The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Morning Cheat Sheet

Clinton Down, but Not Out, for the Count

By Peter Baker
Forget Wii. The real computer game for those of us mesmerized by Ohio and Texas today is located over on the site of our corporate cousin, Slate. As Dan Balz mentions in this morning's "8 Questions" that could be answered by today's primaries, "every political junkie around the country is spending hours with Slate's delegate calculator on the Internet or with more complex spreadsheets that are being passed around by e-mail." We think he meant us!

Slate's delegate calculator is reasonably simple but ingenious. It lists all the remaining Democratic contests, starting with the four today -- Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont -- all the way through Puerto Rico on June 7. You can plug in what percentage of the vote you think Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) will win in each of these states and the calculator then tells you how many pledged delegates each of them will have at the end of the primary season.

It doesn't actually take hours playing with it to understand just how deep a hole Clinton really is in. On the surface, it wouldn't seem like she's that far behind even before the two big primaries that she may win today. After all, by the count of NBC News, which is what Slate uses as its basis, Obama has 1,192 pledged delegates and Clinton has 1,036, a difference of just 156. (This does not include the much-discussed superdelegates, but let's leave them aside for the moment.) Given that a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win the nomination, it would seem the contest is still very tight.

But let's go ahead and plug in some numbers. Let's assume Clinton wins three of four states today -- Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. And let's assume she wins by the average of recent polls, as tabulated by the Web site, Real Clear Politics, and split the undecided evenly between the candidates. That would mean she would win Rhode Island with 55 percent, Ohio with 54 percent and Texas with 51 percent. Obama would take Vermont with 60 percent, judging by the latest polling. That would obviously be a great night for Clinton and one that she hopes would revive her flagging campaign. She would prove that she continues to win the big states even if Obama still has the lead among delegates, and it would raise questions about why he has not been able to close the deal.

If all of that happens, then, what would Clinton need in the remaining contests to catch up among pledged delegates? There are a dozen contests still to come after today, starting with Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi next Tuesday. Then you have Pennsylvania on April 22, followed over the next few weeks by Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and finally Puerto Rico. Working the Slate calculator, she would need to win 62 percent in each of those states to pass Obama in pledged delegates, giving her a total of 1,605 to 1,604.

For starters, the idea that she would win, say, Mississippi or North Carolina may be a stretch under any circumstance. The latest polls show Obama with a double-digit lead in North Carolina, while Mississippi has similar demographics to other Southern states that he has won in landslides. But even assuming she could win those two states, to understand just how steep a hill it would be for Clinton to get 62 percent in the remaining states, all you have to know is that she has gotten that much in only one state in all the voting so far -- her onetime adopted home of Arkansas. Even in New York, where she is the sitting senator, she won 57 percent. She won 55 percent in Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot.

Now, the Slate calculator is imperfect, of course, and the vagaries of caucuses and delegate rules and so forth mean this analysis is inexact. And this does not include Florida and Michigan, whose delegates were ruled ineligible by the Democratic National Committee because those states held primaries earlier than allowed under party rules -- delegates Clinton would like to seat since she won those states. But you get the point. And this is why the Obama camp remains confident that he will finish the primary season with a lead among pledged delegates no matter what happens today.

Of course, there are nearly 800 superdelegates, and the Clinton camp hopes victories today would give it enough momentum to keep those party elders from flocking to Obama at least until Pennsylvania. If Clinton could prove in the interim that Obama is a paper tiger and not up to the scrutiny a front-runner invariably attracts, her strategists think the superdelegates will decide they have to go with her for the sake of the party.

It's a big gamble, and few at Clinton's headquarters in Arlington are fooling themselves about the odds. But this year has shown that anything can happen and that politics are not so neat and predictable as we might think. Or at least not as neat and predictable as Slate's delegate counter.

Posted at 10:52 AM ET on Mar 4, 2008  | Category:  Morning Cheat Sheet
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Dean Warns Against Prolonged Primary | Next: In Hillaryland, Few Clues to the Candidate's Plans

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

It's Hillary RODHAM Clinton.

Posted by: hbuhr | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM

In her Ohio victory speech, Hillary just claimed she won Florida. If I remember correctly, she agreed it didn't count. Is that just another key vote she regrets?

God help us all if Hillary Bush Clinton gets elected. We won't get change, just a different mouth for the same crap we've put up with for 8 years.

Posted by: rjdudacek | March 4, 2008 11:25 PM

Yeah, Weak up! Weak up! Hillary!!

Posted by: yellodragon | March 4, 2008 10:31 PM

Obama is like the titanic. it's only a matter of time....

Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 7:45 PM

Obama is like the titanic. it's only a matter of time....

Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 7:45 PM

Anyone else:

Is it "racist" of me to use prior Presidents' middle names (or is that just as to African-American Presidents from here on out)?

William JEFFERSON Clinton
Ronald WILSON Reagan
James EARL Carter
Gerald RUDOLPH Ford, Jr.
Richard MILHOUS Nixon
Lyndon BAINES Johnson

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 7:00 PM

jhbyer, sorry you are mistaking me for your girlfriend. petty a*****e. i'll bet you're voting for obama. go back to school and get educated.

Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 6:41 PM

Wasn't that you in a cameo in "Fatal Attraction"? You were so cute!

Posted by: jhbyer | March 4, 2008 6:39 PM


Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 6:38 PM

I saw the funniest thing last night on CNN or MSNBC. They were polling a group of people on who and why they are for the particular candidates. One guy said he's voting for Obama. He furthered the conversation to say that he "doesn't need to know anything about foreign relations because he'll have a good cabinet." SHOCKING!!!!!! My future is put in the hands of someone who can't even make up his mind??? AND he's raising kids? SCARY. I DON'T THINK SO. Hillary just needs to make it happen.

Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 6:37 PM

LAPLUMELEFIRMAMENT, thank you for the link on the latest, lowest of the low-down dirty trick done by Hillary "Benedict Arnold" Clinton against a fellow Dem. We shall overcome.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 4, 2008 6:29 PM

Go JakeD!! Most non-Clinton supporters forget that she is winning in the biggest states where the biggest population in. That is not discounting any state because of it's size, it's just the way it is. If Barack Obama 'somehow' is the nomination, let it be known that I will vote republican regardless of how kooky McCain is. Aside from the Muslim, whether or not Kinko's color copier made him look lighter, etc., he is simply not getting my vote. I'd ratHer be tortured to death than to vote for him. So many people have been duped on the 'star' factor. They'll see the truth if he mistakenly gets the nomination. Somehow I don't think it will happen.


Posted by: missbunni | March 4, 2008 6:29 PM

marta_turner says: "Look at the horrible crap that this Obama website is saying about Mrs. Clinton. She should be made aware of this as soon as possible before the entire campaign falls off the cliff because of the rotten lies on this blog called"

Marta, why are you saying this is an Obama website? It is not. And, last I looked, since it is not true, it is you realize that?

Do not jump to conclusions - do your research before you post lies....

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 4, 2008 6:28 PM

tellthetruth and mangerson:

Do you think I am a "racist" / "bigot" for using Hillary DIANE Clinton or John SIDNEY McCain's middle names too?

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 6:15 PM


"My 'point' was to give the flip-side to this article."

Which could have easily been made with out placing "Hussein" in all caps. Regardless of what your point really was, all you accomplished was to reveal yourself as a bigot.

Posted by: mangerson | March 4, 2008 5:58 PM

Gees, I haven't seen as much paranoia that is oozing out of the Obamaniacs: "Steal the election, sexual abuse and control of Hillary, the people's revolutionary party, Vince Foster's Suicide/Murder cover-up" since the late Sixties and the crazed talk about "The CIA abductions, LSD Mind experiments on hippes and the Alien Space creature sightings over the Golden Gate Bridge"....

And to think Obama spawned all this...

Baby, After personally being part of some of the highest of the high points in modern progressive history and witnessing some of the lowest of the low points, All this old dog can say at this point to the Obama salamas is: Becareful for what you wish for because you just Might get it.

PEACE and take a good deep breath


Posted by: Birddog08 | March 4, 2008 5:43 PM

My middle name is MOORE, but I'm not running for President, am I? My "point" was to give the flip-side to this article.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 11:57 AM

You forgot to mention the -ON ending.

Posted by: barnardj1 | March 4, 2008 5:30 PM

More ignorant and moronic stuff from the high schoolers. You will be the reason that Obama loses in the end ... Have fun guys!!

Posted by: mo897 | March 4, 2008 5:26 PM

I hope Hillary stays in after tonight. It's just too bad Nader already has a running mate chosen. She would be a good choice. Maybe McCain will have her after is she is kicked out of the democratic party.

Posted by: barnardj1 | March 4, 2008 5:25 PM

I wish Obama was as "upstanding" as Hillary.

TRAVELGATE: (1993) In which Hillary purged competent civil servants under false charges to replace with loyalists, long before Bush got around to doing it in the Justice Dept.

CATTLE FUTURES: (1994) In which Hillary turned a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months, which Hillary claimed to do on her own "after reading the Wall Street Journal".

It turned out the "betting" was handled by counsel for Tyson Foods, who absorbed her losses and created her immense profits, and had nothing (cough*cough) to do with Clinton changing state laws regarding chicken trucks that Tyson requested.

REMOVAL OF VINCE FOSTER DOCUMENTS: Hillary claimed she had nothing to do with Foster's office being "scrubbed", until it was confirmed 3 months later she gave the order to Maggie Williams (now running her campaign!) to do it.

CASTLE GRANDE: (1995) Hillary claimed to know nothing about the scandal that sent Clinton associates to prison for fraud, and cost taxpayers millions. She later admitted doing 60 hours of legal work on the case, claiming she didn't recognize the bank by that name.

BILLING RECORDS: The billing records that could have sent Hillary to prison for falsifying documents and over-billing customers mysteriously vanished when subpoenaed, long before the Bush administration "lost" their e-mails.

All this prompted NYT columnist William Safire to write on January 8, 1996, that "our first lady ... is a congenital liar."

The next day Bill said he was so pissed at Safire for "insulting his wife", he wanted to "punch him in the nose".

Five days later Bill showed true respect for his wife when he began the first of his ten oral-sex lessons with Monica. He apparently preferred to pummel Monica in the face with his WMD rather than punch Safire's nose with his fist.

Yep, there's no way Obama is ever going to match Hillary in the "experience" department.

Posted by: filmex | March 4, 2008 4:53 PM


To be fair, those could be instances of honest miscommunication about the rules rather than nefarious, intentional voter fraud.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 4:48 PM

ABC should air the video clip of Bill Clinton from 2004 that is currently making the rounds:

Bill ~ "Now, one of Clintons' laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

If Bill is for Obama, I'd say it's all over.

Posted by: BushCrimeFamily | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM

If you remember, near the end of the movie, after suffering down in the darkness for years, the entire ship explodes around him. In the split second before the bang, we hear him groan "Oh, Thank God."

Posted by: steveboyington | March 4, 2008 12:03 PM
thanks a lot dude. i haven't seen this movie yet.

Posted by: johng1 | March 4, 2008 4:39 PM

From Taylor Marsh

MSNBC is covering this story right now.

I've been hearing this as well. But it seems the Obama campaign is trying to stack the deck in Texas, but also in Ohio. Marc Ambinder and Jeralyn have already written it up. Obama's campaign has been rebuked in Ohio, with Ambinder having the letter:

Ohio's Secretary of State, an office held by a Democrat, has rebuked Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for trying to staff precincts with poll workers who presented insufficient credentials.

As was just reported on MSNBC, Ohio has very strict rules on poll workers.

In Texas, the reports get worse. Obama's team are evidently copying caucus forms and having their supporters fill them out prior to the 7:15 p.m. deadline when the caucus is called to order. This means the voter wouldn't have to actually attend the caucus, but instead would simply have the Obama team hand in the caucus forms for the voter, which is clearly against the rules, which are very clear:

Participants may NOT begin signing in until the precinct convention has been called to order. The call to order may not occur until 7:15 p.m. OR whenever the last voter finishes voting at that polling location whichever is later. If, after the convention has been called to order and participants have signed in, any participant who wishes to leave may do so, and their sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate. Sign- In ends when the last person present waiting to sign in has done so.

