Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:55 PM ET, 02/ 7/2008

Who has the most delegates?

By Michael Dobbs


Election night at Obama HQ, Feb. 5, 2008.

"We have earned more delegates, won more votes, and won more states [than the Clinton campaign]"

--Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, conference call with reporters, Feb. 7, 2008.

Most news organizations, including The Washington Post, are showing Hillary Clinton slightly ahead of Barack Obama in delegates to the Democratic Convention. So how can the Obama campaign claim that it is ahead?

The answer lies in the mind-boggling complexity of the Democratic nomination process, with rules that vary from state to state and several different categories of delegates. Some states that voted on Super Tuesday have yet to apportion all their delegates and it will take some time before anybody can come up with precise figures. A big fight lies ahead over whether to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan who were disenfranchised by the Democratic National Committee for holding early elections.

The Facts

The Obama campaign is correct in claiming that it has won the most states. See WaPo breakdown here. Excluding Florida and Michigan (nominal Clinton victories) Obama has won 15 states, compared to 10 states for Clinton, as of Tuesday, February 5. New Mexico is still too close to call.

The Obama camp can also fairly claim to have won the largest share of the popular vote (again excluding Florida and Michigan.) Researcher Alice Crites added up the popular vote totals (including caucus voters) and the result is 7,825,466 for Obama and 7,734,770 for Clinton. If Florida and Michigan are included, Clinton would be ahead.

The earned delegate totals are much more complicated. As used by the Obama campaign, this term excludes unpledged delegates, or superdelegates. Here, everything depends on who is doing the counting.

Most news organizations, including The Post, have been relying on the Associated Press for figures of earned or pledged delegates. These delegates are chosen proportionately in all states, according to rules that vary slightly from state to state. Some delegates are apportioned by congressional district, while other delegates are apportioned at the state level. The AP delegate count was still lagging behind probable pledged delegates as of Thursday evening.

The overall AP figures also include informal surveys of superdelegates, mainly members of Congress and other prominent Democratic Party officials, who are free to change their vote at any time.

Unlike the Associated Press, which counts elected delegates, NBC News is basing its figures on projected totals once all the votes are counted and all the delegates have been apportioned. In contrast to other news organizations, NBC has been showing a slight advantage for Obama in pledged delegates. The NBC count excludes superdelegates.

The figures provided by the Obama campaign are also based on projections, rather than actual delegates. On Thursday, the campaign claimed a lead of 28 pledged delegates over Clinton, 910-882. (According to Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the Super Tuesday breakdown was 847 for Obama, compared to 834 for Clinton). The Clinton campaign has not provided a public estimate of the delegate breakdown.

It is impossible to say whether these figures are accurate until all the delegates have been apportioned. NBC is projecting a much narrower pledged delegate lead for Obama, 838-834.

In theory, a candidate who loses the popular vote can end up with more delegates, depending on the electoral geography of each individual congressional district. Take the case of New Hampshire. Despite losing the popular vote 37 per cent to 39 per cent, Obama ended up with the same number of pledged delegates (nine) as Clinton and three superdelegates against two for his rival. In delegate terms, he won New Hampshire. By some counts, he also won Nevada, even though he lost the popular vote to Clinton 45 percent to 51 percent.

For political junkies, here are a list of useful websites to keep track of the delegate totals. They all report different figures, with NBC News the only one so far to put Obama ahead (in pledged delegates.)

Washington Post
New York Times
ABC
CBS
NBC
CNN

The Pinocchio Test

Barack Obama is ahead in states and popular votes, if Michigan and Florida are excluded. But it will take a few days to determine where he stands in the delegate count.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | February 7, 2008; 5:55 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama, Candidate Watch, Verdict Pending  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John McClinton?
Next: Will Puerto Rico decide everything?

Comments

How can they even talk about including Florida and Michigan! Obama and Edwards didn't even campaign there and names were not on the ballot, following rules set down by DNC. To now talk about including her because she kept her name on the ballot is outrageous!!!

Posted by: skimom27 | February 7, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Please watch.
Barak & Michelle's Obama belong to pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright - TRINITY CHURCH of CHRIST (www.tucc.org/about.htm)

Here is Jeremiah A. Wright unabashedly preaching his "African Roots" gospel.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNEfEBYIZs

Posted by: O bama | February 7, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

To Obama:
Although he preaches in a black church don't forget that this man is also half white. (Not saying anything is wrong with that) I'm just pointing out to both blacks and whites what it's like to be multi racial. Obama has no room for racism within him self but instead is frustrated by the Ignorance of people. For him despite the color of his skin he is just as proud of being white as he is of being black. Can any of the other candidates make that clame?

Posted by: The truch is | February 7, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I think this article is slightly inaccurate. Hillary won the popular vote on Super Tuesday states. So far it is Hillary 50.7% to Obama's 49.28% if we are to count just Super Tuesday.

Posted by: Charlie | February 7, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

What's amazing is that despite the onslaught of the media, the Obama Chicago Machine (Daly/Oprah) and the Republican candidates, Hillary has survived and is ready to continue her campaign to the Presidency. This campaign is proving she has the fortitude, the smarts, and the charisma to be our Commander-In-Chief

Posted by: Peter and Luz | February 7, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that the news about Hillary Clinton donating $5 million of her own money while her senior staffers faced a loss of their paychecks may be just a ploy to win sympathy, again.

