About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

New Clinton Ad Uses Interesting Numbers

Hillary Rodham Clinton's newest ad "17 Million" suggests she has won more than 17 million votes, a figure sure to be disputed by almost everyone else.

Here's the ad script:

Tuesday it's up to you. You can over 17 million people who voted for a leader to fix the economy. 17 million for a commander-in-chief to bring our troops home from Iraq. 17 million who want to beat John McCain. 17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton, more than for any primary candidate in history. Some say there isn't a single reason for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. They're right. There are over 17 million of them.

There are several ways to measure the popular votes totals. (Washingtonpost.com partner RealClearPolitics.com displays the various calculations on its Web site.) So how did the Clinton campaign come up with the 17 million figure?

"We're going by the AP projections, and we're counting both Michigan and Florida," said Harold Ickes on NBC's Meet the Press. Ickes added he believed that 17 million tally included tallies from non-binding primaries in Nebraska, Washington, Idaho and other states.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  June 1, 2008; 2:25 AM ET Ad Watch , Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Video Highlights of the DNC Meetings | Next: Mark Warner's First Senate Campaign Ad


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Ad Watch. What about Obama? Does his campaign put out ads that are beyond scrutiny?

Now that Obama secures the votes of his church, he can afford to abandon the church. If he really had faith he would stay in the church and help to fix the problem

Posted by: Vernal | June 1, 2008 6:39 PM

It is a sad day for Americans when the democratic party decides to take delegates away from the canidate the votes were cast for. I don't know how I will be able to vote for the canidate of this party. Maybe we need a investigation in to the primary and caucus procedures. Are these fair, should we have independent election monitors from other countries to make sure this supposedly democratic nation can have a fair election where all votes are counted for the canidate they voted for?

Posted by: Kaye | June 2, 2008 12:53 AM

Who cares?

Rove always wanted to run against Clinton or Obama in November, and Dumbocrats will find out why, soon enough.

Posted by: framecop | June 2, 2008 8:05 PM

After carefully studying the way the democratic party "distributed votes" on Saturday, I decided I absolutely would become an independent. Howard Dean and "the committee" have lost my vote. It's about the party heads and not about the voters. It's wrong.

Posted by: kt | June 2, 2008 8:06 PM

Vernal - you said, "What about Obama? Does his campaign put out ads that are beyond scrutiny?"

Are you aware that your response, when confronted with the misleading and unethical behavior of the candidate you support, is akin to saying, It's OK because others do it too.

I happen to disagree with you because I believe Obama's behavior and ethics have been several notches higher than Clinton's.

But to defend Clinton's misleading ad by attacking Obama simply shows that your own mind is not as balanced as it could be.

Posted by: Dave | June 2, 2008 8:08 PM

when 'uncommitted' is 6% or 3% or 8% in most states and then balloons out just for michigan, what rational adult no matter who they support really believes none of them were obama votes with no name to vote for? Just a fluke, we would like to say they were obama but can't, technically.

Let's not split hairs. Clinton would rather count puerto rico votes then caucus state votes.

You can't make knock out of the park claims like for the popular vote if it is a mind numbing gray area. You can't say uncommitted are not obama votes due to a technicality then claim a broad, non-technical black and white popular vote win.

For a person who wants to say she is not an elitist, having a PAC form immediately for a given purpose and protest is weak. The michigan and florida plans were approved of by the states own democratic parties.

I'm sorry, but Harold Ickes, who is dramatically decrying it, felt okay with the rules process back in January.

Posted by: iowa grant | June 2, 2008 8:08 PM

Now that Obama secures the votes of his church, he can afford to abandon the church. If he really had faith he would stay in the church and help to fix the problem


One has faith in God, not in any single church.

a personal walk with Christ is all that is important.

Posted by: useyourmindpeople | June 2, 2008 8:08 PM

Rove better hope his candidate wins. If not, there won't be Bush to give him a pardon.

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 8:09 PM

want ba-ba?
only a baby would call for an unfair election that is "flawed you bet your ____" as it is, i hop yuo wallow enough in your selfishness to appreciate the war and the economic impacts mccain will have on you and your families

Posted by: kaye and kt | June 2, 2008 8:09 PM

Vernal, maybe Obama is the problem.

Posted by: Joe Davis | June 2, 2008 8:09 PM

I never knew some americans were this retarded until the election brought that out. Attacking someone blindly for no single reason because an old hag did not win votes...pathetic bunch of nitwits.

Posted by: INXPIRE | June 2, 2008 8:09 PM

I think Clinton supporters should all go vote for McCain. The Republican party normally has the ignorant population as its base, so in the name of consistency, they should have Clinton supporters as well.

Posted by: Dr Jay | June 2, 2008 8:13 PM

First, the disclaimer: I am an Oregon Democrat voter that was undecided up until about three days before our ballots were due. (We are vote-by-mail here.) I finally chose Clinton. Not because of any specific dislike of Obama, but "just because". She is a known quantity to me. I know she supports healthcare, and would fight for it. I didn't know that for sure of Obama. (Not because of any dislike of McCain, either for that matter. I just had to choose a party to have any influence in the primary, and the Democratic Party was the only one still being contested at the time. McCain is the one and only Republican from the primaries that I would even possibly vote for in the general election.)