This post brought to you by yet another example of Barack Obama's "change" agenda, on the way to a different kind of politics. Chicago style, baby.

Posted by: hgogo | March 4, 2008 4:22 PM

Strange, but when Hillary was ahead in the delegate count, no one was analyzing what Obama would have to do to win the 2025. It's clear that the Corporate (Republican) media and the left wing Kool-Aid drinkers have their mind made up on Obama. They're both superb candidates, but the media bias has really turned me off. If Hillary can weather constant storms from the Republicans, the Corporate media, and some in her own Party, she clearly has what it takes to be President. Obama has yet to show he can take a punch -- or even a tap for that matter. If the Republicans want Obama, you can be sure there's a reason. Think about it.

Posted by: dherzog2 | March 4, 2008 4:19 PM

the thought that so many people think pretty words will end the war and get us out of a recession is really so sad.

Obama has no record at all of doing anything major. He gave one great speech about not going to war and then voted for every budget to fund the war. Cindy Sheehan did more than Obama to end this war.

Last week Obama made the brilliant remark that if Al Queda were to be in Iraq he would have to go back to fight them. It took John McCain to remind him that Al Queda is in Iraq. Even if they are only there becasue of this stupid war they are there. So forget about Obama bringing out the troops. I feel so sorry for the anti-war activists who will be so depressed after Obama is in office and doesn't do what he said he would.

I think that by the time the Republicans get finished with him we will be lucky if he can eak out a victory and then will face a divided country which he doesn't know how to deal with except by making speeches. We will be in for a rough ride and so will he.

Posted by: peterdc | March 4, 2008 3:52 PM

LOL! That is Hillary-arious!

Great Orator, and Speaker Huh?

Shame most of the Nations we are having to deal with require Interpreters, and the Speeches are written by Staff! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 3:38 PM

Hey jakeMOOREd--

Your middle name is MOORE. That means that you are Mary Tyler MOORE! You are scared to talk to Mr. Grant about Ted Baxter.

Meanwhile, you need to recognize that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is the most eloquent spokesman that the US has produced in 40 years, and may be able to heal some awful wounds inflicted by Dick Cheney's shotgun and George WALKER Bush's KRAYZEE policies.

Posted by: elton1111 | March 4, 2008 3:30 PM

tellthetruth-You don't have a clue do you?

Barack and Obama are ALSO Muslim Names!

That, is NOT the Jibe!

Try to keep up-

bArAck Hussein
sAddAm Hussein

Savvy? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 3:19 PM

Neither of these candidates will emerge from the primary season with sufficient pledge elected delegates to secure the nomination. What criteria should the Party Super delegates use to cast their vote?

The Obama people are trying to define their most likely best case scenerio as the only scenerio, that is the candidate with "the most states won, greatest popular vote and most pledged delegates"

The Clinton people have as compelling a case in that the candidate that has shown the greatest pulling power in the big must win traditionally Democratic states should have the nomination.

Clinton has a case and there is a fallacy in the Obama approach, particularly with regard to the "States Won" criteria.

By this standard Alaska, an Obama win, equals California, a Clinton win; Alabama, an Obama win, equals Arkansas, a Clinton win.

There is a difference in electoral votes, population, and likelihood that the State will go Democratic in the Fall election.

On the "most Popular vote" criteria. Florida and Michigan are not being counted due to Democratic Party rules in the Primary Season but they will count and could be determinative in the Fall Campaign. Obama has truly alienated many in Florida particularly by working to insure that its delegation is not counted at the Convention. This is old politics for Obama who used the same idea of strict application of party rules when that works in his favor and a loosening of the rules when they do not.

The Super delegate rules of the party say that the Super delegates are independent, not bound by the pledged delegate outcome and are free to select the candidate that will best represent the party and has the best chance to win in the Fall. This rule was put in to protect the Party against the fact that usually Party activists take part in the Primary selection process and if they go overboard, they may nominate a candidate who is wanting in General Election appeal.

This year, Obama, if he is the popular choice is no Dukakis, but still the rule says that the Super Delegates are not bound to follow the popular vote. Yet, Obama surrogates are putting out the word that if they do not follow the popular vote there will be riots in the streets (Doug Wilder of Virginia); or that the Obama supporters will not support the Democratic ticket (Michelle Obama).

On the "most pledged delegate" criteria. This is a legitimate argument and if Obama has the most pledged delegates at the end of the process, then this is his strongest case to carry the Democratic banner into the Fall election.

My point is that this is not the sole or only criteria, just a very good one among other factors to consider.

And the Bum's Rush that the media are trying to give to Hillary to get out if she cannot pass Obama in pledged delegates by Puerto Rico belies a certain unease in the Obama camp if the campaign is extended. There is a fear that the negative side of the Obama past record will get aired and this might hurt him in the Fall election, so Hillary should get out before she starts airing all of this negative information on Obama.

For that very reason, Hillary should stay in it. If Obama cannot survive Hillary, then he surely will not survive in the Fall campaign as the Republicans will have no hesitation to put out not just the verifiable stuff, like the Nafta discussion between the Obama economic advisor and the Canadian consul, but stuff made up from whole cloth.

It is Obama's fear of being exposed by a protracted primary season that should give all Democrats pause before annointing him with the nomination. He still has things to hide, but as well all know, in high stakes Presidential politics, nothing that is hidden will stay that way.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 4, 2008 3:17 PM

ericp331-Not so fast!

Yes, Mitt Romney did a smart thing. But, it was because of how the cards were playing. The Moderates(AKA RINOs) Giuliani and McCain, stopped competing, while al-Huckleberry began playing the Religion Card, trying to Demonize Mitt Romney, while we have a Senate Majority Leader who is also a Mormon, that NOBODY Cares about!

