The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


The Pollster

Clinton's Three Questions

By Jon Cohen
As Hillary Rodham Clinton ponders her options, there are three questions she is asking superdelegates to consider.

1. Which candidate best represents the will of the people who voted?

Clinton relates this to the "popular vote," and for good reason. The phrase has special resonance with Democrats, particularly since 2000. Also, in an April Post-ABC poll, nearly half of Democrats nationally, 46 percent, said undecided superdelegates should make their candidate choice based on who has won the most overall votes; only 13 said they should focus on who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses. Thirty-seven percent said the superdelegates should pick the candidate they find "best."

Of course, it is altogether unclear whether more voters cast ballots for Clinton or Obama. The math is complicated not only by whether to count Michigan (where Obama pulled his name from the ballot), but also because several caucus states do not release vote totals. By some scenarios, Clinton is ahead, while Obama leads in others. The bottom line is that the two candidates are exceedingly close with only two contests remaining.

The current preferences of Democrats across the country is less of a toss-up. It has been nearly a month since Clinton has had an advantage over Obama among Democrats in any national poll. In the most recent Post-ABC, 53 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they wanted Obama to be the party's nominee, 41 percent preferred Clinton. And in California, where Clinton won on Super Tuesday by 10 percentage points, a new Field poll shows a majority of California Democrats favoring Obama.

2. Which candidate is the best able to lead Democrats to victory in November?

In the May Post-ABC national poll, Democrats gave Obama a better than 2 to 1 advantage over Clinton as the more electable candidate.

3. Who is best able to lead the nation as president?

This question is answered in part by their current standings in the national Clinton vs. Obama polls, but even on the question of who is the stronger leader, Obama has overcome what was once a core Clinton advantage. In the most recent Post-ABC poll, 49 percent of Democrats called Obama the stronger leader; 42 percent said so of Clinton. Before Super Tuesday, Clinton had a wide, 24-point margin on this question.

Posted at 10:19 AM ET on Jun 2, 2008  | Category:  The Pollster
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Clinton's Parting Shot From Puerto Rico | Next: McCain Calls Iran 'Foremost' Middle East Enemy

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.


Posted by: LA | June 3, 2008 7:47 PM

dpdaw wrote, "I would be interested to hear from Obama people how they would have handled the Michigan primary issue if it were they who had to decide it.I think it should have been Hillary delegates and an "uncommitted" slate based on the vote as tabulated on primary day."

I thought Michigan was a can of worms and should not be considered a legitimate election. Nearly everyone who spoke at the DNC meeting referred to it as a "flawed" election. Besides the fact that no one could campaign, and everyone was told the votes would not be counted, Obama was not on the ticket.

They should have given a 50/50 split between Clinton and Obama-- and called it a day. That would have been the most honest resolution.

Posted by: chavez | June 3, 2008 5:33 PM

It is sad that such a pivotal moment in America's history, that of having the first African American Presidential nominee is being overshadowed by one woman's self obsorbed, pathological need to prove herself as somehow wronged and betrayed by a Party she feels is obligated to her.

For all of my proclaimed "feministic" friends, let me remind you that one of the hallmarks of your movement is to prove your worth and relevance as equals in a long standing patriarchal Society that once perceived you as second class citizens. This however does not justify your wailing and crying of foul each time you deem someone using your own "sex" against you.

Hillary has played the "damsel in distress" political card well, so well in fact that she has managed to pander to the gullible sensitivities of the "sisterhood" over objective critical analysis and sound decisive reasoning...characteristics or the lack thereof that were actually used as a basis to keep women back in this world.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has fought a good fight and as such in my book deserves praise and commendation. She will indeed become the catalyst for a change in a world badly in need of repair as it relates to World wide women's/ Human Rights issues and causes. She has proven herself to be tough, resilient and a real force to be reckoned with... Nuff said, lets move on.

For all those who are threatening to vote for McCain as a means of venting their feelings of disapproval, i say, go ahead, Mr. McCain deserves YOUR vote...for all the rest who are serious about real change and fostering a hope that can germinate into a reality for a better and more prosperous America for generations to come, i think the choice is clear.

Posted by: Emelio | June 3, 2008 11:56 AM

I am a racist Republican and if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for McCain (like I was going to do anyway).

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 4:01 AM

I am a feminist, and there is no way I will support Obama. I would rather see the feminist movement die than see Obama become president. I was really hurt that Clinton did not get the nomination. Now McCain gets my vote. The feminist movement can go into exile for the next 8 years for all I care. I hope McCain turns back the strides in equal rights for women--as he has promised to do--for all I care. My bruised feelings are of primary importance to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 4:00 AM

I voted for Barack Obama 4 million times, which puts HIM ahead in the popular vote!

What? My votes don't count because I broke the rules?

And HOLD ON! Popular vote can't decide the nominee just because I say so?

WTF! I'm With McCain.

What? RNC has the SAME RULES?

DAMN! This conspiracy stuff runs deep!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 3:58 AM

Shouldn't Hillary get all her delegates and Uncommitted the rest?

We got it covered Chuck. Obasma is tired of people misusing his middle name. So he had decided to clean up two problems at once and has had his middle name changed to "Uncommitted."

Hope this helps you work out your concerns.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 2:55 AM


No such word as "irregardless." She is trying to get the nomination not the nominee. If Obama is the nominee is she trying to get him? And most of us onlt get one life.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 2:47 AM

Please some one outline this so called experience that Hillary and McCain supposely have.

You really want to know? It was at a Congressional retreat, it was late at night, there was too much Tequila consumed, their spouses were back at home, there was a piano bar, candles on the table, most everyone else had gone, it was closing time, do I need to draw a picture? It won't be pretty.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 2:44 AM

To S. Jones, who said, among other things, in response to my previous post "...don't try to pass this shadow racism off as some kind of justification for Obama being unqualified to serve."

Barack Obama has stated numerous times that many of Rev. Wright's statements from the pulpit do not reflect his core beliefs, true or false?
By these statements, Barack Obama acknowledges that it is important for Americans to understand that he disagrees strongly with such comments, true or false?
The problem is that many of Rev. Wright's comments are the logical extension of the particular brand of Black Liberation Theology preached at Trinity (not necessarily at all other black churches).
So if Obama is saying that the most radical comments made by Wright from the pulpit are diametrically opposed to his core beliefs, the basic question still remains. What conceivable reason could he have for remaining at a place where racial divisiveness was preached as "theology" at the same time that he proclaims to transcend the racial divisions of the past?
You are absolutely correct that Rev. Wright has preached the same hate for the last 40 years, but it is also true that if any other presidential candidate had sat and listened to such hateful political rhetoric for 20 years, they would deserve to be asked the same questions as Americans now ask of Barack Obama. Few would argue that we have come as far as we need to in race relations, but the racially divisive rhetoric espoused from the pulpit of Trinity Church is not only unhelpful in that regard, but plainly counterproductive. Obama has said as much, except that he has limited his comments to Rev. Wright's ravings. There are plenty of other reasons that Barack Obama is not yet qualified to be President, but his bad judgment and lack of courage to walk away from Trinity needs to be explained to the American people. He is a not candidate for the city council, but for the most powerful political office in the world. He cannot be given a pass on answering legitimate questions about his judgment, core beliefs and courage whether he be black, white or any other color, just because you or anyone else believe such questions are racially motivated.

Posted by: jdin2003 | June 2, 2008 9:43 PM

Dave, your comment re why we don't have better people running for president. It's $$$$$$$$$, the organizations and crooks behind someone always comes out first. I don't believe for a minute that all the money Obama is reaping is coming from the common folks over the internet.

As to the comment about not fearing socialism: you have to look no further than the former Soviet bloc or Cuba to see why we must fear it.

Posted by: Millie | June 2, 2008 9:28 PM

Let's see..lots of labels out there.
If I don't vote for Hillary, I am a misogynist.
If I don't vote for Obama, I am a racist.
If I don't vote for McCain, I am not a patriot.
However, if I DO vote for Hillary, I am a racist, too. If Obama, a misogynist or a looney liberal.
If I vote for McCain, I am a stupid, war-mongering neocon who wants GWB III.
That about covers the compartmentalization of American politics.
I do consider myself a patriot, but none of the other things. I will vote for the person I believe would be the best for my country. No labels, no ideology, no ax to grind. I will consider my choice carefully, giving it the thought it deserves. I may be wrong in my choice, but am prepared to face the consequences with no excuses. I hope others will do the same. Labels are for those who prefer not to think at all while in the voting booth.

Posted by: rmpatera | June 2, 2008 8:15 PM

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:23 PM

Please some one outline this so called experience that Hillary and McCain supposely have.

Posted by: kathy hussien smith | June 2, 2008 7:00 PM

pity, 2 demographics that have historiclly been underrepresented and underserved by the political world have decided to cross swords on the sward of the political landscape. and the republican party says "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". your candidate is a lying, cheating, dirty, low down piece of work and i can not work with you to get rid of the people who really do fit that description.
this is the pass we have come to, and here is where we decide if we wish to continue to be despised by the rest of the world and seen as a cancer to be excised. bleieve it or not the people that hate americans do not often look at race or gender as reasons to stay their hands. the soldiers that are dying or maimed in the middle east run the gamut of american, none were spared or exceptionally sought out. if we want this to stop, we have to start here, we as a party must decide that the next president will not be a republican, or decide to continue killing our children for the pleasure of Bael.
We must decide which we hate more!

Posted by: iamcouriousblack | June 2, 2008 6:51 PM


Posted by: DESPARATION | June 2, 2008 6:35 PM

"so if i read you all correctly, you are saying that you want either a white man or white woman in the white house. no one else is "good enough". yet you cannot see the reason rev. wright sees you as you are. as i have said before, the klansmen were usually democrats."

You didn't get that from my posts. All I said was that the DNC should seat a slate of Michigan "uncommitted" delegates because that was one of the two entries on the ballot. They could all go to Obama for all I care. Not to do it, which they won't, means that DNC due process won't be afforded Clinton and it ticks off her supporters.

Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 6:15 PM

so if i read you all correctly, you are saying that you want either a white man or white woman in the white house. no one else is "good enough". yet you cannot see the reason rev. wright sees you as you are. as i have said before, the klansmen were usually democrats.

Posted by: iamcouriousblack | June 2, 2008 6:01 PM


Posted by: KAAZ | June 2, 2008 5:46 PM

The Great White Hype: "Obama did not pull his name from the Michigan Ballot voluntarily for his own personal agenda. He volunteered to take his name from the Michigan Ballots because the Democratic Party requested that all democratic nominees do so."

OK, let's take that as a given. He acceded to a request (not a requirement) to withdraw his name. Let's say his motives were pure and Hillary's were dirty.
Nevertheless, an election "event" occurred in Michigan. Two slates were on the ballot - Clinton and Uncommitted. Hard votes were tallied as between the two. The DNC has now ruled that this "event" will be recognized as a primary and the hard vote counted. Shouldn't Hillary get all her delegates and Uncommitted the rest?
I know some people find this boring but its been roiling the campaign for a year and the DNC just spent a grinding weekend over it. It does have some significance, I think.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:16 PM

Kudos to slavicdiva for the well placed comments...I think If we as people have issues with the candidates that are running, perhaps we should try to recruit better ones. I think I could create a list of a hundred people that would be better candidates, that would be better presidents. The problem is...They would never take the job.

Posted by: CHRIS | June 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Hillary for president!!!

Posted by: david e. miller | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM for cover, here comes the bullet rain. Ran Baby...tea later, ran, ran. I will never forget this day, the day I almost lost my life. What a life changing experience. Those people do not know how to treat dignitaries. How could I ever forget this day.

Posted by: Diega | June 2, 2008 4:26 PM

Why do we fear socialism? The dollar has fallen in value to currencies that are supported by socialistic societies. (the Euro being one). The big bad capitalistic machine is in another recession falling closer and closer to third world status every day. Yet we believe capitalism is the way the world should live. Lets evaluate the theory of Capitalism. Maximizing profits for shareholders by eliminating the competition. SO in other words survival of the fitist. Socialism on the other hand supports the act of working to help your neighbors and protecting the week. Now lets look at these principles from the basis of good and evil(since you think socialism is evil). The belief of every religious concept is to help your neighbor and protect the week. The primitive barbaric and pagan way of behavior is the strongest survive while the weak are consumed. Now which one of these sounds more evil? For a safer world capitalism needs to be extinct.

By the way
Obama did not pull his name from the Michigan Ballot voluntarily for his own personal agenda. He volunteered to take his name from the Michigan Ballots because the Democratic Party requested that all democratic nominees do so.

And if running a campaign $20 million in dept qualifies you to lead this nation than sign me up I could blow it in a week

Posted by: The Great White Hype | June 2, 2008 4:22 PM

Wow, "jdin" posted a disertation on Obama and Liberation Theology that completly states what whites say without speaking. According to the dictionary, supreme is: Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. Now I live in America and every day I witness the practice of supremacy by whites. Whether you want to call it that or not, if it walks like a duck... For Jeremiah Wright to talk about liberation in a land where the highest office (power, rank,authority) has been dominated (see dominant in description) by white males is perfectly legitimate in the eyes of most Blacks. It is whites who live in this "Oz" that has them as the great beneficent being and everyone else should just be happy to ride on their coatails. Minorities in this country didn't just come here and say we don't like the set up. They've participated in and viewed the process and come to the determination that the field is not level so if you are going to talk the talk of fairness walk the walk. No one cared about race when all of the participants in the show were white they just wanted the "Black vote". Barack Obama is a man of mixed race whose ideology made him only Black? White people will pay lip service to the discussion of race in this country because it is a system they set up which now has to be justified. Jeremiah Wright has been preaching this way for 40 years and no one said anything about it until one of his parishoners changed the paradigm on politics and race in this country. Barack Obama's pastor surely has not been able to practice the supremacy we've witnessed in the oval office since 1789 so spare me your sublte "fear the Black Man" nonsense. Hillary Clinton has every right to stay in the race and see the democratic process through. If she wins great if she doesn't too bad and same with Obama but don't try to pass this shadow racism off as some kind of justification for Obama being unqualified to serve. There have been 43 U.S. presidents you tell me whose liberation theology is in practice.