As for the Democratic Party shenanigans, the whole thing stinks to me. First, the party set rather arbitrary limits on primary elections for the sole purpose of appeasing a few 'historically early' states. Yes, the limits were stupid, but they were there. Second, two states violated those limits, and were punished. The punishment was known before they decided to violate them. They went ahead anyway. The voters of Michigan and Florida need to rise up against their party leadership for allowing this stupidity. Third, ALL of the major candidates supported the punishment at the time. (Yes, even Clinton.) Obama even went so far as to have his name not included on the ballot. This makes the Michigan primary completely useless. It was not a true election. (Heck, the fact that so many people chose to choose "nobody" over Clinton is a fairly big deal.) Michigan should not be seated at all. Period. It was not a proper representation of the choice. Florida? That's a tougher call, since it was a "true" choice. If I were in the party leadership (but not in a position to actually change the rule, just enforce it,) I would seat Florida at full strength, with the warning that next time around, they would not be seated at all, period. The whole thing is a monstrous set of stupidity, though.

So, now it has come down to the point where Clinton's victories in those two states are her last possible hope. I'm sorry, but had this crap been going on before I cast my ballot, I would have definitely voted for Obama instead. This just cries of sour grapes "change the rules when I'm losing" on Clinton's part. (My wife also voted for Clinton, and she is, at best, ambivalent about it.) At this point, if Clinton ends up winning "by lawsuit", in spite of the obviousness of Obama's victory, I am certainly going to vote for McCain in November. I won't like it, but I don't want Clinton to become president because of lawsuits any more than I liked the way the 2000 election turned out. We don't need a miniature Democrat-only version of that debacle.

Posted by: Ed H. | June 2, 2008 8:15 PM

Edwards was better than both, Ron Paul is better than all four.

I just think this current election is a game of popularity (and I dont mean votes.)

Do you want the puppet on the right? Or the puppet on the left?

How about something real for once.

Posted by: CS | June 2, 2008 8:17 PM

Leave it to my Dumocrats to take it till the final mins to choose a candidate with the worst two candidates of the lot. The Republicans nominate about the only Republican who can win ... and the Dumocrats nominate about the only Dumocrat who can't. Richardson, Dodd, Biden ... all these guys would have beaten any Republican in a cake walk. Now it looks like McCain will take it w/ease. Amazing. I'm embarrassed and ashamed at our lunacy.

Posted by: Montel Dyson | June 2, 2008 8:17 PM

I have lived through a on term president who is still a nut job...Carter...I do not want to live through another one who says he is "black" but is as much white as he is black..Obama...McCain at best would be a one term president...I hope that Hillary runs as an independent...this election can be a turning point in US history...not because of the war but the disparity in the infrastructure of the US...
Are there any polls with all three of them being candidates?

Posted by: willie boy | June 2, 2008 8:22 PM

So she can't count right, so what if she didn't dodge bullets in Bosnia, who cares if she changed her mind about NAFTA, Iraq and the Michigan votes, the good news is that she is only viable candidate in her own mind.

Posted by: Mary | June 2, 2008 8:23 PM

No one posting on this board is fooling anyone -- these self-righteous "sad day for Americans" and "vote distribution issues" and blah blah blah... DEAR HILLARY SUPPORTERS - WE'RE SORRY YOU WERE UNHAPPY THAT THE DNC PLAYED BY THE RULES THAT HILLARY AGREED TO AT THE BEGINNING AND DIDN'T STEAL THE NOMINATION FROM OBAMA. Get over it. "I'm switching to Independent" - who are you kidding?

Posted by: Brian | June 2, 2008 8:26 PM

The problem with re-distribution of Michigan votes is not that Obama got all the uncommitted ones. It is that He actually got MORE than uncommitted ones, and Clinton got LESS than the number of people that explicitly voted for her. I'm not saying Michigan should or should not be counted (it's complicated), but this vote "re-distribution" is just mind-boggling to me. Giving uncommitted to Obama is one thing. "changing" some explicitly-for-Clinton votes to Obama is another.

Posted by: Dimdim | June 2, 2008 8:26 PM

Mary -- exactly which rules did DNC play by? I must've missed the "if state holds election too early, in case one candidate gets 55% of the vote, and there are 40% uncommitted, the votes will be re-distributed approximately 53-47%, but still counted to make votes feel like their vote mattered". I guess I must've missed something similar somewhere in the DNC rules.
Not counting votes, or counting half, or even giving all uncommitted to Obama (though all minus 6-8% is more reasonable IMHO) all seem fine. Vote redistribution seems... icky.