Al-Huckster has committed Political Suicide! He is going to chastised and declared Anathema! The American Version of al-Sadr! :-(

Then, when the smoke clears, and al-Huckster and Dr. NO are officially History, an intelligent Military Expert, would be very, VERY Smart in having a Younger, very Conservative, Brilliant, Business Expert with a Legal Background, as his Vice President!

McRomney-and some others like Giuliani, Tancredo, Thompson, and possibly Dr. Ron Paul in Cabinet Posts, could break out a can of Whup(Democrat Mascot) on the poor collection of Lawyers called Dimocrat Socialists! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 3:14 PM

Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink and all the mud in her backyard at Obama, and unfortunately with the US, some of these lies and smears seem to stick. The Clinton dynasty may win the nomination yet with the very negative tear-down politics taken straight out of the Swiftboat Republican team. We can look forward to a general campaign when Hillary will have to explain all the corruption hidden in her and Bill's tax returns, and there will be zillions of shows and ads featuring women who have been assaulted by the first Clinton. This is what Obama refuses to publicize, as he is only talking about issues and playing defense against negative lies but not attacking the Clintons' many many flaws. The Democratic party and the nation will face a decade and more of divisive ruinous politics and the country will spiral faster down to its decline.

Posted by: shirleylim | March 4, 2008 3:10 PM

My middle name is MOORE, but I'm not running for President, am I? My "point" was to give the flip-side to this article.
Posted by: JakeD

I think everybody sees through your racism, Jake, regardless of what rationale you use.

There is no point in using Obama's middle name unless you're trying to frighten people who view Muslims (which he isn't, for the zillionth time) negatively.

Grow up.

Posted by: tellthetruth | March 4, 2008 3:08 PM

Can someone explain this one:

Archives to release Clinton schedules

Then, it says, tucked away in there:

"judge to delay the release of thousands of her (Hillary's when she was first-lady) telephone logs for one to two years."

Posted by: davidmwe | March 4, 2008 2:59 PM


You hit the nail on the head about Romney.

But the GOP nomination process is different than the Democratic race, as the GOP has many winner-take-all states and no superdelegates (or at least nowhere near 20 percent of the total delegates). That, and the GOP has a long history of going with the candidate who finished 2nd the last time they didn't have an incumbent president or VP running -- Dole and Reagan, for example.

So, part of the reason that Huckabee is still in the race is to try to overtake Romney for 2012.

But, yeah, what Hillary is doing might end up dooming the Democrats in 2008 (and beyond, if the new voters get disillusioned), because the math isn't with her.

Leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in what should be a landslide year for them.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 4, 2008 2:47 PM

I'm curious if anyone has done an analysis of how the superdelegates would break if they vote with their own district or state. Assuming Clinton does win in TX, OH, and PA, if all the super delegates from these states, as well as CA and NY were to support her based on the popular vote in their respective states/districts/etc (see story today about Dayton's Mayor), how would the map look? Could the Post, or any of its many astute and math-literate readers conduct such an analysis?

Posted by: noahkohn | March 4, 2008 2:45 PM

The disengenuous nonsense of the Obama people continues to astound the reader. These posters say that Clinton is somehow damaging the party if she stays in and counts on the "superdelegates" and/or Florida and Michigan. In other words, they state righteously that Obama must be given every conceivable advantage out there, and if he is, he is ahead and should just be handed the nomination which he has not been able to earn on the numbers and won't be able to.

Obama's advantage came from winning an anti-majoritarian vote from caucus states which did not represent the views of the larger electorates in the caucus states when they were held, not even close. He also won the low-hanging fruit in Red states where the views of the marginalized Democratic voters who voted for him are completely irrelevant because there is no chance of those states going Blue for the general election. Barring a win today of the majority vote in Texas (NOT including the caucus), Obama will NOT have won a SINGLE large state needed by the Democrats in November except his home state. This is NOT a viable candidacy that is being shoved down our throats by the media and by Obama's bullying followers.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Whew, a lot of people here are spending way, way too much time on partisan blogs.

Really, take a deep breath, everyone. Go get back to work, or hug your children. Take a walk. Unclench.

Posted by: nodebris | March 4, 2008 2:29 PM

A Must Read For Hillary.

Look at the horrible crap that this Obama website is saying about Mrs. Clinton. She should be made aware of this as soon as possible before the entire campaign falls off the cliff because of the rotten lies on this blog called It starts with:

We endorse Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.
This is the most important election America will ever have, possibly the last if Obama is not elected.

The Revolutionary Party derives its politics from the equation for evolution we have imprinted on the flag. This function, which underpins our thinking, has been accepted by science for the last eighty years and we trust in it as well as true religious believers trust in God. Mathematics doesn't lie. An analysis based on the equation indicates that the so-called war on terror will inexorably ratchet up to world war, a genuinely terrifying thought given a world heavily armed with nuclear weapons. For that reason we support Barack Obama as the only real anti-war candidate.

Hillary? In our opinion, she is the more all round competent candidate and has been upended by Obama to a great degree because he is trim and youthfully enthusiastic. But before Hillary came Bill, which should cause us to stop and think.

The value of our mathematics based analysis lies in its ability to objectively distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. The technical aspects of the analysis make it slow reading for those without a science background, so we will give its conclusions first here and save the detailed reasoning for later.

Put simply, the Clintons are what is known in the political science textbooks as populists, those who achieve political success by playing to the people, to their needs and pains and wants. But there is a difference between patter and delivery. We are all familiar with artificial soda. The Clintons are like an artificial banana split, very likable, but with no real food value.

Recall President Clinton and his first lady. During their tenure America's favorite political couple sang a song of health care delivery, but delivered rather on prison construction and on the number of police put on the streets. The Pew Report that came out the end of February said that one American in a hundred is locked up in a prison or jail. To put this into better perspective, the report said that America has 7 million people in jail or otherwise under the control of the penal system. This is 16 times more per capita than the communist People's Republic of China, where, we are told, there is no freedom or human rights. Clinton legislature took America to the highest prison population in the world, a statistic historically associated with police states like Stalinist Russia and apartheid South Africa. This is not to say that America is a police state, of course, for if it were you'd have heard about it on the evening news.