Posted by: S. Jones | June 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Logic 101:

If a and b, then c

- is not the same argument form as:

If x and y, then not z

Denial and affirmation of the consequent, though temptingly similar are not the same. Therefore, due to logical fallacy contained in your analogical pre-amble, I must infer that Max in LB's blood sugar is probably low, and therefore, he may require a hefty shot of 'Hope and Change Obama juice' to avert such fallacious reasoning in the future.

Posted by: Zack the rebuffer of ignoramuses | June 2, 2008 4:09 PM

It is "white man's guilt" that will get Obama the nomination and not and deep ruminating on the three questions above.

Posted by: OCYalie | June 2, 2008 4:02 PM

You all need to grow up. The president is supposed to be the president of ALL of us. Like it or not, that includes:

"Ignorant hillbillies"
"Stupid people"
"Uneducated people"
Bigots (black and white)
Racists (black and white)
Haters (black and white)
Tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjobs (black and white)
People of all faiths, and none
People you like
People you don't like
People you absolutely detest
And the list goes on...

One thing is for sure - demonizing people who don't drink your kool-aid, or demonizing their preferred candidate will not win your candidate any votes. The more you rag on and on about voters being stupid, the more likely they are NOT to vote the way you want them to, because they are sick of you, sick of your nastiness, sick of your candidate, and sick of the whole business. Call it "emotion" or "stupidity" or what you will - but people do not like having an unpalatable candidate shoved down their throats, by the media or anyone else.

Right now, I am a person without a candidate. I cannot vote for or support either McCain or Obama. If either one of them wants my vote, he'd better start earning it - the days of people voting for party above country or candidate are long gone. I will not hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, not this time - not when the best candidate was forced out.

I have voted in every presidential election since 1980. Maybe not, this time.

Posted by: slavicdiva | June 2, 2008 4:01 PM

We rather watch animal planet than watch CNN or MSNBC or FOxNews or any other news that yak on and on about Wright or Hillary or Bill or Dem. debates on FL & MI. It's just too much overplaying and boorriinngg..

Posted by: Enough of Clintons! | June 2, 2008 3:55 PM

It is ironic to see Clinton racking up 30 to 40 point wins over the last month or so while everyone tells her she should quit.

Posted by: Steve James | June 2, 2008 3:51 PM

263,120 121458 PR
252,270 360728 Oregon
459,124 209778 Kentucky
239,298 91747 W. VA
644,594 630399 Ind
652,824 875683 N. Car
1,260,444 1046220 Penn
155,686 255809 Miss
1,459,814 1358785 Tex
59,640 91740 Verm
108,750 75115 RI
1,207,806 979025 Oh
285,440 464474 MD
662,845 1301954 Illinois
332,599 250730 Tenn
328,129 700366 Georgia
226,504 302814 Alabama
452,795 646007 Wisconsin
73,105 71396 N Mex
27,326 85534 DC
347,252 623141 Virginia
136,959 220588 Louisiana
228,158 191681 Arizona
2,306,361 1890026 California
48,719 70373 Utah
228,425 130087 Oklahoma
395,287 405284 MIssouri
217,313 80774 Arkansas
1,003,623 697914 New York
704,591 511887 Massachusetts
164,831 179349 Connecticut
602,579 492186 New Jersey
40,751 51124 Delaware
857,208 569041 Florida
141,128 295091 South Carolina
328,151 237762 Michigan
112,251 104772 N Hamp
17,015,700 16,670,842
18,620 23918 Texas
8,832 28347 Hawaii
3,312 5378 Wyoming
9,992 21629 Washington
12,445 26126 Nebraska
68,607 141725 MInnesota
103 302 Alaska
3,655 16880 Idaho
9,462 27172 Kansas
6,948 11625 N. Dak
38,587 79344 Colorado
1,396 2079 Maine
5,355 4773 Nevada
737 940 Iowa
188,051 390,238
17,203,751 CLIN 17061080 OBAM

Posted by: PopVotes | June 2, 2008 3:46 PM

"Wow, if you are white and don't support Obama, you MUST be racist."

Sounds A LOT like:

"If you are American and don't support the war in Iraq, you ARE NOT a patroit"

Geez, Obama is a one-trick pony. With two words 'Hope and Change," he continues to prey on the American publics desire for no more BUSH. I love how he will continue to try and connect BUSH to MCCAIN, as if MCCAIN was his VP?

FACT: Mr. 'I was always against the war' NEVER VOTED AGAINST IT because he wasn't in the Senate. The 1st public negative response to the vote from Obama came 11 months AFTER the vote happened. OBAMA has voted for every measure to keep the war funded. He is using 'Old School Politics' to mislead the american public (leading them to believe that he was voted against the war), and that he is trying to graft any negative sentiments the country has toward Bush onto McCain, all the while people keep chugging 'Hope and Change Obama juice'.

He has ran a negative campaign, pointing out far more of the proposed weakness of his rival than the strengths of himself.

He is charming, articulate and mad for power. Thank goodness the next generation of children from broken homes can now use cocaine and smoke weed as adolescents knowing that it in NO WAY will deter the American public from voting them into office.

Posted by: Max in LB | June 2, 2008 3:41 PM

I would be interested to hear from Obama people how they would have handled the Michigan primary issue if it were they who had to decide it.
I think it should have been Hillary delegates and an "uncommitted" slate based on the vote as tabulated on primary day.


Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 3:39 PM

I am laughing so hard I am crying. These socialists (democrats) are the biggest phonies I have ever seen. They are just like the Arabs in the middle east, they will stab each other in the back, cut each others throat, kill and maim each other but when it comes ot a common enemy (the republicans) boy do they sing kumbaya. I said way before this campaign got started that they would tear each other apart like vicious wolves but after the fight is over they will all be singing we are the world. What a bunch of hypocrits.

Posted by: Dave | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM

I think many people forget that we do not have a true democracy as a government. It is a Republic. We are called the United States of America...not just America...Where power is balanced between states and the central federal government. If we were to really examine what it would be like as a democracy..where one person would have one vote..There would be little power left to the states..they would be left as geographical names and little else. Power would lie with the east and west coast with rural middle america left in the cold. The form of our government is far from perfect, but ideas where popular vote trumps a delegate count, changes the very core of our form of government. Examine the down stream ramifications of any idea before becoming outraged...and remember for those who say, that their vote didn't count, and "this is not a Democracy!"...They are is not...It never was, nor was our government designed to be.

Posted by: CHRIS | June 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Those of us who are moderates are very pleased Obama is the nominee. That pretty much guarantees a McCain Presidency. Once again, the Democratic Party has shot themselves in both feet.

Posted by: Hannah Petra | June 2, 2008 3:07 PM

It's no doubt that Obama's campaign has been better run than Hillary's. But as we have seen in previous presidential elections, the quality and/or success of a campaign is not necessarily a predictor of the quality of the subsequently elected president. Therefore, the argument that Obama's better run campaign makes him better qualified to be president has absolutely no merit. What is overlooked by virtually every Obama poster here and elsewhere is that Hillary's supporters are every bit as convinced as Obama's supporters that their candidate is the most qualified and that she has the best chance of winning in November, which is of paramount importance to all Democrats. Therefore, regardless of the "selfish" or other ulterior motives for which Obama supporters accuse Hillary of having for staying in the race, she is receiving overwhelming support to do so from virtually all of her followers. This of course does not change the fact that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, but his chances of winning in November will be tremendously hampered unless he can obtain the support of a large number of Hillary's supporters. That's a fact and here's the issue that his campign needs to address: Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters ("educated" and otherwise) do not seem to understand the significant extent to which many Democrats define themselves within the context of their foundational religious beliefs and their views on the roles of faith and church in their daily lives. Virtually none of these voters who have an association with any church could remain members where a "theological" worldview is preached that is profoundly and diametrically opposed to their own (in sharp contrast to an occasional statement from the pulpit with which they might disagree). A collateral assumption that seems to be made about these voters by Obama supporters is that most of them attend a church like Rev. Hagee's, which is untrue. The only way by which these voters can rationalize Barack Obama's decision to remain associated with Rev. Wright and Trinity for over 20 years is that he either agreed with the radical brand of Black Liberation "Theology" preached there or he really wasn't as opposed to it as he has insisted. Either rationalization ultimately leads them to the opinion that his worldview is totally at odds with theirs. Regardless of all other issues, voters must believe that a candidate's core beliefs basically align with their own. Obama has taken incremental steps in distancing himself from Trinity, recently culminating in resigning his membership there. But the remaining problem for him is that he has still not answered the basic and most important question. If the radical brand of Black Liberation "Theology" that permeated every aspect of Trinity was diametrically opposed to his own core beliefs and if he is supposed to be the candidate who transcends the racial divisiveness of the past, why did he not have the courage or good judgment to leave Trinity many, many years ago? Without Obama providing more explanation, it leaves one to conclude that he really didn't disagree with the "theology" or he was afraid to offend a portion of his black constituency. Neither of those conclusions bode well for his ability to attract some of the voters he has failed to get in recent primaries and which he will need in the General Election. Ignoring this problem or labeling all of these voters as "racists" will ensure John McCain is elected President in November. I don't know whether Obama will address the aforementioned question or not. Given the fact that he has not once condemned the radical Black Liberation "Theology" preached at Trinity, it appears doubtful.

Posted by: jdin2003 | June 2, 2008 2:57 PM

None of the Above 08 makes a very good point, one should indeed vote for the candidate that they feel best represents them, and the nation as a whole. I would be the first to agree that the two party system is one of our greatest weaknesses because it leads to this sort of fractionism.

I refuse to register for either party, I always refuse to declare. I look at policy first because I recognise that while the President has a great deal of power he/she is not the entire government. A good president will surround himself with competant advisors, so a president doesnt have to be a rhodes scholar in economics to fix our economy (McCain for example), nor does he have to have years of experience overseas to have a international policy.

I for one do not want more years of essentially failed economic and internation policy, therefore I am looking elsewhere than the republicans, since the policies stated are essentially the same we've had for the last eight years. Hence my support this year of the Democrats (yes I've voted Republican in the past)

I could certainly write in another candidate, but that is in effect a throwaway vote, no matter how much I wish it werent so, thats just the way it is. Until such time as an independant candidate can actually bring a third party into a realistic chance of existance, I will choose between the two main parties.

Posted by: Er | June 2, 2008 2:55 PM

... Some of the most influential presidents we've had in the history of our nation came from brokered convention. As two examples: Lincoln and FDR, who were both trailing in the nomination process ...

Posted by: Kris | June 2, 2008 12:18 PM

I thought that was an interesting statement and did a little bit of research to find this:

According to Wikipedia FDR did, as Kris posted, prevail in a brokered convention, however he was not trailing in the nominating process and in fact entered the convention with a majority of needed delegates. The difference was that in 1932 a candidate needed a 2/3 majority of delegates to win the nomination and there were 10 different candidates receiving votes, so it took a while before they were able to consolidate down to the 2-3 frontrunners.

Wikipedia's reference for Lincoln's nomination ( is also an interesting read and does show him to be the runner up going into the convention, while prevailing on the third ballot. It also goes on to talk about how the frontrunner William Seward had been associated with party radicals who he then angered by campaigning towards the center ideologically, while Lincoln was seen as the more articulate candidate from his performances in debates and speeches.

I suppose each of us can draw his/her own conclusions from history.

I'm in Obama supporter who will work this fall to help elect him in the General, but if for some reason Clinton ends up as the nominee I will work to help her get elected as well because I want to see us get out of Iraq and set our economy/schools/environment back on the path to greatness.



Posted by: jcmtyler | June 2, 2008 2:50 PM

Good analysis. Hillary's claim that she is ahead in the popular vote is preposterous. I could make a stronger case that she is behind by half a million. Right now, in our family, there are 10 solid votes for Obama and only two certain votes for Hillary if she is the nominee.

Posted by: Quentin | June 2, 2008 2:47 PM

"I will win by any means possible. I will not let you down." - Hillary Clinton

Sorry HillBillary - but you have let us down by how you have tried to win! There was a time when even the film studios changed the hair style of the lady on the screen (you know what I mean) to match your hair style. Have you felt the cold wind from Hollywood, yet?

I am disappointed in you. When you first began your adventure - I was on your side. Sent you money. But I guess there is no money back guarantee from some who is being a mis-speaker, con artist, racist, fiscally irresponsible - how can you fly anywhere when you are so deeply in debt - and following the process of your husband by not being honest about your daughter's whereabouts on 9/11 (to gain political points), or Bosnia, or a myriad of other things.

I am told "get over it" - sorry - I can't. I do not want you in my White House. Yep, mine. I am a US Citizen and we, the people, own it and on most occasions, decide who is in it... and you have been evicted once. No do overs!

Go back to Harlem - I am sure you can get the poor uneducated white folks who live there to give you your next Senatorial election. Just promise them a bottle of rum from Puerto Rico!

