The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Thank you for pointing this out...this "popular vote" business has been driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this was a VERY close race, no doubt about it. But for Clinton to claim she won the popular vote (without counting certain states that held caucuses and giving no votes to Obama from Michigan) is disengenous. At best.

Thank you, Fact Checker! I was actually just about to ask you if you could please look into the facts & figures behind Hillary's slanted popular vote claim. Ah, if only Michigan & Florida had not screwed it up. That's my wishful thinking, but either way...Obama all the way!!!

One thing you can say about the Clintons, spin comes as first nature, not second. Hillary's popular vote claim is reminiscent of her Bosnia sniper claim. Hillary believes that if she says it loudly and repeatedly, it becomes true.

Sorry Hillary, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

Hillary's obviously beleives if you say something enough times, people will believe you. This is a horrible character flaw for someone who wishes to lead, especially to lead the United States. Havent people had enough of this garbage out, garbage out philosophy from Bush.

She also has to exclude the 230,000 "uncommitted voters" in Michigan, most of whom would have probably supported Barack Obama had he been on the ballot,

Heck, a lot of the folks who voted Clinton in that election might well have voted Obama had he been on the ballot. The election results are irreparably tainted....

You're spinning the truth as well. Popular vote does count, in that Superdelegates can and should consider it in making their decision. Either candidate, Obama included, needs superdelegates to wrap up the nomination, so consideration of the popular
vote is legitimate. And by many metrics, Clinton has more popular vote at this point.

By the way, the numbers for the caucuses are "estimates." Did any of you even look at the Real Clear Politics chart?

the Clintons always make claims to their own benefit selfishly and ignore people's intelligence. remember" smoke ... but did not inhale...", "bosnia sniper claim", "agreed to not counting florida and michigan then want everthing their ways when they are behind in delegates..., can never trust them.
I am a first time voter, first time donner and Obama's supporter.

NEWS YOU CAN'T USE: Did you know that Terry McAuliffe, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton, was hired by the Clintons because he did such a great job closing the deal on their first time share.

Thank you for pointing this out...this "popular vote" business has been driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this was a VERY close race, no doubt about it. But for Clinton to claim she won the popular vote (without counting certain states that held caucuses and giving no votes to Obama from Michigan) is disengenous. At best.

Posted by: TW | June 2, 2008 10:38 AM

Exactly. It is, and has been, an extremely close race, but for her to keep claiming that she's won the popular vote is insulting our intelligence. (I know the facts get distorted all the time in elections, but that's just ridiculous!)

Yo Mama: If I may channel Rachel Maddow who said it first: If the popular vote counted, no state would hold a caucus, they would ALL hold primaries. Also, the candidates would campaign like crazy in the population rich states like California, and only campaign in smaller states in absentia, by mail, internet and TV ads.

The popular vote argument is meaningless; if it really counted it would change both how the states chose their delegates and how the campaigns pursued the votes; in short it would change everything. The same can be said for her other arguments: If we were to look at electoral votes, or just the swing states, or just the big states, or just the demographic to whom she appeals most. It is all meaningless, elitist blather!

Finally, so is her argument about beating Obama, it says plenty about which Democrat is preferred but says zero about whether voters prefer Democrats to Republicans. I strongly prefer Obama and demonstrated that with my vote, my work and my money, but that doesn't mean I would EVER vote for McBush and doesn't mean there is a chance in hell I would stay home in November.

GOD BLESS AMERICA OUR HOME. Harvard Scholar Barack Obama.

Americans are too smart to fall for diabolical divisive Republican tricks.
Leave out divisive hate mongering (race, gender, religion).

Barack

Focus on the ECONOMY, HOMES, IRAQ WAR, OIL, ENERGY, FAMILY, MORALITY, INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP, AND ONE AMERCA.

Barack Obama has a wonderful, loving, intelligent and spiritual family with high morals. This is exactly what is expected of the First Family.

If Hillary didn't run such a trashy campaign, then the American People would have been more responsive to her message whatever that was.

The dysfunctional Clintons (Billy, Hillary, Monica) disgraced the White House and will never be allowed to do that again.

Hillary's message whatever that was got lost in all of her hate, racist, and sexist mongering, which was not beneficial to Americans. McCentury McCain is doing the same, because he lacks an agenda except Bush's policies of continued failures.

Americans, Europeans and the World are under the impression that Rich Republicans are pathological liars and thieves. And they are right. False statements, cheating and undermining Democratic values are Republican tools to hurt mankind in their selfish destructive quest to own and control this beautiful world that's temporarily enjoyed by all.

Republican Failures McCain-Bush must answer to the fact that a barrel of Oil was $24 when Bush took office and now a barrel of Oil is $135. Republican rich Oil conspiracy has undermined the American People and Our Economy in their quest for selfish, destructive and greedy ill gotten super-capitalistic Wall Street gains.

MCCAIN-BUSH SEVEN YEARS AGO CHANGED A BARREL OF OIL FROM $24 INTO TODAY'S SUPER-CAPITALISTIC GREEDY OUT OF CONTROL $135.

WILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SIT ON THEIR HANDS AND ALLOW MCCAIN-BUSH CONTINUED OUT OF CONTROL WALL STREET SUPERCAPITALISTIC GREED TO RAISE A BARREL OF OIL TO $200?

THE PRICE OF OIL IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OIL SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY NATIONALIZED FOR UNITED STATES NATIONAL DEFENSE.

REPUBLICAN FAILURES MCCAIN-BUSH WITHIN SEVEN YEARS CHANGED A $24 BARREL OF OIL INTO A $135 BARREL OF OIL.

WERE THE REPUBLICAN FAILURES MCCAIN-BUSH SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR SERVING THEIR SUPER-RICH FRIENDS WHEN THEY HELP CHANGE THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL FROM $24 TO $135 IN JUST SEVEN YEARS?

IT'S TIME TO NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL AND THE ENERGY INDUSTRIES FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

300,000,000 Americans come first when it comes to the greatest benefits to the greatest number. When one percent of the population (super rich), owns and runs everything to the destruction of the ninety nine percent (typical Americans), then something must change. McCain-Bush represents greed and destruction that must stop.

If you love America, then you should inspire the American People to rise higher and HOPE for better days.

America is HOPEFUL and GREAT and will follow the HOPEFUL and INSPIRATIONAL message of Harvard Scholar Barack Obama.

This is the greatest presidential race in history, because Harvard Scholar Barack Obama is flying like an eagle.

GOD BLESS AMERICA OUR HOME. Harvard Scholar Barack Obama.

Barack Obama loves America and the troops.

Barack Obama will work with the international community to end the Iraq War in 2009.

Barack Obama will bring American troops home in 2009 and reward them with benefits for homes, college, medical care, and jobs.

American troops are overwhelmingly voting for Barack Obama

EUROPE, CHINA, RUSSIA, SAUDI ARABIA, AND SOUTH AMERICA ARE WATCHING YOU

THE WORLD IS WATCHING AMERICA'S 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING AMERICA'S 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING AMERICA'S 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

AND THE WORLD WILL JUDGE WHETHER AMERICA IS SUITED TO BE ITS MORAL LEADER.
AND THE WORLD WILL JUDGE WHETHER AMERICA IS SUITED TO BE ITS MORAL LEADER.
AND THE WORLD WILL JUDGE WHETHER AMERICA IS SUITED TO BE ITS MORAL LEADER.

London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, Rome, Tokyo, Peking, and the other capitals all look forward to cooperating with President Barack Obama.

McCain and Bush with their policies of failures are afraid to stand on stage with Harvard Scholar Barack Obama.

McCain and Bush have petitioned to have a dictionary at their disposal to keep up with Barack Obama's intellectual discourse.

McCain's public insults towards his own wife and Bush's public insults towards the AMERICAN PEOPLE have precluded them from moral judgment upon the World. McCain-Bush lacks moral and intellectual credibility to sit in judgment of the World and serve the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AMERICA is voting in an intellectual scholar from Harvard Law to right OUR COUNTRY and prosecute the criminal super-capitalists.

The World is watching how a self professed Christian Moral Nation handles its pivotal point in history during the 2008 presidential election.

Will AMERICA rise to the occasion with maturity, dignity, intellect and grace?

Or will AMERICA degenerate into the Republican's Policy of Hate?

Will Republicans again toss evil words of hate to OUR PUBLIC and promote a filthy campaign worthy of pre-WWII Germany?

This is a pivotal time in AMERICAN history.

Will AMERICA run a dignified 2008 presidential election?

Or will AMERICA allow Hillbillies to take over the media and orchestrate the message of hate that will shock the watching World?

A barrel of oil was $24 when Bush took office.

It's time for AMERICA to nationalize Oil and Energy Industries for National Defense.

Rich Oil billionaires and Wall Street (super-capitalism) selling out OUR COUNTRY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for their own selfish profits is unpatriotic and treason.

AMERICA belongs to AMERICANS and not to Wall Street sell-out super-capitalists who send trillions of OUR U.S. DOLLARS overseas in chase of the highest immediate return on their private investments. Greed does not work and greed is destroying OUR COUNTRY. Dependence on foreign oil and oil billionaire businessmen are destroying OUR COUNTRY.

Immediately nationalize oil and energy industries for U.S. National Defense. It's the intelligent thing to do. AMERICANS are collectively much more important than a handful of billionaire super-capitalists on Wall Street who have allegiance to no one, but their own private, selfish, destructive, and nation undermining capital gains.

Hillary does not appear very patriotic staying in a loss race strictly to gather more money to store in her $109,000,000 favor money chest that she and Billy received from South American cartels.

Is Hillary working for the Democrats?

Is Hillary working for All AMERICANS?

Hillary is working for herself and has become and unpatriotic joke.

McCentury McSame (Bush Part III) wants to continue Bush's failed policies.

McSame (Bush III) is not very smart and will go after Hillary's Hillbilly and pig farmers votes.

MCCAIN-BUSH (POLICIES OF FAILURES) HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR:

WAR FOUGHT ON THE PREMISE OF UPROOTING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT WERE NEVER FOUND,

THE FAILURE TO CATCH OSAMA BIN LADEN,

MCCAIN-BUSH DISGRACEFUL PROCLAMATION "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

MCCAIN-BUSH ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD BE GREETED AS LIBERATORS AND NOT INVADERS

MCCAIN-BUSH INVASION OF OUR WHITE HOUSE (AMERICA HOUSE)

TURNING IRAN INTO THE "GREATEST BENEFICIARY" OF THE IRAQ WAR

MANIPULATING THE PRICE OF OIL FROM $24.00 A BARREL TO $135.00 A BARREL. WHOSE INTEREST ARE THEY LOBBYING FOR? MCCAIN-BUSH POLICIES ARE NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

PLANS TO KEEP AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS

PLANS TO INITIATE THE DRAFT TO SECURE ENOUGH TROOPS

These are just a few of McCain-Bush policies of failures that must stop.

AMERICA needs change now in a better direction.

Harvard Scholar Barack Obama will demonstrate how McCain-Bush has hurt OUR COUNTRY.