Also notably absent in the media is another creation of the Clintons, the near million homeless people that wander the streets of Sacramento and Las Vegas and our other big cities. This sharp upsurge in homelessness came about inarguably as a result of Clinton legislature that ended LBJ's war on poverty by terminating effective social protections for out of work people, something many more will become more familiar with as the stock market collapses from the cost of the war and the recession takes hold in full force.

What the Clintons did with prisons and police and welfare protection and NAFTA and failed to do with health care very much pleased the moneyed class and the conservatives. Our technical analysis objectively shows the Republican social and fiscal conservatives to be bad guys because their relationship to the working class and middle class is basically that of master to servant. This fact is also muted by populist politicians like the Clintons whose tax returns, were they to be made public, would show that they are members in good standing of the moneyed class too.

This deep secret of class control and abuse is also kept under wraps by the media, whose personalities are hired and controlled by the moneyed class. Other than the few raisins stirred into in the poison muffin of TV to make it seem fair, media people who don't keep the secret of class control and the unhappiness of most of us that derives from it don't last long on their jobs or are not hired to begin with.

The ones who do make the cut endlessly spout the lies of the so-called American Dream in one form or another. The power of the media to control people's thoughts and actions in conformity with American ideology is difficult to assess for people who get their information primarily from the media, which is most people. This power of media to control thinking was dramatically illustrated towards the end of WWII in Germany just before the fall of Berlin as the Allied and Russian troops converged on the city. Most Germans even in those final moments still believed Hitler's media propaganda that they were still winning the war.

In our own times, hidden by the media from public sight are facts about life readily observable even by doing something as simple as riding public transportation. Here the observer notes that the common people are unhappy, fear and personal failure showing clearly on their faces and in their behaviors. This effect of control and abuse in the workplace and at school is not made clear from TV where all the media personalities act through their endlessly smiling and bubbly days to show to the audience that America really is a happy place, the steady stream of mass murders in schools, workplaces and malls not able to be kept out of the news notwithstanding.

And much as the ugly facts of our present existence are air brushed out in the media, so also is the future we realistically face. Not made clear is that the dollar is fast becoming as worthless as the paper it is printed on to keep the war going. Or that the stock market and the housing market will soon halve their value giving those who have been spared homelessness and jail to date a taste of these hells on earth firsthand. The Clintons will not care because they are a part of the apparatus that brought us to where we are at in America today.

Hillary should be given credit for being an ambitious and a profoundly adept social climber and a very talented actress, our American Evita. We have no problem applauding her for her personal successes. But she is never going to go against the wishes of the money class that created her and Bill and supported these two as their adorable political puppets. She will not stop this war.

Yes, she says she will, despite her voting for the war. And, of course, there are those of you that think that Hillary would never lie to us. But Bill said he would never lie to us, too. And he said it so well that I yet don't believe he lied to us about Monica. Monica who? She never existed. That is how good an actor Bill is. And this suggests that his mate is no less of a self-serving liar.

Of course, transgressions are relative. Yes, the flag pin wearing conservatives are more disgusting than the Clintons. Who of us is not totally revulsed by the smell of a public rest room emanating from the Bible squeezing, boy hustling conservative senator from Idaho caught with his pants down? Nobody has caught Bill at something that viscerally gross yet. Still, what character is there in a first family when the head of the most powerful nation on earth sticks a penile object, not even his own, up some college kid's vagina? If the Clinton presidency were a movie, they would not be playing the Star Spangled Banner in the background during that particular scene.

And to be completely and totally unkind - and very logical -- doesn't it make you wonder about the guy's wife? Really, does any intelligent female over the age of 22 think that Hillary actually felt bad about Bill and Monica? Judging from the observable obvious that Bill is no more than Hillary's showboat, the best educated guess is that is Hillary is lesbian, a married one, not that unusual in modern America. If Hillary was mad about anything with Monica, it was that she didn't get a shot at her too. Watch one of Hillary's girlfriends surfacing soon to clarify Hillary's preference as to penile object.

The smiling Clintons are so phony and so odd in this area that one would not be surprised to find that the unconfident Chelsea Clinton developed as such as a result of some form of child abuse. Chelsea does not look happy. Neglect by the Clintons is hardly to be overlooked as this ambitious pair had better things to pay attention to in their furious political rise to the top than their daughter. And sexual abuse is not to be totally ruled out either given Bill's sexual tastes.

The best bet to end the war and end our American style police state is to vote for Barack Obama. Not for Hillary, who is sufficiently self-serving and devious that one would not be surprised to see her team up with Huckabee on a national reconciliation ticket to satisfy her political ambition. Hopefully Obama will not be removed by the ruling class by assassination or some such stratagem. But if so, and we dearly hope not, the Revolutionary Party is ready to offer a sensible replacement candidate. If enough people get in touch to say they are interested, I did run for President in 2000 as a write-in candidate and would consider it again. But only in the event that Obama is derailed by the conservatives, which we very much fear because these people would do anything to retain power....

Please quick tell somebody on Hillary's campaign staff what is going on with these trashy Obama sites.
Martha Turner

Posted by: marta_turner | March 4, 2008 2:28 PM

"I do not see the same enthusiasm from women about having a real chance to change the world."

Don't despair. I think maybe some woman are just waiting for a more viable representative, just as blacks have had to wait through the campaigns of Jesse Jackson, et al. It has been a long wait for them, too!

I think a lot of people would like to see the first woman president be someone who has achieved her success indisputably on her own, with none of the crippling questions (right or wrong) about whether she is merely riding on a successful husband's coattails. A truly inspiring figure who appeals broadly, and not just a highly capable one with a devoted group of loyalists.

When that woman arrives, there will be no stopping the female vote, just as now there is no stopping Obama's support among African Americans. She will win in a landslide. And that day will certainly come. Have faith!

Posted by: nodebris | March 4, 2008 2:24 PM

jacksmith1 - you are SO RIGHT. love you post. i adore intelligent people!

