or two, the media adjusts the storyline so that it becomes "Obama was prematurely anointed by party insiders, but our exclusive investigation shows that he is not in fact the inevitable nominee".

    The media have lost all semblance of (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    objectivity, from what I have been reading tonight; without cable, I do not get to experience the execrable coverage, and for that I am grateful.

    It cheers me that the voters seem to be ignoring the talking heads who keep wanting this to be over - and that gives me hope that by the time all the primaries have ended, it will be hard for the superdelegates to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is the party's best chance to win the WH in November.

    I don't think Obama is going to be able to put together a strong enough coalition of voters to be able to win in November.  He has so divided and polarized the party - is the intellectual, so-called "creative" class the only group he has not managed to offend?  It just boggles the mind.

    Despite all evidence suggesting that Obama needs to find the unity he's been selling, he just doesn't stop with the dismissive attitude.  Honestly, I just do not think I can deal with a president who will spend the next 4 years looking down his nose at us, I really don't.  After 8 years of watching my rights chipped away at, my privacy breached, my issues and my concerns taking a back seat to corporate CEO's, more people without insurance, I cannot stand the thought of a Republican president who take the hand-off from Bush, or a Democratic president who doesn't understand what being a Democrat means.

    Hope is found in people who truly know what it means to work together.  Change comes when hard-working people dig in for the long-haul and never take their eyes off the prize.  Health care.  The war.  The economy.  Energy.  Constitutional protections and civil liberties.  

    Unity is not wedge-shaped.

    Congrats to Hillary - onward and upward!

    Thank you, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by NYCDem11 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    for your optimism, sanity, and tenacity. I've been lurking on this blog for months and its been an emotional lifesaver. It's so rewarding to see that the people of West Virginia also agree that Senator Clinton is the best candidate to win in November and (more importantly IMHO) the absolute best to lead the nation.

    Pundits say you can't change a game at the end. It's not over. If she is blossoming and he is starting to fade, why is it so unfathomable that the super delegates actually vote their conscience?

    Either way, Senator Clinton proving that she's a mighty force...with grace and dignity.

    Tonight Obama's figures were as bad (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    as I expected. If Edwards hadn't been on the ballot, Hillary would have broken 70%.

    Not so good for the so-called "presumptive nominee."

    the media pundits must feel impotent (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    All the networks were blasting Hillary for an entire week telling Democrats it was all over and then 73% of West Virginia turned around and gave a collective "no thanks" to Obama as the nominee.

    I thought he would have made up SOME ground.  I really didn't think he wouldn't be at 27% of the votes.  But I made no predictions this time.  Just letting the voters speak is best.

    [ Parent ]

    How many times would we have heard (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:52 PM EST
    on every channel, if the situation were reversed, more than 70% voted against Clinton tonight!  More than a thousand is my guess...I did not hear anyone say it about Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Dare I say (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    I firmly believe those media pundits are, in fact, impotent.

    (sorry if that is over the line, but it felt good saying it).

    [ Parent ]

    Worse than I could have (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    thought.  If 6% of the vote was AA, to get as low as 27% of the total vote, he tanked to what? 22.5% of the non-aa vote?  22.5 that just can't be right.  

    Well, the good news is it looks like Clinton will clear 200,000 votes.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is barely beating McCain in (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    the vote tally. That's even though he spent a fortune on TV and McCain was essentially uncontested.

    [ Parent ]
    With 84% of the vote in, (none / 0) (#190)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    he is now down to 26%.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess Lanny Davis meant it when he said he (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    wouldn't go on CNN again to take their unfair abuse.

    Good for him. It was disgusting (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Donna must have been warned, though (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    she even gave Hillary a compliment and said she could still win the support of the SD's to get herself the nomination.  Anderson had to specifically ask her a question to get her engaged in the conversation.

    I think CNN should have put her in a locked room and played all her nasty clips in a steady loop until even she could see how horrible her opinions come across.

    Bill is out in Montana doing some great stump speeches :)


    [ Parent ]

    I'm guessing her dress-down (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:07 PM EST
    would have come from the good Dr. Dean, rather than CNN. As much as he's been in the Obama tank himself, he had the good sense to state that supers can vote on the basis of conscience, and that MI and FL will eventually count, even at diminished weights.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST
    when did he say that?

    I missed it.

    [ Parent ]

    Last week after the IN and NC primaries. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:31 PM EST
    Anderson Cooper was a real as* to him and he said so the next day. Do a search because he gave a great interview about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I want to make a prediction: (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    Obama will not win a single county in West Virginia. Not. One.

    You've been quite good with the predictions (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    today.

    Congratulations! :-)

    [ Parent ]

    andgarden, and BTD was wrong when he (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:11 PM EST
    said no one would cover the WV race. Not overly flattering to Hillary, of course, but it is getting coverage everywhere.

    (Just pointing this out BTD because you are rarely ever wrong, except in your choice of candidates :) ).

    [ Parent ]

    I'm the one who said that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    And they aren't spending much time on W. Va -- they  are focused on how Hillary can't win no matter what and what comes next. At least two of them covered her speech.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, I beat you to that earlier -- and 40%! (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    actually looks possible.  And go look at the county-by-county figures at cnn.com; it's stunning, in some he only got 20%.