Posted by: Dimdim | June 2, 2008 8:29 PM

It seems people are forgetting that Florida and Michigan defied the DNC primary scedule and rules by moving up their primaries. They had already AGREED to the RULES and KNEW what the consequences would be: the delegates would NOT be seated at the Denver Democratic Convention. With their AGREEMENT AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THEY DEFIED THE DNC and the punishment was enacted: Their delegates would not be seated at the Denver Convention. People also seem to forget that ALL, yes, ALL candidates AGREED with the DNC rules. Hilliary wanted the DNC rules broken/changed AFTER she saw she was losing the primary. Then is when these two states started their clamoring the DNC was unfair. Let's all remember that these two states' primaries were NOT sanctioned by the DNC...that means those primaries were nil and void period. Hilliary herself announced these states' primaries did not matter as they were just beauty contests and did not count. But, then, that comment was made while whe was wearing her "inevitable crown" for the nomination. Once that inevitable crown fell off her head, her story changed and suddenly those states became the most important to her!! Hilliary does NOT give one hoot about Florida and Michigan and their voters; WHAT SHE CARES ABOUT IS THE VOTES AND THE DELEGATES!!! Needless to say, she is again lying to the public in South Dakota and Montana claiming she has won the popular vote. Folks, she is feeding you fraudulant information!!! She has NOT won the popular vote or anything else in this primary, period! Please, folks, please do not buy into her fraudulant claims!!

Posted by: NinaK | June 2, 2008 8:30 PM

pf.. willie boy what is that suppose to mean, who says he's black but he acts white? what's your idea of black? he walk up on stage actin' like snoop dogg?

a lot of people seem to realize this isn't a national general election. this is an election by parties that are essential private organizations. there is really no real obligation they allow you to vote at all.

quit wearin' blinders and feelin' like you're bein' screwed. vote for who you want. write in someone if they don't make it.

above all, stop whinin'. all these "adults" i hear complainin' all the time sounds more like 8 year olds.

stop bein' so dependent upon officials that don't give a rats ass about you. i'm not tryin' to endorse any particular independent. i'm tryin' to say this "majority rules" mentality is stupid and a slippery slope. only individuals can decide what's best for themselves and majority rules usually ends up scrapin' too many people into the dumpster simply because they were on the "wrong side".

stand up and live your lives and stop bein' such sheep. damn.

Posted by: billbraski | June 2, 2008 8:34 PM

The problem with the DNC and their handling of this affair isn't as much with how they handled the delegate counts on Saturday, but that they handled them at all. Saturday should not have happened.

Fact: All Democratic candidates agreed last year that MI and FL would NOT be counted. This fundamental and inescapable fact skews any voting results, rendering them useless. Funny how so many votes went to "Mr. Undecided". The two states HAD their chance to be properly represented, but they did not follow the rules. As such, an agreement was entered into by all campaigns. One campaign cannot now hypocritically renege on that pledge and attempt to factor in artificially skewed numbers in their favor while they stall for time and attempt to pry pledged delegates away from the other candidate. It's all very, very unsavory and underhanded. I never understood why right-wing nut-jobs hated and distrusted the Clintons so much, but I must admit I'm now starting to see things their way. I volunteered for both of Bill's campaigns locally. I used to LOVE the name Clinton but my dissatisfaction grows by the day. Every day I hear of Hillary rallies where her speeches stoke racist comments and hatred of her fellow Democratic candidate is a day that further darkens my opinion of the Clinton name.

The time is overdue for us to work together on the things that unite Democrats. It is time to accept political realities. Either candidate will make a very good President. I think Hillary would, and I think Obama would. Every day that this one-sided cat fight goes on, however, my opinion of Obama grows, and my opinion of Hillary diminishes. This business of cherry-picking rules that should apply, and masking the argument behind a disingenuous facade "disenfranchisement" is insulting. It could very easily be argued that full representation of the delegates from MI and FL would result in the real disenfranchisement by not hearing the voice of all those voters that stayed home on primary days because they knew there primaries did not count.

Stop the games. Stop the b.s. Get on with the business at hand... defeating the real enemy, the GOP.

Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 8:36 PM

pf...read the truth..if you are 50% white and 50% black then why cast yourself as either, especially if you are trying to unite this country...for his admission to law school, he chose to call himself black..more convenient I guess for him to use the minority card..
why sit through 20 years of religious retoric..why not quit your church when it first went radical...not convenient...it is you who should wake up and realize that I am neither a liberal nor conservative. I actually wanted Arnold to run..he knows how to work with all people

Posted by: willie boy | June 2, 2008 8:43 PM

the senate just decided to talk about the climate. clinton at least knows it and hopefully will do something... gas is 4.00 and climbing and will be 7.00 in a year we need someone to gt this job done now, mccain is a joke has to many ties and will bow to the oil co. just like bush. how do you feed your family on 2-3 min. wage jobs. with gas prices up and food up. go homeless and feed your car for work??? some bad choices coming for a lot of families. let`s make one good choice ,clinton,and hope she makes some good ones to.

Posted by: carol | June 2, 2008 8:44 PM

Who in the hell dreamed up the process to determine a democratic cantidate?

How about 'one weekend in February, Friday noon till Monday noon' all states have their primaries, no media coverage until all votes are counted, and forget the delegates, super delegates, and all the bullsh!!t, and let the popular votes count??
I guess CNN would not make as much money, but it would let the PEOPLE decide.

Posted by: bigdog | June 2, 2008 8:44 PM

Any real clingon supporters who remain, you should definitely check out hillaryclingonforum dotnet. I learned everything I need to know about her supporters there, and during the broadcast of the RBC meeting. It's been more entertaining than the monkey exhibit at the zoo.

16 million and change voted for her, 16 million and somewhat less change have long converted to obama. A couple thousand are left and they spend their lives blogging alongside republicans who have duped them.