At first, the news of Hillary's financial difficulties struck me as odd, but not because her outside funds were drying up.

After all, Barack Obama is showing us all that Hillary can't even win a fixed fight, and "smart" money is not, well, dumb.

Still I asked myself, how was it that someone of once modest means who claimed to have worked tirelessly for 35 years ("fighting for YOU!") in the notoriously badly-paid public interest sector had become so wealthy?

Sure there's been some financial scandals.

And as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A million here, a million there --it adds up to real money."

But why focus on the negative? What does the skelton of a scandal or six rattling around in your closet matter, when you have so much experience and a well-tested finger to the wind?

Then, suddenly, a tune entered my head and I thought, maybe if I offered a tailored version of it to the Clinton campaign, they'd use it to replace that awful Celine Dion song that used to be Hillary's campaign anthem.

(Ya know, 99.999 percent of those recently surveyed also say they prefer the Obama Girl to that uni-sex Hillary Eunuch that popped up trying to imitate her.)

Anyway, compensation shouldn't been a problem, if the most recent report that Hillary is back in the pink of financial health is true.

For sure, I wouldn't ask what account at Clintons, Inc. the money came from, or which lobbyist forked it over.

(I'm sure if it was the latter it was in a gesture of sheer generosity--why think evil of people, K Street lobbyists have hearts too, no?

(After all, wasn't it those caring medical insurance lobbyists who hired that nice couple, Harry and Louise?)

If you ask me, it's like Bill with that race card thing. How unfair those critics, who you can be sure all belonged to that Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! (And how slick he was, no? ;D )

Always leave just a little wiggle room, small enough to fit the word "is" through. (Or a cigar.)

Anyway, remember that girls' song, "It's My Party," written by Wally Gold, John Gluck and Herb Weiner and recorded by Lesley Gore?

Well how about this version for HRC?

IT'S MY (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY

Nobody knows where my Bill has gone
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) left the same time
Why was he holding her/their hand(s)
When he's supposed to be mine?

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(For that's what victims do-o-o-o).

Playin' my constituents, flip-flopping like a Wallenda,
Leave me alone for a while
'Till Bill's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

(lead break)
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) and Bill just walked through the door
Like a queen(s) with her/their king
Oh what a Dogpatch surprise
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) is/are wearin' his ring(s)

It's my Democratic Party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 7, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of people joining on the band wagon to bash Hillary. Obama is as inexperienced as George W, and it shames me to think that everyone believes that people are gathering to him for "change," they gather around to become the next Dick or Karl. Wake up people, we don't need another charismatic puppet in office!

Posted by: Janet Faulkner | February 8, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

To skimom27: ALL of their names were on the ballot in FL. I'm here, I voted - even though you, the DNC and others felt it shouldn't count.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

My wife and I have been going over the numbers tonight (She's a Hillary fanatic, I'm a flip-flopping former Obaman, now HRC fan). Unless one or the other candidate takes ~85 percent of the remaining voter determined this thing comes down to the superdelegates.

That puts the decision in the hands of our elected, semi-elected cognoscenti. Maybe the DNC "reforms" creating superdelegates in 1982 were ill-conceived, but any attempt to pretend that's not who will decide the Democratic candidate is ex-post facto at this point.

There are dozens of variables that will go into the decision of each of these super-delegates, many venal, most self-interested.

But unless we want a 1968-style uproar we should abide by the rules. (Including the rule that allows delegates to decide which delegates to seat. Ie Florida).
If the Obamans continue to protest that superdelegates follow their constituents while my superdelegates Kennedy, Kerry and Duval Patrick ignoring our resounding majority for Clinton, I will continue to consider their campaign juvenile and unworthy of leadership.

Posted by: Generally Bob | February 8, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Come on Generally Bob, grow your testicals back and become Bob again...vote Obama... your first choice was right.

Hillary Clinton is an engine running out of steam and apparently money until she goes before the media and crys for more (votes and money.)

She's toast.

As far as Peter and Luz - wake up and and get your tv screens fixed or your prescriptions refilled - Hillary Clinton? Charisma? I don't know who you are watching. She's a horrible flip flopper and continues to sway with the polls. She is no leader, definitely a follower, just look at her voting record.

It amazes me how people can latch onto a name and feel familiar with them and in complete solidarity.
If Ronald McDonald were running for office
the Hillary Clinton voters would be on his ticket too.

Open your eyes, keep look toward the prize, it's time for real change in washington.... OBAMA 2008.

Pull your head out and vote.
It's not about gender, it's not about race. It's about who's best for this country now and in the near future.

Posted by: Over the Hill | February 8, 2008 4:11 AM | Report abuse

Many now are realizing fully the importance of Superdelegates, usually described as political operatives and party insiders. But the only two "superdelegates" quoted in Wisconsin in a AP news story there (of the 18 superdelegates in WI) were university students in their early twenties. I'm all for getting out the youth vote, but how can these be the party insiders on whom the ultimate nomination might rest?

Posted by: AC | February 8, 2008 6:03 AM | Report abuse

No major news organization is including Michigan or Florida in the current tallys and they should not, obviously. So, why on earth does the author(s) of this article bring this up? Speaking of fact checking, they need some fact checking of their own.