THE WORLD IS WATCHING HOW A SELF PROFESSED CHRISTIAN MORAL NATION HANDLES ITS PIVOTAL POINT IN HISTORY DURING THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

EUROPE IS LOOKING FORWARD TO RENEWING FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES THROUGH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA

THE WORLD IS WATCHING ONE AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IT'S OFFICIAL, HILLARY CLINTON IS TRASH.

You thought that Hillary's stupidity could no sink lower and it did.

Hillary Clinton has run the worst and trashiest campaign in U.S. history and now she is not worthy to continue her carpetbagger position in the adopted state of New York.

It's fitting that Hillary is a carpetbagger for New York, considering that New York sold out the Americans and housed the British troops during the entire time of the American Revolution.

Everyone is ashamed of Hillary Clinton's trashy ways.

Tell Bill and Monica that they will never again deface the honor of the White House.

Republican McCentury McCain is a weak nominee and lack the intelligence to receive the 3:00 am call from Monica calling for Bill.

Hillary and Billy (HillBilly) Clinton must immediately return the $109,000,000 favor money to the South American cartels, because their criminal political influence is over.

Americans are tired of corruption from Bush, Clinton and the old ways of McCain-Bush.

Super capitalistic privileged C- students with no business running a hotdog stands are illegally placed in the highest positions because of their ill gotten wealth.

Greed and stupidity are destroying Our Country and it must stop.

America must get back to moral decency, family values, respect, honor, scholarship, and service to the general Public.

America is about Public Service and not private greed.

Change is happening and America, Europe and the World welcome cooperation.

We The People Are Voting For Change.

"Clinton is sick," President Ford told DeFrank in 1999, the year the Senate acquitted Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice in an impeachment trial stemming from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. "He's got an addiction. He needs treatment." Ford said Clinton had "damaged his presidency beyond repair."

President Ford told DeFrank that Clinton was brazen in his attentions to other women even when the then-president visited the Fords at their Colorado home in 1993. "I'll tell you one thing: He didn't miss one good-looking skirt at any of the social occasions," President Ford told DeFrank.

"Clinton got a wandering eye, I'll tell you that. Betty had the same impression. Clinton isn't very subtle about his interest."

President Ford described talking with Clinton during the impeachment debate and pressing him to admit that he lied to federal investigators and accept censure.

"Bill Clinton," President Ford recalled saying, "I think you have to admit that you lied. If you do that, I think that will help -- and I'll help you. If you'll admit to perjury, I'll do more."

"I won't do that," Clinton replied. "I can't do that."

As for Hillary Clinton, President Ford saw her as the driving force in their marriage. By 2002, President Ford was predicting that Hillary Clinton would be on the ticket in 2004 or 2008 but would lose the general election because the country is not yet "ready for Hillary Clinton."

(and by "our intelligence", I mean everyone's, not only that of those who don't support her.)

Both candidates have won the votes of approximately 50% of the party. Sen. Clinton's claim of 'more votes' is flatly ludicrous, simply because it's impossible to know exactly how many votes there were for either candidates - just estimates - from many of the caucus states. (And that's ignoring the apples & oranges nature of comparing caucus states and primary states)

I'm all for a review of how the democratic party chooses its candidate. Right now, it's left up to each of the state parties to determine how they allocate their delegates, and some choose caucuses, some primaries, some both. Pretending that this is a national campaign, and infringing on voter rights is equally ludicrous (the democratic party is a private organization, and can choose its candidate any way it sees fit)

If Sen. Clinton wants to use her considerable political capital to remake the democratic party's nomination process, she's welcome to do so after this nomination process is over. It's confusing, and has arguably hurt the party. But changing the rules in the middle and pretending it's about voters' rights is transparent and insulting.

But something tells me that she won't really care much about reforming the caucus/primary nomination process after it's over. She'll be organizing for her caucus strategies for 2012 instead (regardless of who wins the nomination or general election)

Looking at the latest negative ratings, Clinton also seams to be leading in the unpopular vote.

Seems like a wash to me.

Let's not forget, as well, that including the Puerto Rican outcome within Hillary's "popular vote majority" she claims is truly meaningless. Puerto Rico is not a state and its people do not vote in U.S. presidential elections. Rather, Puerto Rico is--and in popular-vote plebiscites has repeatedly chosen to remain--an "associated commonwealth" that enjoys some benefits of a political connection with the United States but not actual statehood. The only Puerto Ricans whose votes count in U.S. elections are those who have established residency in the 50 mainland states. And they have had their say, along with the rest of us. It is no disrespect to the Puerto Ricans who choose to remain as residents of the island to say that including their votes in Democratic (and Republican) Party primaries is meaningless fluff. The large number of Puerto Rican citizens who abstained from voting for either Clinton or Obama were exercising wise discretion in how they spent their Sunday afternoon.

Naturally, Hillary ran about in Puerto Rico exclaiming over how "unfair" it was that the commonwealth does not get to vote in presidential elections. Perhaps that stance helped her pick up some votes from the minority of Puerto Ricans who favor statehood over either commonwealth status or independence (which is another alternative on which the island's people can vote).

What all this should add up to is a total deduction of Puerto Rico's popular-vote total from the already-spurious claim that Hillary and her advocates are making about her being the Vox Populi. If you're going to count Puerto Rico in that, then why not let voters, regardless of citizenship, all over the world cast ballots too? Obama would probably win in a landslide!

Hillary deserves four Pinocchios for this outrageous whopper.

As per usual, Mr Dobbs takes the once respected name of the Washington Post and drags it through the mud.

Neither candidate can reach a majority without superdelegates. How is a criterion upon which they may base their decision "meaningless"? That is, if you are not simply arguing Obama's case, rather than "fact checking".

As per usual, Mr Dobbs takes the once respected name of the Washington Post and drags it through the mud.

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 1:47 PM

But what's this? Spread a little crap and then don't leave your name??????

You are spineless, plus it isn't "as per usual", it's "as usual". Your language skills stink.

I am:

-a registered independent
-43
-not a college graduate
-catholic
-male
-the first American born of legal Costa Rican immigrants

In '06, I was convinced this country needed a woman's touch and was looking forward to Sen. Clinton's participation in the '08 race. I believed she could mend both the national and global division our current administration propagates.

I must now admit that I'm quite disappointed in the NY Senator. I no longer trust her. Of all the misleads that have come from her campaign this primary season, this popular vote misstep proves, to me anyway, that she, like our current C-I-C, has no problem misleading the American voter.

I'm tired of being lied to!

I have followed both candidates and I find Sen. Obama, so far, to be more sincere.

My only issue with the Sen. from IL was the question of experience. Well, it's become clear to me that he has more experience with sincerity and honesty.

THIS is the experience I desire in my next POTUS.

The Democratic election rules dictate that the delegates determine the nominee, but there is validity to the argument that the popular vote does matter to some extent (what person who lives in a Democracy would claim that the candidate who receives the majority of votes should ~not~ be the nominee?). I guarantee that the Obama supporters would be making the 'popular vote does matter' argument if Clinton were ahead in the delegate count.
This nomination process (as well as the 2000 general election) has made it clear that the election process needs to be changed, perhaps simplified to a single day, primary vote for all states.
But let's face it: the best Democratic ticket is an Obama-Clinton one. There is enough passion for both of those candidates to carry the Democrats into the White House this November. I hope the Obama camp isn't too stubborn to produce this winning formula.

Also do not forget that a LOT of folks in Michigan voted Republican rather than not have their vote counted in the Democratic primary. Nobody seems to take this into account, and yet it is the main reason that ONLY Michigan and Florida had high Repub. turnouts!

The votes from PR can't be counted. Puerto Rican doesn't vote in the US Presidential election.

I want to ask, who keeps tossing her straws to grasp onto? Please stop it!

This is a public apology to Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. It turns out all the nasty things things that Hate Radio has been spewing out regarding Hillary Clinton for the last 17 years weren't exaggerations, just the simple, unvarnished truth.

Popular vote is not even an argument to make. The primary is a delegate only race.

Billary wants to harken back to the 2000 election for a loaded game. Even there though a primary is not equal to or the same as a general election.

There were two elements missing from the Billary campaign. One was a strategy and the other was integrity.

Maybe you can change:
The Pinocchio Test
To
The "Hillary Clinton" Test

Hillary said "We ARE winning the popular vote." And she must of been saying so at the very moment when she signed off on this notice. She wasn't talking about before or after this so she doesn't deserve a long nose at all.

Probably she was in Puerto Rico at that instant where she spent lots of time over the weekend working hard for votes in the Commonwealth and thanking that islands' residents in America's other language, showing her sympathy for PR state hood.

Obama hardly showed up at all in person or in votes. Her vote shows how popular she is (not just was but is) there. Probably there would of been more people turn out to vote if they would of thought it was going to be close. Everybody already knew who was the most popular.

What did all you people think about the "hormonal Clinton supporters" that made a chaos out of the Democratic committee meeting on Saturday. They were as bad as HRC.....they showed no respect for the party, heckled the other spectators, and were loud and unruly. Typical women "whose hormones" were way out of whack.....they make us other women look bad. We arent all like that. Its just a "select group" of her staunch supporters that are just like mini-Hillaries....its "their way or NO way". Forget all the rules and regulations...if they arent what THEY THINK they should be. This really makes it look bad for future decent women who want to try and make a run for public office. Hillary just seems to "eat up this type of attention".....wonder what she will do when they no longer scream and yell her name...and tell her how "great she is"...boy, will that be a blow to her ego.

Thank you - now can we finally put the spin calculators and chaos math theories aside?

Spin equals more lies in my book and fuels more arguments and negative perceptions. The newest popular vote ad is just more of the same from a pair of expert politicians. Hillary should get extra points for creativity and the fantasy factor.

After tomorrow, the greater good will be to rally behind the actual candidate who has the lead - according to the rules.

The vote argument didn't sway the DNC, and it won't sway the super delegates - even it was actually verifiable.

Let's turn the page.

People think. Not all of them think in "Democrat" or "Republican" terms. Many of us think of "best." Which is why if Obama is the nominee, for the first time in my more than twenty five years of voting for Presidents, I'll vote Republican.

How about we just drop all of this primary nonsense and the DNC could just tell everybody who to vote for about 1 hour before the polls open on NOV 4?

Thank you Mr. Dobbs!

Talking about "popular vote" tally is again like changing the rules in the middle of the game.

By citing "popular vote", SENATOR CLINTON is attempting to DISENFRANCHISE ALL CAUCUS STATES.

DELEGATES are a more accurate measure of popular overall popular support, because DELEGATES are awarded in equal proportion to the primary AND the caucus states, according to the voting results in each and every state.

If the caucus states had known that popular vote - rather than # of pledged delegates - would be considered as part of an overall final result, those states would have had primaries instead - IF they could have afforded it!

Considering "popular vote" NOW, at the end of the game, immediately dienfranchises ALL the caucus states.

The total number of caucus state votes (reported) are 1,241,132 for Obama, and 37,937 votes for Clinton.

Since primaries always generate more votes than caucuses, if we only double the number of votes from the caucus states, using the same percentages received by each candidate, the outcome adds 2,482,264 votes to Obama's popular vote total, and 75,874 votes to Clinton's total. Add that to the popular vote totals from all the primary states, and Obama is over 1,700,000 votes ahead of Clinton! - even including Puerto Rico, and with no votes for Obama from Michigan.