They're so devoted to hillary. What are they going to do when she wholeheartedly supports obama?

My favorite post was from someone who said BO supporters are afraid to come on there and have an intelligent debate. The whole while they publicize that they will ban anyone who isn't a true HRC supporter.

They sure picked the right candidate for their needs.

Posted by: duh | June 2, 2008 8:47 PM

For those of you and the Clinton clan who are complaining about the distrribution of delegates in Michigan...did you watch the preoceedings?? It was clearly stated that The Michigan hads proposed this particular option. And that is what was finally agreed upon by the DNC members. As I poited out earlier, and as I am sure you are well aware, the primaries in Florida and Michigan did NOT count. Therefore, Hilliary cannot claim she won, especially since no one else was on the ticket!! The other option that was open was a 50/50 split for Michigan. So, you see, since the primary did not count, there were NO winners, Period. What you guys want is for Hilliary to be credited with all her votes which did NOT matter to begin with...this is America, not a dictatorship. Remember Hitler? That is how Hilliary is conducting herself and you guys are conducting yoursleves like her flunkies. For shame.

Furthermore, the DNC chairman specified at the beginning of the meeting that the appropriation of delegates was NOT about Clinton and Obama, it was all about how to come to a solution for seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: NinaK | June 2, 2008 8:49 PM

True fairness is when it doesn't favor you but you can still raise above it and agree with what's right. When a lot of Hillary supporters passionately fight for "fairness" or "democracy" they are really just fighting for those who voted for them, anything short from that is "cheating". It's like Fox news accusing every other station of being liberal.

That's the case when they claim to be fighting for voters' rights regarding MI and FL. They are really only fighting for those who voted for Hillary, because - what about those who wanted to vote for Obama but either couldn't (as his name wasn't even on the ballot) or didn't because of the rule clearly says it wouldn't count, which everyone including Hillary agreed to? It's OK to bail and switch on them so they couldn't express their true voice? These voters rights don't matter, only Hillary votes do. That's right, only states that voted for Hillary count as well.

Posted by: Foo | June 2, 2008 8:51 PM

How do you figure MI to be fair the way they divided it up? It'd be like hitting the lottery without buying a ticket because you intended to buy those numbers!

Posted by: Gene_FL | June 2, 2008 8:53 PM

Bottom line Obama has so little experience it scares the hell out of me.

Hillary is ready on day one. period.

We are either going to have another 4 years or the same another 4 years with someone who hasn't got a clue what he is doing. All because it sounds like sexism. If Hillary isn't there neither am I. I won't vote for Obama, because he HAS no experience, hasn't put in the time yet to learn it. I'll be going independent. If the democratic delegates are going to day damned with the voters I say damn with them.

Posted by: chargy18 | June 2, 2008 8:55 PM


You ask, are the primaries, caucuses, and conventions fair? That's up to party members to decide. Take your case there.

For everyone: Primaries are the affairs of private organizations to decide upon the rules themselves. States agree to help with some $ and admin. help. But we're not talking about laws with the rules.

Is it fair to change post-hoc election rules when had the post-hoc rules been in place initially the behavior or all actors would have been different--candidates, parties, eligible voters, donors, media, etc?

No. You can't just change one variable (make Fl and MI valid) as fair because you can't change the other variables.


Both campaigning in FL and MI. Voters better informed. Obama on MI ballot. Different campaign strategies, higher turnout in MI and FL....

Changing to a popular vote standard post-hoc? Even worse. Diff. campaign strategies, would be no caucus states, symmetric rules across states--Obama wouldn't have blown off late states nor Hillary early caucus states.

It's unfair, and undemocratic--to change the rules after-the fact. Democratic principles require--fundamentally that rules be established in advance and that interested parties be informed of them.

Take 4 delegates away from Clinton? No, they weren't hers to begin with to take. She didn't have them. The whole affair was to figure out how to apportion delegates, not to allot them simply based on primary voting.

Is an election where 1 candidate was on and the other wasn't on the ballot fair? No, that's what dictators do. For very reasonable reasons, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Biden removed their names. Kucinich tried but missed a deadline. Dodd wanted to but couldn't afford it. Hillary played games; we later saw why.

Hillary is the one who abandoned principles by trying to change rules post-hoc. And she succeeded: FL and MI did count, just not exactly as she wanted in result. But she still came out ahead. Considering that they were invalid primaries--per her assent--she's lucky to have gotten anything.

Hillary wasn't screwed over Sat., she was made better off.

She lost fair and square, despite her attempts to make the contest unfair late in the game.

Posted by: jackstpaul | June 2, 2008 8:56 PM

(EDITED VERSION) For those of you and the Clinton clan who are complaining about the distribution of delegates in Michigan...didn't you watch the preoceedings?? It was clearly stated that the Michigan heads proposed this particular option. And that is what was finally agreed upon by the DNC members. As I pointed out earlier, and as I am sure you are well aware, the primaries in Florida and Michigan did NOT count. Therefore, Hilliary cannot claim she won, especially since no one else was on the ticket!! The other option that was open was a 50/50 split for Michigan. So, you see, since the primary did not count, there were NO winners,therefore NOONE STOLE anything from Hilliary! Period! What you guys want is for Hilliary to be credited with all her votes which did NOT matter to begin with...this is America, not a dictatorship. Remember Hitler? That is how Hilliary is conducting herself and you guys are conducting yoursleves like her flunkies. For shame.