How about some fact checking on why the Hillary campaign does not release their delegate count estimates? No doubt they have them. Their counts must agree with the Obama campaign otherwise they would release them. Right?

Posted by: Bob, DC | February 8, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

There is something every American has to know. America America America has not fully grown to reflect her diversity. An era comes in rulership that CHANGE MUST occur to bring out the best of a nation. Billary Clinton did there best and THATS IT!. We all know the story both good and bad. BUSH-CLINTON-CLINTON-BUSH is not what America was made for. No mater the clamour and media heist of the elction, no ONE can deny or change the Obama truth and properity of a nation. Until we are all equal which is what Obama brings, America will be divided for another century.

America is not a royals property. Obama will come and go, but he will break that door that holds back the nation in it's true color.

Posted by: Kunle | February 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

What is the Clinton legacy? Bill recently whined that he had to spent a million dollars to defend himself in the Whitewater investigation and that innocent people were indicted. The truth? 14 people closely associated with the Clinton's were convicted for everything from bank and real estate fraud to conspiracy and perjury. That makes them guilty not innocent. Clinton pardoned four of them. Jim McDougal was locked in Solitary confinement without his heart medication and died there after he confessed to the New York Times that he had lied to the Whitewater grand jury and that the Clintons were guilty. The failure of Madison Guarantee and Trust cost the American Taxpayers 75 million dollars. Then there was the pardon of Mark Rich, Clinton donor and felony tax evasion fugitive. There was the travelgate scandal where Hillary fired career White House travel agency personnel to replace them with her friends, in the process branding the career workers incompetent. (Sound familiar?) There was filegate and of course Monica/Paula/Jennifergate where our country was made a worldwide joke. But the worst of all was North Koreagate and Chinagate where the Clintons agreed to give North Korea technology and material to build nuclear reactors capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. The reactors were never built in N.Korea but the Russians did build one in Iran. "If the United State can give technology to build a reactor to N. Korea," Russia said, "why shouldn't we sell the same technology to Iran?" Now Iran threatens the Mideast and the world. The Clintons gave missile technology and parts to China that gave them the capability to hit the Japanese Peninsula and the Pacific Coast of the United States with multiple nuclear warhead missiles. There was the bombing of the Sudan Aspirin factory. It goes on and on. Is this the "..experience from day one" that Hillary crows about? How can anyone be so ignorant as to vote this pair back into the Whitehouse?

Posted by: eliduc | February 8, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Remember 2000, Same inexperience, The Washington outsider, I am the uniter, I like the guy, he is different scenario. What is different this time the puppeteers.

Posted by: Erika Ellis | February 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are willing to do anything and spin anything to regain power.With the "Clinton's" it's not about whats good for the country , it's whats good for them.

The last thing this country needs right now is , more Clinton scandals in the "People's White House".

Keep it simple , Hillary Clinton brings with her a House divide,anothe do nothing congress , and ( SCANDAL ).

SHE IS UN-ELECTABLE in the General election ( period )

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Hillary's 35 years of "experience" is being married to Bill. As a matter of fact she has been with Bill for 35 years too. P.S it includes her six months as a intern WHILE IN LAWSCHOOL (1973).Take that experience crap and find a better reason to vote against Obama.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Bush ran as a uniter, but one had only to look at the kind of politics he practiced to know he was FOS. Playing on racist tendencies in South Carolina to beat McCain in the primary there? In the Texas gubernatorial race, spreading the rumor that his opponent was a lesbian? No one who knew about these things bought Bush's spiel.

What's Obama done that would make you think he's a divider? He has resolutely tried to stay out of the gender/race trap. Politics by its nature is divisive, but he's been doing a hell of a job bringing people together.

Posted by: Deathtongue | February 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Excluding the Michigan and Florida delegates is fair as those are the rules set by the DNC, and clearly the lack of names on the MI ballot makes those results worthless.

BUT - every campaign had surrogates campaigning for them in Florida, and all the names were on the ballot. By a fair accounting, it seems legitimate to count the votes by Floridians...if not their delegates. The "most votes" argument by Obama seems a bit of a stretch.

In fact, for either campaign to argue about an advantage in the midst of all this complexity is pretty specious and clearly spin. To kick up dust only against Clinton in all this is just a lot more blather from the cult of Obama members who are convinced his s--t doesn't stink.

Posted by: JosephDC | February 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey, eliduc
Japan is an island not peninsula!!hhh

Posted by: billary | February 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't even win a debate against Hillary. He can wow you with a prepared speech or a well-directed video but on his feet he is a loser.

Posted by: Respectthe9thAmendment | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

JosephDC wrote: "BUT - every campaign had surrogates campaigning for them in Florida, and all the names were on the ballot. By a fair accounting, it seems legitimate to count the votes by Floridians...if not their delegates."

While your statement may be technically accurate to a tiny degree, I can report that here in Orlando, there was no campaigning -- no signs at polling places, no phone calls, no mailers, no local TV ads, no candidate visits, no local media coverage of issues, nothing to help a voter decide who to vote for.

So, I would suggest political science academicians will find valuable data in the Florida and Michigan experiments in symbolic voting without campaign intervention, but to suggest the votes had any significance to the REAL contest for the democratic nomination is really far fetched. Expect total outrage from both within and without Florida if anyone attempts to seat this illegitimate delegation in a contested convention.