    As for a 40% margin -- with 69% of the vote in, Clinton just went up to 66% of the vote, and Obama just dropped to 27%.

    I am sending good thoughts to my WV relatives.  Some vote Republican, usually, but switched to be Dems -- some time ago.  They started dissing Bush a while ago, with so many of their students and neighbors -- more than any state -- serving in Iraq and dying there.  

    [ Parent ]

    it's getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
    and everyone should see that map for themselves.  It is Scranton, Pennsylvania numbers... but everywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Whoo-ee! It's now up to a 41% margin (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    with 80% of the votes in (at cnn.com).  It could go even more, as the bigger towns already reported.

    [ Parent ]
    tremendous win tonight! (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    This was my prediction from back in March:

    in WV, I'll say by 30% +/- 2%. She will take PA by at least 13%, barring unforeseen developments. WV will be the beginning of the end for Obama. Gore lost WV by only 6% in 2000. Clinton took it by 15% in 1996. For those willing to look at electoral map realities, the path to victory in Nov. is OH, WV, PA, FL, MI, TN, MO, and KY. There is only one candidate who can do it!

    I also stated that obama would get 0 counties in WV, but I couldn't find that one.

    Cheers to Hillary!


    [ Parent ]

    Arcadianwind, you do win -- March?! (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    That is terrific.

    Btw, your sig name -- love it.  Are you descended from Arcadians, too?

    [ Parent ]

    I hope so. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:06 PM EST
    They seemed like good people.

    [ Parent ]
    tremendous win tonight! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM EST
    This was my prediction from back in March:

    in WV, I'll say by 30% +/- 2%. She will take PA by at least 13%, barring unforeseen developments. WV will be the beginning of the end for Obama. Gore lost WV by only 6% in 2000. Clinton took it by 15% in 1996. For those willing to look at electoral map realities, the path to victory in Nov. is OH, WV, PA, FL, MI, TN, MO, and KY. There is only one candidate who can do it!

    I also stated that obama would get 0 counties in WV, but I couldn't find that one.

    Cheers to Hillary!


    [ Parent ]

    will we get a 40 point win (none / 0) (#81)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    or just short of that?

    [ Parent ]
    Just short (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    We're hovering at 38% now. I said 35-40pts, and I was right. :D

    [ Parent ]
    good job! (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You rock! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    cnn.com (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    nifty map of the counties there.  It looks like it is certainly possible with several more counties still to come in.  The most "urban" county around Charleston is already in there so the rest is even better for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm ... (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    Barack Obama's ability to win them is unknown. He's untested.

    Untested?

    I think he's been weighed and tested, and found wanting.

    If Hillary ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:36 PM EST
    ... could win Oregon or Montana it would be huge!

    please (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    sign up @ hillaryclinton.com to make calls.

    They work!

    [ Parent ]

    Good Point (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:08 PM EST
    It's time right now for everyone to contribute the maximum to Senator Clinton's primary campaign and then double down by contributing an equal amount to her campaign for the general election. Go for it.

    Give it all to the primary now -- (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST
    as Clinton actually is better funded than Obama for the general election.  She has $24 million for it, and he has $8 million. (Due to differences in strategy 'way back.)

    She will need more then, but to get there -- give funds for the remaining primary runs now!

    [ Parent ]

    Hey Cream City (none / 0) (#107)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:43 PM EST
    Do you live in the Cream City?

    [ Parent ]
    I do, I proudly do. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM EST
    And you?  A Badger, too?

    [ Parent ]
    Grew Up in West Allis and the East Side (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:54 PM EST
    My parents still live in an 1873 Manitowoc County farmhouse made out of Cream City Brick.  My mom was the librarian at Bay View High School for 25 years.

    I live in Humboldt County, California these days, but I love my visits back to Beer Town.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama congratulates Hillary... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    ... by leaving her a message on her cell.

    He just reeks of class, doesn't he?

    Oh my freaking goodness. (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    First he tries to co-opt her moment by giving a stump speech in MO on the night of her victory...then he calls her on her cell to "congratulate" her?

    Like so many snobs, Obama completely and totally lacks class.

    How is he going to handle himself with foreign leaders? If he doesn't like Gordon Brown, is he going to fake flip him off? If he disagrees with Pooty-Poot, is he going to brush him off like dirt on his shoulder?

    Not. Ready. For. Primetime.

    [ Parent ]

    He just happened to call while she was (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    getting ready to give a speech tonight. I think that was a planned non-connection.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how guys dump women today (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    according to my progeny of the cell-phone generation.  I was so appalled.  Both of them, daughter and son, got a lecture from me about that -- to always face the music and go f2f, as they say.

    Some even do it by text-messaging today, they say.  Aaarrggh.

    [ Parent ]

    Weird. How does that work? (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:02 PM EST
    sry we shld c oth ppl kthxbai.

    [ Parent ]
    That is hysterical (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:33 PM EST
    but what really worries me is that I was able to translate it. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I just Donated $ 165.44 (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    100 -  I am (100)% behind her
    65   -  65 is the points she has so far tonight.
    44    cents......we all know what we are shooting for here.

    Go Hillary

    I am entering the $2000 dollar mark..she better pull up