Furthermore, the DNC chairman specified at the beginning of the meeting that the appropriation of delegates was NOT about Clinton and Obama, it was all about how to come to a solution for seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:57 PM

Between Hillary and Bill, it's only a question as to who is the bigger liar? The Hillary supporters on Saturday were discusting, but not as much a Harold Ickes who looked disgusting, used foul language and doesn't really know what it is all about. It used to be the map and now it's the math, what next???

Posted by: chet mccabe | June 2, 2008 8:59 PM

The fair solution to michigan would be discard the results completely, splitting the delegates 50/50. There are a number of reasons why this election was completely bogus, but the following is reason enough. The DNC told the candidates not to campaign there, and Asked them to remove their names from the ballot. Obama does these things, and is Punished as a result. If he had kept his name on the ballot and campaigned there, there is every indication he could have won the state.

However, since obama needs to make nice with clinton supporters to win them over for the general, he's not complaining about this compromise when he has every right to be pissed because it is not fair.

Meanwhile, clinton supporters take the compromise for granted and ask for the moon.

Posted by: ben | June 2, 2008 9:02 PM

So you think it's important to respect the results in MI and FL because people voted, even though the rules stated it wouldn't count.

OK, by the same logic we should count those who showed up after the polls closed - they might not have followed the rules but they really, really wanted to vote and how can we take away their voice?

There's a reason we don't change rules after the fact. People voted the way they did because of the rules in place at the time. Had we known it would count many people would have done differently.

Everyone knows after warm up runs in baseball and after the real game begins it's absolutely ridiculous to say, hey let's count the scores from warm up as well. But here people are blinded by their passion and not see it. Again, it's easy to be fair when it favors you, the true test comes to when it doesn't.

Posted by: Foo | June 2, 2008 9:05 PM

It's time for a write in on the general election ballot....

Posted by: marinemom2319 | June 2, 2008 9:06 PM

Hillary needs to concede. She has lost. Michigan + Florida should be disputed, he didn't run an campaign their/here; people respond to campaigns, I wish people would read versus listen. American democracy sucks no matter what, we are a republic, yet advertise otherwise, the republicans are actually anti everything, anti-muslim, anti-peace, and anti-prosperity. Democracy is only as good as the people who vote in them, Americans are way undereducated. America is likely to be taken over by a Federal Reserve who succumbs to a Chinese power state, y? because we are being had everyday by people who think they are really smart, but are really just way too rich. Locke/Hobbes argued divine rule, now we remain silent while we bow down to kings who lack titles and hide in shadows while chairing their banks.

Posted by: Tyler | June 2, 2008 9:06 PM

Re:INXPIRE's comment-Clinton Supporters should go vote for McCain. Sure, McCain got my vote. I would rather vote for a devil than an unknown angel. Obama is naive yet arrogant. He threw everyone he associated with his entire life under the bus. He is not trustworthy. He is full of bull.

Posted by: NoNonsenseGuy | June 2, 2008 9:06 PM

Dudes, in ALL the popular vote counts, Clinton has more than 17 million votes.



Whoever wrote this must get it's facts straight... >_>

Posted by: lame | June 2, 2008 9:07 PM


Posted by: Tamlynn | June 2, 2008 9:07 PM

Who Won the Most Votes?

Hillary Clinton. It's a fact. Do your homework. She got more votes than Barack Obama. Call them "popular" or whatever you want. More ballots were cast for the woman than for the man. Who lost? Women.

Posted by: SomeoneWhoCanRead | June 2, 2008 9:08 PM

Sorry, the "Clinton supporters should vote for McCain" wasn't from INXPIRE, it's from Dr.Jay

Posted by: NoNonsenseGuy | June 2, 2008 9:09 PM

LOL, even in the link to RealClearPolitics posted in the article, ALL the counts ALSO give Clinton more than 17M votes!!

Posted by: lame again | June 2, 2008 9:09 PM

Bottom line Obama has so little experience it scares the hell out of me.

Hillary is ready on day one. period.

We are either going to have another 4 years or the same another 4 years with someone who hasn't got a clue what he is doing. All because it sounds like sexism. If Hillary isn't there neither am I. I won't vote for Obama, because he HAS no experience, hasn't put in the time yet to learn it. I'll be going independent. If the democratic delegates are going to day damned with the voters I say damn with them.

Posted by: chargy18 | June 2, 2008 8:55 PM
Like she was ready to run her campaign and her campaign finances on day one??? A campaign wrought with infighting, disconnect, not knowing the democratic votes were proportional and not winner takes all delegates?? Like not planning beyond Super Tuesday because she was so sure she'd have the nomination in her pocket?? Like refusing to pay the middle-class vendors and other businesses for bills she incurred dating back to Iowa?? Like surrounding herself with friends and loyalists rather than experts to help run her campaign? Like riding her husband's coattails and experience and claiming them as her own?? Like making fraudulant claims like being caught in sniperfire in Bosnia?? Like consistently lying just like she is now?? Well, if you, yourself, do not have any integrity or any morals, I guess for you, she would be ready on day one. For me? She is not ready on any day period!