It might interest you to know of the news reports this week of many confused Florida voters calling elections offices wanting to know where the Super Tuesday polling places were. Just an example of what happens when candidates were prevented from campaigning for votes. Another example is my 23 year old son who, when he heard that his vote for Obama wouldn't count, decided that it wasn't worth the trouble to vote. He wanted it to MEAN something. Think there weren't many others like him? Still think the vote has validity?

Posted by: Rich Evans | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

IF OBAMA IS ELECTED WHEN THIS IS OVER
HIS RUNNING MATE SHOULD BE Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
SHE'S GREAT
SEND THE WORD :)

Posted by: JOHN D | February 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

ahem, billary, Japan is an archipelago. gotcha.

Posted by: hey billary | February 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Janet Faulkner about being sick of people bashing the Clintons. For the first time, I am fully engaged in the electoral process and watched all the TV channels reporting Super Tuesday and was increasingly disgusted with the prejudice with which stations like Fox and MSNBC reported Hillary Clinton's wins. I for one think MSNBC reporter David Shuster should be permanently suspended for his crude comments about the Clintons and quite frankly, Hardball Chris Matthews is no better. And I thought journalists were supposed to be impartial. As a Clinton supporter, I have to check my facts by reading the several different websites and listen to PBS to get a balanced view, and yes, Obama's camp always insists they have more delegates than they should have. And look how inaccurate the polls have been. I came across one which showed that Obama was ahead in California just Super Tuesday was starting. And we know how differently that turned out. We, Clinton supporters, are the silent majority and time and time again, it has been proven she is the better candidate.

Posted by: georgie | February 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The DNC didn't take away Florida's delegates - the Florida legislature did that when they knowingly and deliberately moved their primary up against National Republican and Democratic Party rules. Blame your STATE parties for taking away your delegates, NOT the DNC. Your state parties knew the consequences, but thought they wouldn't be enforced.

Posted by: Michael D. Hafer | February 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

There is a plan floating about to have Michigan and Florida have caucuses some time in May. This seems like a good compromise.

And for god's sake Florida, move back your primary so this crap doesn't happen again. It was foolish to move it in the first place. These primaries and caucuses USED to start in March. January 3rd (Iowa) is just way too early.

Posted by: Michael D. Hafer | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

When people talk about experience, I have to look to the Bush administration. Rumsfeld in office or business for over 30 year, Chenny the same. Wolfowitz douglas colin Powell. The list goes on, it was the most experienced cabinet in the history of our nation. I am surprised that Obama has not started to attack Clinton on that front. It is a great attack. How about "You want experience" then the camera pans over the faces of Bushes cabinet, "You got it, vote for Obama".

Posted by: Martin O' Rourke | February 8, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Not only would seating the Fla and Mich delegates be outrageous without the opportunity for the candidates to campaign, but more importantly, it would be a violation of due process and potentially the voting rights acts if the delegates were seated as a result of their early primary because the citizens of these states were NOT PUT ON NOTICE that thier delegates would count.

Giving the citizens an opportunity to notice of a fair primary or caucus that is based on new voting or a new caucus would be the only fair solution for seating delegates.

Posted by: Sarah E. | February 9, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Most salesman know that, in general, people make decisions emotionally and then justify those decisions with logic. There seems to be a need in the brain's decision-making process, after the emotional part is completed, to be supported with some kind of logic. Since Obama has seemed somewhat lacking in detail regarding his positions (logic), the final part of this process has not been completed. Could this be why his momentum seemed to halt some on Super Tuesday? If he under-performs today, this could bolster this line reasoning.

Posted by: BeeBuzz | February 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

To Martin O'Rourke:

What a great idea! Just visualizing it makes me laugh my head off....Wonder why Obama camp hasn't thought of that one.

Posted by: Lisa | February 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Peter & Luz said "This campaign is proving she has the fortitude, the smarts, and the charisma to be our Commander-In-Chief"

Unless you're in uniform, no president is "our Commander-in-Chief." That happens only in less democratic countries where some leaders prefer to be called the Supreme One.

Our Constitution reserves to the members of the armed forces the right to call the sitting president, Commander-in-Chief. Look it up.

The media constantly misuses this and lends unwarranted authority to the office-holder. Let's try to correct it anytime we see this. It's subtle but it's a slippery slope.

Posted by: Carlos | February 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Just wondering. How much will Bill and Hillary be paid to wreck the Democratic party's chance to win the WH? Every poll indicates that HRC loses Independeants, Demo men, African-Americans. Will Rupert Murdock pay Bill and Hill 100, 200 miliion dollars to get the nomination, by hook or by crook, and then lose the Presidential Election? She is losing momentum every day, but she is trying to drag her well-upholsterted rump over the finish line to get the nomination. She can't win the presidency, because she will galvanise the GOP to vote for McCain like crazy!

Posted by: tanaS | February 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I am a very proud Republican. I have been watching the campaigns closely and even though the Senator from my state is going to be the republican nominee I still have a desire to vote for Barack Obama. I have never voted democratic ever and I have been voting for over 42 years. If Barack Obama becomes the democratic candidate I will vote democrat for the first time in my voting life. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is part of the establishment and we would have the same thing in Washington we do now, I cannot trust her and my gut says that too. I would vote for Barack Obama because I trust him and believe he is the only candidate that can bring true change. He is honest and refreshing. So you fellow democrats if you want a Democrat for President vote for Barack Obama who is the only candidate that can bring true change and unite both parties.