Posted by: MizuInOz | June 2, 2008 2:32 PM

The elephant is in the room, yet, again, he is invisble. RACE is the Number One factor in this race. (Pun intended.) Hillary is relying on the racism of white, uneducated males to help her clinch the nomination. That is the voting demographic by and large who has NOT been voting for Obama and has indicated that rather than vote for him (a Ni**er) they will vote for McCain. Why is this surprising, to ANYONE? Given THIS country's history?! As to Obama's supposed "elitist" status...who is more elitist--- someone who grew up with wealth, comfort and security or someone that grew up with a single mom in poverty and with poverty's inherent dangers (unsafe neighborhoods, inferior schools, etc.)? The candidate that poor uneducated white males SHOULD identify with is Obama...but that by and large has not happened. The Klan would not be able to recruit if being poor was the category most emphasized...instead of race.
Dangerous thoughts...King was killed because of this. The Klan was founded in is it really surprising that Obama lost mainly among uneducated white males there? As a woman, I would have been happy to campaign and vote for a woman, ...but not THAT woman. Hillary is insincere, power hungry and totally self-serving. Does anyone remember when she claimed to have suddenly discovered that she had Jewish heritage, as she wooed New Yorkers for the senate seat, she ultimately won? Nah, it's a wrap. Hopefully, one day, A woman will be president, but not THAT woman.

Posted by: Jocie | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

Folks, in November vote for the person who you believe will best represent you, other Americans and our nation.

Do this even if it means voting for a candidate from a party other than your own (for those who are affiliated with a party)

and even if it means writing in your preferred candidate.

Enough of this choosing the lesser of two evils or begrudgingly towing the party line.

When it comes to politics, we are quickly developing a "tribal" mentality, where people are forced to choose between one of two groups. That cannot be good for us as a nation.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | June 2, 2008 2:26 PM

I'm with Jaylo, I'm also from CA and something isn't right with these polls. Not just with women though.

What I find questionable from the media coverage of this whole thing is why has no one reported on this? I had to find this information out on a blog then confirm it. Hillary is trying to steal the nomination? Common sense. Florida voted three days early. No candidate signed any contract saying these states votes would not count. That is a lie.

Rule 11 prohibits primaries or caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in February. With the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina, each of which is assigned "very specific limits."

Iowa could hold its caucus no earlier than January 14.
Yet they did so on Jan 3. 11 days early.

New Hampshire no earlier than January 22. When did they vote? Jan 8th. 14
days early.

Nevada caucuses were to be held second, yet they switched and held theirs third in violation of the rules.

South Carolina no earlier than January 29. They voted January 26. 3 days

Which means "ALL" violated the rules. Yet only two were penalized.

Rule 20.C: "The number of pledged delegates elected ... shall be reduced by 50 percent."

Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for "ANY" state." Including the states allowed to vote early. Either the DNC needs to follow their own rules and penalize all these states, or count Florida and Michigan totally. Not with half votes. As Obama supporters are quick to point out. "Rules are Rules", and they must be followed.

Posted by: Diana | June 2, 2008 2:25 PM

Nil a better idea would be to simply have a true democracy where more parties & candidates participate and compete fairly. I can guarantee if other parties like some social democrats in Europe were given the same funds to spend on communicating with the people, we would start moving away from the circus of a two party system where both simply jockey for power and influence.

If every candidate and/or political party were given equal opportunity to get their message across we might one day create would our forefathers may have had in mind for us one day: true democracy.

What we have now is a farce. We are constantly forced to choose the lesser of evils and led to believe by those that wield power that any either choice would be meaningless, dangerous or create havoc.

Obama is a small step in the right direction, as we are forced to stay within the limitations imposed on us. Personally I think it is too late for us and we will become more isolated internationally and continue to be bamboozled into believing all change equates disaster for us. I hope I am wrong, but our blindness, or better said our refusal to open our eyes is becoming flagrant.

Posted by: Ronn | June 2, 2008 2:24 PM

"Whitey" video won't be a problem since it DOESN'T EXIST.

Posted by: Rich | June 2, 2008 2:22 PM

""Will I endure 4 more years of Republican white house? If Obama is the choice, then yes! I take comfort with the Dems taking bigger majorities in Congress. BTW, McCain is NOT George Bush.""

I definitly agree that McCain is not GW...I voted for McCain way back when.. when he lost out to GW in the primaries. I actually respect the man, but I dont believe he is the answer for America at this time sorry to say. I think he would have been a stellar President. just not now.

Hillary fails to impress me greatly, though I would back her if she got the nod. However I dont think Hillary has the ability to take moderate and independant votes from McCain. As he has a sort of "maverick" tag on him and he will draw moderates to his side. Obama I think has already proven he can take moderate votes and independant votes and as such I think he is a better opponant to McCain.

It all of course remains to be seen.

Posted by: Er | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

If you put all the Hillary supporter bloggers in one auditorium it would not equal Barack Obama's lowest turnout at one of his campaign stops. Doesn't it bother Democrats when they are called Hillary Republicans ?

Posted by: Ron | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

Hillary for president!!!

Posted by: david e. miller | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM


Posted by: NIL | June 2, 2008 2:14 PM

The polls pretty much show that Dems are moving away from Clinton.

Whether Obama or McCain win the general election is probably less crucial than if Clinton was in the race. She is the most devisive politician around today. Negativity ratings over 50%.

Whether Obama or McCain win, the Congress will surely increase in Democrats. Recall, however, that when the Clintons were in the Whitehouse, they lost the Congress and the country to conservative radicals, which has brought us to the mess we are in now. Sen. Clinton's personality would certainly resurrect the extreme right, and if she were in the Whitehouse, she would lose the Congress as well. Either Obama or McCain will work well with a largely Democratic Congress without fueling the hatred from the far right.

Clinton has been asking "What do people not like about the 90's: the peace or the prosperity ?" The answer is neither: the people disliked the unethical and underhanded way the Clintons run things, and the numerous scandals, to the point where the country jerked to the right.

We have dodged a disaster with Clinton not getting the nomination

Posted by: Bitter Nation | June 2, 2008 2:12 PM

The answer to all 3 of those questions is OBAMA. Thank you Hillary for pointing that out to us.

Posted by: Ron | June 2, 2008 2:12 PM

When Clinton supporters talk critically about the influences in Obama's life they should probably be very careful as those major influences and certainly those same phiolosophies helped shape the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary. How do I know this? Because they stand for almost exactly the same things. The biggest difference is that one is playing by existing rules and one wants the rules changed to fit her wants.

Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 2:08 PM

GPM you make me laugh. referring to Obama as far left is so typical of cliche Americans having no clue about what is left and right. Anywhere in Europe he would be considered center-right.

Get with the times, what you refer to as far left is the best conservative option we have because we are too ignorant and selfish to see the advantages socially of universal health care paying a few dollars more in taxes.

We call ourselves Christians and balk at paying higher taxes to help the poor and ailing or save our planet. Our own arrogance is our potential doom.

What will we do as the rest of the world moves ahead and refuses to lag behind with us? Bomb Europe, Asia and AFrica into submission?

We can no longer pull the Europeans and others along by the nose. Have you not noticed they are beginning to treat us like a collective of immature brutes?

Posted by: Ronn | June 2, 2008 2:08 PM

HRC's at least has some experience.
BO's ???
With virtually none, BO will not win against JM.

Posted by: TP | June 2, 2008 2:05 PM

How someone who can't manage his campaign (20+ millions in debt) can manage the country???
I am not an american citizen, but since Bush took over Kerry, I just don't understand this nation.
If everything that you have blaming Obama for is true then he should not seat in US senate!

Posted by: Louis | June 2, 2008 2:03 PM

Don't know what part of Cali jaylo is from, but here in SoCal it's tough to find a Clinton supporter these days! Everyone I know likes Obama or McCain.

Posted by: California | June 2, 2008 2:01 PM


Watch it. You're pulling these way out of context and some of it is not even accurate.

Refer to:

To see what Obama worte and how he wrote it.

Posted by: Matt | June 2, 2008 2:01 PM

I have been hearing the same old argument over and aover again until it sounds like a broken record. That Obama has no experience and that is why he will not get your vote. Why is it hard for someone to say "he is black" that is why he will not get my vote rather than hiding under "experience?". If Obama has been able to play by the rules and build a formidable movement that Hillary could not, that shows just how ready he is to be commander in chief...organized and willing to learn. America would be better off with a true leader than someone who wants to lengthen their monarchy on American leadership.

Posted by: rhyymes | June 2, 2008 1:59 PM

First off, Bill Clinton was a very good President. Hillary is not the one to be elected for that position. You cannot go back to the past. What Bill brought to this nation was great. BUT!!! That was then, this is now. Times have changed. Hillary is riding on the coattails of Bill's Legacy and that is all. She has no more experience than Barack Obama. She has projected her plans to solve problems on the same things Obama has. She has consistently used his ideas and sayings. She has had no Ideas of her own except for the Healthcare plan she devised as First Lady which was defeated then. As for the popular vote, she does NOT have that, cause the caucus states (4) has not given their count and is not included. BESIDES, delegate votes are decided accordingly with the amount of vote casted in each state, and districts of each state. So, that who ever holds the most delegates, is considered the winner. ( NOMINEE ). So, therefore Hillary LOSES. You learn this stuff when you know how the system works. As for US needing a Democrat as President, we do. I for one have had enough of GW and certainly do not want McSame in office. 8 years of the republicans has put this nation in HARM'S way. Time to TURN THE PAGE.

A true Democrat from Pa. MOM

Posted by: mom in Pa. | June 2, 2008 1:59 PM

1. Which candidate best represents the will of the people who voted?

Many of the people who voted for Obama were pressured to do so at caucuses, as opposed to being able to vote privately in primaries.

Many others voted early, before they found out Obama thought of them as gun-toting, religion-clinging, "typical white people," a characterization presumably informed by his long-time spiritual advisor, Rev. Wright. They also voted before the extent to which Obama's thinking had been influenced throughout his life by Communists/Marxists/Socialists was widely known, which, according to the Chicago Tribune, were viewpoints held by his grandparents and mother as well as his father.

While the article is correct that "it is altogether unclear whether more voters cast ballots for Clinton or Obama," it is clear that there has been a significant shift toward Clinton since more about this previously unvetted political newcomer became known.

2. Which candidate is the best able to lead Democrats to victory in November?

Democrats perceive Obama as better able to lead the party to victory. Unfortunately, their perception is erroneous. Many of the caucuses and primaries Obama won were in red states that the Democrats will never carry in the fall (and certainly not with a racist/sexist/Marxist at the top of the ticket).

3. Who is best able to lead the nation as president?

The poll cited in the article indicates the candidate who is perceived as "better" able to lead the nation. These perceptions are largely created by the pro-Obama domestic propaganda machine otherwise known as the mainstream media. Obama and his campaign aides clearly understand that such a tool can make people believe anything - witness the abject devotion the starving people of North Korea have for their "dear leader," Kim Jong-il.

The Party machinery made up its mind a long time ago that Obama would be the party candidate.

In truth, there's really only ONE question Hillary's pondering and that is one the article fails to address - whether to abandon the party (that abandoned her long ago in favor of Obama, with whom it's been working while at the same time pressuring her to quit) and run as an Independent.

There are a LOT of Americans (McCain Democrats, Obamacans, independents, and the white women, blue collar workers and Hispanics Tim Russert alluded to on the Today Show this morning as still having a problem with Obama) who really just want an opportunity to vote for a candidate in the middle of the far-left Obama and the far-right McCain.

And Hillary, a former Republican, fits that space PERFECTLY.

Run, Hillary, Run!!

Posted by: GPM | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

The unfortunate truth is that Hillary Clinton holds the cards. How she responds when she finally admits that Obama has won will tell us everything. Can she be magnanimous?

Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

The USA is a sinking ship, falling behind Western Europe in reasonable social structure and rational economic thinking instead of our economic anarchy.

Unless we take the risk and put someone in charge who MIGHT start changing things we will not save the ship.

The blundering idiocy our so-called free democracy has become is not fooling the rest of the world any longer.

In fact we actually need someone more critical and with stronger ideas than Obama, but sure as heck not the glutton for power H. Clinton nor the nice grandpa McCain. Not after the killer buffoon Bush.

Posted by: Ronn | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Clintons three questions:

1. How much have I loaned my campaign?
2. How much do I owe to vendors?
3. How can I get paid first?

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 1:50 PM

To Er... The reason why common folks back Hillary is because she represents the best option for the middle class. Not every (white) person has a trust fund like the Kennedy's or the Kerry's, who will still be okay regardless of what happens to the country. In addition, Obama has too many unknowns/issues including character issues. With Hillary or McCain, there is nothing more that is hidden. Furthermore, I think that Obama will polarize the country by race. Far from the "uniter" that he initially projected himself to be, the last primary elections show that he is polarizing the US according to race. This is worse than the Blue vs. Red state labels.

Will I endure 4 more years of Republican white house? If Obama is the choice, then yes! I take comfort with the Dems taking bigger majorities in Congress. BTW, McCain is NOT George Bush.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Regarding the race issue I have said this before but want to repeat it.

Clinton's camp has referred to Obama as being where he is due to being black.

Well, there are two points to counter that:

1) Obama is where is is despite being black and having to have overome that political handicap, and;

2) Where do they think H. Clinton would be. I would venture to say if H. Clinton were black she would NEVER have gotten to where she is now.

Consequently the stronger and more effective candidate is Obama, if we follow this argument logically.

Of course it is true very little will change but choosing from within the context of limited choice in our so-called free elections, I opt for Obama. I wish him the best of luck because I suspect he does not completely realize what he will be up against.