If we multiply caucus state tallies by 5, which would still be a very reasonable prediction for the number of votes that could have been generated by full primaries in the caucus states, the outcome would have been 6,205,660 more votes for Obama and 189,685 more votes for Clinton, with a final popular vote tally of 22,637,782 votes for Obama and 17,245,762 for Clinton.

Senator Clinton is UNFAIR TO CAUCUS STATES, and she is deliberately attempting to deceive the voters about the true level of her popular support in comparison to the popular support for Senator Obama.

FOUR Pinnochios for Sen. Clinton!

I don't know who wrote this "fact check" story, but they sure didn't hide their pro-Obama bias. When it came to the heart of the matter -- telling us who is in the lead after counting all of the votes of all the voters thus far -- the story above dodged the question. The story claims that Obama has a "slight" lead if -- IF -- "the uncommitted Michigan vote is awarded to Obama." Why the "if"? Why not just count the votes? Talk about trying to "reshape reality" to achieve a "preferred outcome." This story -- and I mean rhetorical piece -- did not count the votes. If you count the votes for Hillary and count the votes for Obama (not "uncommitted" voters) and tally them, what are the results? Come on, fact checker, what are the facts? The least you can do is report some facts.

This was worth it just to see all the Sore Losernans from 2000 scream how the popular vote is "meaningless" ...

To correct one paragraph above:

"DELEGATES are a more accurate measure of overall popular support, because DELEGATES are awarded is equal proportion to all primary AND caucus states, according to the voting results in each and every state."

Again, Sen. Clinton is attempting to deceive the voters by DISENFRANCHISING ALL CAUCUS STATES.

Super delegates are entitled to take whatever they think is important into account. May I ask if you voted for Al Gore in 2000? Popular vote didn't "count" then either, right?

As suggested here also, the whole popular vote fairy tale is devastated by the fundamental illegitimacy of the Michigan procedure. Quoting Dan Balz today:

"The most important outcome of Saturday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting was to render Michigan's primary illegitimate, a huge blow to Clinton's popular vote strategy. The allocation of delegates agreed upon by the committee bore no resemblance to the popular vote in the state. Sen. Carl Levin, in an exchange with Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes, debunked the idea of trying to use the results of the primary to determine how the delegates would be apportioned. 'You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary,' Levin said."

And Ickes acknowledged that Michigan's vote was flawed.

Sorry, that was TO Alice, not from her.

I have not heard Ickes sat that the Michigan vote was "flawed". Did you see him on Meet the Press?

I am very glad there are at least a few reporters who believe in telling the truth. Your statement:

"You have to admire Hillary Clinton for her ability to reshape reality to her preferred outcome. She seems to assume that if she says something loudly enough, and repeats it often enough, it will become true."

is absolutely true. Senator Clinton sounds like Bush and Cheney, who kept repeating falsehoods about the Iraqis being involved in 9/11, the WMD's in Iraq, etc. until many Americans were duped into thinking they were true statements. Bush, Cheney and the Clintons are very similar in lacking integrity.

It is not a "falsehood" that she leads in the popular VOTE. Estimates from a caucus, or numbers stolen from "uncommitted" are not VOTES.

Al Gore won the popular vote and should have been President. Clinton won the popular vote and should win the nomination.

Caucuses, which are estimated, should be thrown out. FL should be counted in full. Sure, give Obama some of the "undecided" in MI but only a % that reflects that Edwards and other Dem. Candidates got some of those votes too.

Clinton will be the nominee after the SD's have made a careful evaluation of the candidate that can win in Nov. She got the swing states.

Obama is a damaged candidate after the stunt with Rev. Wright and his thwarting of voters rights in FL and MI. Obama can't get the blue collar white vote (use WV as an example and the exit polls showing that 30% of Clintons voters will not vote for Obama).

JakeD showed up....therefore all meaningful discourse may now stop.

NEVER OBAMA

If your voting republican just to prevent your vote for counting for obama then you are wasting your vote. I know you dont think that the way things are going now and will continue under McCain is better than obama. Its funny how people will vote against their own interest out of spite.

She continues to tell this lie about receiving more popular vote than any one in an election, but no one stops her.Where are all her surrogets? How do they continue
to let her degrade her self like that.? I thought they cared about her. Hillary is really looking bad and all tho I am an OBAMA supporter,I am a women and think her friend, family or supporters should take care of her, she is really looking like she will not survive this lost.I now have sympathy for her, because she seems to be out of touch with reality.

"Out of spite"? Voting to protect unborn children is very much in my interest.

Carolyn:

Did you see me 4:43 PM post?

Hillary's not really winning th popular vote? C'mon, who are you trying to kid. Next thing you'll be telling us that Iraq didn't have any WMD and Saddam didn't anything to do with 9/11.

js_edit:

Did you look at the Real Clear Politics link, or not?

QUOTE from yo mama:
"By the way, the numbers for the caucuses are "estimates." Did any of you even look at the Real Clear Politics chart?"

Interesting point. I attended my precinct and county level caucuses here in WA State, one of the caucuses HRC doesn't want to count when she counts every vote...

Obama won about 70 percent of our state's delegates. Given the way the delegates were apportioned, he had to win each precinct closer to 80-20. This was what occurred in precinct and county, where HRC almost didn't meet viability. Obama carried close to 80 percent of the vote, but gathered about 70% of the delegates.

So yes, the caucus numbers are estimates, estimates that FAVOR HRC and she is still losing both the popular vote, and more importantly (and BY THE RULES decisively) the delegate count and thus the Democratic nomination.

I voted for Obama 3 million times but my votes didn't count because it was against the rules.

I'm not stopping until ALL my votes are counted, I will not be silenced!

Like AL Gore I have fallen out of love with politics. If the Clinton's are as bad as the Obamas and supporters say.
Then Why are all of former Clinton
advisers on Obamas team????

And if it's not all about his Obama race, then why do obama supports keep saying "the world is watching what we do"

Why if it's not about Obamas race, then why do Obama supporters say "Just think what kind of a message it will Send to the world if we elect Obama"!

Why if you say "We want change" then why are all the same old people from Clinton Presidency, advising Obama? No change will be if all the old Clinton puppet masters will be running the show again!

What a load of BS this election has been about.
Foreign polices advisor from President Bill Clinton are advising Obama! No Change!

I have learned that this election was a crock!
That the Republicans party and the Democratic party are evil!!!

I am horrified by both party's. The equal evil acts of having no problem with stilling votes!

Mind blowing disillusionment!

This is the down fall of this country !

It is not a falsehood that her supporters abandoned her on Sat. at Hillary's "call-them-on-the-carpet" meeting.

The committee was front-loaded with Clinton supporters and they voted against her.

Nothing more need be said, except for this:
IT WAS AND STILL IS A DELEGATE RACE

NEVER OBAMA, I'm curious.

I quote you:

"Not all of them think in "Democrat" or "Republican" terms. Many of us think of "best." Which is why if Obama is the nominee, for the first time in my more than twenty five years of voting for Presidents, I'll vote Republican."

End quote.

Given your admission to voting democrat for the last 25+ years, I have difficulty believing your decision to go republican this election as "best".

Sounds more like contempt. In fact, I intuit your presentation as hateful, to be honest. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Not every vote is the intelligent vote.

So, if you're going republican this election... adios? Arrivederci? Bon voyage? Respectfully, better you there, than here.

This emerging democratic party is a unifying, all inclusive and world-healing entity, spear headed by a champion of the American spirit. You are welcome to return when your heart has softened and your wounds have healed. I'll be saving a place for you when you do.

Remember, "...you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Two Pinocchios? Yeah right.

This column long ago lost any credibility for me.

Had Sen. Clinton won the popular vote, which she did not then perhaps the Supers would consider it in their decision, which is not the only metric they use to decide who is more fit to lead their party. HONESTY has a lot to do with it I'm sure.

In 2000 there was no doubt Gore won the popular vote

In 2008 only if you use bizarro world math can you begin to entertain the slightest remote possibility that Clinton has won the popular vote.

Must be that new urban math. I add the numbers up and it says "HILLARY RECEIVED MORE RECORDED VOTES". Admittedly, there are hypothetical votes due to Obama which should be counted somewhere . . . maybe some day.

But just so I am clear . . .
(1) Every vote counts?
(2) We should include hypothethical votes as well as recorded votes?
(3) Not every vote counts the same?
(4) The individual votes don't really mean anything, since it is the delegates that really pick the nominee?

No real way to spin this . . . Hillary got more votes . . . Obama gets the nomination . . . and the Wackadoodle lives on!

Just for argument's sake, has anyone totaled how Clinton and Obama would rank in delegates if the primary and caucuses were winner take all?

I'd be interested to know.

ananymous at 6:07 said....Like AL Gore I have fallen out of love with politics. If the Clinton's are as bad as the Obamas and supporters say.
Then Why are all of former Clinton
advisers on Obamas team????

Because she's not as bad as that, and not stupid, and neither are her advisers. She has had some really smart people working for her. Obama hired them.

Obama supporters - please refrain from clinton-bashing. It's done now and we have to work together.

Thank you for disecting the facts. Changing the game rule after a game started assumes that the participants are xxxxx.

You have to admire Hillary Clinton for her ability to reshape reality to her preferred outcome. She seems to assume that if she says something loudly enough, and repeats it often enough, it will become true.

Admire it, it makes me sick?

Dear RBinL.A.,

What is wrong with a little contempt? Particularly if it is accurately directed?

Our party is not a party of youngsters, Wackadoodles and eggheads . . . It is hard-working families that founded this party. Just don't plan to turn the keys over to a few novices just yet . . . In the meantime, get used to a little challenge.

Obama's position (and yours) is he doesn't need us regular working types.

Our position (and mine) is, with all the talent in our party, we ended up picking someone inexperienced, carrying baggage.

Whether we sit-out, vote for McCain or just complain a lot . . . in the end our message will be received.

The "popular vote" yard-stick scheme is Hillary's latest smoking screen.

Shifty:

Did you feel the same way about Gore in 2000?

The Fact Checker may be correct on the math, but not on the implications. It's not accurate to claim it is a "fact" that the popular vote total is "meaningless." It is also not accurate to say that "the people" have "chosen" Obama as the nominee. As everyone, especially the Fact Checker, should know by now, neither Hillary nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination; rather, the outcome will rest on the superdelegates. Therefore, neither candidate has been "chosen" (yet) - nor will there be one until someone (most likely, Hillary) drops out, or the convention, since superdelegates are free to change their minds. Further, the popular vote does have meaning: it can be one of many factors that may sway the superdelegates. Or, it may not be a factor. The point is, it is not factually "meaningless."

I'm surprised that the Fact Checker would have to be reminded of such basic facts of the nominating process. Yes, barring some monumental political upheaval, Obama will be the nominee. But not yet.

Yo Mama:

With tainted voting, the numbers for Florida and Michigan are estimates, too.

"the popular vote does have meaning: it can be one of many factors that may sway the superdelegates."

I SUPPOSE YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT. OF COURSE, ANYTHING COULD BE A "FACTOR" ACCORDING TO YOUR BRILLIANCE. BUT, SINCE NO ONE CARES ABOUT IT, IT REALLY IS MEANINGLESS. SEE: DELEGATES.