Posted by: Steve (Prescott, AZ.) | February 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I live in Michigan and Hillary was the only name on the ballot. We had to vote undecided if we wanted anyone else. I also called the DNC, they told me that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count.

Posted by: csdayton | February 9, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

A simple solution for avoiding the nightmare scenario of a brokered convention is to convince a majority of the 796 superdelegates (i.e. 399 or more) to sign a pledge to support the candidate who wins the most elected delegates. This voting block plus a majority of elected delegates will guarantee the delegates needed for the nomination.

This solution has three advantages: 1) It's simple and foolproof for electing the person with the most pledged delegates, 2) It only requires convincing 399 superdelegates to vote this way, easier than convincing all 798 superdelegates to vote a certain way, and 3) It's candidate neutral at this point and politically low risk.

The Democratic leadership should act quickly, before a clear winner of delegates emerges and more superdelegates have publicly committed.

Posted by: adwei | February 10, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

I agree with what skimom27 says 100 percent. The idea that you would count votes in states where the candidates agreed ahead of time no delegates would be counted, and agreed not to campaign in, is completely absurd. Hillay wants to change the rules after the election is already over. She is trying to portray it as some kind of disenfranchisement of voters. Of course, that argument will work very nicely with ignorant people, which seems to be the people her campaign is targeting with shallow and provocative messages. I find this latest maneuver on the part of Hillary as downright frightening and scandalous akin to the way George Bush won Florida in 2000. This is win at any price politics, including at the cost of democracy. I have finally concluded, in spite of the fact that I am a life long dem and never voted for a Republican, if Hillary is the nominee I will not vote for her. She is a dangerous person lacking in the most basic kind of integrity that I EXPECT from Democrats. I would expect this kind of behavior from a Republican. McCain seems more like a Democrat than Hillary. At least he has some dignity!

Posted by: Jerome | February 10, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Way to go Steve in Arizona.
I'm with you man.
A republican voting for Obama all the way in 2008.

Posted by: Republican for Obama | February 10, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Hillary was a first lady in waiting, but unfortunately for her, this is a democratic country in which we are not vassals of family lineage. We need authenticity to heal our national wounds, not false claims from a woman whose ascendancy to power has not yielded much in the way of change.

Posted by: cdc9 | February 10, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Is there a published list of the Super Delegates? Where would I find it? I for one would start a letter writing campaign, if I knew who to write to.

Posted by: Tim Buckley | February 10, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse


Hillary is not different from Kenya Kibaki.

Change makes older generation shiver they were given room and so they must give room for the next generation

Posted by: Longo | February 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I finally figured it out over the weekend. When almost every major news organization reports the delegates from the "primaries to date" they are actually reporting the primaries PLUS the unelected superdelegates who have nothing to do with a VOTER & his/her VOTE in the primary. This strikes me as remarkably undemocratic, as well as an inaccurate reporting of the news.

The report of the primary ELECTIONS should be the report of who has voted for who (pledged delegates), not who is friends with who (superdelegates). Granted-the superdelegates are of political & news importance, but they should be reported separately from the activities of VOTERS in primary ELECTIONS. At a minimum, the pledged & superdelegates should be separated in any summary report.

Basically, the news organizations are giving a "slight" edge, but an edge nonetheless, based upon unelected superdelegate committments & report this as NEWS of PRIMARY RESULTS. This approach is very misleading (and not so "complex" as is commonly stated), let's hear what the voters, and the delegates pledged by them have to say, FIRST & FOREMOST.

Posted by: David | February 10, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

great...america is now facing d prospect of having a car saleaman for president!!!!

Posted by: bugle | February 10, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

U.S.President Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: podge | February 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I realize that we can fill hours and hours of discussion and debate with commentary on delegates status and strategies but how about having some graphs and visual aids on where each candidate stands on the issues for which we are trying to extract differientiations.

It would be nice to see some primary and caucus voting based on the new knowledge voaters are gaining from watching the media and not just speculation on who can win.

Posted by: Dallas | February 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Given this a "fact checker", here's one for you:

The Democratic Party can't just order up a new vote in the two states that moved up their primaries. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are well aware of this - thus their respective stances on the inclusion of those delegates at the convention.

And that's why there will be no brokered convention - as it would alienate voters in a key swing state.

Stop getting so caught up - it's all just politics as usual.

Posted by: Jack | February 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#AL

not all news organizations try to skew the vote by adding in the super delegates.

it really is wrong of them to add the super delegates in, especially at this stage, because they can all switch at the very end of the last primary - which will happen with many as they want to be in with the majority of the voters who put them into office.

I can't wait to cast my ballot in november for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Why disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida by not sitting their delegates.? Is it the fault of these voters if DNC made a rule contrary to their wishes. I thought the purpose of the primaries is to determine the nominee preferred by the voters? The only reason these states advanced their primaries is to have say in the nomination. Sure, the DNC made a rule but inspite of this, the voters of these two states still went out to voice their preference.