Posted by: Ronn | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

Look people. Stop being sore losers and just quit already. Hillary it is NOT your time! Time to go. The Clintons have a way of trying to change the rules to their favor and now she is kicking and screaming like a child. And Bill? What happened to him? The man has lost it. I am a life long Republican converted by what I see in Obama. I want something different and the Clintons are more of the same. Wake up people. Stop being bamboozled by the Clinton spin artist. I am a veteran and..... Oh and I am a middle class working white guy who is half Irish half Italian who grew up in a racially divided Boston neighborhood. Time for you people to get over your racial hang ups and rally around the obvious nominee. 4 mores years of the Clintons is almost the same as four mores years of the Bush's. I am tired of these political power house family's. We need change in Washington. Good buy Bush and Clinton's. Oh and take Arlen Specter with you.

Posted by: Ex Republican | June 2, 2008 1:40 PM

Though I don't approve of the comments by the Priest in Obama's Church about Hillary, it is my opinion that She and Bill both thought she was a shooo-in due to their power and popularity. I think they are incrediably indignant that she is losing and will do ANYTHING to bring the nomination to her. The two of them are a huge political machine. I hope Obama will survive them at the Convention.

Posted by: K.Jeanne | June 2, 2008 1:40 PM

Well I guess hillary was right, she does have the support of the undereducated!! wow what a horrible statement, yet when I read about Democrats who would rather sit through at least 4 more years of Republican rule, than elect a Dem OTHER than Hillary, the comment seems to ring true.

Come on people, their platforms are virtually identical, are you really going to vote emotion vs. rational.

Step back and get behind your party and leave your emotional attachments to one candidate or another.

As it stands, it looks to me like we are in for more republican rule, because clearly Democrats are too fractious and are more concerned about argueing with each other than trying to put this country back on track.

Posted by: Er | June 2, 2008 1:37 PM

Abi Kins has a point. The DNC set up a process (flawed though I think it is) and Obama played it better than Hillary did - sorry for me to say since I support her.

In the woulda, shoulda, coulda column: Think about the psychology or story line of the campaign if the DNC had done what the GOP did: Fla and Mich. count but for half value and stated it at the outset. Then Hillary wins both, as Obama's pollsters told him she would. The meme would have been "Hillary on a roll, wins the big ones, NH comeback, Mich blowout, takes Nevada Fla erases SC. Obama has no Big MO"
The delegate count would have been much different and the vibe of the whole thing changes. Process does have its price.
Oh, well.

Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 1:35 PM

Why is it so hard for people in this country to see that no president be it a Democrat, a Republican, or any other party can truly bring change? The only way we can get to the higher standard such as European countries is to change not only our way of thinking (greed and obsession with money and material items) but also to change our entire political process. We would need to basically take everything we have so far and start over. The problem with our country is not necessarily in the president , its in all of us. We are all so used to having cars, expensive clothing, huge homes, and all of this is why we have:

Dependence on foreign oil
Dependence on foreign made goods
Separation of races and backgrounds
Extremes on Rich/Poor
Fights about who deserves rights and doesn't
People who can't read a sentence
People who have no prayer of getting their health needs met.
Homeless veterans
Homeless women with children

Maybe we should all think about that before we think that any candidate can bring a change. Sad, but true. Maybe we should seek out:

Increased public transit
Solar powered homes and buildings
Depending only on American made goods
Granting civil rights to everyone
Subsidized housing for people who need it
Education at the post secondary level for everyone
Increased pay for teachers, police, firefighters.
National Health care
Federally regulated energy sources

Then we'll talk about who is best equipped to run the country.

Posted by: JSSNSF | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Another comment.... The racial polarization is something that I noticed happening in January, and I want to share my thoughts.

Blacks voted for Obama. One has no doubt that blacks did not vote for Obama because of his qualifications. Nobody called this racism. I wondered then what would happen if white voters would vote in the same manner. Guess what, toward the end of the primary season, Clinton got more of the white voters, and they got labeled racists. (It seems that racism goes only one way.)

Now assuming that Obama wins the Dem nomination... Obama will polarize the voters according to race, and we don't want to happen. The general election will focus on race being whites, hispanics and asians vs. blacks. If people did not want the Blue vs. Red states label, it would be worst to go back to classification by race. Obama will throw the country back to the 1960s again.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 2, 2008 1:31 PM

Larryg62 said:
"What amazes me is the number of well meaning but obviously mindless people who support such a foul mouthed classless, greedy, sleazy individual. Neither Clinton nor her so called husband have any ethics, integrity or morals. Greedy, dishonest slugs is all they are.

Posted by: LarryG62 | June 2, 2008 1:13 PM"

Please!!!, gimme a break. The Clintons are saints compared to the Bush administration, the Bush Sr. Admin, the Reagan admin, and the Nixon Admin. Open up a history book, pal.

Posted by: pablo | June 2, 2008 1:30 PM

HA Ha- You guys let bush win the second time. No wonder you guys will let MCain win. Good luck. Why is it majority of the people who have proper education (people who can think for themselves) are choosing Obama?

Posted by: Outsider | June 2, 2008 1:30 PM

To Tom in Alabama...

Tom you are absolutely right. Referring to "Old Europe" was just a ploy to belittle those that were hesitant in following the trumpet call. Until a year ago when I moved to Asia i had spent 17 years in Western Europe.

Europe almost everywhere has health care for everyone, a higher standard of living than we enjoy in the US and a crime rate not anywhere near what we have in the US. It isn't perfect and it has its share of political scandals but, it doesn't have what we have now: political vandals.

We really have to get with it and start seeing we are no longer the so-called leaders of the free world but are lagging behind in creating a safe, fair and rational society.

It is time for us to wake up, not only to the rest of the world but to ourselves also. We have become like children living in a bubble with little knowledge of the world outside apart from what those running the show would want us believe, and that, sadly is usually twisted and contorted to make us believe we are the freest, the best and the greatest. The illusion has to fall and it will be a painful process but we have no choice if we do not want to fall even further behind...

Posted by: Ronn | June 2, 2008 1:24 PM

It is a farce that Obama did such a good dead and followed the rules by not participating in the Florida and Michighan elections. The fact is his campaign knew from the polls that he had no shot of winning those two States. So why risk his credibility and put himslef on the ballot. A move that his campaign did voluntarily. The so called Rules committe made a huge mistake that cost probable caost HRC the nomination and will more than likely cause Obama if nominated to lose the general elections. Nice job not SO SUPER Rules committee! Maybe the not so super delegates will salvage this election, but I doubt any of them have the guts.

Posted by: Tom | June 2, 2008 1:22 PM

What we have here is democracy in full action. Barring what many are saying for selfish reasons we should go to the full convention and have a full open display of democrats in action. This would bring out the best in our leaders and we should never be afraid of splitting the party as it just would never happen and quite frankly it will make the party stronger and and more democratic. On to the convention.

Posted by: Billy but not Clinton | June 2, 2008 1:22 PM

As an african watching the developments in the US from a distance, i believe that both candidates have done very well. Both are eminently qualified for the job, but i think it is time for Clinton to go.She should not commit political harikari by destroying the name she has built over time. Indeed Obama has proven that he can do well in the elections by beating a formidable oponent like the Clintons

Posted by: emmanuel | June 2, 2008 1:21 PM's ok to vote based on race if your black? got it!

Posted by: Jo Schenk | June 2, 2008 1:21 PM

Nevermind that I want a Democrat to win the White House, I can't in good conscience vote for Obama (too many character questions). The fact the Obama quit his church is totally inconsistent with earlier pronouncements. At any rate, should Clinton not be the nominee, I URGE even the most die-hard liberals to consider voting for McCain. As they say, better the devil that you know... USA is a bigger, better cause than the Democratic party winning back the White House. In addition, I take comfort that the Dems will have greater majorities in Congress.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 2, 2008 1:20 PM

CA Guy said:
"... Yesterday I overheard a group of Mexicans say this joke: "Obama admits he can't fix the economy, but he can n***er rig it". That is the mentality of Clinton supporters"

Well, if you want to hear sexist, racist comments about Clinton, all you need to do is visit Obama's church!

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones !!!

Posted by: Keith | June 2, 2008 1:20 PM

I find it incredible that women my Mom's age and older are crying foul, but yet they're the very ones who would choose to disenfranchise a candidate who followed all the rules set forth by the Democratic National Committee (because there is no denying that Obama and his camp not only understood the rules, but followed and played by them). Where is the fairness in that? *stunned look* Time and time again, we've been reminded of just how unethical it is to attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game, but it seems that the very people who taught us that are the ones who are lending their voices to the attempt to commit a political coup that would fracture this country in so many different ways. That's the legacy that some would leave for my generation and for the ones to follow.

All I have to say is this:
I'm glad that my generation is more colorblind than prior ones. I'm thrilled that we have been taught to measure the content of someone's character rather than to follow someone blindly solely based on some misguided sense of loyalty to one gender/race. I'm glad that they've taught us to be free thinkers and to follow the beat of our own drums, but to always keep in mind that we should adhere to guidelines of fairness and equity when dealing in all matters.

Now, the only thing I wish for is that we shouldn't have to be the ones to remind our parents about all those valuable lessons. I will continue to hope and dream that people will "wake up and realize" that we have far more in common to celebrate, rather than differences to fight over endlessly.


Posted by: Abi Kins | June 2, 2008 1:17 PM

The automatic (or super) delegates were created to enhance the ability of the party to put forward the winning candidate who represent the broadest coalition of voters. This is necessary because of the distortion of the Democratic primary, which overrepresents left liberals and African Americans. Left liberals are out of step with the American heartland. African Americans constitute mostly a small minority in the state general elections, but are a majority or a very large minority in several state primary elections. Moreover, caucuses suppress turn out of white and Latino rural and working class Americans. Thus the delegate system neither reflects the will of the people nor the best judgment concerning electability and representation of the interests of the broad and diverse Democratic constituency. In this contest, left liberals can be nominated for president, ideologues who do not represent the beliefs and interests of most Democrats, who are liberals and conservatives. The losing campaign of Michael Dukakis illustrate why an automatic delegate system exists and why it must be used properly.

The problem in the Democratic Party is that the automatic delegates aren't behaving in the manner intended by the reform that created them. The claim, which one hears a great deal from the Obama camp, is that the automatic delegates are supposed to follow the will of the pledged delegates. Of course, this is hypocrisy on their parts since they do not complain about the automatic delegates who have voted contrary to the vote in their state (Kennedy and Kerry are obvious examples). But hypocrisy aside, the automatic delegates are not supposed to vote with the pledged delegates. This is a myth. Automatic delegates are supposed to represent the interests of the broad coalition of Democratic voters and to make help sure the winning candidate is nominated.

We currently have a situation where one candidate has won some contests early, mostly in states that are not in play in the general election, and has manipulated the caucus system to build a narrow delegate lead, but has, for several of the last months of the campaign, not performed well, despite enjoying overwhelming support by the party apparatus and the media establishment. This candidate is a left liberal with a background in the south-side Chicago radical community, displays deficient knowledge in policy matters domestic and foreign, and is supported by blacks, affluent liberals, and youth but opposed by a majority of white rural and working class voters, Latinos, and women.

The other candidate, who possesses much broader and deeper experience and knowledge of policy, enjoys a broad coalition of support - white rural and working class voters, Latinos, women, affluent liberals, blacks, and youth. This candidate has more popular votes overall and has done better in primaries - which are, in contrast to caucuses, representative of the will of the people in the different states - in states necessary to carry the general election. This candidate is already winning the electoral college according to analyses of scientific polling. Her opponent is losing the general election according to these same polls.

The choice is clear. The automatic delegates can without anxiety and must act to put Clinton over the top to give the Democrats the best shot at winning in November. The automatic delegates will be voting for the candidate who has won the popular vote, who has won the most states whose systems best reflect the will of the people, and who is the best candidate in terms of experience, knowledge, and electability. They can correct the injustice that occurred this past Saturday when a handful of party elites took votes away from Senator Clinton and gave these votes, along with uncommitted votes, to Senator Obama.

The media and party elites have have misrepresented the Democratic nominating process and have cultivated a false sense of inevitability surrounding Obama. They have done this in order to make it appear as if the automatic delegates will act unjustly if they cast enough votes to Clinton for her to win the nomination. It is clear who the corporate elites want as their nominee: Obama. But it is just as clear as to who the people want to be their nominee and, moreover, who can win the general election. Her name is Hillary Clinton. She is an outstanding candidate for president who represents the broadest coalition of Democrats. Don't let party insiders and the flawed apparatus of the pledged delegate system put forward a losing proposition.

Posted by: Andrew Austin | June 2, 2008 1:16 PM

"It is amazing to me how few of the networks mention that it was a Republican legislator and Governor that dictated when the Florida people would have to vote, NOT THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATES."


Check your facts. The change was approved by the Florida Senate and House by votes of 37-2 and 118-0, respectively ( No matter which party introduced the measure, the Democrats almost unanimously supported it. If the vote had split on party lines, I would have some sympathy, and I suspect the DNC did as well.

Posted by: Terry | June 2, 2008 1:14 PM

What amazes me is the number of well meaning but obviously mindless people who support such a foul mouthed classless, greedy, sleazy individual. Neither Clinton nor her so called husband have any ethics, integrity or morals. Greedy, dishonest slugs is all they are.

Posted by: LarryG62 | June 2, 2008 1:13 PM

Even in popular vote Obama wins, get you math straight and count all 50 states. No wonder you are losing. Hey HRC, You're such a loser, just quit gracefully and resurrect what ever is left of Clinton legacy. STOP this hollow and baseless argument it is already too stale. In Primaries delgates count and in the general electoral college counts, stop you losing popular vote, may be that works if run for beaulty queen or American Idol. Leave some good will so atleast your daughter can get elected as Mayor of Chapaquea.