Another Post article says Hillary moves the goal post. This is such total bunk.

It isn't Hillary who has moved the goalpost - IT IS HER SUPPORTERS WHO HAVE. She is our candidate. She is our voice!
That 50% of Democratic voters are not going to be denied their voice. And Democrats will not be rushed through this interview process by Mr. Smoothie no answers. He dismisses criticism and questions. He is Mr. Smug and there is a lot more interviewing to be done, a lot more votes to be counted - INCLUDING FLORIDA. I think he is having a little bit of premature excitement here... Happens when your ego is too large.

The interview and media have been controlled by Mr. Obamas smoothie tactics and his "marketing" team - his "creators". But this interview is an interview By, Of and For the People. He's not running this show. That's for his circus float routine.

He arrived without a resume and he has closets full of dirty laundry. He'd love to rush us to conclusion here - but the mature voices of Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island are going to take us on to Pennsylvania.

He thinks he's running for American Idol. Someone needs to correct him. This is OUR interview. Not his.

So far this is everything I have seen of his resume - and it is not Presidential:

Posted by: Thinker | March 4, 2008 2:21 PM

I say keep running HRC til teh cold bitter end, keep going until they drag you off the stage kicking and screaming. Make a real show of it, shout, scream, throw a profanity laced tirade, blame the media, the milkman, and everyone you can think of. And then for good measure, pull some files from beneath your coat that shows obamas yard with no dog in it, and shout see, I told you - he does not have a dog, how can he be president!

Posted by: J_thinks | March 4, 2008 2:18 PM


If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards


Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 4, 2008 2:04 PM

If you look at the percentage of votes above the tracking polls that Obama has actually received in the most recent six or so primaries, and the percentage below the tracking polls that Clinton has received in actual votes, it runs about a net of 10% above polling in favor of Obama. Let's assume that Clinton's "kitchen sink" thrown Obama's way has had some effect on that "overperformance" and has cut it in half, to five percent. With five percent added to Obama's poll averages, he decisively takes Texas, likely takes Ohio, may take Rhode Island, and blows her out in Vermont. My wife says I have been wrong in the past, so don't bet the farm on it, but a sweep by Obama is statistically more likely than some kind of half-victory for Clinton.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 4, 2008 1:57 PM


I don't care if Obama distorted the facts about NAFTA, or if he received a sweetheart deal on a home from Tony Rezko. We must win at all costs. Obama has inpired the country to awaken and feel pride as an America again. Sometimes a feeling is more important than truth.

Yikes! That's the exact kind of thought process (or lack thereof) that put Hitler in power. Not to say that any of the candidates are Hitler-like, but some of their supporters are scary in their blind faith.

Posted by: goVegetarian | March 4, 2008 1:54 PM

navjas72 -

Another retard that thinks Obama is just like him.
Obama went to a real college and is a lawyer he doesn't give a crap about you.

Clinton Graduated Yale and dedicated her work to children's development.

Hillary Clinton married Bill to get her foot in to make change you retard.
She could not divorce him it would have pulled away the minority of men that she does have.(The ones who don't beat there wives.)

Posted by: linuxnutz | March 4, 2008 1:53 PM

So now that we're talking the Flip Side:

Will Obama have the grace to leave the campaign if HE Looses Texas and Ohio?

My guess is NOT A CHANCE! For the simple reason that he really Has begun to belive his own press, he thinks he IS the Messiah...

so many times we've been treated to double standards by Obama INC beginning with the Bru ha ha over Clinton's 'Black Candidate' remark's after South Carolina. Remember it was Obama who mentioned himself as The Black Candidate the day before MLK Day when he Said Bill Clinton was "NOT the First Black President" but that he, Obama "Was the Black Candidate" in this race...

So I hope no one is waiting with baited breath to see if Obama will pull-up stakes if HE looses this Super Tuesday because its always been "Do as I say not as I do" with this guy. The double standard doesn't even faze his crew,it does'nt even blip-up on their radar.....


Posted by: Birddog08 | March 4, 2008 1:52 PM

I would not like to have a President that's so decieving as Hillary herself. She is so robotic in her speeches she has nothing to add to change. Experience? Whose? Hers or her husband's. Let's not for get she has overlooked and forgiven her husband in an act that done in the White House. Now how can we elect someone who does undestand the value of moral in the American people as a nation in dignity. Dignity on what her husband has done you have to run and hide for that. You don't run for Presidency. We are an idiot of country to think this is something dignified. Barack stands for the Unity of the Nation that can open and change things in the White House. No more status quo like Senator John Edwards has stated. Time for change, Hillary your time is up, Signed change

Posted by: navjas72 | March 4, 2008 1:47 PM


I don't care if Obama distorted the facts about NAFTA, or if he received a sweetheart deal on a home from Tony Rezko. We must win at all costs. Obama has inpired the country to awaken and feel pride as an America again. Sometimes a feeling is more important than truth.

Hey did god speak to you - Cause you sound like president bush - or at least one of his clan

Sometimes a feeling is more important than truth.

Yes you are retarded.

Posted by: linuxnutz | March 4, 2008 1:47 PM

cdwarika -- Your knowledge then must lack power.

First, Yes its an arab name but lets get straight Arab = 85% Muslim -- So yes even though its an Arab name it is associated with mostly Islamic countries.


So stop being 'petty' and be respectable to another human being name regardless if you like them or not.


Posted by: linuxnutz | March 4, 2008 1:42 PM

DRUNK DRIVING. On a "side note" if the Clinton Campaign wants to throw out so many questions about Obama's Camp, why don't they "question" why they're Adviser Mr. Sidney likes to endanger the lives of ALL AMERICANS BY DRIVING DRUNK (oh actually, it an AGGRAVATED DUI BECAUSE HE WAS SPEEDING TOO. He should be TAKEN OFF their Campaign. RIDICULOUS.

Posted by: themist | March 4, 2008 1:41 PM

Of course the real tragedy is that George Bush, the greatest president in the history of the republic, cannot run for a third term. I guess McCain will have to suffice.