Sen. Clinton wanted the delegates to be seated and Sen. Obama opposes it. Of course, Sen. Clinton, you could say wanted this because she won both contests. The Obama campaign should have been smart enough not to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. They remove his name yet, urge their supporters to vote " UNCOMMITTED ". Nobody campaigned in Florida and Sen. Clinton won. If Sen. Obama won the state, do you think that he would oppose the seating of the delegates?

Sen. Obama should make his opposition clear to the voters of these states so that when he becomes the nominee, they will have the option of sitting out the election or vote even republican. you don't snub voters and expect them to support you. it is like you expect people to kiss you after spitting on their face.

Posted by: tim | February 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Why disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida by not sitting their delegates.? Is it the fault of these voters if DNC made a rule contrary to their wishes. I thought the purpose of the primaries is to determine the nominee preferred by the voters? The only reason these states advanced their primaries is to have say in the nomination. Sure, the DNC made a rule but inspite of this, the voters of these two states still went out to voice their preference.

Sen. Clinton wanted the delegates to be seated and Sen. Obama opposes it. Of course, Sen. Clinton, you could say wanted this because she won both contests. The Obama campaign should have been smart enough not to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. They remove his name yet, urge their supporters to vote " UNCOMMITTED ". Nobody campaigned in Florida and Sen. Clinton won. If Sen. Obama won the state, do you think that he would oppose the seating of the delegates?

Sen. Obama should make his opposition clear to the voters of these states so that when he becomes the nominee, they will have the option of sitting out the election or vote even republican. you don't snub voters and expect them to support you. it is like you expect people to kiss you after spitting on their face.

Posted by: tim | February 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

John McCain can not be PRESIDENT!
why? he was born in Panama.. Therefore under the constitution he does not qualify to be President. It needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court.
He is a Citizen because both parents are but he is hold under the same rule as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and any other Citizen NO BORN IN THE USA.

Can some Bring this to the Public... How is this man running when Under the Constitution he is not permitted to become President.

Posted by: politiciannc | February 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Here in NYC we went overwhelmingly for HRC because we really like her and appreciate how she has been 100% committed to this state since she adopted it. As for Bill he moved up to Harlem, and his 'vote with his feet' for 125th St. was appreciated on a visceral level, on 'the street.' We are very nuanced in politicians who have used the race issue, as well as their own 'race' as an edge. We also have kept track of who was for us when the chips were down. Say what you will, and many do and will, but the Clintons have been 100% for disenfranchised communities. Hillary is a worker and a fighter and those of us who are man enough to appreciate a woman of ability and character support her. Let the little eunuchs of the right wing media like Chris Matthews flail away. But don't be fooled when they tell you how they're 'Republicans for Obama' We know what they become when the door closes and when the curtains shut on their voting booth every fourth November. Right now HRC is ahead by a good margin. Senator Obama has momentum this week, HRC had it after Super Tuesday, along with California. Either one is a far better choice than McCain (Bush the Sequel) or Huckabee (how to make America the permanent laughing stock in the civilized world). Work for either Senator Clinton or Obama, but don't burn your bridges, they're enough Republicans with a burning cross waiting to do it for you.

Posted by: jwp-nyc | February 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton have both already made their opposition to seating your delegates completely clear.

Then Senator Clinton changed her mind.

Do I need to post this twice for you?

No wonder Clinton is doing so well with uneducated voters.


Posted by: Jack | February 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The bigotry of the pseudo-intellectual elitists never ceases to amaze me.
Burning crosses? If Hillary's opponent were Jewish, would you be making Nazi references?
Given all of the race-baiting flying around, you better hope Obama wins the primary.

Posted by: Jack | February 10, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

To politiciannc: John McCain was born to parents who are U.S. citizens. If he were born in Panama, he is still considered natural-born because his father was Naval Officer. The natural-born status provision in the Constitution was particularly for U.S. Military families who were stationed outside of the U.S. and bore children who otherwise would have been born inside the U.S.

Posted by: obamamama | February 10, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow...I am so flabbergasted by the blogs that continue to make references to Obama's unabashedly African church...

As though there are not thousands of churches in the United States that are Unashamedly white....while it may not be part of their outlined doctrine, it is a part of their practice. Don't get mad at the language. Check to see if they church welcomes others from other races, before you open your mouth.

The US claims to be Under God, but it welcomes other religions, right? (Or so we say).

Posted by: SCT | February 11, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

There they go again...Not even in the White House yet and the Clinton's are already lying & cheating and trying literally by any means necessary to Get away with another Travesty of Justice..! NO...Clinton Must be DISQUALIFIED from receiving the Michigan and Florida deligates and or votes.
The only fair,just & equitable way to deal with the Michigan and Florida delegates if they are to be inclued in the event some sort of tie breaking endeavor is quite simple. CLINTON Must be DQ'd. Would NASCAR allow unsanctioned Race results to count? Would Major League or even Little League Baseball allow World Series playoff results to stand in favor of a victor who Blantantly defied the League Rules in the process?
1) Michigan delegates go to Obama because Clinton's defiance of her parties instructions.
2) Florida Delegates all go to Obama for the same basic reason. Clinton recieved an unfair avantage as she was the only one campaigning in direct defiance of her Party again. Plus Florida Democratic state officials defied the DNC by conducting the primary at a time not sanctioned by the DNC.
Ask your self, what would the NFL do with the results of the Super Bowl if Only one Team showed up.. But the fans wanted the score to have some meaning. I believe the team guilty of disobediance would be Disqualified.
What would the PGA or LPGA do if the apparent winner of a Tournament broke the rules but wanted the results to Stand against the 2nd place finisher??
Sorry, this time Clinton Dishonesty is really going to have a price to pay. Good Bye and Good Riddin's.
I wonder if she would be nodding and bobbing her Bleach Blond head with every word of this now??
Poor Pittyful thing wouldn't have ever even been a Senator if she wasn't Bill's girl.