Or, it may not be a factor. The point is, it is not factually "meaningless."

NO MORE SO THAN "WISHING UPON A STAR"... UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, IT ISN'T IN THE OFFICIAL RULE BOOK AS A FACTOR.

Posted by: Ryan | June 2, 2008 7:00 PM
-------------------------
BY THE WAY, HOW MANY ANGELS DO YOU THINK DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN.

Hey Hillary!

Come back to Arkansas you are real popular there! You deserve to lose.

js_edit:
Did you look at the Real Clear Politics link, or not?
Posted by: JakeD | June 2, 2008 5:49 PM

------------------

Yep...yesterday. Way ahead of you, pal.

Thank you for this - I am sick to death of her spin and some of her supporters delusional beliefs. Onward and upward!!

OBAMA CANNOT WIN

HE CAME TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

THAT IS HIS PAST MO IN CHICAGO

HE FIGHTS DIRTY

AS A FRESHMAN DONE NOTHING DOLITTLE

HE IS CONNECTED AT THE HIP AND GROIN TO THE BOYS CLUB WHITE GUYS IN DC

THEY "OWN" HIM AT THIS POINT

NOTICE HOW NONE OF THEM COME OUT ANYMORE AND SPEAK FOR HIM

THEY NO LONGER COME OUT TO AMBUSH AND RAPE HILLARY

NO - THAT WAS THEIR SUPER TUESDAY AMBUSH

THEY THINK WE ARE ALL STUPID

THEY THINK WE HAVE NO MEMORIES

THOSE DUMB BOYS CLUB BOYS HAVE EARNED THEMSELVES A GREAT BIG LOSS

THEY BASHED, KICKED AND SPIT ON OUR BEST CANDIDATE TO POSIT THEIR YES MAN BLACK PUPPET

HE HAS NOTHING BUT COLOR - NO CREDENTIALS

THEY KNEW THAT

THEY ARE DESPICABLE

THEY ARE ROVIAN

THEY ARE THE DC BACK ROOM DEMOCRATIC THUGS

THEY EAT THEIR OWN

THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE

NOTHING

NOVEMBER = NOBAMA

THEY CAN SAVE THEIR POLITICS OF FEAR

HILLARY OR McCAIN

THIS 50% THEY'VE TREATED AS INVISIBLE

WILL BE

Thanks, Ryan.

People think. Not all of them think in "Democrat" or "Republican" terms. Many of us think of "best." Which is why if Obama is the nominee, for the first time in my more than twenty five years of voting for Presidents, I'll vote Republican.

Posted by: NEVER OBAMA
*************************
Wow...still not caring...

It sure is driving the Obama people crazy about Hillary......gee, 18+ million votes.......and the Obama supporters get nastier and nastier.....
Sure, she is all the mean things you ALL say......18+ million people are wrong......
Where are you from???? What is wrong with you people.......The nasty things you say are just incredible.
He has spent 10 times everybody, and still can't beat Hillary! I wonder WHY!! that is????

HillFan:

Your whining and complaining wins the prize for today! Congratulations!

So, if you think McCain is better than Obama, then please get the hell out of the Democratic Party. And good riddance.

He may be inexperienced, but she's carrying his baggage. Pay attention.

As some of the pro-Clinton comments have noted--with the race so close, the popular count becomes an important fact--not in determining the winner per se--but in the considerations of remaining uncommitted superdelegates. That seems to be a legitimate argument. The problem is that those SD's are smart enough to know that she is playing with the numbers to her advantage; they see that her claim to a lead in the popular vote is highly dubious and depends on assumptions like not counting even a single vote for Obama in Michigan. Another problem is that while she can make the popular vote argument as a way to shape the deliberations of superdelegates--something she obviously has every right to do--that argument plays very differently among her rank-and-file supporters, who read it not as a statement about a measure SD's should keep in mind, but rather as a statement about a nomination stolen and an illegitimate result. And that has potentially grave consequences down the road.

js_edit:

Then you know that, using any reasonable definition of VOTE, she has more of them.

Whether we sit-out, vote for McCain or just complain a lot . . . in the end our message will be received.

Posted by: HillFan |
************************
WWHCD? If she comes out endorses Obama and goes out campaigning for him? Will you respect her position or not?

Yes, if Obama does get the nomination, this will be a "nomination stolen and an illegitimate result", and there will be consequences down the road. I am in one of the caucus states, and the numbers do not add up correctly in any of them. THAT certainly is a problem for Obama. THAT! will also show up in the general election. You can't pretend to have what you don't really have......no matters how much Kool-aid your supporters drink.....
GO HILLARY.....ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTIONS.......

He has spent 10 times everybody, and still can't beat Hillary! I wonder WHY!! that is????

Posted by: librairie
********************
and you wonder why Clinton supporters are starting to get eye rolls when they open their mouths.

THE PRIMARY IS OVER AS OF TOMORROW, COMPRENDE?

me-mi:

There was not a single VOTE cast for him in Michigan. If she would have taken her name off the ballot, then there would be no VOTES for her as well.

THANK YOU FOR SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT!!!!!

As luck would have it, we do not need to argue whether the popular vote matters, because Obama won both the actual delegates and the popular vote.

Personally I LIKE Hillary, if she had won, I would have supported her. But she did not win. At this late stage in the game, she can't even invent new ways to pretend she won. I wish she'd dropped out sooner and preserved her dignity, her claims like this are making her look like a sore loser...

We cannot and should not ignore the caucus states that Hillary lost in, merely to pretend she win. Hillary lost this election by every official and unofficial measure.

The mainstream media has been showing a bizarre bias by letting her ignore a bunch of states with caucuses that she lost, so she can claim she "won the popular vote." It's almost as if the media is afraid of the Clintons. I am grateful to the Washington Post for setting the record straight.

JakeD,
You bring up the 2000 election frequently. You taunt people with the results. George W. Bush won that election - there can be no doubt. There was a process in place and at the end of the process he was the winner. Are you aware that upon more careful examination of cast ballots, it was determined that more ballots in Florida were cast for Gore than Bush? That's just a fact (I refer to the NORC study - full results of all ballots). The result doesn't include any estimates of mis-votes because of butterfly ballots or any other suppositions. The analysis took a year and was done carefully and correctly. Obviously, we must have a process that doesn't take a year! But perhaps you shouldn't revel in the fact that our process got it wrong or denigrate those who voted for Gore and feel cheated. Democracy (the glorious ideal) was not served by the election of 2000. I don't think that is something to cheer about, even if it was your candidate who won. Your call.

JakeD, your McCain troll pin is blinking...

It's amusing how many Clinton supporters screaming about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters want to completely ignore voters in four other states that held caucuses - disenfranchise them, I guess you could say - with not even a murmur. Somehow I'd rather not have my vote ignored just because I live in Nevada, and we have a caucus.

Hillary is still ahead in the popular vote, if you give Obama only his fair share of the Michigan Uncommitted vote. Per Sen Levin at the Saturday Rules Committee, exit polls indicated that 75% of Uncommited was for Obama; the remaining 60,000. was mainly for Edwards.
In addition, since the point of the exercise is to tally the popular vote, it is reasonable to use the Washington primary result instead of extrapolating from the caucus results. As footnoted on The RCP site, Obama's margin in the primary was 50,000 less.

Together, it is a difference of 110,000 votes and swings the bottom line from down 44700 to up 65300 for Hillary pending SD and MT. This is not an unreasonable calculation and so her claim is not false. Having said that, I agree that unless she had a much larger lead it doesn't much matter. It just doesn't warrant any pinocchios.

Hillary supporters will not support an illegitimate/stolen win, no matter what Hillary does. Their votes will not be for McCain or Obama. It will be for Hillary.
Soooooooooooooooo, to make a LONG story short, no matter how much ranting and raving you Obama people do, he will not have our support to carry him to the White House, and YOU DO!!! NEED THAT! . THAT is WHERE ALL OF THIS IS AT. You Obama supporters also blew it by getting nastier and nastier.....I have NO IDEA where some of you come from?!! I am voting for the BEST & MOST EXPERIENCED person and THAT is Hillary Clinton.

Obamas quitting the church,is not enough, he just doesn't get it..

He is Unelectable !!

The Obamas have practiced Black
Theology from the writing of Marxist James H. Cone... for 20 years !!!

this is what his church taught his daughters on Sundays..

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the
goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people,
then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is
to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will
accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white
enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the
power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at
their disposal. Unless God is participating in his holy activity, we must reject
his love."

...and Obama himself... before TUCC....

Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different," Obama wrote.
"His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words,
his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order,
martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will."

While working as a community organizer for a group of churches in Chicago, Obama
was repeatedly asked to join Christian congregations, but begged off.

How can this man represent all Americans ???

Adam:

Mis-votes are not VOTES. Next question?

Lets get rid of Father Pfleger, the rumor is the ArchBishop is afraid of him..
So we will take the petition to the Vatican on live TV, if the ArchBishop doesn't do his job and remove Pfleger.
This is not Pflegers first rodeo..see the petition and alarming comments..

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/removable-of-father-michael-pfleger

The problem with the "Popular Vote" idea for the Clintons is it disenfranchises the caucus states. Of course, every vote has to count, but only for the Clintons!

Oh, my... Much bile! Are we really THIS angry?

In this primary season, more voters have cast ballots for Clinton than for Obama.

That's a fact.

So what is your point? Is that what Hillary wants you to do? Do you honestly think Hillary wants Mccain in the white house? I am afraid you are not a real Clinton supporter just a jump on the bandwagon faddist if you don't support what she stands for. Hillary stands for more then you seem to think and has a lot more class then you seem to think. You are an insult to her hard fought campaign.

+++++++++
Hillary supporters will not support an illegitimate/stolen win, no matter what Hillary does. Their votes will not be for McCain or Obama. It will be for Hillary.
Soooooooooooooooo, to make a LONG story short, no matter how much ranting and raving you Obama people do, he will not have our support to carry him to the White House, and YOU DO!!! NEED THAT! . THAT is WHERE ALL OF THIS IS AT. You Obama supporters also blew it by getting nastier and nastier.....I have NO IDEA where some of you come from?!! I am voting for the BEST & MOST EXPERIENCED person and THAT is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: librairie | June 2, 2008 7:55 PM

JakeD
"Out of spite"? Voting to protect unborn children is very much in my interest.
-------------------------------------------
Really?!!!
You must know McCain once supported a woman's right to choose, before he started pandering to the right wing as his last chance to get the nomination.
If you care so much about innocent life, how can you defend Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq and McCain's declared intention to follow the Bush Doctrine?

February 19.

That's when the Democratic nomination process was truly over. The writing was on the wall that night, when Obama won the Wisconsin and Hawai'i primaries. In the two weeks between Super Tuesday (February 5) and this night, Obama won 11 straight primary/caucus events, building an insurmountable lead in delegates.

Clinton was playing catch-up in all contests since, and Obama held enough ground, of course.

Remember, remember the 19th of February, when the Democratic nomination was got; I can see no reason why the 2008 Democratic nomination should ever be forgot.

Heh.

Nancy:

David Duke ran for office once upon a time too.

Hillary operates on the same principle as George in Seinfeld, whose motto was "It's not a lie if you believe it."