Posted by: NinaK | June 2, 2008 9:12 PM

michigan and florida ... let this be a lesson to you.

Posted by: the other 48 | June 2, 2008 9:12 PM

"New Clinton Ad Uses Interesting Numbers"



Posted by: NinaK | June 2, 2008 9:14 PM

RNC stripped Florida of half the votes, yet do not recall McCain or Romney voters crying foul.

Democrats would argue and loose rather than win!!

Posted by: sm | June 2, 2008 9:14 PM

New Clinton Ad Uses Interesting Numbers"



Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:15 PM

To all you Republican shills who claim to be defecting Hillary supporters -- come on, now. You'd rather have 4 more years of a Bush wannabe because Hillary self-destructed with her sleazy math, cotarie of cronies giving her bad advice, faulty memory, inflated experience, broken pledges,and negative campaigning? Wait a minute. That sounds familiar. Very familiar.

Posted by: whoareukidding | June 2, 2008 9:15 PM

What if Hillary, spurned by the DNC and the
super delegates and loved by a huge bunch of women voters, decides to say the heck with you guys and runs as an Independent with Bill as her Veep running-mate.

Maybe that's the surprise ending Bill was alluding to over the weekend.

Posted by: Willey | June 2, 2008 9:17 PM

What does the popular vote say about her power level?

Posted by: Vegeta | June 2, 2008 9:19 PM

Not one Hillary fanatic reads a single comment on this page, or processes how that comment might affect the underpinnings of their argument.

Fundamentally, you cannot change history people. The FL and MI votes were invalidated in rules that EVERYONE agreed to beforehand, including your savior Hillary. As such, the votes in those states are FLAWED and cannot be factored in. As someone else stated earlier... Democracy is pinned on rules that are agreed upon beforehand, and votes that are tallied based on those rules.

Out of those still supporting Hillary, most of the comments that I see in blogs, comments, and youtube videos are from radicals with slash-and-burn, win-at-all-costs attitudes, and with no regard for moderation or the greater good. If it ain't Hill, it ain't nobody. I don't believe in God really, but God help us, whomever you are. The GOP is drueling at our infighting. The Clintons are no longer the right-wing's worst enemy, they're now their best friend.

Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 9:21 PM

Reading these posts I keep asking myself "why am I a Democrat?"

Posted by: appleman | June 2, 2008 9:21 PM

I'm sick of hearing the canard that Obama isn't experienced.

He was in the Illinois legislature for 7 years. Will have been in Senate for 4 years once taking Pres. oath. That gives him 4 more years of foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush COMBINED.

Quit lyiing or educate yourself.

Posted by: jackstpaul | June 2, 2008 9:22 PM

To those alleging that the Rules Committee 'took away' votes from Hillary....

That is not exactly true. In Michigan, because Obama was not on the ballot, there are several groups of voters:

- Voters who voted for Hillary because she was their preferred candidate
- Voters who voted for Hillary because Obama was not on the ballot
- Voters who voted 'Uncommitted' but would have voted for Obama
- Voters who voted 'Uncommitted' but would have voted for Edwards
- Voters who voted for the other candidates and may have voted for Obama and Edwards

And, most importantly, voters who, BELIEVING THE RULES that said the primary would not count, did not vote at all.

Delegates are awarded as a percentage of votes. But Michigan never even had a real vote, so Hillary never really had 73 delegates either, because the 73 delegate number did not take into account all the votes that the Michigan "primary" did not count.

Hillary set up an election in Michigan stacked in her favor - don't campaign, don't take your name off the ballot - then claim that the result should be recognized. Fortunately the Rules Committee is better at math than the Clinton campaign, and came up with a result that best reflected the will of the voters.

Hopefully next time we'll stick to real primaries with all the candidates on the ballot that everyone knows, in advance, will count.

Posted by: DoTheMath | June 2, 2008 9:22 PM

it's over hillary

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:37 PM

Too bad Al Gore didn't have "enough charisma" for enough people to vote for him. I think Hillary has a case of the 'Gore-bore-syndrom.'

Funny thing, I think America would be thrilled to have him in office now. It would be a different America to be sure.

I hope I will be able to vote for Obama. I do. But, currently, something doesn't add up. I have conducted an exhaustive, objective look into his career/experience and there is so much that honestly scares me. His political origins in chicago, his drug use, numerous examples of mysogeny, his background, his associations, etc.

The duplicitous way in which he won his election in chicago is both revolting and respectful. Revolting because he claims to want change and that only he will move our country out of the old politics yet the manner in which he got all of his competition knocked off the ballot prior to his Illinois Senate win proves that he is embroiled in the techniques of 'old politics'. Yet, he has to be respected for weilding those political techniques with such mastery. A friend of mine praised Clinton by saying, "Sure the Clintons are liars but they will get the job done". Hopefully, Obama too can 'get the job done', but let's not fool ourselves into believing that he also isn't a lying politician. The only difference is his followers will love him for it.

I hope he 'walks-the-walk' as good as he talks it, because my gut says we are about to hand the keys to this nation to a man whose greatest skill is his ability to inspire. I hope that will be enough.