Posted by: MN | June 2, 2008 1:12 PM

Hello, DUH and thanks:
"All candidates pulled their names off the ballot in a show of unity, Edwards, Richardson, Obama, etc. All of the candidates running except Hillary."
You're speaking to candidates' motives and tactics. We can like them or hate them according to taste but I'm addressing the DNC ruling. Your post highlights the point that the uncommitted slate represents several candidates. Nobody knows exactly how many of the 600k Michigan voters supported each of those candidates. So, if the DNC is going to recognize the popular vote, then apportion the delegates according to the hard vote total. Let the candidates compete for the support of the uncommitted. I think that's the straight forward way for the DNC to deal with it. Hillary shouldn't be apportioned any more or less of the delegate count than her popular vote warrants. Similarly, the non-ballot candidates should not be awarded any delegates by extrapolation from soft data or assumptions when the DNC has a perfectly legitimate means of handling the "non-Hillary" popular vote, i.e., the "uncommitted" slate.

Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 1:11 PM

Am i the only person who is sensing a little bit of "wacko" happening in the hillary campaign? I am aghast that there are so many hillary supporters who are hanging on to dear life in the misguided, senseless and far fetched notion that she could still, by some unforeseen miraculous divine intervention win this nomination... i am also sensing that there seem to be a covert wish on the hillary support machine part to see obama lose the general election... why wouldn't Hillary Clinton, a proud undaunted Democrat at this point deem it a necessity to withdraw gracefully from the race and give barack obama the support he needs to win in the fall? then again considering all the mud that she has drawn him through which has left McCain with more than enough ammunition to use agaist barack, how would she now redeem herself as the unflustering endorser for abama. Any well thinking objective individual watching this race from the onset would recognise the flaws in Hillary Clinton's ways far outweighing those of barack obama's.And with saying all of that you have to understand what Hillary must be thinking right now, to have almost declared herself the winner from the beginning and is watching her self-proclaimed victory dwindle in front of her very eyes.Let us bear in mind also that Obama's nomination win will not by any means be a narrow victory. He will surpass the required amount needed to clinch the nomination leaving Clintion still with a deficit of approximately 100 delegate votes.

Posted by: Bhajan | June 2, 2008 1:01 PM

Hillary fought a good race. She had everything at the the end, I believe it was Obama's stance on the war in Iraq that pulls him through. I also believe that Hillary's motives are self-serving. Although that has nothing to do with whether or not you can be voted into the office of the presidency. Look at the moron we have makes you ask the question.....
Do you think the president of Iran could be a stand in for Gilligan? I do.

Posted by: MC | June 2, 2008 12:59 PM

It's really sad that togetherness cannot be obtain in this party. I know why, and that is because Prejudice is still in the hearts of our so called American People. If Mrs. Clinton truly loved the Democratic Party the way she say she does, then this race would have been over long time ago. Yet, she will rather risk letting a Republican in the White House instead of a Obama a Democrate, if she's not able to be the President of the United States. That's very bad business and government. What is the urgency for her to be in the White House, because it's not for the good of the people or she would have been behind Mr. Obama 100% to clinch the seat of a Democrate in the White House! If we lose that seat we will have Mrs. Clinton to blame, and then how far do she think she'll get in 2012 (if she decide to run) with a attitude of division like she has now! Even the scripture says, "Pride before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." Come on Mrs. Clinton, show the country what a supportive, strong, and powerful leader you can be for the Democratic Party. I truly hope getting into the White House is a personal gain you and Mr. Clinton is trying to achieve. WHAT ABOUT THE COUNTRY!!

Posted by: obamanow | June 2, 2008 12:59 PM

Another dig at Hillary Clinton by a Barack Obama supporter.

Let's save all these posts for November when McCain defeats Obama!

Posted by: Fred C Dobbs | June 2, 2008 12:57 PM

Hillary's still in it 'cause she knows she's gonna pull a "Vince Foster" (wink, wink-nudge,nudge) on Obama and get the nomination by default. Why else would she stay in a losing race if she didn't have that up her pantsuit sleeve?

Either that, or she'll accept the VP nomination and THEN pull a "Vince Foster". She can't lose (in her own mind, that is).

Posted by: Eric | June 2, 2008 12:56 PM

The DNC panel who voted on Michigan and Florida had more people on the panel who were Clinton supporters than Obama supporters. About a dozen of the committee members have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton; eight have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. Two members work for the Clinton campaign, including strategist Harold Ickes. The two chairmen--Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt Jr.-are neutral, but Herman served in the Clinton White House. They voted fairly. The Florida count was unanimous. The Michigan vote was somewhere along the lines of 22-8. If you had watched the proceedings that took place before the vote, you would seen it as very, very, very, fair to both candidates.

Posted by: Don Hannaford | June 2, 2008 12:56 PM

The three questions Hillary Clinton may be posing to the uncomitted super delegates for all intent and purpose appears already resolved comprehensively by Jon Cohen's polls analysis and I believe the super delegates are not only familiar with these obvious records but are wary of the people's power-dynamics. And as such are not in any hurry to make a hasty rally around Obama.Besides Mit Romney said a couple weeks ago that the office of the President of the United States of America is 'not an internship'! As such it does appear that the democratic party strategist are exploiting hillary's 'Rocky Billbao' fantasy as a remarkable sparring session of sort to sharpen the resilience of the not so 'Ready-on-day-one' Obama. All hail the 'wise-ones':the super delegates.

Posted by: Sly D | June 2, 2008 12:50 PM

So if western Europe is for Obama, that is a negative? Western Europe is at peace, the Euro is surging, the German autos are killing Detroit. France has the cleanest air of all industrialized countries and generates 80% of its electricity from clean nuclear power and reprocesses its spent uranium. Hmmm! Maybe the good old US of A can learn something from "old Europe" as the Bushies liked to call our allies there.

Posted by: Tom in Alabama | June 2, 2008 12:50 PM

It is amazing regarding the specious logic that is used by some posts to say that Clinton won the popular vote. However, given the closeness of the votes, the rules that is the delegates count that matters will resolve the ambiguity.

The conundrum is whether the proportion method used by the Democrats or the "winner takes all" used by the Republicans would be better for the general election. On the one hand, one method would make every state a battleground and not just the "swing states". On the other hand, there would be more instances of questioning votes and more potential for chaos. The stability of America is predicated on the acceptance that voting is valid, regardless of what has happened in the last two general elections. From that point of view, I believe that the Framers were wise in using a "winner takes all" method.

An additional comment might be that while Bush 43 "won" the last two elections, his presidency will in historical terms more than likely be considered one of the worst five. So, for all those considering McCain, do you think a Bush 43 third term is a good thing? :-)

Posted by: hektor | June 2, 2008 12:47 PM

It's ridiculous to suggest Obama doesn't do well in certain demographics. He trails in many groups against one of the most recognizable, established politicians in the world. BIG surprise. But just cuz Hillary leads among older voters, women, hispanics, and racists, doesn't mean they'll all automatically vote for her over McCain, or that Obama wouldn't win most of those groups against McCain.

Obama has said over and over again, Hillary Clinton is a very formidable opponent with a huge following. The margin is razor thin, but he's pulled it off. Within a few days, he will be the democratic nominee. Even with all the advantages she had, she simply was outplayed by a better opponent.

Look at the upcoming NBA Finals between Boston and LA....two great teams, the two most successful teams in league history. One of them will fall short of victory. Doesn't mean they suck, just that they were beaten. The only difference is, I doubt the fans of the losing team will blame the winning team for their loss, or demand that they give points back to them.

Posted by: Jeff | June 2, 2008 12:46 PM

I'm pretty sick of people saying the press gave Obama a pass since day 1. It seems to me they also gave Hillary a pass, up until the "driver's licenses for illegal aliens" question in the debate.

And that was not a difficult question, her answer was an attempt to waffle on the issue, and it did not get past Russert.

Since then, I will agree that the MSM press has been easier on Obama than Clinton. My belief is not that they are being OVERLY difficult on her; she is finally getting a taste of what she deserves. It's just that, after going so long without any kind of responsible challenge from the press, she is just trying to divert attention from the fact that she has run a losing campaign.

Posted by: Nick in Virginia | June 2, 2008 12:46 PM

It is amazing to me how few of the networks mention that it was a Republican legislator and Governor that dictated when the Florida people would have to vote, NOT THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATES. Yet the DNC wants to penalize the Florida democrats with a half vote for jumping the gun. (WHY?)
To Obama supporters: Obama campaign is based on his claim to bring CHANGE. Voters, be careful what you wish for CHANGE can go in either direction for BETTER or WORSE.
To the Clinton bashers: GET A LIFE, we all flourished under Bill the nation was strong and it felt great to live here. Now we pay $4.00 a gallon for gas and half the world would love to see us fail.

Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2008 12:45 PM

Hillary is winning the popular vote!

She also is winning in the unpopular vote category.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:43 PM

Why can't Americans see the tactic behind the rhetoric? Hillary isn't staying in the race because she believes she can win in 08, she's staying in the race to undermine Obama's changes in November, so she can run again in 2012!! One thing you can admire of Hillary, is that she has long range vision. When the debacle of Monica and another adulterous affair surfaced in 98' we all thought for sure Hillary was done with the marriage, but she stayed. Some said, it was because she had her own ambitions for politics and needed the Clinton name. Sure enough she ran and was elected Senator to NY in 2000. This newest display of blind tenacity isn't about loyalty (to supporters, or belief in a cause,) it's solely the narcissistic ambition of a person who is willing to do whatever it takes to get what she wants. This includes selling out, her party, and racially dividing our nation. I would say shame on you Hillary, but I know she has no sense of decency or morality in which to appeal.

Posted by: Hubeau | June 2, 2008 12:41 PM


"Thank you for stating that Obama "pulled his name from the ballot"."

All candidates pulled their names off the ballot in a show of unity, Edwards, Richardson, Obama, etc. All of the candidates running except Hillary. That right their speaks volumes about her idea of Party unity.

Posted by: DUH | June 2, 2008 12:41 PM

Don't believe polls they have been proven partial and unreliable like false prophets.
Michigan contest was indeed flawed by OBAMA when he signed an affidavit to remove his name from the ballet. Now, he wants to count the uncommitted votes in his favor 100% even those votes included about 25% for Edwards, who signed the affidavit too. Both of them did not want to count Michigan because Hillary was the very favorite candidate.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DOOMED TO BE SPLITED BECAUSE DNC TRASHED THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY. ALL VOTES MUST BE COUNTED AND ACCEPTED WITH THE INTENTION THAT THE VOTER INTENDED. IT WAS REVOLTING TAKING HILLARY'S VOTES TO GIVE THEM TO OBAMA. Obamas ambition has not limits, he could have waited eight years and Hillary would have pass the Presidency to him and both would have saved a ton of millions that our economy is in need. Obama is a flip flopper on issues, pastors, flag pins and placing the hand on his heart when the National Hymn is playing. I saw him in CNN and Pelosi too talking about the heavy weight of the popular vote when was convenient to Obama.

Posted by: NIL | June 2, 2008 12:39 PM

I think this bickering among Democrats is ridiculous. Someone has to lose. Why should Barack Obama be treated as though he stole something? He proved himself to be a better "brand" than Hillary had he not been in the race she would probably have gotten the nod. Obama's campaign will be the one to study for understanding how to do it right. He overcame the Clinton political machine that was able to make Hillary the Senator from NY after having lived in the state for less than 2 years, his political skill should be appreciated and respected. As for experience I'm not sure being a Governor qualifies you to go directly to the White House having held no position in Washington. Bill Clinton did as did "W", Ronnie Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Obama has all he needs to be as effective a leader as any of the others. In business a person can go from CEO Home Depot to CEO of General Motors not because he knows the product but because he has the ability and acumen to do the job. Support your party or suffer the consequences.

Posted by: S1-W | June 2, 2008 12:37 PM

Margret cloud...what were you thinking when you wrote I have never once heard one person say anything about calling a President Barak Obama, sounds like someone came over from Iraq to run, I sure do not want to call my President a name that sounds like he came from another country. I!m sure Obama is a nice person, but you know we need a women in the White House before we have an Africian American in. It is our time and I know Hillary will make a great President, she really knows what this country is all about..........
I've don't understand where people like you actually come from! Where your logic is. Using a name like Barrack and saying it sounds like he's from Iraq is plain stupidity and it sounds like you come in the demographic of the uneducated voter who supports hillary. My name is Hassan Malik and i'm a black male raised in cali. not muslim by any means, my parents found my name and liked the meaning. Yet if you heard my name you'd probably think I was from the middle east as well (and thats pathetic) Finally to say we need a Woman over an African american male also baffles's like you don't care how a person handles themselves or campaign. She got beat by the better campaign, one that started w/a huge setback because his name isn't known like the Clinton brand name. Yet he's in the lead by running the better smarter campaign. I know I don't want some one who has misspoke on numerous occasions answering the phone at 3am.

Posted by: hassan | June 2, 2008 12:37 PM

People seem to forget we live in a Republic. Popular vote doesn't determine elections as we found out in 2000.
There probably has never been a national or state election in this country where the count was 100% accurate. It has always been impossible to get everyone who is elgible properly registered, to get all the votes accurately cast and finally counted.

Polls close with people waiting to vote, ballots are hand counted incorrectly or even misplaced with few people made aware of this. All sorts of real life things.

If you accept this premise then what statistical error rate are you willing to accept for an election to be considered fair?

In most elections the error rate is smaller than the difference between the vote counts for each candidate. It isn't till you get dead heats that require multiple recounts that these irregularities begin to appear and create problems.

To avoid all this, do as they say in Chicago: Vote early, and vote often!