"Like AL Gore I have fallen out of love with politics. If the Clinton's are as bad as the Obamas and supporters say.
Then Why are all of former Clinton
advisers on Obamas team????"

PRETTY STUPID QUESTION (ALTHOUGH THE THESIS STATEMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE); BECAUSE THE CLINTON'S ARE AS BAD AS THE OBAMAS AND SUPPORTERS SAY THEY ARE!

ALSO, TIMING IS EVERYTHING. PEOPLE NEED JOBS. WE NEED TO BEAT THE REPULSIVECANS.

Not that this is of great importance, but in the Clinton zeal to "count every vote" I wonder why she (or members of the media) don't include nonbinding primaries held in Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state.

Each of the three states held caucuses. Each of these three states also have had nonbinding primaries. The total votes in the nonbinding primaries for Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state were 424,375 votes for Obama and 375,487 votes for Clinton.

In the spirit of "counting every vote" as advocated by Clinton, the nonbinding primary vote totals from Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state should be included along with the caucus vote totals for each state.

I am sure Clinton would not want to ignore the wishes of 800,000 primary voters.

Howard:

Did you read the Real Clear Politics link?

Southern Old White Boy... I know that it's just a silly and somewhat arbitrary convention, but still it IS a convention: When you enter your comments in all capital letters, it seems as if your are screaming, and it seems somehow rude.

Sigh... "...seems as if YOU are screaming..."

ccccccccccccccccc
You obviously did not watch those hearings and you have turned a deaf ear to the hateful comments toward Obama and his supporters. I'm very proud of the way he has conducted himself...very presidential.
At Saturday's hearings, the behavior of some of Clinton supporters was ugly and totally out of line. They did not speak well for Hillary Clinton and I think she should show some class and make a public apology to the DNC Rules committee.
Barack Obama did not make up the DNC Rules. He merely kept his word and followed the rules. I understand your disappointment that your candidate didn't win the nomination. But, don't try to say Obama cheated, because he didn't. He's not the one who wanted to change the rules after the game is over.

Joyce:

Please explain how he got FOUR of her Michigan delegates then.

Hi Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew and Get off your high horse, already...,

Appreciate the nod.

Let's see . . . one Obama supporter feels better moving on without my support . . . and that makes me feel a real "part of the family".

And "High Horse" wants to know if Hillary supplies support to Obama, if I would jump in too?

Let me see . . . "the old white boy" offers me arrogance and elitism . . . and the "high-horse" promises me crumbs . . . Gee, which one is more appealing?

Decisions, decisions . . . looks like I will end up disappointing somebody !

But, knowing me, Hillary will show the way . . .

P.S. - Just a hint fellows . . . you will have a hard time picking up voters (or dates) with attitudes like that . . .

For Joyce regarding your comment;
"I'm very proud of the way he has conducted himself...very presidential"

Yes, I found it "very presidential" when he called a professional female reporter, "sweetie".
Obama is not only racist, but also a misogynist.........and you THINK! this is "very presidential".
Hillary Will Carry The Nomination To The Convention - To The White House

I think you misread my post I was responding to a Clinton supporter who said they would not vote for Obama. I said I thought they disrespected their candidate by saying such things. I know Hillary is disappointed and maybe even angry but I doubt she wants he supporters to vote for Mccain. I am an Obama supporter and as soon as it is all official I have a 35 foot bill board sign going up a a vacant lot I have on US-1 in Fort Lauderdale.

+++++++++++
ccccccccccccccccc
You obviously did not watch those hearings and you have turned a deaf ear to the hateful comments toward Obama and his supporters. I'm very proud of the way he has conducted himself...very presidential.
At Saturday's hearings, the behavior of some of Clinton supporters was ugly and totally out of line. They did not speak well for Hillary Clinton and I think she should show some class and make a public apology to the DNC Rules committee.
Barack Obama did not make up the DNC Rules. He merely kept his word and followed the rules. I understand your disappointment that your candidate didn't win the nomination. But, don't try to say Obama cheated, because he didn't. He's not the one who wanted to change the rules after the game is over.

Posted by: Joyce | June 2, 2008 8:18 PM

in the last 6 or 8 states Clinton has managed to describe the obvious winner as someone who is stealing the nomination

each time I hear her speaking she is explaining how she is winning and the party insiders are taking her victory away

I don t know her intention but she already damaged the democratic party image in several states

why ?

I call all women honey and my wife calls women dear. It is just a figure of speech. You are really grasping at straws. Hillary vetted the guy pretty good, If her hench men could not find anything there is nothing to fine. He may be the cleanest guy in Washington.

+++++++
For Joyce regarding your comment;
"I'm very proud of the way he has conducted himself...very presidential"

Yes, I found it "very presidential" when he called a professional female reporter, "sweetie".
Obama is not only racist, but also a misogynist.........and you THINK! this is "very presidential".
Hillary Will Carry The Nomination To The Convention - To The White House
Posted by: librairie | June 2, 2008 8:30 PM

General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
RealClear Average
Obama +0.7
Clinton +2.0

RCP Electoral Count
Obama +38
Clinton +61

No Toss Up States
Obama +6
Clinton +30

Battleground States McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
Pennsylvania
Obama +5.8
Clinton +11.7

Ohio
Obama +1.3
Clinton +8.3

Here are some FACTS.

What you were discussing are OPINIONS. See the difference?

It's pretty clear that the popular vote is irrelevant given that caucuses are designed to attract quality over quantity. You'd really need to weight the caucus voters according to some formula to even begin to discuss "popular vote". Otherwise you are just comparing apples and oranges.

Only a man would make the following comment......"I call all women honey and my wife calls women dear. It is just a figure of speech"
Those of us who fought the hard fight for women's rights many years ago certainly would NOT call this just "a figure of speech". I don't know ANY woman that wants to be called "honey" or "sweetie" by a perfect stranger. You have to be kidding. This is where we are at right now in this country......As a man, you seem to think this is okay!........Obama calling the reporter "Sweetie" was not considered "just a figure of speech"......

Hey HillFan,

You presume too much. I never stated my position.

Inaccurate assumptions and snap judgments do not make for intelligent decisions. Ergo, may I offer you some salt with that foot?

x truth seeker

those are polls, you know, opinions (?)

from realclear politics,
why don t you show also the lines above ?
those are the facts,
like votes won and delegates won

and if you want to quote polls, go on and quote also the ones that follows

you people are loosing contact with reality
come back !!!

Pat:

"Quality"? What happened to "count every vote" from 2000?

If you count votes the old fashioned way, to determine the will of the people, Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote. More certified votes have been cast for her than have been cast for Barack Obama. Real Clear Politics is real clear on this.

Zero Pinocchios.

If you want to exclude certain state's voters, or if you want to keep inventing numbers of mythical voters (always popular in Cook County politics), you can play that game, but that doesn't change the certified vote tallies.

This piece reads like it came straight from the Obama campaign. I realize meeting deadlines is hard work.

Is that the best you have? How about a real issue.

+++++++
Only a man would make the following comment......"I call all women honey and my wife calls women dear. It is just a figure of speech"
Those of us who fought the hard fight for women's rights many years ago certainly would NOT call this just "a figure of speech". I don't know ANY woman that wants to be called "honey" or "sweetie" by a perfect stranger. You have to be kidding. This is where we are at right now in this country......As a man, you seem to think this is okay!........Obama calling the reporter "Sweetie" was not considered "just a figure of speech"......

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

Typical fact checker logic. Hillary and Bill got two pinocchios for the Bosnia sniper fire and now for the false claims of popular vote. If Obama or McCain said they ate spaghetti, the fact checker would point out it was linguine and give them 4 pinocchios.

Frequent miles don't count either.

++++++++
If you count votes the old fashioned way, to determine the will of the people, Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote. More certified votes have been cast for her than have been cast for Barack Obama. Real Clear Politics is real clear on this.

Zero Pinocchios.

If you want to exclude certain state's voters, or if you want to keep inventing numbers of mythical voters (always popular in Cook County politics), you can play that game, but that doesn't change the certified vote tallies.

This piece reads like it came straight from the Obama campaign. I realize meeting deadlines is hard work.

Posted by: LBJ's Love Child | June 2, 2008 9:12 PM

MORE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR HILLARY THAN ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

This is a fact no one can dispute. Every single one of votes for Hillary represents a real voter who actually pushed the button for Hillary.

You can call Florida and Michigan elections all you want, but people turned out to vote in great numbers. No election is perfect. Caucuses are undemocratic. DNC delegate distribution is not perfect. But no one has the right to discount real votes.

ruth seeker

those are polls, you know, opinions ___________________________________________________________________________

The columnist is ONE PERSON writing HIS OPINIONS about how to count votes vs delegates.

The POLLS are representative VOTERS stating who they support and who they will vote for. So what you are GETTING are FACTS from VOTERS.

And if you see the polls all TRENDING one way, that is not just OPINION. That is why people use more than ONE poll and MEASURE the RESULTS over time.

OK?

The problem with Hillary she's too comfortable cooking the facts - just like Bush. We don't that and we can do better, which is why I support Obama! I expect more from our representative and so should you!!!

After tomorrow you will be talking to yourself because she will be yesterdays news.

+++++++++++
MORE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR HILLARY THAN ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

This is a fact no one can dispute. Every single one of votes for Hillary represents a real voter who actually pushed the button for Hillary.

You can call Florida and Michigan elections all you want, but people turned out to vote in great numbers. No election is perfect. Caucuses are undemocratic. DNC delegate distribution is not perfect. But no one has the right to discount real votes.
Posted by: Hillary is winning the popular votes | June 2, 2008 9:16 PM

So if you tilt your head to the side and squint just so, Clinton is kinda sorta almost winning in a way that doesn't count! Joy!

Why should Obama get any votes from the Michigan Primary? Because the DNC committee announced to the candidates that they were sanctioning this state for breaking the rules and they would have no votes. Some candidates, to stand with the party's decision, decided to take their name off the ballot. Now, were gonna count votes and it's too bad you followed your party's rules committee's decision and decided to show solidarity with your party, you will be penalized by getting nothing for following the rules committee's original judgement against the state. Obviously, it is the action of the rules committee that caused these candidates to take their names off of the ballot. If you are not going to allocate any votes to those who followed the original sanction, then the original sanction would have to stand and no delegates would be seated. You can't say just count my votes because I was smart enough not to listen to the rules committee. Those votes belong to Obama and the Clinton campaign knows it. They are just acting delusional as usual. Just like the supporters who think this is going to the convention, and the party leaders can't stop it. Tell me that by Friday. Pelosi and Reid will have HRC in line singing hail to Obama!

JakeD,

I fear that you didn't read my post before commenting, but I forgive you. Mis-votes are indeed not votes. That is why a proper recount doesn't include them. I suspect you are going to defend the process again, rather than admit to the correctness of my previous statements. In a functional democracy, the process is what counts. The laws that are in place at the time of the contest are what determine the victor. I am an ardent supporter of this principle. I am accusing you of being for principle only when it means a republican victory, but that is my conclusion after reading your blog posts only. Perhaps you are rational and principled in person.

Counting Michigan votes is like declaring Castro and Saddam Hussein elected officials

they both had their name on the ballots without challenger

shame on you Clinton ! !