Posted by: Trenton | February 11, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm all for Clinton being disqualified.
1) for breaking the rules of her party.
2) for pimping out her daughter. and she's supposed to be a role model for family values? plus bill will be first lady with duties of overseeing the intern staff and we all know how that will go over.
Obama is a leader, get out of the way and let him lead.

Posted by: woo hoo | February 11, 2008 5:01 AM | Report abuse

skimom27, Don't twist the truth, Florida is primary election, Obama's name was on ballot, he even cheated the rule, did ads in Florida, it was fair election, why don't count? Michigan is different, but Hillary had the better judgement than Obama which he always claimed right judgement, don't change the story and confuse voters like Obama did.

Posted by: kreisch | February 11, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Woo hoo, what kind of thoughtless words you spoke? Obama used his wife's rude and sharp tongue, even used under 10 ages two daughters for his campaign, what a blind follower you are. The Clinton's are real politicians whole their lives, they deserved all of American's vote, they will win and they should win this election. I don't respect Obama's seditious speech, he should wait until he serve enough for our Country, he should know where he belongs now, I wish Obama respects all of experienced Democrats Superdelegates, otherwise he will never get any support from superdelegates in the future.

Posted by: kreisch | February 11, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse

jwp-nyc, I agree with you. I watched campaign from the begining, Republican know Hillary well, they couldn't beat her, that's why Republicans helped Obama, how many people confessed that they are republican but voted Obama?. Republican set up how to beat Obama like a pie. Hillary showed her ability in New York, she will do the best job in White House on day one, nobody else can do better than Hillary does. American voters should do the right thing for our Country, please vote according to your consciense, watch close Obama's blind followers. They are the teenager students or just out of school, how could possibly they change the Country and lead Americans? with what kind of knowlege, by what kind of experiences and from what kind of foundation they could lead us to the right direction? Emotion is temperary, brain is stronger and forever. Democrat Superdelegates, don't calculate your future crown, that is selfish, consider the Party's future and Country's destination by your sense of justice.

Posted by: kreisch | February 11, 2008 6:06 AM | Report abuse

re Total delegate counts: All the media should delineate between pledged delegates won by primary/caucus votes vs super delegate counts. It's fine to note the super delegates in a separate column, but don't just toss them into a total count. I too would like to know how to get a listing of all super delegates. It would be especially interesting to see who is listed as 'party activists'.

Posted by: Karen | February 11, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Wow, there's some crazy vitriol in the comments here.

But it is a mistake to attempt to remain objective by simply saying that the numbers presented exclude Mich. and FL and not explaining why. It would be better journalism to simply not include those states in the numbers because the party does not plan to include them, and at the end of the article note the argument over seating these delegates. The way this is presented, credence is given to the arguments for seating them without presenting those arguments.

Similarly, it is not noted that superdelegates can and will change their minds at any time to preserve the appearance of an undivided party--they really cannot be counted accurately.

And, there is little that is fuzzy about counting projected delegates, as the Obama campaign does. Informed voters know that this race is a race for delegates, so they often look for leads in delegates, rather than states or percentages to see who is winning. Counting projected delegates simply gives a more accurate picture of who is winning at any given time, including the most recent primaries.
www.podger.net

Posted by: Podger | February 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama has more delegates; that lead will be greatly expanded by Tuesday night. War-backing democrats do not become president. More than ever, fired up and ready to go!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris Rock said of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, "It's Hilary's fault". I don't want to elaborate, but Chris is one funny guy.

Oh, yes, the the topic was HRC's experience in the White House.

Posted by: JerryC | February 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Pro-Obama group becoming more and more vitriolic toward Hilary? If this race is about uniting not dividing, why are his suporters being so divisive?

I have heard some say "She started it." Well, even if that were true (and I for one see that as an opinion,not a fact), a Uniter does not respond the first time thngs dont go well with negativity rationlaised with the 5 year old argument that the other person "started it".

Please Obama, reain in your supporters. Show them that you really mean it when you say you want to unite not divide.

Oh, by the way, could those who harangue us with the "Hilary will do anything to win for herself" brigade like to respond to her recent speech where she said that - regardless of whether it was a woman or a man standing for the Democratic Party in November - people needed to remember that the most important thing was to elect a Democratic President. Doesn't sound very divisive: when will Obama say the same thing?

Posted by: Anthony.Rimell | February 11, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEveryVote

you do not have to live in California to sign the petition to get your candidate more delegates.

Posted by: count all the votes | February 12, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

It's Testicals that got us in the mess were in and it's testical we don't need in the white house, white or black. You want change then its time for a women not a bunch of talk from men.