Posted by: anita_weber_mi | March 4, 2008 1:41 PM

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright

Posted by: tdloendo | March 4, 2008 1:37 PM

I don't care if Obama distorted the facts about NAFTA, or if he received a sweetheart deal on a home from Tony Rezko. We must win at all costs. Obama has inpired the country to awaken and feel pride as an America again. Sometimes a feeling is more important than truth.

Posted by: Gwen | March 4, 2008 1:35 PM

The Elites no longer have control over US.. I have Invoked the Right to dissolve the US government.
Read it and Weep.. I dissolved the US government Last night. Time to wakeup and change.

Posted by: Mistafied187 | March 4, 2008 1:24 PM

The democratic nominee is going to win the presidency this round. There has been a large migration of republicans moving to the democratic side. This is all because of the Bush who has weakened the Republican Party. Obama (Your MAMA) will win here and then move on. The sad thing about this is I see African Americans so excited to see a half black man have a chance for the presidency and I do not see the same enthusiasm from women about having a real chance to change the world. Women cannot unite and unfortunately they had a great chance whether they are black, white or Latino they had a chance to show men what a women could do in power.

Posted by: linuxnutz | March 4, 2008 1:23 PM

NO.. the nomination process is a great test.. think about it.. the GOP, with rove and the nasty boys lurking in the shadows, are going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama or Clinton.. Having the two Dem candidates duke it out will make them battle tested and ready to defeat McCain with a large margin in the popular vote and large (but probably smaller) margin in the electoral college results.

Posted by: tdloendo | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM

Look They MAKE Hillary Clinton look lighter then she really is.


Posted by: linuxnutz | March 4, 2008 1:09 PM

What is really upsetting and what is so disappointing to me is that regardless of the outcome of the Democratic race, I don't think neither Clinton nor Obama can win in November.
What should have been a no brainier for the democrats, they once again have failed to look at the whole picture. The democrats have been so caught up at the idea of a women president or a black president they forgot that they have to run against a white male republican, and unless things have changed dramatically in the states that matter (Florida, Texas, Ohio ) the chances of either Democrats winning in November is slim to none.

Regardless of who is dominated by the Democrats I will vote the party line and hope for a miracle, because we will need one!

Posted by: dcklimek | March 4, 2008 1:04 PM

richardson = the past..

Posted by: tdloendo | March 4, 2008 1:02 PM

This election is about the future or the past. The Future always wins.

Obama/Richardson '08

Posted by: thebobbob | March 4, 2008 1:00 PM

If you people would get your head out of your a..... then you know that Obama is a flash that produces hot air..all words no substance..Here's something to think about...OBAMA is the Democratic candidate?..Guaranteed!..McCain is the next president of the United's all about race and 'dotish' white people who can't think for themselves..a black man president of the UNITED STATES..THAT AND GOD'S FACE YOU WILL NEVER chew on that..

Posted by: kcg612 | March 4, 2008 12:59 PM

Oh, LOL! :-o

I was saying the whole process is fouled from day 1.

Only, back then I was assuming that the Republicans would be the Victims-and, as far as I am concerned we are, BUT, there is still some Hope!

Now, however, our fate is sealed. This allows Republicans to return the "Independents" Favor.

Dimocrat Socialists, YOU are going to get who WE decide you get! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 12:57 PM

It'll be a sad day in America when an empty slate with all kinds of hidden agendas (mostly far far left) becomes the Democrat candidate. At least with Hillary we more or less know what we're getting.
With Obama all we can do is guess. He's one big Question Mark. And everyone is projecting on him their biggest fantasies from being the next Martin Luther King (Jakob Dylan's YouTube) to Farrakhan's "Hope for the entire world".

Meanwhile his puppeteer, David Axelrod, plagiarizes himself and hands Obama the same exact blueprint and lines he gave the failed governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick... "We Want Change!!!...We Can Do It!!!..Yes We Can!!!!"

If you really want top see what kind of "change" & what they can "do", just ask the people of Massachusetts about Patrick "DeVille".

Posted by: typhoon99 | March 4, 2008 12:56 PM

"My "point" was to give the flip-side to this article."

No, your "point" was to use his name to send shivers down people's spines as they search for some connection between Barack HUSSEIN Obama and terrorism. How long do you think that kind of tactic is going to work? People are tired of living under the blanket of fear bush has kept this country cowering behind during his stay in office, and ads like Hillary's "phone call" no longer carry quite the same weight as W. did when he was calling anti-war activists "unpatriotic".

Barack HUSSEIN Obama earned my respect with his campaign, Hillary Clinton lost it with hers.

Posted by: tenthmile | March 4, 2008 12:54 PM

I need to be honest about something here.. Caucus states really muddy the picture! If we want to be completely democratic about the process.. then analyzing primary states is a better way measure who the nation wants.. after all.. Caucuses are open to a lot of back room "wheeling and dealing".. as well as strong-armed lobbying tactics.. Primaries.. on the other hand.. are more democratic by nature, they resemble the general election and are a better test of the candidates overall popularity/electability..

Currently, Obama leads pledged delegates in Primary States 915 to 897. Of course,.. this does not take into account Michigan and Florida, who have, in a most undemocratic fashion, been cast aside. If you divide up those delegates based on a percentage of vote won, then Clinton would be ahead in the pledged delegates in the more "democratically" decided Primary States.. this is neither here nor there because Michigan and Florida are out (at least for now).. but does raise an interesting issue..

If she wins in Texas and Ohio tonight.. she will likely take the lead in pledged delegates in the more "democratically" decided Primary States.. albeit by a small margin..

At the end of the day, as Democrats, we are lucky to have two very electable candidates.. each with strengths and weaknesses. I think the big difference here is that the Clinton backers realize this point while the Obama supporters are more inclined to think that a Clinton candidacy would "doom" the party..


Posted by: tdloendo | March 4, 2008 12:51 PM

JakeD - Knowledge is power. Do not let fear or lack of knowledge of the unknown cripple your thinking.