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 12:36 PM

The media is corrupt and bought. Since day one they have acted as a PR agent for Obama. Don't believe their lying polls. The vote is all that counts. These daily anti-Hillary articles are part of the flood of propaganda that defines the Obama campaign. With such tactics, our democracy is in grave danger.
Ladiesfirst, your recollection of recent history seems to be a bit skewed. At the beginning of the contest the press was anointing her the next president, so to say that the press has always been pro-Obama is just flat wrong. Those who would revise history to suit their aims are a far greater danger to democracy than a free press. You sound a lot like Richard Nixon who always blamed the media when things weren't going his way. But you're correct in one thing. The vote is all that counts, and Obama has the vote.

Posted by: lhummer | June 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Obama will be hammered in Nov. I will vote for him, but the repub attack machine will grind him up much worse than it did Kerry. Sad but true. If the party had any sense at all, it would have orchestrated a Clinton-Obama ticket well before the primaries even started. Now we will have another four years of Bush-style republicanism. I may have to move to Canada.

Posted by: Southern Democrat | June 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Hillary and Bill were iconic to my husband and me before all the sludge began to flow this year. My heart is deeply saddened by all the crafted lies and deceptions that have surfaced in this democratic primary. This is no longer about nominating the first woman versus the first black man... now it's more about electing a candidate with integrity versus a "say anything to get elected" politician. As stated in a previous entry, Obama's campaign ran circles around Clinton's campaign. There really is no excuse for where she is now, given her name recognition, money and political ties. Savvy readers in California like me now know who our leader really is! Obama has triumphed over the Clinton machine. That is sheer genius and has all the trappings of a gifted leader. Obama is inspiring and sure to be a great president. I am cheering him on! Yes We Can! Obama '08

Posted by: Californian | June 2, 2008 12:35 PM

On Tuesday we'll be singing "HI Ho the witch is dead. Which old witch,? The wicked witch. Hi Ho, the wicked witch is dead."

Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Just wait until Michelle Obama's "WHITEY" tape is released! All the obamanics & SD's that backed Obama will be sorry......

Posted by: Cindy | June 2, 2008 12:32 PM

The November election will be interesting. There are Clinton supporters will refuse to vote for Obama. Obama supporters that will not vote for Clinton. Some Republicans are refusing to vote for McCain. My parents both voted for Bush in both elections and now one of them is supporting Obama while the other will likely vote for the family dog as a write in.

Posted by: mb | June 2, 2008 12:29 PM

The calls to count only the "popular vote" completely disenfranchieses those of us who live in caucus states. Hillary Clinton's calls to concentrate on the popular vote are for more shameful than any actions that have taken place with respect to Florida and Michigan. She would disenfranchise all of the Democrats who participated in record turnouts in the caucus states. She would disenfranchise ME. I cannot forgive that. If she wins at this point it would only be because she throws voters in Iowa, Washington, and other states to the wind.

Posted by: fletc3her | June 2, 2008 12:29 PM

Obama is clearly unelectable, as he suffers with every demographic group except the blacks and kids who don't vote in November anyway. He has the Daily Kos and Ariana Huffington to thank if he gets the nomination. Sadly, they dont' win elections. Hillary is getting the voters we have been losing in recent elections, like white working class voters to come out, and has latinos, with whom Kerry polled mediocrily. Superdelegates need to assess who can win in November, not who can assuage slavery.

Posted by: Jay | June 2, 2008 12:28 PM

I am utterly amazed at how seemingly intelligent people can display such ignorance and total misunderstanding of the electorial process.

Posted by: RSD | June 2, 2008 12:27 PM

If Hillary thinks she is the best candidate, then she should run as an independent.

Posted by: A Third Alternative | June 2, 2008 12:25 PM

And, as a new yorker, I believe she will suffer the next time her name shows up on any ballot in this state.
I was a Hillary supporter till she started to get a bit wacky and Obama showed what great potential he offers.

But I really think Hillary and Bill have shown terrible ambitions. What they have put us all through these last weeks is pointless and derisive and for what gain? She has irritated many people. She has given false hopes to her loyals supporters who are really the biggest victims. And she has done her own career a real blow that may wound her future aspirations. There are few Democrats who will look back on this whole episode and feel good about it. Oh I suppose it was her right to drag this thing out for a long as she could but what a disservice she has done the next woman qualified to win the nomination and the presidency.

And I hope there will be one soon.

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 12:24 PM

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | June 2, 2008 12:24 PM

I live in CA, and I know how the vote breaks down. Yesterday I overheard a group of Mexicans say this joke: "Obama admits he can't fix the economy, but he can n***er rig it". That is the mentality of Clinton supporters, why she gets all the border states. The uneducated, the bigots, and the old. Does Clinton really think she will get those votes against McCain? DOUBT IT!

Posted by: CA Guy | June 2, 2008 12:22 PM

The time has come for the folishness to stop. Hillary has no chance of winning and hasn't for some time. Obama leads in ALL areas, including the popular vote. Only Hillary's distorted and dishonest math says otherwise. Her supporters can invent whatever fiction they choose but it won't change the fact the Obama has won based on the ONLY criteria that matters: delegates. And he did so in spite of actions on the part of her supporters that can only be described as cheating. It was to the credit of the DNC that they ensured the aggreements would deny her the ability to steal the election through underhanded means; specifically having the MI uncommitted delegates go the the convention as uncommitted and thereby giving her a few months to convince, buy, or blackmail them into her camp. THAT'S what has her camp so upset; the fact that the DNC say through the obvious and de-fused that particular hand grenade before she could throw it.

It's time for us all to move on before we get 4 more years of Republican stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence.

Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2008 12:21 PM

There seem to be two Kris' posting here. I am from Alabama. I am an American. I am a Democrat. I voted for Hillary.

Posted by: Kris | June 2, 2008 12:20 PM

It is evident that Obama's staff sat down and READ THE RULES prior to the first caucus' and primarys and Clinton's did not. Then Obama's staff made a plan and then brought the plan into existence as reality and Clintons staff did not. So why is it a suprise that Obama will be the nominee? And the way Obama and staff have operated has shown that HE IS READY TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF from DAY ONE

Posted by: Thabit | June 2, 2008 12:20 PM

Meanwhile, Ron Paul keeps pluggin along, consistent, honest and Constitutional as ever. Why Americans put up with the blatant mendaciousness of McCain, Obama or her Lady the Liar, is incomprehensible to me.

Posted by: gracias por nada | June 2, 2008 12:18 PM

I think it's sad so many people have gotten caught up in a game of high-stakes American Idol and are swooning over Obama when Hillary is the best choice this country has had in a long time. Even moreso than Bill-- and he's my favorite president!

Some of the most influential presidents we've had in the history of our nation came from brokered convention. As two examples: Lincoln and FDR, who were both trailing in the nomination process. Pelosi needs to shut up calling for it to be over. It is purely her showing her feathers against the very individuals who got her where she is today.

But since he's in the lead, Hillary should be his VP to keep the party from fracturing. Kennedy and Johnson didn't get along. Neither did Reagan and Bush. Being bosom buddies isn't necessary for a functional White House.

Posted by: Kris | June 2, 2008 12:18 PM

To all the DNC members that assumes all will be forgiven by Hillary's supporters when Obama is coroneted as the Democratic nominee,
we will not go to Obama!
All the polls can not even come near to measuring the silent majority that will never vote for him. We are the quiet undercurrent that you feel and are afraid of. Believe that there are millions of us and in November we will quietly but firmly let the DNC know how we feel.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:18 PM

my family and i will not vote for Obama 12 of us we are for Hillary just don't think he has enough experience . not a lot of votes but a fact

Posted by: jean | June 2, 2008 12:17 PM

First of all, let me share with you that I'm a male Hispanic that has experience and witnessed racism in this country.
Racism is expressed against one group by the single fact of that groups physical characteristics being race, color, gender, age....

In this democratic election the racism that stand out is the one from the black congregation, who in their discriminating and racist expression have voted for Barack for the one and only reason that he looks black and they have discriminated against Hillary, for the one and only reason that she is white and she is a woman.

What is truly significant in this race is that Hillary has suffered not just racism from blacks but strong gender discrimination from males that support Barack for the only reason that he is a male. You can witness male's hate for women on a daily basis if you watch MSNBC and any other TV channels dominated by men.

What is truly amazing is that the support for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America is so powerful in our country that she is still ahead in the popular vote and continues to win primaries even though she has suffered the most tremendous gender and race discrimination in history!

Hillary continues to carry the cross of discrimination on her back towards the convention where she will be crucified..............

The question still remains for all the superdelegates...

Are you going to be an active abler of the crucifiction of Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Manolete | June 2, 2008 12:16 PM

"The media is corrupt and bought. Since day one they have acted as a PR agent for Obama."

Not true. I remember at the beginning of this contest, the media treated it like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Hillary was the foregone concluded winner. Just a few big primary state wins and it was to be all over. She had the name recognition, the money, and the support of the party regulars. It was all over except the coronation. Remember, how she got the lioness share of the questions in the debates? All the air time on the MSM? Hillary supporters have a short memory, if they think the media has been for Obama since day one. In fact, I think that is was the media by pumping her up at the beginning that feeds this current sense of entitlement by her supporters.

Posted by: lorax2 | June 2, 2008 12:14 PM

It is really sad to hear HIllary stand in front of her supporters and out right lie to them.But it even sadder to see all of them believe her. She has been lieing for a long time. Her supporter are sore losers and they are easily fooled and they are alright with her trying to STEAL this election.She spoke of what happened with Bush STEALING and yet she is trying to do the same thing. Admittedly I won't vote for her IF SHE STEALS THIS RACE. Those of you that say youy won't vote for Oboma has no morals and you have to be predjudice. Black people don't re fuse to vote for white candidates, we could do the same thing and not vote for white people.If we di that what would white americans say? Would they call us stupid or predjudice or would they arrest us? Do that sound dumb? Well that is what you sound like. I will pray for you and your CHILDREN. If you are willing to let a republicanj be president then so be it.You say Oboma took this from the WOMEN because it was your turn, Is MCCAIN a man? This may be about a women for some but this is about skin color. If oBoma hired you for a job you would'nt work for him because he is black I don't think so. SHAME ON YOU ALL AND REMEMBER GOD MADE ALL PEOPLE AND HE IS STILL IN CONTROLL, AND HE KNOWS WHAT YOUR HEART IS THINKING. THATS WHO YOU WILL GIVE IN ACCOUNT TO IN THE END.

Posted by: happy | June 2, 2008 12:14 PM

As I read thru this list of comments, I cna't but notice that most of the people saying Hillary is the better candidate, Hillary should win, etc are women. Ladiesfirst, Margaret, Pamela, Kris, come to the realization- Hillary isn't going to win. End of story. Now come on and get behind the Democratic candidate so we don't have to deal with 4 more years of Bush style rule.

Posted by: Garry | June 2, 2008 12:10 PM


These are HIS words, from HIS book. One can see/read HIS words at Costco
for free as one shops for a new book.

Don't overlook the very last comment.....

In Obama's own words ...

This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close
attention to the last comment!!

Below are a few lines from Obama's books ... his words:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at
the age of 12 or 13, when I began
to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense
of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me
wary, a little too sure of himself,
maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: ; 'It remained necessary to prove which side
you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and
name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose
fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black
man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in
myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the
political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

If you ever forwarded an e-mail, now's the time to do it ... AND, again AND
again. ...

Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.LIKE THIS IN HIS BOOK?

Posted by: JABBER | June 2, 2008 12:07 PM

the writing has been on the wall for HRC for awhile she held on long past when it was good. time to go hillary there is a time to fight and a time to move on. the longer she holds on grasping at straws the more respect she loses if she wants another shot at this she needs to reassess her prorities.

Posted by: tired of this race | June 2, 2008 12:06 PM

How times have changed, once upon a time I really liked the Clintons, now through their own words I find myself agreeing with everything the Republicans have been saying about them for years. How sad to find the people you use to admire are really nothing but selfish lying egomaniacs who put themselves before their party and country. This campaign has shown me the real Hillary and Bill and it is not nice.

Posted by: Scott | June 2, 2008 12:06 PM

People seem to forget we live in a Republic. Popular vote doesn't determine elections as we found out in 2000.

Posted by: Robert | June 2, 2008 12:05 PM

Just like the Ron Paul wackos, there will always be Clinton crazies.

It's the Clinton's gift to america, that just keeps giving.

Posted by: Sally | June 2, 2008 12:04 PM

The three questions ought to be:
1) Which candidate was the hands-on favorite at the beginning of this contest, had the name recognition, had the "inevitability" title bestowed on her by a fawning press corp, but blew it by having no plan B for any states other then the big ones, claimed (falsely) to be taking sniper fire in Tusla, and made so many gaffes that her campaign collapsed?
2) Which candidate played by the rules set up by the DNC, took racist and sexist jabs in stride and became stronger for his forbearance, faced down withering sniper fire from the press and opponents over statements from preachers, and the more he appeared in public and the more people saw and heard him, the more they liked him?
3) Candidate managed their campaign the best, building up a war chest of money as opposed to a hugh deficit; which candidate out-foxed which candidate and came from behind to win the nomination and thus is the best candidate to continue to the GE?

Posted by: lorax2 | June 2, 2008 12:04 PM

To Sule: Why? What is it about Obama that makes the world think he is the best choice?

Posted by: phil | June 2, 2008 12:04 PM

The only person to blame for the collapse of the Clinton campaign in 2008 is Hillary Clinton. All the whining about press / media favoritism is senseless blather. She failed to assemble a competent campaign team. She had no plan for post-super tuesday until 3 weeks after super tuesday. She squandered her lead, fizzled on the stump, and turned to childish clinton-rovian tactics to try to slow the erosion at the polls.