There is much to compare with Obama and the young Bill Clinton, however I remember specifically many things Bill Clinton promised he would work on within the 1st year of office. (Abortion, Gays in Military, Healthcare, Federal Deficit) He moved forward on all of these issues within his first year (overturned abortion law on 2nd day?), albeit not all of them the ideal ending.

With Obama, he seems to have positioned himself that he is going to change Washington, but he is iconic of a Washington politician.

OK, my blithering alert is going off, I just hope that Obama clarifies himself on what he hopes to accomplish, quit insulting me by trying to get me to believe that McCain is Bush Jr., and also quit employing the same cheap measures of attacking his opponent more than he attacks the issues.

Posted by: Michael F. | June 2, 2008 9:43 PM

Hillary wants to make all votes count, as long as they're in her favor. She wants to count Michigan & Florida, but not Idaho, Nebraska, Maine, Iowa, Nevada, and Washington.

Posted by: g'Obama | June 2, 2008 9:46 PM

Is she on methamphetamine? Or is she drunk??

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:47 PM

If Obama truly campaigned in michigan and florida, I feel he could have won them.

Posted by: dave | June 2, 2008 9:53 PM

Michael F. Senator Obama is not trying to make McCain a Bush Jr. McCain is already a Bush Clone. Besides, McCain is TOO OLD to be a Bush Jr. McCain keeps changing his stance as he campaigns, first he isn't for this, then he is; first he is for this, then he isn't. He cannot seem to make up his mind. He also cannot remember too much of what's going on in Iraq----he says we have cut back on our troops to where we were before the surge: WRONG!! He cannot tell the difference between one faction or the other in Iraq. When he's visited Iraq, he is shown ONLY the good things and not the bad, so he bases his opinions on the "good" and completely overlooks the bad stuff. Believe me, he doesn't go anywhere near the fighting and bombings. It's like admiring the rose and ignoring the thorns. McCain wants us to only look at the rose and forget about the thorns!! 40+ years in Washington?? He is imbedded in Washington politics. Why has he not made any of the changes that need chaning while he has been in the Senate? His being a part of the senate for 40 years has contributed a great deal to where we are at today...and it is not good!!

Posted by: NinaK | June 2, 2008 9:58 PM

If she won Puerto Rico, how did shw win the popular vote? Puerto Rico doesn't even get to vote in the actual election.

Posted by: Martin | June 2, 2008 10:00 PM


I'm an Obama supporter. After reading all these posts I can't help but think that John McCain is sure to waddle into the presidency come November. It's obvious that die hard Clintonistas ar not going to vote for Obama and that's more obvious each day this primary continues.

The only hope now I think is for the DNC to decide to hold a re-vote nationwide. The popular vote can be counted and the winner determined. This will be incredibly expensive and a logistical nightmare. I think the DNC can afford it though if they call off the convention and divert those funds to recount votes.

That might seem like a drastic measure, but I think these are drastic times. Anything short of something like that and John McCain is certain to be our next president.

Though I think Obama played by the rules and won fair and square, I don't think he has any chance of winning in November if Hillary supporters jump ship.

Posted by: JippyJay | June 2, 2008 10:06 PM

Black or white, who cares. Whoever ends up pres could be fuchsia for all I care so long as they cut all the social and corporate welfare and tell people to suck it up and figure out how to live for themselves.

of course that will NEVER happen. so i shall continue to ignore the rhetoric and write in Charlie Brown come election time (half kidding).

Posted by: bill braski | June 2, 2008 10:12 PM

The remaining question is: should Obama invite Hillary onto the ticket?

I used to think Hillary was ok, smart, but a politician and afraid to stand up to the NeoCons when it mattered but would have been unpopular. Just think about it -- what if she had led a full charge against the White House before the Iraq invasion? Maybe she could have exposed the propaganda that Bush was spreading. But that would have taken real guts, real courage, and the Dems were by and large such a bunch of wimps and appeasers that she shouldn't be unfairly targeted for acting like her peers. She seemed to have the instincts of a triangulating politician, not a true leader, but what was new?

But then along came Obama, one of the few who did openly oppose the war, even though he was not well known or powerful. Finally the Dems had someone who embodied American idealism -- who understood that patriotism required the courage to stand up to the purveyors of fear. It required telling the truth. It really didn't take much more than that.

Now Hillary seems to have transformed into a grasping, near-lunatic that believes she has the power to reshape reality so that it supports her lust for the power that somehow eludes her. The question is, is this the core of Hillary? In this turmoil, is all that remains her blind ambition for the presidency?

I don't know. I hope not, because she has much to offer the Democrats, more than the pacification of the angry coalition that she has recently scraped together. But Obama will have to decide, because he needs a vice-president that will be willing to sacrifice personal ambition for the sake of the country. Hillary has proven that she is tough, but not that she is a leader. This week we will learn more about her true character. I hope she will put her country above herself.

Posted by: rico | June 2, 2008 10:20 PM


I think MikeF is right in that we don't do any service to our cause by painting McCain as a Bush clone. I believe the country would have been way better off if McCain had been president for the last eight years instead of GWB.

It's a sad fact that all candidates adjust their platforms during an election in order to get elected. Obama is no exception. It's what they do once elected that matters, and I have no doubt that either McCain or Obama will show their best if elected.