Hussein is an Arabic (not Muslim, there is a difference) name meaning good/handsome.
The name Barack has its origin in the Hebrew language - meaning - 'blessed', the same language that gave us Yeshua or Jesus (in English)

So stop being 'petty' and be respectable to another human being name regardless if you like them or not.

Posted by: cdwarika | March 4, 2008 12:46 PM

Steveboyington-Why do I get the feeling you are familiar with old Ships?

Like Mothballed Fleets? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 12:45 PM

Peter Baker: instead of spending your time playing spreadsheet games, let me suggest you try to think up questions for the candidates and then go out and ask them.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 4, 2008 12:43 PM

And when the smoke clears from the Battlefield, and Billary and Obsama are forced to merge into O'Billary by demand of Howling Dean in a Brokered Deal, by the Broken Dim Party, A familiar Face appears on the horizon.

As St. Ralph approaches, he is laughing...

(To be continued)

Larsenist-That Joke is on YOU!

So you were with JakeMOORED's Honey Huh? :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 12:43 PM

I tried the calculator with a variety of realistic numbers and I concluded that neither candidate will go over the number required for nomination. No surprise. I also did not see Senator Clinton closing the delegate gap significantly. Thus as this progresses Senator Obama is likely to have the most delegates and the most popular votes going into the convention. I do not believe either candidate will bow out. Senator Obama will not because he will be ahead. Senator Clinton will not because I believe she is obsessed about becoming the first female president.

Posted by: swordchief | March 4, 2008 12:39 PM


I whispered HUSSEIN in your wife's ear last night.

Tell her I will be late for dinner.

Posted by: larsenist | March 4, 2008 12:34 PM

The Eyes of the Nation are on Texas...the smart folks there know Hillary as the first woman President is the most qualified and will bring solutions to the real problems people have not just slogans and speeches.. haven't we had enough of Mission accomplished candidates whose record and actions don't add up? Texans love strong women.. Go Hillary don't let the media determine this election.. the people of American will and vote for you.. a World leader who gets results!

Posted by: vg1123 | March 4, 2008 12:27 PM



Posted by: laplumelefirmament | March 4, 2008 12:25 PM

Is this for real?

Why is this not headlined in the mainstream press?

Posted by: fairfieldhalls | March 4, 2008 12:18 PM

I hope the Clintons do stick with it through June. It will mark a public self immolation of their political legacy. That they are willing to try to destroy a party for the selfish reason of trying to get back in the White House. If Sen. Clinton continues on her current path, then there will be no graceful exit to possible Senate Majority leader, respected party elder or run for President in 2012 if Obama falters.

Any loss in November will be blamed on the Clintons and they will be scorned and without any political juice in the tank.

Milt Romney did the right thing. He looked at the math, so the possibilities and exited with grace. Now he will live to fight another day politically if McCain falters.

Posted by: jham1 | March 4, 2008 12:15 PM

Funny, when I try to imagine what JakeD looks like, I think of the old guy down in the bilge of the Exxon Valdez in "Waterworld".

If you remember, near the end of the movie, after suffering down in the darkness for years, the entire ship explodes around him. In the split second before the bang, we hear him groan "Oh, Thank God."

Posted by: steveboyington | March 4, 2008 12:03 PM

Moore huh? A stupid middle name for an even stupider person.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 4, 2008 12:00 PM

It is not a question anymore who will get the crucial 2025 delegates. To accomplish this is, I agree with what is said above, unlikely. The question now is about the political judgement of placing one's own ambitions below the party's and ultimately your country's good. If you have to go so negative that you have to resort to Bush-like fearmongering(3 a.m.) the effort shows. There is a real danger now, that Hillary Clinton will damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning the Presidency beyond repair. If she has any crdibility and political judgement left, she should go and leave the race on the positive note of a win in one or two of today's races.

Posted by: old_europe | March 4, 2008 12:00 PM

As I've said, he will NOT be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 11:29 AM

Your lips to Satan's butt, right?

Posted by: LABC | March 4, 2008 11:59 AM

Hillary needs Texas, it is that simple- but as of now, she is apparently losing it;

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:

If somehow her recent spin campaigns have paid off and she gets the long horn state, then she will have fresh wind in her sails...

Posted by: davidmwe | March 4, 2008 11:59 AM

My middle name is MOORE, but I'm not running for President, am I? My "point" was to give the flip-side to this article.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 11:57 AM



Posted by: laplumelefirmament | March 4, 2008 11:57 AM

Interestingly, Obama could very well gain delegates tonight, even if he loses three of four:

Posted by: MAB4 | March 4, 2008 11:57 AM



Posted by: laplumelefirmament | March 4, 2008 11:55 AM

Jake D, what's your middle name? Can we start flaunting that on the posts?

How 'bout Jake IRRATIONAL D? Will that do?

Since Super Tuesday, pretty much everyone has known that neither candidate would reach the magic number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. It has always come down to the superdelegates in the end.

Obama has consistently racked up more delegates and popular votes across the country, giving him the momentum. Hillary needs to make a compelling case to the superdelegates in order to get the nod.

Hillary must win the major states that are left to even have a chance, and she (and Bill, based on his comments) know it. She will not win in a landslide and will not change the pledged delegate count significantly.

Her case to the superdelegates has got to be compelling in order for them to award her the nomination after she has failed to be the winner in pledged delegates. She can't say it should be her because she won "the states that count" or that Obama is untested. She has to in some way counter-act the momentum and voice of millions of primary voters across the nation, and I can't honestly see how she will accomplish that at this point---barring huge wins (impossible) or a nasty Obama scandal (unthinkable).

Posted by: hillmannic | March 4, 2008 11:50 AM

Whereas Hillary RODHAM Clinton can't get 2025 delegates without super-delegates, even if she wins 100% in all the States. What's your point, JakeD?

Posted by: Blarg | March 4, 2008 11:49 AM

On the flip side, ignoring Florida, Michigan and the super delegates, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has to win 85% in all the States to secure the 2,025 needed for the nomination. As I've said, he will NOT be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 11:29 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company