She is unable to follow the rules that she imposed. Cintonistas conveniently forget that the **CLINTON** people set the rules that "disenfranchised" Michigan and Florida. ***CLINTON*** is the reason we are in this debacle. It is about time for you all to wake up and realize the Clintons are a cancer that needs to be excised.

Posted by: CRM731 | June 2, 2008 12:03 PM

"The math is not complicated. Obama has won the popular vote."

Bogus again. RCP has Hillary after PR when MI is factored in.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:03 PM

The whole FL and MI debacle only confirms my speculations on Hillary's character. You make an agreement, and you discard it on a whim once it no longer suits your needs. Where was the champion of FL and MI voting rights when the DNC Rules Committee neutered their delegates last year? She had every chance to speak out but she chose not to, till it became expedient to do so. America will definitely have a female president in the next 4-12 yrs(it's inevitable). We should thank God that it won't be Hillary.

Posted by: M. Solis | June 2, 2008 12:02 PM

Obama supporters are unbelievable. You criticize Hillary but somehow over look the fact that Obama has been lying from day one. Hate to break it to you but he takes lobbyist money, he takes oil money, he has pulled some sleazy tricks to win elections, he gave money to a lot of these Super delegates who are backing him (out of the goodness of there hearts or wallets,) he has accused people who have fought for civil rights as being racist, he's unpatriotic, he associates with anti-Semites. Obama is as scary as they come, he makes Dick Cheney look like an alter boy.

Posted by: Steve | June 2, 2008 12:02 PM

It's a big joke that Obama supporters repeated "Obama has won by the rules". First of all, the sole purpose of a primary process is to choose the candidat who's most likely to win in Nov. It's not an American Idol show that will end with a final champion. WE ARE NOT EVEN HALF WAY THROUGH!
By sticking to some ridiculous rules so that the media can lean to such a weak puppet, the whole nation will suffer for another 4 years of GOP administration, because Obama's would be simply worse. The blacks and far left have the freedom to paint their puppet as a uniter, but the voters have the freedom not to buy their fairy tale! He can not even unite millions of Hillary supporters. Isn't it the biggest joke in history that he can miracally unite the whole country or even the world?!!!
Also, the rules also say "Super delegates should vote based on their independent judgement on who will have the best chance to win in Nov." Obviously many of them are bought by Obama or mired in their personal hatred towards Bill. Yet Obama supporters always ignore this rule.

Posted by: Carl | June 2, 2008 12:02 PM

The whole FL and MI debacle only confirms my speculations on Hillary's character. You make an agreement, and you discard it on a whim once it no longer suits your needs. Where was the champion of FL and MI voting rights when the DNC Rules Committee neutered their delegates last year? She had every chance to speak out but she chose not to, till it became expedient to do so. America will definitely have a female president in the next 4-12 yrs(it's inevitable). We should thank God that she won't be Hillary.

Posted by: M. Solis | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Obama is not even an american and whatever he is he cannot understand America at all and never will. He is alien in thought and culture and everything else that matters to us. Ron Paul was the only legitimate candidate in this election cycle.\

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Please lets stop talking about true election and popular vote. In many states anybody was able to vote. The super delegates were created as a group of people interested in the best of the party. At this moment super delegates must be color correct.
In time that we need a good government I'm afraid will get ...

Posted by: Not again | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

1. Where is my $25mil?
2. Where is my nomination?!?
3. Where is the door?...

Posted by: Clinton's 3Qs | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Obamanation !!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

We live in a representative republic, which means that popular votes do not solely determine who become President -- much to Al Gore's chagrin back in 2000, despite his underhanded efforts to the contrary.

None of the three major candidates are worthy of the position, in my opinion. We have Obama the rookie, far-left socialist with "black liberation theology" racist underpinnings. We have Clinton The Supreme Liar. And we have McCain, Mr. Liberal-Lite.

I'll certainly pick McCain over the other two dangerous numbskulls, but it will be a painful punch of the card.

I laugh at those from other countries who say that if the entire world were allowed to vote, Obama would win in a world landslide. Gee, maybe that is because most of the rest of the world is socialist. And because Obama wants to talk unconditionally with leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmanutjob (about what?). The countries who would love to see the United States' socio-economic downfall would understandably LOVE to see Obama elected.

Posted by: Greg R. | June 2, 2008 12:00 PM

If he carried at least one core and sizable democratic state I would feel a lot more comfortable about the election.

I think the only bad element in this election are the True Believers on both sides (although I come across the Obama ones more). As a Democrat I am concerned if he wins the nomination and losses the election.

I stayed out of the primaries because I didn't feel by NY (my home state) there was information out from him and considering his very short stint on the national arena I really only know what he says. I do not know what actions speak for him frankly. But, I still like him and come November, if he's our guy, he's my guy.

Having said that, the amount of bile spilled on Senator Clinton over the course of this campaign by the same people who were kissing her... feet for the last 16 years is really obscene. The likes of Maureen Dowd and the rest of the talking heads really need to pull back and focus, there is not reason to should yourself int he right foot to proof the left foot can be just as useful.

The rest is really kind of fun I think. And, even if we lose the election Bush and company will be out, and we do have a congress that might actually get something done (here's to hoping)....

Posted by: ProfWoland | June 2, 2008 12:00 PM

Letting go must be very difficult for someone who thinks she deserves or is entitled to the nomination. It's quite humbling.

I have always thought that a key, if not the key, difference between the two Senators is the Clinton 'I' vs. the Obama 'We'. On the one hand, We is the root of a Democracy. On the other hand, I is the root of a Monarchy or Dictatorship.

Democracy seems to be alive and hopefully is getting better.

Posted by: AD | June 2, 2008 12:00 PM

"Let's not forget some of the "popular" votes for Clinton were the result of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." How does one factor those in?"

Bogus. Republican voters in early primaries voted for Obama to "get" HRC. It all evened out.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 11:59 AM

I will not vote for the man, as many would say Hillary is a fake... I have to say Obama is as fake as it gets. Listen to him... I mean REALLY listen to him... Its all bureaucratic BS... There is not a single convincing word in his blah blah talk... I have tried to believe him I have tried to listen to him... and that is the only reason I ever supported Hillary in the first place... She at least TALKED to you...You could get something from her... I think Obama put me to sleep a couple times...

Sorry guys I will either vote for McCain or I wont use my right as an American Citizen and I wont vote...

Posted by: Scott | June 2, 2008 11:59 AM

Obama-Junkie: Thanks for responding. We may be posting past each other.
I don't think I misstated a fact. Both names were on the Mich. ballot: one stayed on and the other was pulled. I have one idea as to why Obama took his name off and you may have another, but he did, in fact, pull his. Neither candidate was under an obligation to pull.
Also, the DNC has a long history of honoring "uncommitted" ballots. Governor Carter came in second to "uncommitted" in Iowa in 1976, for example
It would have been more consistent with DNC practice to honor Michigan's uncommitted slate; Hillary and Obama would then compete for them at or prior to the convention as other candidates have in the past. Its probable that Obama would win most of them, but at least the process would have as much internal logic as is possible when the DNC is involved - BTW, I'm a life long Dem.

Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 11:59 AM

And, by the way, Clinton does lead in the popular vote.

Those that show him leading do multiple things: they count Texas twice, shortening Clinton's lead there. They ignore the political failure that resulted when he volunteered and removed his name from Michigan along with other candidates. They give him those votes, despite the fact many may be Edwards'.

Then they estimate multiple caucuses. They have no number for these votes, so they just guess. Some even take the caucus numbers and apply them to the population -- if the caucus were a true representation of the population's will, he would have this many votes.

Then they attempt to ignore Florida and Michigan's plusses for Clinton. Because we can't have that.

If you do the real numbers, Obama loses. If you count the KNOWN votes, Obama loses. If you fudge the numbers, guess the caucuses, count Texas twice, and throw out Florida and Michigan then Obama wins like the pathetic, lying politician he is.

The real common sense here is to count the votes we know, and wait for those we don't. Unfortunately, that does not suit Obama and his cult. They have to make their leader look marvelous, and they'll scrap, lie, cheat, and steal to do it. After all, they stole delegates in Michigan because they could. They stole votes because they could. I guess we really are headed for a change -- Republicans become Democrats while Democrats behave like Republicans. Hide the votes, fudge the numbers, and follow the leader blindly.

Posted by: Jack | June 2, 2008 11:58 AM


You can dispute for long as you want who has the popular vote using various data. However, it is indisputable, who has won the most state; who has the most delegates; and who has the most money.


Posted by: Dan the Man | June 2, 2008 11:58 AM

dpdaw...why was Obama's name on the ballot in Michigan and Florida anyway, when all the candidates knew of the DNC decision to strip Michigan and Florida of delegates back in August 2007?!?!

The answer is because each Democratic state party put the candidates names on the ballot, not the presidential candidates' campaigns. Why would any Democratic compete against the Clinton name in a primary in which they can not campaign in that state? There is a Florida state law that prohibits candidates from removing their names after a certain time.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 2, 2008 11:57 AM

We will have failed once again if we choose Obama over Hillary.She is the best person for the job.Obama does not impress me at all.Hillary is focused,has experience,and has shown in so many ways that she is dependable.Obama is still "finding"himself.It shows by the company he chooses to associate with.He still has a lot of growing up to do.

Posted by: Toni | June 2, 2008 11:56 AM

the answer to the above 3 question is simple. the candidate who won most delegates is the one that the american people chooses according to the current law.

we are a law bindng nation.

Posted by: Richard Andre | June 2, 2008 11:56 AM

"Good luck America!
Remember: 99.99% of Europe wants Obama!"

Hey, thanks for the warning...

Posted by: James | June 2, 2008 11:56 AM

Thant's BILLARY Clinton's FUZZY math!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 2, 2008 11:55 AM

Senator Barack Obama leads in the Popular Vote despite Hill-Billy math to the contrary.
1.) That is the expressed will of the people.
2.) Pledged Delegates and Superdelegates are People who Vote. More of which are also for Obama than Clinton.
3.) It is this Choice by Voters in Primaries, Cacuses, States, Territories, Pledged and Superdeligate endorsements that tell us who is best able to lead the Nation as President despite the "personal" feelings of some on the loosing side.
Hillary has run out of voters, states, delegates, $money, appeals and is about to run out of time.

Posted by: Fareed | June 2, 2008 11:55 AM

I'm from Michigan and a Democrat. I voted for a Republican in our primary as I had no choice on the Democratic side. My vote wasn't counted either. What about us?

Posted by: Bruce Cash | June 2, 2008 11:55 AM


Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 11:55 AM

Hillary has the popular vote and the swing states. She is the more electable and the candidate with the most potential to beat McCain. Superdelegates better wake up and make the best nomination for the party. Obama will not win in November. More than likely there will be more about his leftist affiliations which will do him in. Even he should realize that he would be best suited to waiting this one out and coming back at a nomination one or two terms down the road when he has made an effort to establish some political credibility

Posted by: Pamela | June 2, 2008 11:54 AM

Obama-Junkie: Thanks for responding. We may be posting past each other.
I don't think I misstated a fact. Both names were on the Mich. ballot: one stayed on and the other was pulled. I have one idea as to why Obama took his name off and you may have another, but he did, in fact, pull his. Neither candidate was under an obligation to pull.
Also, the DNC has a long history of honoring "uncommitted" ballots. Governor Carter came in second to "uncommitted" in Iowa in 1976, for example
It would have been more consistent with DNC practice to honor Michigan's uncommitted slate; Hillary and Obama would then compete for them at or prior to the convention as other candidates have in the past. Its probable that Obama would win most of them, but at least the process would have as much internal logic as is possible when the DNC is involved - BTW, I'm a life long Dem.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 11:54 AM

I have never once heard one person say anything about calling a President Barak Obama, sounds like someone came over from Iraq to run, I sure do not want to call my President a name that sounds like he came from another country. I!m sure Obama is a nice person, but you know we need a women in the White House before we have an Africian American in. It is our time and I know Hillary will make a great President, she really knows what this country is all about.

Posted by: Margaret Cloud | June 2, 2008 11:54 AM

What is more important the Dem. party or the Clinton ego.

Posted by: charles kenneth | June 2, 2008 11:54 AM

I've had it up to my ears with all of you political pundits who think Obama is the better person. Why should you, THE TOOLS, be told who to vote for or who should represent your political point of views? Why have two different main stream parties that are constantly bickering to put their favorite choice before the American people? Why not vote for someone who stands for America and not their own gain. Not a one of these candidates is in it for the American People. The're in it for the money and prestige. So all you "OH MY PARTY'S BETTER THAN YOURS" Pundits, get off your high horse and smell what it's been dropping on you for all these years. OBama, Clinton, McCain, they're all EVIL

Posted by: Walter | June 2, 2008 11:53 AM

I voted in the Washington State primary. While Washington is a caucus state they did have a primary election and the caucus result was a fair reflection of the ballot vote.Was my vote or the hundreds of thousands of other Washington votes included in Hillary's calculation of the popular vote?

Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2008 11:53 AM

To the ignorant among us who say the press anointed Clinton, they did no such thing. They built her up as inevitable all while questioning that she may fail. When it came time for the caucuses, her supporters were told by the press to stay home. Her election was guaranteed. She was the person who would win.

Through that, Obama was allowed to win and given the immediate "one to beat" status based upon an unrepresentative, undemocratic process of caucusing. He won one caucus and he was the front runner. From then, she had to fight to stave off people believing she was inevitable thanks to the press. Then they turned on her and began to push Obama, fawning like a cult follower over the Grand Master.