I do take issue with you MikeF in singling out Obama as the candidate who claims to be outside Washington, but who plays the same old games. In election season, everybody claims to be outside Washington, but everybody plays Washington games. Yes, Obama is guilty, but so is almost anyone whose run seriously for the presidency since I can remember. Sad but true.

My feeling though is that Obama has the intelligence, wisdom, work ethic, and grace to handle the job best. Both Clinton and McCain would certainly do a better job than the Nixon era throwback puppet we have kept in office for the last 8 years.

Posted by: jippyjay | June 2, 2008 10:36 PM

I hope Hillary does'nt campaign for Obama. He definatelly cannot win without her supporters. His wife don't like her so, why bother. His pastor and friend trash her like dirt now Obama starting to say all these nice thing about her a little too late. I will vote for McCain not the way the Democrat Party treat her. They will never get my friends and I votes.

Posted by: pam | June 2, 2008 11:18 PM

Just want to clarify: (wow, now I sound like a candidate!)

In no way was I trying to single out Obama as the only one employing Washington games, no way, they all are!

But every candidate slings out 'Thematic messages', short pithy lines that quickly frames the basics of their campaign. Bill Clinton was going to 'build the bridge' to a new tomorrow. George Bush actually said he was a 'uniter not a divider' and 'a compassionate conservative' (lol, what's that? Water boarding?) Hillary has trotted out 'Ready on Day 1' and McCain is framing himself as the 'Straight talker'...whereas Obama has framed himself that 'Washington is broken and he can fix it' and that together we can make a better tomorrow. If by 'fix it' he means get rid of Bush, well, any one of my neighbors could do that. His behind the scenes actions, however are iconic (just like all of the other candidates) of what is wrong with Washington. I just wish he would funnel all of that 'hope and change' into clearly articulated tasks that he would like to accomplish within his 1st 100 days, his 1st year, etc.

I recall an excellent article in New York Magazine in fall of Sept of 93 or 94 called "Bill Clinton, the great American president. No Really." In it, they detail how Clinton Systematically tackled every pledge and promise he made while on the campaign, and outline what action had taken place. He did amount to more than a man of words.

With Obama, I have difficulty finding the substance behind his words. What's he going to do? I turn to look at his voting record (just google 110th Congress Obama, Voting Record) and as a 1st term senator, his voting record is simply atrocious. I'm not out and out against Obama. I think anyone of the candidates would be a DREAM compared to what we have had over the last 8 years. Heck I'd vote for Michelle Obama any day of the week to be president over Bush.

I just suspect that there are a lot of me who won't love Obama simply because he is a democrat....that we have seen the sizzle and now we want a little more steak. I like to make informed choices, and although McCain is not that great, he isn't that bad. (If Ann Coulter isn't a fan of McCain he IMMEDIATELY gets points).

I am willing to vote for Obama. I don't need to be bullied. I don't need to be called racist. I want to be engaged and informed. I want more opportunities to hear the substance of what he will bring. Certainly if he brings the tenacity that he has shown to win this election, I suspect great things will come, but something in my gut just isn't sitting right at the moment.

Posted by: MichaelF | June 3, 2008 3:28 AM




DNC Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but also delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.


In general is Obama has used Poor Judgment REPEATEDLY! Obama proved Rev Wright was correct!!! Politically correct, that is. The fact that it is "painful" and took 20 years suggests he agrees with these racists "under the covers". He resigned not necessarily because he wants to but because it is the only course open to him. Imagine if the roles were reversed and John McCain had attended a white separatist church for twenty years. Would his resignation after two decades cure the concern that he had lived some sort of weird double life, cavorting with racists but talking about equal opportunity in his public life? He'd have been forced out of the presidential race by now. So the question remains: was Obama the least observant church congegrant on the planet (racism and anti-Semitism at Trinity? No!) Or a hypocrite.

SHOCKING what Obamas really think of white folks

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 8:02 AM

dim dim-- who wrote "Dave,
The problem with re-distribution of Michigan votes is not that Obama got all the uncommitted ones. It is that He actually got MORE than uncommitted ones, and Clinton got LESS than the number of people that explicitly voted for her." I agree that was whacky-- but we are talking about four delegates-- when cut in half, two delegates. Not enough to make or break anyone's campaign. I don't think they should have counted that election at all. Just divided the votes 50/50. But alas, its time to move on. Do we want a democrat in the white house this year or McSame? That's the real question.

Posted by: mona lisa | June 3, 2008 8:52 AM

Go to Real Clear Politics ... the numbers are real. And, you need to count FL and MI ... the DNC has now counted those votes, although in a very screwy way. Also, in national polls, Hillary outshines Barack against John.

Posted by: Mandelay | June 3, 2008 11:19 PM

Buy i-phone 4gb,8gb,16gb,32gb iPod Touch,Nokia Phones N81-8GB,N95-8GB,N96-16GB,Sidekick LX,Play Stations 3 Game,Mackbook Laptops And All Kinds Of Mobile Phones And Computers Laptops With Manymore For Free Price Of A$ And Save $50
Email: globalmarketltd@aol.com
Email: globalmarketltd@aol.com

Posted by: Buy i-phone 4gb,8gb,16gb,32gb For Free Price Of A$ | June 6, 2008 7:46 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company