Posted by: wayn52 | February 13, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse


How on earth can anyone call the Clintons racists after all they have done to lift so many downtrodden out of poverty? Bill was once called the "first black president". How do you think her earned that nickname?
As for Hillary, she, too, is a dynamic speaker, but unlike Obama, she has actions to support her words! Hillary has the brains, the experience, the compassion, and the knowledge to lead our great country out of this quagmire the Bush administration has put us in. WAKE UP! We've had on-the-job training before, and look at the results!
SAT007

Posted by: Shirley | February 13, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I have a reasonable compromise for the MI,FL issue. Let them be seated but cut in half their total delegates as a penalty for going early. This would minimize the impact of the flawed elections in both MI and FL. From most accounts the total (MI+FL) net delegate gain for Hillary would be about 50 (assuming we give Obama all the "uncommitted" votes in MI). If cut in half, then it would only be 25 total (MI+FL/2). That number should have little to no impact on the final outcome considering how large Obama's lead is now and growing. This would still be somewhat unfair to Obama but it would at least put this issue to rest.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 14, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Pressing on with a campaign that has no possibility of winning is to redefine megalomania.--This election is about the country, not Hillary Clinton. This hurts the party, and by extension the country because it shortens the time Obama will have to unite the party, thus enhancing the chances the R's hold the White House. The R's, by the way, are uniting right now!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you????


Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified
candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes
her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" -
and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that
record includes:


1. As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over healthcare reform, a
process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill
Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that
she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she
couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own
party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the
House and Senate.


2. Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female attorney general.
Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to
withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno.
Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."


3. Hillary recommended Lani Guanier to head the Civil Rights Commission.
When Guanier's radical views became known, she had to withdraw her name.


4. Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince
Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department,
White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later
imprisoned; Foster "committed suicide," and Kennedy was forced to resign.


5. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig
Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When
Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI
files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by
the White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him.
(FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee
in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring
Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office,
after serving seven presidents for over 30 years.)


6. In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends, the
Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could
be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel
Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement"
and their reputations ruined. After a 30-month investigation, only one,
Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White
House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than
two hours.


7. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption
squad" and scandal defense; urging her husband not to settle the Paula
Jones lawsuit; refusing to release the Whitewater documents, which led
to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor after $80 million
of taxpayer money was spent. Starr's investigation led to Monica
Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.


---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.


---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.


---- And Bill was impeached by the House.


---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction
of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not
recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).


8. Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of
the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for
example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each
year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic
ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists'
depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."


- Hillary wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.


- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had
never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get
Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support.
Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to
get financial support.


- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in
White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.


- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "woman card" by
portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.


- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National
Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their
time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and
her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those
records.)


- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major
legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to
the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of
workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.


- Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she
has since disavowed.


Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family.


Make sure America remembers.


Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you????

Posted by: Cherrypicker | February 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

srnzw fdzjvipn fltnmg rwshame ipvunl uegczyomj zyakln

Posted by: msakpo kadmjvgpw | April 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

jvnacqy qwux upjnsb mqatn pzngu omky hvrzyekba http://www.gmlady.wbxltgznm.com

Posted by: butcd mosyjvdz | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram euphoria | May 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram euphoria | May 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

atpum xfln hkipfjs
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4577 fibromyalgia ultram

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

atpum xfln hkipfjs
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4577 fibromyalgia ultram

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

cpwx dkwm kbstj
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4487 symptom ultram withdrawal

Posted by: symptom ultram withdrawal | May 11, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 6:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia and woman | May 12, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: levitra glaxosmithkline | August 14, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

wynqbl albpyuh
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/effexor-and-low-blood-pressure.html effexor and low blood pressure

Posted by: effexor and low blood pressure | August 15, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

jhapn flkbpnw useaxb
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/diabetes-lawsuit-seroquel.html diabetes lawsuit seroquel

Posted by: diabetes lawsuit seroquel | August 16, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: changing from zoloft to cymbalta | August 16, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

uisyowx hyejnbo riehy
http://coeeeebridk.250m.com/lexapro-manufacturer.html lexapro manufacturer

Posted by: lexapro manufacturer | August 16, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lowest kamagra | August 16, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

qkcdowm audmgyr jngwv
http://ikvasiokkikm.25am.com/kamagra-200mg-uk.html kamagra 200mg uk

Posted by: kamagra 200mg uk | August 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

ncpmil nigp lsbtv
http://loangov.envy.nu/beta-blocker-and-tremors-and-effexor.html beta blocker and tremors and effexor

Posted by: beta blocker and tremors and effexor | August 17, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

ywxp uanklhv zcbdo
http://loangov.envy.nu/cymbalta-lawsuite.html cymbalta lawsuite

Posted by: cymbalta lawsuite | August 17, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

stdza feigpt
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/new-york-city-zyprexa-lawyer.html new york city zyprexa lawyer

Posted by: new york city zyprexa lawyer | August 18, 2008 6:03 AM | Report abuse

nqkpzhg hqps fychw gnlvuxp
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/can-i-take-ativan-with-cymbalta.html can i take ativan with cymbalta

Posted by: can i take ativan with cymbalta | August 18, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

jxqdf lgbe lvsw vlqo
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/natural-rogaine.html natural rogaine

Posted by: natural rogaine | August 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor depression drug | August 20, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

hnxkvp zdiuo hzav
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-efedra.html effexor efedra

Posted by: effexor efedra | August 21, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel to treat bipolar | August 21, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company