If you are going to count the popular vote, the caucus states must be extrapolated into the number to count EVERY STATE! So, Clinton has been saying for the past three months as to why she's not stepping out. So, if you are going to count every state, then the caucus delegates must be calculated back into popular votes. To do this, the DNC must look at a neighboring state that has the most similar demographics, come up with the % of registered democrats that voted in that states primary, use that percentage against the caucus state's registered democrats, then muliply that by the percentage of delegates won. Gee, I wonder how many popular votes Obama would get in these caucus states. HRC would be in his dust. You want to count fair and count every state, well then you have to count the caucus states backed into a popular vote! Oh, please don't cry Hillary. PlayboyBill will still be there for you, well...maybe...

Adam:

I've read your posts. And I am registered Independent, not Republican.

x truth seeker
this are the polls for battleground states on realclearP
I count 4 for obama and 3 for clinton both against mc cain
is this a fact or just wrong voters opinions ?

Pennsylvania Obama +5.8 Clinton +11.7
Michigan McCain +3.0 McCain +3.0
Ohio Obama +1.3 Clinton +8.3
Wisconsin Obama +2.0 McCain +3.4
Iowa Obama +6.4 McCain +2.7
Virginia McCain +1.3 McCain +10.4
Florida McCain +8.3 Clinton +3.0

A poll is good for about ten minutes.

++++++++++++
x truth seeker
this are the polls for battleground states on realclearP
I count 4 for obama and 3 for clinton both against mc cain
is this a fact or just wrong voters opinions ?

Pennsylvania Obama +5.8 Clinton +11.7
Michigan McCain +3.0 McCain +3.0
Ohio Obama +1.3 Clinton +8.3
Wisconsin Obama +2.0 McCain +3.4
Iowa Obama +6.4 McCain +2.7
Virginia McCain +1.3 McCain +10.4
Florida McCain +8.3 Clinton +3.0
Posted by: | June 2, 2008 9:36 PM

it s amazing how after the biggest primary vote in the entire planet history

people are quoting polls
bizarre indeed

Obama would do well to offer Hillary the VP spot. Nothing would unify the party more and be more effective securing the win in November. Frankly, it would be the first and most convincing evidence that Obama is a unifier and I'm afraid anything short of that would jeopardize a democratic victory. Please spare me any angry comments for my opinion.

If not for Bill this would be a given.

++++++
Obama would do well to offer Hillary the VP spot. Nothing would unify the party more and be more effective securing the win in November. Frankly, it would be the first and most convincing evidence that Obama is a unifier and I'm afraid anything short of that would jeopardize a democratic victory. Please spare me any angry comments for my opinion.

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

Thank you for the fact check so so much.

What is particularly exasperating about Clinton's bizarro logic is this thing of counting zero, literally zero votes in Michigan for Obama. That is where I just cannot even try to follow her. Even though Obama's supporters were urged to vote uncommitted. Even though the state includes Detroit, where there may just possibly be one or two votes for Obama (you think?). Even though favorite son and white working-class voter (or, working-class before he made all his money) Michael Moore has endorsed Obama, so that's one vote right there. Zero votes. How does that make a persuasive argument to any superdelegate about the actual level of support for Obama in Michigan? It doesn't. It is bizarro world.

Thanks again for the fact check.

If not for Bill, she would bit have gotten more votes than any other primary candidate in US history.

The Nobama campaign has managed to steal the election thanks to its pimping pals in the media such as the racist pigs Robinson and COlby, fat boy Rich and bitter spinster Dowd. No doubt the Nobama groupies are happy and getting drunk on the Nobama firedup crap koolaid. Come November however, don't come begging us Clinton supporters to line up behind Mr empty suit. We will see ya'll in 2012. So long groupies.

bit = not

I can't believe that some Clinton supporters are hoping that Nobama would offer Mrs C a spot on the ticket. I sincerely hope he does n't and even more so, I hope she will decline it if offered. Nothing could be more disgraceful than Sen Clinton being #2 to Mr Empty suit.

Sen CLinton should refuse to endorse Nobama and definitely not campaign for him.

Let the same media pimps that stole the election from Mrs C, try to replicate that in Nov. The right wing media will toast Nobama over the Halloween fires.

Fairfax:

30,000 people "wrote in" their choice, so which candidate do you think should get those?

intcamd1 |

Hillary should hope she is NOT offered the VP. because as the POLLS show, he does not match up well with MCCain and will drag her down with him.

Secondly, I don't think he will offer the VP to her, thank goodness, because she outclasses him by almost every metric. She is better informed, a policy expert, can speak without a scripted speech and she knows where Auschwitz is and who liberated it.

JackD - Harold Ickes did say that the MI primary was flawed (at the RBC-Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting where the decison on if and how to restore delegates to MI and FL was made). In fact when it was stated the the MI and Fl primaries were flawed primaries, Harold Ickes replied "You bet Your a$$
they were"

After all this bull crap about old Hillary having the most votes, I can't help but wonder.

What would have happened if Hillary, Bill and the rest of her crack campaign staff put that much energy in running a successful campaign. Why, they might actually have won. I guess a 20 million plus debt is something accomplishment.

Your article says it loud and clear. Delusional is the word. One has to wonder about the mind set that causes Hillary to keep beleiving that she is somehow entitled to the nomination.Her incredible repetitions of her "chosen" status, remind me of the kid in the toy store who didn't get the toy that he was sure he would get. Her's is just a "grownup" version of a temper tantrum; trying to convince the powers that be that she just really needs and deserves that toy. How pitiful for her that she is having her unreasonable tantrum and her spoiled brat act in front of the world.Obama won this race fair and square. For her to hint, as she has repeatedly, that she faced more hurdles as a white woman than he faced as a black man is absurd- it shouldn't even have been in her vocabulary.
Signed,
"A liberal, white, over 50 female" embarrassed by Hillary and exhillirated by Obama

Hillary? Didn't she try to get somewhere by living off her husband's accomplishments? Whatever happened to her?
I did read that she wrote a "how to" book on how to iron shirts and bake cookies while standing by your man.

A couple of inconvenient facts for Hillary supporters to note:
1 In a climate where it was difficult and unpopular to do so, Obama had the foresight, principle and sheer courage make a speech against the Iraq war at the anti-Iraq war rally in Federal Plaza Chicago. That was October 2 , 2002.

2 A week and a half (9 days) later Hillary Clinton on October 11th 2002 voted to authorize the war.

Later when it was convenient and the war became unpopular she switched. Either her principles were lacking or her judgment was lacking.

These are undeniable facts though I am sure Hillary's camp will somehow spin this reality into some bizarre distortion.

Twelve states have caucuses. Two more have both a caucus and a primary. Senator Clinton is eliminating the caucus results from consideration when she claims to have won the popular vote.

So while she's shouting her outrage at the "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan voters, she's effectively disenfranchising the voters of twelve other states - plus the caucus results of those two additional states.

Make no mistake: she and her campaign staff are arguing that the superdelegates should be guided by the popular vote. That is, by HER skewed version of the popular vote, one that discounts twelve of the 50 states. So she really is trying to disenfranchise the voters in those caucus states.

And out of the other sides of their mouths she and Mr. Ickes are threatening to take their battle to the convention floor, perhaps even to litigation (which will likely cause irreparable harm to the party and is generally called the "nuclear option") because they claim that FL and MI voters were disenfranchised.

My question is this: does Hillary recognize the irony here? Do her supporters?

I watched the entire day, but I guess it's possible that C-Span somehow missed Ickes' admission.

Just a rather obvious question to any Hillary supporter. Does Obam being 150 delegates ahead have any meaning or significance whatsoever. Can one of you answer this simple question. Does it have any validity at all?
I bet nobody writes in with a succinct answer to that simple question. I am expecting spin and tangental rhetoric; its just a simple question folks. Does his 150 delegate lead mean anything at all?

Peter:

Real Clear Politics includes "estimates" for caucus results.

An untold story lies behind Hillary Clinton's determination to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination -- the possible revelation of a shocking recording of rival Barack Obama's wife Michelle.

That's the word from longtime political analyst Roger J. Stone Jr., who writes on his The StoneZONE Web site that the recording purportedly documents Michelle Obama making racist comments in a speech.

According to Stone, Hillary aides are in a race with Republicans to get their hands on the offensive recording.

"On the heels of Michelle Obama's quote that she 'has never been proud of her country' until now, the new controversy could turn the contest upside down, but it more likely" to benefit "John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination -- if the alleged recording exists," Stone writes.

He also asserts that Mark Penn, Clinton's former chief campaign strategist, has told sources that the bombshell "could come this week."

Bill:

Of course it matters. If he can maintain his lead on the first ballot in Denver, he will be the nominee.

did anyone else notice?

The annoying skinny gay black guy took off those ridiculous boxing gloves.

It's about time.

Nothing worse than watching him try to clap with those stupid things on.

I'm so angry, I'm gonna vote for McCain!

By now every one should know that whatever Hillary does or says is aimed at discrediting the mark Obama, the underdog, has made. At the beginning of this race, no one expected Obama to come this far. The only person that saw Obama winning was Obama himself. That is the fact. Obama believes in himself and he succeeded in making Americans to see his sincerity.

On the other, Clinton failed because she underrated Obama right from the start. Now that she has failed, she is not ready to accept her mistakes. And the only way she can explain her failures is by telling stories that no one has ever told in the history of Democrat primaries - 'I won popular vote'. As if that was what she came out to achieve.

Anyway, thank God the anxiety is over, not only for her and Obama, but also for the nation. I wish her success as she rethinks other ways she can serve her father's land.

To JakeD,

You're right! I did vote for Al Gore in 2000.

But you are mistaken to assume that delegates in a primary are comparable to electoral votes in a general election.

General elections don't have state CAUCUSES, primaries DO!

For the general election, getting rid of electoral votes and counting only popular vote would be a fairer way to elect the president, BECAUSE there are no state caucuses in the general election.

For the primaries, getting rid of the delegates and counting only the popular vote would also be a fairer way to elect the nominees, IF there were no state caucuses in the primaries.

After the caucus states have already voted, it's too late for a candidate to honestly claim popular vote as a marker.

"

Hillary supporters will not support an illegitimate/stolen win, no matter what Hillary does. Their votes will not be for McCain or Obama. It will be for Hillary.
Soooooooooooooooo, to make a LONG story short, no matter how much ranting and raving you Obama people do, he will not have our support to carry him to the White House, and YOU DO!!! NEED THAT! . THAT is WHERE ALL OF THIS IS AT. You Obama supporters also blew it by getting nastier and nastier.....I have NO IDEA where some of you come from?!! I am voting for the BEST & MOST EXPERIENCED person and THAT is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: librairie | June 2, 2008 7:55 PM"

Have fun writing it in. Don't let your tearstains spoil the ballot!

She seems to assume that if she says something loudly enough, and repeats it often enough, it will become true.

We've had that for the past eight years. We don't need it for another four.

For the record, I am not "angry", and as I have stated repeatedly the only way I would vote for John SIDNEY McCain is if he made California close by Election Day.

Your comment that:

"The only sense in which that is true is if she includes all the people who voted for her not only in Florida but also in Michigan"

is not true, based on your own evidence, that is ClearPolitics calcuation.