Hillary Clinton was never truly meant to win. She was built up by the press so her supporters stayed home, and then when they had their opening they went for it. They tore her down, ripped her up, and spat her back out despite win after win. She continued to prove she was the true Presidential material, all while Obama sat back and enjoyed the unethical, unprofessional fawning. He now reaps the benefit of the overeager, hateful press that pushed his message of the Clinton's being racists.

Now, Democrats could lose this election because they had to nominate yet another world messiah that will lead us to the promised land like they did with Kerry and Gore. You'll get the same result, too. Especially now that Clinton's followers have realized that Barack Obama's and the DNC'S calls for unity are nothing more than demands to support him unquestioningly.

Posted by: Jack | June 2, 2008 11:53 AM

Europa, 99.9% of europe wants obama because 99.9% of europe is muslim!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 11:52 AM

the answer to all three questions is president obama. bye hillary.

Posted by: thetruth | June 2, 2008 11:51 AM

1) There will be time enough for counting when the voting is done. This argument sounds very democratic, but if Hillary isn't ahead by more than Michigan's "Undecided" total in more than her own way to count, it won't help much.

2) Obama ran the best campaign. He started with less name recognition. He campaigned in more states. They were neck & neck for Most Money Ever, and he didn't run out. One slightly bad choice, taking his name off the Michigan Ballot.

3) I can really see many people picking McCain over both of them, based on experience. I'm personally not sure, think Obama and McCain work across the isle more. Hillary is more McCain Jr when it comes to being tough on Iran and terror. Obama and Hillary are more alike on domestic issues.

Posted by: Epsilanti | June 2, 2008 11:51 AM

It's easy to say that only the popular vote should count when that benefits your candidate. But there is a [very good] reason that the popular vote is not the way we choose presidential nominees and presidents. If that were the case, New York, California, and Texas would choose our nation's highest elected officials.

This is how our country works. People without a grasp of this simple concept of government and civics should have to take a high school civics class before they are allowed to complain.

Posted by: Kevin in Houston | June 2, 2008 11:50 AM

I just hope all who are willing to move out when another Republican wins the Presidency actually DO move out. I for one will accept the vote of the people no matter who wins. We don't need the crybabies hanging around wringing their hands over who was cheated or what vote was not counted or whatever. We would all be better off if they moved across our borders to Mexico or Canada or even across the ocean. Let them be churlish there.

Posted by: Favpers | June 2, 2008 11:50 AM

Let the women who are unhappy with results vote for McCain and Cheeeeney...yes he will be there if McCain wins somehow...That will give them what they want...

Posted by: royals1 | June 2, 2008 11:48 AM

"Hillary has run a tough and strong campaign, and the country is better for it."

Really... Hillary has run a flawed and misguided campaign that has shown her to be an unacceptable candidate for any office, based on her willingness to lie, cheat and say just about anything to get the prize she originally lost by her own incompetence running the nuts and bolts of a campaign. On shear orchestration, Obama's team has run circles around the Clinton's leaving them little but gutter politics so show as their key strength

Posted by: nclwtk | June 2, 2008 11:47 AM

One year ago I thought that Hillary had it in the bag. I thought she was smart, fair, and was the best candidate. Then I heard Obama speak and was impressed from day one. I started thinking how she would make a great VP. Over time my opinion has changed. She is ruthless and I am scared of her. Her reasoning that she deserves the Michigan votes even though her opponent was not competing there is not just. Her embracing of Puerto Rico because she needs it is sad and desperate. It is time for her to support her party and her country and exit gracefully. She should hope that Obama would still consider her as VP after all the stuff she has said and let others do to him but I still give her some credit. I know Barack Hussein Obama will make a great president! I also want the world to know that I am wearing my lapel pin as I type this so I am a true American.

Posted by: MIKE from NJ | June 2, 2008 11:45 AM

They are both idiots.

Posted by: Andy | June 2, 2008 11:45 AM

No way should Hillary accept the VP spot. All she has to do is to wait four years of the McBush presidency to be over and run again with the slogan "I TOLD YOU SO" !!!

Posted by: G.M.Kesselring | June 2, 2008 11:45 AM

Hillary's rhetoric is far inferior to Obama's,
you can tell she is reciting,
she is uninspiring, and plastic.

A friend of mine jokingly told me
that she must be an 'under the table' republican..

Well, as this thing has evolved..
It might even be true!!

Good luck America!
Remember: 99.99% of Europe wants Obama!

Posted by: EUROPA | June 2, 2008 11:44 AM

One year ago I thought that Hillary had it in the bag. I thought she was smart, fair, and was the best candidate. Then I heard Obama speak and was impressed from day one. I started thinking how she would make a great VP. Over time my opinion has changed. She is ruthless and I am scared of her. Her reasoning that she deserves the Michigan votes even though her opponent was not competing there is not just. Her embracing of Puerto Rico because she needs it is sad and desperate. It is time for her to support her party and her country and exit gracefully. She should hope that Obama would still consider her as VP after all the stuff she has said and let others do to him but I still give her some credit. I know Barack Hussein Obama will make a great president! I also want the world to know that I am wearing my lapel pin as I type this so I am a true American.

Posted by: MIKE from NJ | June 2, 2008 11:44 AM

I think it's sad so many people have gotten caught up in a game of high-stakes American Idol and are swooning over Obama when Hillary is the best choice this country has had in a long time. Even moreso than Bill-- and he's my favorite president!

Some of the most influential presidents we've had in the history of our nation came from brokered convention. As two examples: Lincoln and FDR, who were both trailing in the nomination process. Pelosi needs to shut up calling for it to be over. It is purely her showing her feathers against the very individuals who got her where she is today.

But since he's in the lead, Hillary should be his VP to keep the party from fracturing. Kennedy and Johnson didn't get along. Neither did Reagan and Bush. Being bosom buddies isn't necessary for a functional White House.

Posted by: Kris | June 2, 2008 11:44 AM

I am not an American. But if the rest of the world could vote (and considering that the results would affect us, I think we should), Obama would win a WORLDSLIDE!

Posted by: Sule | June 2, 2008 11:43 AM

It seems apparent that Obama will become the nominee, though I do believe that once again, the lack of simplicity in our election system has paved the way for all the controversy. As a voter who started out Hillary, began to switch to Obama, but stayed Hillary (as a result of the Austin debate), I am frustrated that she could and maybe should have been the nominee, but for all the press and systemic craziness that occurred.

I do believe that Obama should reach out to Hillary for the VP spot because I think that is the one move that would assure a democrat in the white house come November. She has repeatedly shown she has a large voting block (particulary in States that we need) and whether you like her or not....she has earned it.

I know that many people say she should have bowed out some time ago, but I truly believe that this nomination process has done more to help the democrats, and our country as a whole, than hurt. Never have we seen so many people genuinely engaged in the process and the voter turn out speaks for itself.

I also have read comments that say they would be very disfunctional as a team, but I am confident that they both have the ability to work together when it's said and done for the good of the United States and could really be a force to be reckoned with. On to November!

Posted by: jp-austin | June 2, 2008 11:43 AM

Three questions that will come back to haunt not only the Democratic Party, but also the nation, in November.

Posted by: Mandelay | June 2, 2008 11:43 AM

Hasn't this race been over for a while? It's been essentially tied with Obama in a slight lead and nothing's ever changed. Fortunately for him she's stayed in the race so he hasn't been embarassed in some of the later primaries but it's over and he's won by a nose. I don't think she should even get the VP job (though a nice show where he offered and she declined would ease tensions) because such a ticket would be too dysfunctional. I know that hurts some HRC supporters but she has finished just behind Obama and I think the country would be better served by an administration that was a well-oiled machine so that Obama and Clinton's similar ideas can get pushed through.

Posted by: peter C | June 2, 2008 11:39 AM

Hillary Clinton fought the good fight, she saw it through when when it was extremely difficult to do so. Her team deserves our respect for what they have done and for bringing so many new Democrats to the party.

So McCain has been his parties nominee for a couple of months. He hasn't gotten more press, he hasn't gotten any positive bump in the polls. He'll go down to defeat in November to a seasoned and tougher Barak Obama because Hillary Clinton stayed in the race long enough to toughen him up.

Posted by: William Daviau | June 2, 2008 11:39 AM

Poor Hillary!! Let her dream. She has been making this argument for about two months and the result? In a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 superdelegates have come out for Obama. Today, even some of her own supporters are saying that they are ready to say goodbye to her. Tomorrow she and Bill will be in her mansion in New York thinking about what to do. She knows what she is facing: The worst blow will be her high profile supporters walking away from her.

Posted by: carl29 | June 2, 2008 11:37 AM

Thank you for stating that Obama "pulled his name from the ballot". Most reports on the Michigan primary simply state that he "was not on the ballot", leaving the impression that Obama was somehow wronged; in fact, he acted voluntarily to serve his own perceived needs.
How the DNC deemed this political move worthy of the reward of some of Hillary's delegates is another matter and requires the aid of psychologists.

Posted by: dpdaw | June 2, 2008 11:33 AM

Mirror, mirror on the wall--who's the more electable? Obama, Obama, and Obama. Now, go away, grasshopper.

Posted by: edwcorey | June 2, 2008 11:28 AM

Polls taken today don't mean anything more to November then those from last November to today. Obama is by far the best candidate. Who in their right minds wants the Clintons in the white house.

Posted by: ccccccccccc | June 2, 2008 11:28 AM

These questions should be answered by Wednesday or maybe Friday at the latest in case any of the uncommitted super delegates are on vacation or not watching tv. And just in case those supporting Obama are persuaded and want to switch to Clinton, it might take til Friday. There are probably some people who agree with her. I don't know any myself but there might be some.

Posted by: Gaias Child | June 2, 2008 11:26 AM

Let's not forget some of the "popular" votes for Clinton were the result of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." How does one factor those in?

Posted by: George Schwarz | June 2, 2008 11:25 AM

Enough already. Hillary is a strong and intelligent individual. It's time for her to recognize the direction that this is going and back out for the good of the party. To me she seems obsessed. It's become a turnoff to the whole process at this point and I'm certain that I am not the only person who feels this way.

Posted by: Trace | June 2, 2008 11:21 AM

Is this where the "healing begins?" It's up to everyone, both sides, to contribute to that. Clinton supporters especially need to help out here. You can argue both sides forever. Bottom line, though, is that based on the system set up, Obama wins. Change the system for later, sure, never disallow/penalize a state entire contingent of delegates (it just won't fly). But time is running short. It's go time. Time to face the facts and move on. I keep waiting for the healing to begin. Is it time yet? Please say yes.

Posted by: waynew | June 2, 2008 11:17 AM

I am from CA as well, and Obama is definitely winning CA residents over by the huge margin; as the current polls reflect. The only reason he lost was due to the fact that he was not very well known at the time.

Obama 08!

Posted by: CTM | June 2, 2008 11:16 AM

The media is corrupt and bought. Since day one they have acted as a PR agent for Obama. Don't believe their lying polls. The vote is all that counts. These daily anti-Hillary articles are part of the flood of propaganda that defines the Obama campaign. With such tactics, our democracy is in grave danger.

Posted by: ladiesfirst | June 2, 2008 11:14 AM

McCain's RNC funded candidacy is so weak, this is the Presidential election, it is going on right now. The Clintons know that and that is why they will hang around until the last possible moment, she said it herself, hoping something bad will happen to Barak.

Posted by: shrink2 | June 2, 2008 11:11 AM

Answers: Obama, Obama, Obama. Case closed. The Hillary campaign's lingering, excrutiating demise does nothing for the party or the country. She's determined to taint Obama's win for her own selfish purposes. I can't wait for the day when we wake up and don't have her in our face any more. Just go away, go away, and let us get on with it.

Posted by: Rose | June 2, 2008 11:09 AM

The math is not complicated. Obama has won the popular vote. This claim by Hillary and her supporters that somehow more people voted for her is ridiculous. Hillary includes the Michigan N. Korea style primary, but exclude Iowa and includes only those races that took place on the third Thursday following a full moon when the cock crowed three times which were primaries, but not caucuses, etc., etc.

In short she is proving that she wants to win this by hook or by crook. She is basically arguing to the superdelagates that they she give their votes to her because she won in the states that "matter" What does that even mean. Virginia and Colorado most certainly matter, especially this year. What she is basically arguing is for the superdelagates to give the person with fewer pledged delegates the nomination, which would means overturning the nomination of the first African-American presidential candidate in US history. So their choices are give their votes to the candidate with the fewer pledged delegates and lose African-American votes for a generation, or give their votes to Hillary Clinton because she won the majority of ignorant, racist, hick Appalachians who weren't going to vote for her in November anyway. Tough choice.

Posted by: el_barto | June 2, 2008 11:04 AM

Hillary has chosen to show us her seamier side. She lies. she is willing to cheat (I lead in popular votes, if you count the way I do). And she is willing to steal (see last sentence, and the cattle futures, Bill's anonymous donors, etc.).

She destroyed her own image, legacy, and legitimacy by behaving badly, showing us her racist side, and her true egotistical, narcissistic self.

Stick a fork in her. She's done in this race.

And, as a new yorker, I believe she will suffer the next time her name shows up on any ballot in this state. Indeed, if she tries to run for governor, she will lose, again, to a black man.

Posted by: jeffp | June 2, 2008 10:58 AM

I am not buying into those polls-especially that Obama is running stronger in California. Not from were I am standing and I am a California resident. It seems like many of Obama supporters (particularly women) have buyers remorse here.

Posted by: jaylo | June 2, 2008 10:51 AM

Hillary has run a tough and strong campaign, and the country is better for it. But irregardless of the arguments, Abama is winning in the only importnat category, delegate count.

Its time for Dems to move past this and start looking toward the general election.

Posted by: over_educated | June 2, 2008 10:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company