If you add the FL vote and the MI vote, giving Obama all the uncommitted votes, Clinton is still ahead by about 65,000 votes.

You can add and subtract other votes based on a a number of theories, but your statement is just not true.

Her contention that she is ahead in the popular vote, especially after those votes have been accorded some legitimacy after the rules committee ruling, is not unreasonable. That is, you could argue with it under various theories, but it is not an unreasonable position to take.

Your contention that the popular vote has nothing to do with the result is also off the mark. The nomination, will be decided by delegates votes, yes. However, the super delegates can decide on whatever basis they like. It is certainly not unreasonable that they consider the popular vote. That is all she is requesting.

Tom just said:'I have NO IDEA where some of you come from?'. Some of us are actually college graduates. And if you check the exit polls out, you will discover that Obama has enjoyed our support more than she does. But I have a good news for you: YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A COLLEGE GRADUATE FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT OBAMA IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO AMERICA LATELY.

Bartleby:

Did you even read the Real Clear Politics link?

Dobbs:

Are you an American citizen?

LOL. So according to these Clinton apologists, count only those votes in Michigan that are for Clinton but don't those which are for Obama or Edwards. Obama wasn't even on the ballot!!! Remember Hillary saying that the Michigan primary wouldn't "count for anything"??? What changed??? So what was Michigan then? A one candidate election? According to the Clinton team, the Democratic Party is a one candidate party.....till Obama came along. BTW, how many voters in Michigan didn't turn out for the primary because, as Hillary put it, "their vote wouldn't count for anything"? Have you thought about that? Just because you end up doing poorly doesn't mean you change the rules. Oops, I guess the values that I was brought up with are probably a lot different than yours. Sorry, dude, but your logic, like other Clinton apologists, stinks.

Which VOTES in Michigan were cast for Obama?

Joseph Goebbels: Repeat a lie often enough and everyone will start believing it.

Clinton Rule: Repeat the lie about "winning" the popular vote often enough and everyone will start believing it.

Unfortunately, some of us have a better sense of reality than some others and we check the facts. The popular vote myth that Hillary is harping about is just that, a myth. Unless you use a lot of fuzzy math and make sure to dis-enfranchise a lot of voters who never voted for her!

Pat wrote:

"It's pretty clear that the popular vote is irrelevant given that caucuses are designed to attract quality over quantity."

A Democrat talking about "quality" votes?

Would that include the felon vote in Florida?

Which votes in MI were cast for Obama? JakeD

The uncommitted. That's a pretty well known fact since he and Edwards weren't even on the ballot! Remember Hillary saying that the primary in MI "wouldn't count for anything"??? What changed, Jake???Someone was playing by the rules and it certainly wasn't Hillary!

After this, I wonder if anyone in NY will re-elect her. Maybe she's run in West Virginia. I can see it already; she'll buy a double-wide and win all those votes from those "non-college educated, hard working, WHITE Americans". ROFL. At least she'll fit right in.

FactChecker, you are right: the people have spoken and they yell OBAMA!
OBAMA!!
OBAMA!!!

President Barack Hussein Obama in '08!

Hillbots, Stop Being Sore Losers and Petulant Whiners!

THE CLINTONS DID NOT CLOSE THE SALE !!!

GO ahead, reregister, vote McCain or whatever...

Obama WILL win WITH or WITHOUT you!!

Make your choice, whine on and on or whatever or perhaps "capre diem" and seize the opportunity we ALL have to move forward and remove the shackles of the OLD STYLE POLITICS and yeah, that does mean the Clintons and their campers are regulated to full demotion and DO NOT RULE !!! Their innate arrogancy brought them down yet they whine it was OTHERS faultings, not their own...

TIME FOR THE CLINTONS TO GO FOLKS...time for a new guard to emerge from this purge !!!

Caucuses are undemocratic??? LOL

Bill Clinton certainly didn't think so when he won them. Caucuses require planning and groundwork; something the Clinton campaign (along with managing a budget) were horrible at. The Clintons should have changed the rules when they ruled. Now they are yesterdays news.

No, I don't remember that because I don't listen to public radio. Also, if Obama doesn't want her 17 million votes, I am sure McCain would be more than happy to get those.

Go ahead and vote for that idiot McCain. Just like that old harpy on youtube screaming about how this election was "stolen" from Hillary. By the time the General Election roles around, McCain with all his links to lobbyists and his pathetic confusion between Shi'ite and Sunni, whether the troops in Iraq are at pre-surge levels, how Americans are better off today, how he's going to continue Bush's tax cuts for rich American, etc, etc. The only people voting for McCain will be idiots like yourselves. Heck, every Republican with half a brain will be staying at home.

TIME FOR THE CLINTONS TO GO FOLKS...time for a new guard to emerge from this purge !!!

Posted by: Rubiconski

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, no worries. Works for me.

"Two Pinocchios:

"Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people."

Yeah, thems is the Clintons!

Go ahead and vote for that idiot McCain. Just like that old harpy on youtube screaming about how this election was "stolen" from Hillary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You got it man......I will.

I am sure Obama will be tickled pink with your brand of support.

Obama has the most PLEDGED delegate. That in itself more than suggests that he got more votes or he would not have more delegates. Even in the caucus states, you had to have more people supporting you to get that delegate count. Her logic is totally flawed along with her math.

Interesting that Clinton gets two Pinocchios for an outright lie. She is not ahead in the popular vote. Yet, Obama was given three Pinocchios for get a fact wrong regarding his great uncles service in WWII. This bias in reporting really needs to stop.

As soon as this ploy goes down the toilet, Hillary will roll out the next: Just give the nomination to the one who weighs more!

Obama just beat the venerable, entitles Clinton DNC machine.

Even with the Republicans votong for Hillary and Operation Chaos Obama crushed them.

He will CRUSH McSame. This is getting better by the day. Collectively the Democrats United will raise over 500 Million dollars and the dying GOP can get repub seated in a special election. Funny how they play along.

Fran:

Did you read the Real Clear Politics link?

What a sadly biased excuse for news. Whoever wrote this garbage an obvious Obama groupie who likes distorting the facts. There is no question that Hillary won the popular vote. Even when you count the Michigan uncommitted vote, exit polls show that only about 170,000 of those people favored Obama, still leaving him short. The bottom line is more people came out to vote for Hillary, but race and money speaks louder than the people. It's a travesty.

No wonder there is confusion in the Clinton camp. With all that spinning going on, they are probably very dizzy and can't tell their directions.And with all the lies that their camp has thrown around, they probably have to reliable reference point to go from.

This reminds me of 1984,the book by George Orwell. Constant lies by the government. The people are happy. We are winning the war for the motherland.We have a department of homeland security. We have ultimate prosperity even though our government and our individual citizens are falling ever deeper in debt.

I'm just grateful that tueday, Clinton is out of this race. We won't have to deal with her anymore.

JakeD:

"Which VOTES in Michigan were cast for Obama?"

He pretty clearly inherits the "Not Hillary" vote, wouldn't you think?

And, how many voters in Michigan were not able to vote directly for Obama? How many didn't vote at all because Ms. Clinton said that their primary clearly wouldn't count for anything?

THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE,

http://www.heretical.org/miscella/ahbiglie.html

We saw this kind of politics before. It was many years ago and done by Adolph Hitler. Hillary has based much of her campaign on same stragaties Hitler used, the premiss of telling lies to her followers and repeating them enough till they begin to obscure what it is the obvious truth.

We have reached an all time low in US politics and the Clintons have taken us here.

This Roger

In 1996, Roger and his wife Nydia purportedly placed an ad in Swing Fever magazine looking for single men and couples to join them in group sex. According to reporting in the National Enquirer and the Star, the copy proclaimed:

C-161,787-DC* INSATIABLE COUPLE
We are hot, athletic and very fit. We are seeking similar couples or exceptional muscular, well hung, single men. She's 40DD-24-36 and bi. She loves to fu*k hard and deep. He's 195 lbs., trim, muscular and 8" +. She prefers jocks, miliary men, and body builders. No fat people or smokers need respond. Send photo and phone. No photo, no response! We are interested in DC, VA, MD, NYC, Miami, and LA.

=========
An untold story lies behind Hillary Clinton's determination to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination -- the possible revelation of a shocking recording of rival Barack Obama's wife Michelle.

That's the word from longtime political analyst Roger J. Stone Jr., who writes on his The StoneZONE Web site that the recording purportedly documents Michelle Obama making racist comments in a speech.

According to Stone, Hillary aides are in a race with Republicans to get their hands on the offensive recording.

"On the heels of Michelle Obama's quote that she 'has never been proud of her country' until now, the new controversy could turn the contest upside down, but it more likely" to benefit "John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination -- if the alleged recording exists," Stone writes.

He also asserts that Mark Penn, Clinton's former chief campaign strategist, has told sources that the bombshell "could come this week."

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 10:59 PM

Saying Barack "stole" the nomination implies a couple of things:
1. He is in possession of the nomination, meaning you concede that Hillary has already lost.

2 That the rightful owner, Hillary, was dispossessed of something she is entitled to.

Yes there was an extreme sense of entitlement and yes she has lost
And by the way YES WE CAN.

Saying Barack "stole" the nomination implies a couple of things:
1. He is in possession of the nomination, meaning you concede that Hillary has already lost.

2 That the rightful owner, Hillary, was dispossessed of something she is entitled to.

Yes there was an extreme sense of entitlement

I love how the Champions of State Voting Rights see no hypocrisy in excluding all of the caucus states from their so-called "popular vote" metric.

The hell with those people. Who care if their states didn't break any of the rules? It's their own fault for living in a caucus state.

librairie, Sweetie maybe you should refill that lithium prescription. This next week or two looks to be a little rough on your fragile psyche.

********************************************

To the INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL, HONORABLE HILLARY SUPPORTERS **

Do you really want these MESSAGES to be HRC's LEGACY -

1. RULES are for suckers - agreeing to them and then changing them mid-game is the NEW WAY.

2. If you cannot win on merit, whine, backstab, spread rumors / untruths until victory is yours.

3. Threaten to scuttle the ship if you are not made captain. That shows your deep love for the ship.

Imagine how these precepts (and I could go on) will affect our lives, our society and economy.

SO PLEASE think about it and DO THE RIGHT THING. I started out with a lot of admiration for Bill and Hillary - but gradually I have had to see (and weigh) the pluses and minuses.

Life will go on ... there won't be any miraculous improvements - no matter who is the (non-Con) candidate! Once we jettison our ethics, civility, rational cooperative problem-solving, focus on real issues - this country is toast - no matter who is the leader.

Let us UNITE behind a candidate before it is too late!

** There will always be a "passionate" few who are unable to separate emotional attachment from rational thinking - but I hope that most of you are indeed honorable, fair minded folks!

********************************************

The biases are SO repugnant in this campaign!

The DNC and Obama are NOT getting it:

We want to trust our President to work for AMERICA'S INTERESTS at home and abroad. We want first and foremost to restore RESPECT IN OUR PRESIDENCY.

Who are the RESPECTFUL persons?

CLINTON OR MC CAIN...

It is true that the popular vote means nothing. Only the delegates count in a primary, just as only the electorates count in the general election. I would assume that those voting for "uncommitted" in Michigan count as a vote for Obama. Just because his name was not on the ballot, does not mean he did not receive votes in the uncommitted column.

How stupid does she think we . . . Oh, right.

OK FRIENDS FOR HILLARY, FROM PA TO CAL, GET OUT THERE AND WRITE IN CLINTON OR GIVE YOUR VOTE TO MCCAIN! EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT OBAAMA IS SUCH A NICE GUY, WELL NICE DOES NOT CUT THE MUSTARD! WE NEED A PERSON THAT IS EXPERIENCED! THE DNC SHOOSE TO NOT WORRY ABOUT ALL THE EMAILS AND LETTERS T HEY GOT SO IT IS TIME!! OBAMA WILL HAVE THE LIKES OF JESSE JACKSON, AL FRANKIN, REW WRIGHT AND OTHERS LIKE HIM AS HIS ADVISORS! THEY ARE SAYING MCCAIN HAS TIES IN MISDOING'S WHO BETTER TO TALK THEN OBAMA WITH TIES TO AUCHI, REZKO, WRIGHT, AND TO HIS COUSIN IN AFRICA, RAILA ODINGA THAT HE HELPED TO GET IN OFFICE, HE IS ANOTHER "HATE MUNGER! GET OUT THERE AND CAMPAIGN FOR MCCAIN OR WRITE IN HILLARY

Obama, who was a COMPROMISE CANDIDATE for the Harvard Law Review Editorship, is now the DNC's COMPROMISE CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY??????

LONG LIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ? ? ?

HOW MANY STATES WILL YOU BE PRESIDENT OVER MR OBAMA? AH AH WELL LETS SEE, "57" I THINK!!!!!

The popular vote was touted by Obama when he had but now that he doesn't - well, it is just no good and means nothing.

Yeah, ask Gore and all the Democrats from back then.

Obama bought, bullied, race-baited, and manipulated his way to this nomination. Yeah, real change for ya. What is the change? Oh, he is half Black and has bought half of America? Now that is the sweet poetic justice his wife is lapping up.

The popular vote was touted by Obama when he had but now that he doesn't - well, it is just no good and means nothing.

Yeah, ask Gore and all the Democrats from back then.

Obama bought, bullied, race baited, and manipulated his way to this nomination. Yeah, real change for ya. What is the change? Oh, he is half Black and has bought half of America? Now that is the sweet poetic justice his wife is lapping up.

The popular vote was touted by Obama when he had but now that he doesn't - well, it is just no good and means nothing.

Yeah, ask Gore and all the Democrats from back then.

Obama bought, bullied, race-baited, and manipulated his way to this nomination. Yeah, real change for ya. What is the change? Oh, he is half Black and has bought half of America? Now that is the sweet poetic justice his wife is lapping up.

Let's, for sake of arguement, give Hillary the majority of the recorded, tallied vote count. Let's get past that, it means nothing, NOTHING. It may be narrowly true but it does not give a true picture of the "popular will". It is just spin: characteristic of the old political game. This vote count does not reflect the number of people who made a choice (i.e. the caucuses), nor the fact of the deeply flawed primaries in Florida and Michigan, nor the arbitrary and chaotic primary system itself where votes are not equal and non-Democratic party supporters get to vote. Obama is winning where it counts: in any reasonable interpretation of the primary voting tallies, and in the delegate count. It's time Hillaryfans got over it and recognise that policy-wise there is little to choose between Hillary and Obama. This is about the future of America and the regaining its integrity and respect, not some People Magazine popularity contest. Grow up why don't you? Sometimes I think there should be an intelligence test requirement for the voting right.

What's funny is that for every nasty feeling about HRC posted, there is an HRC proponent who feels the same way about BHO. The point being that who has the most popular votes is debatable. Further, the "rules" do not state that whoever has the most "pledged" delegates wins. On the contrary, super delegates were created so that they could overturn the "pledged" delegates votes. Let's let this process run itself out. I think that in the end, the super delegates will select BHO, but to think by any stretch of the imagination that this vote is a clear mandate for BHO is ludicrous. The candidates will unite in the end, but if the pettiness and hatred reflected on this board is any indication, it will be a tough challenge for the democrats in the general election. Hoepfully, the DNC and state officials will recognize the many flaws of their "democratic" process in this time and fix them for the next go around.

To Christopher who submitted not a comment but a fanatic pro Obama pamphlet (nice attempt of brainwashing!)

if you want to take a different look at your idol, read the following article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedy

Entitled "After Robert Kennedy" by John Pilger it might sober down your enthusiasm for the man.

Second remark to the rest of the readers, about the importance and representativeness of caucauses: pity that the president is elected by direct electoral vote and not by caucaus, so there I see not many chances for Obama to beat Mc Cain. Good luck America!

Wow. I didn't realize the popular vote was so close. Looking at those RCP numbers, Hillary does in fact lead Obama based on a number of formulations. In any event, neither candidate is clearly ahead by more than a few thousand under any scenario.

It seems to me that the democratic party would make a mistake by nominating Obama. A good portion of Obama's votes are from states that won't be in play in the general election (e.g., the south and west). Taking away those states, Clinton has a big lead in popular votes and delegates.

The media likes to say that there would be an uproar if Obama was not given the nomination. Based on these numbers, however, I would say that the uproar would be in states that the Dems don't care about. The states that matter favor Hillary.

If the Dems are considering the electoral map, and looking to win in November, these numbers seem to suggest that Clinton is the stronger candidate.

Christopheur,
just a word of advice...no one is going to read a post as long winded as yours.

Her Puerto Rico speech was a masterpiece in misdirection. She has now said that she won the popular vote so many times that pundits repeat it without qualification. The unfortunate upshoot of the resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that while the delegate compromise is disputed, it now allows the votes cast there to be thrown into the mix.

However, she obviously wrote that speech back when she expected 1,000,000 or more Puerto Ricans to vote, thus bolstering her popular vote claim. Again pundits pointed to the Puerto Rico vote as further evidence of her strength without questioning the bigger issue, the surprisingly low turnout.

Think about this... a candidate already $30million in debt spent weeks, and lots of money I'm sure, woo'ing an island that wouldn't get to vote in November, that only served to reduce her delegate loss by a fraction, for the sole purpose of bolstering a popular vote story and with all the effort, not enough people showed up to make it matter.

In her Puerto Rico acceptance speech, she also launched into her usual story about the most valuable states for November and the most valuable constituencies. This in front of an audience that wouldn't count in November and in front of an ethnic mix of people who would have probably been offended by this "demographic claim" had she referred to it by it's more familiar name... white people.

She also threw in some of the usual pandering saying that in 2012 she hoped that "regardless of how the status of the Island" shakes out, that Puerto Rico gets to vote in the general.

Really? It seems that about half the people of Puerto Rico don't want statehood. If they do, fine. If they don't do we really want people who don't pay taxes to the United States voting?

And considering their turnout at this historic primary, it doesn't seem like they care much about it either.

Mike:

Be prepared to be called "racist" for simply pointing out the truth.

NO, WE CAN'T
DEMOCRAT WILL LOSE IN NOVEMBER
WE HAVE THE MEDIA TO THANK FOR THAT
GO McCAIN

THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE,

http://www.heretical.org/miscella/ahbiglie.html

We saw this kind of politics before. It was many years ago and done by Adolph Hitler. Hillary has based much of her campaign on same stragaties Hitler used, the premiss of telling lies to her followers and repeating them enough till they begin to obscure what it is the obvious truth.

We have reached an all time low in US politics and the Clintons have taken us here.

Christopheur,
YOU SAID THIS ABOUT CLINTON

IT'S OFFICIAL, HILLARY CLINTON IS TRASH

WHAT ABOUT YOU
YOU THINK THAT YOUR NOT?

There was no doubt that Hitler won the popular VOTE too. Do you people really need me to post the definition of VOTE?

Go Montana and South Dakota!!!

"You have to admire Hillary Clinton for her ability to reshape reality to her preferred outcome. She seems to assume that if she says something loudly enough, and repeats it often enough, it will become true. Her victory speech in Puerto Rico was a minor masterpiece in carefully parsed self-delusion. Unfortunately for her, it takes more than conviction to win the Democratic nominating contest."

Agree with this sentiment, or not, we should all be able to agree this sort of judgment has no place in a column that purports to be a "fact check".

she also excludes me, because I live and voted in a caucus state (Colorado). If you parse her statements, she often mentions primaries, as if caucus voters are not relevant. I resent this and her tremendously, because she is no democrat, but a fascist.

it is remarkable she will put such ignorance on the record.

by no measure has she won the popular vote.

and who has more clout in the national party than bill "mr bush-footsie"

mr ex prez should have made sure florida and michigan leaders were following national rules and brought his self to bear on the matter, before the debacle took down her entitled ascendancy.

This is absolute garbage.

Nobody voted for Obama in Michigan whether you, the DNC or anyone else likes it or not. He VOLUNTARILY took his name off the ballot. It is totally irrelevant who you think the 'uncommitted' voters would have voted for, because you don't know. You are guessing, and that simply isn't good enough. You don't know if he got ANY of the 'uncommitted' votes in that election, let alone ALL of them. He got ZERO votes in Michingan.

Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington have not released popular vote tallys, so again, you would be guessing if you tried to attribute votes to any candidates.

Of the votes we KNOW, Hillary Clinton is leading by 303,723 votes.

Obama only leads the popular vote if you think guestimating voter intentions is ok. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama supporters DO think that's ok.

Furthermore, it is a bit cheeky to belittle the importance of the popular vote, when all through this process, Obama supporters have got away with inflating the importance of the specious "Number of States won" statistic. How is that in any way relevant? Hillary is miles ahead in the number of counties won, but you don't hear anyone talking about that do you? You can win the electoral college in November by winning only eleven states for goodness sake. It's irrelevant.

of course, major natural disasters or terrorist attacks may target obama voters, so she will stay in the race...

as a lieberman-neodem.

she has lockjaw, watchout!

Fact checker
You need to check his background and report on that first.
I am very proud to be a Muslim woman
Once you born Muslim always you will be Muslim.
No one can change that.

the "fact" that obama got ZERO votes in michigan does not exactly support hillary's claim of superior electablility.

put a loaf of bread on the shelf in rwanda.

100 million dollars earned in the past 8 years can't buy the elective tabulations hillary needs to override the system her husband ONCE dominated.

Good points, Jerry.

Mary:

The Fact Checker has already "debunked" whether he is Muslim or was sworn in on the Koran.

This is sheer baloney. If you disregard the caucus states, all the male votes, all the African-American votes, and add the full votes from both Florida and Michigan, and count only the votes of female white women over the age of 50... Then Hillary Clinton is a winner by a mile. DUH!!!

She is just counting the number of people who went in and cast a vote for her, no matter what state they live in. And yes she does not count those votes that Obama did not get - those who voted un-committed - they certainly did not vote for Obama did they? But all the ones she counts did cast votes for her.

So the popular vote is in a statistical dead heat and yet the "Fact Checker" wants to anoint Obama while carefully parsing his words. I quote, "[Clinton] also has to exclude the 230,000 'uncommitted voters' in Michigan, most of whom would have probably supported Barack Obama had he been on the ballot, and caucus participants in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington."

Balderdash! "Most...probably..." you say? Lot's of wiggle room you're giving yourself there "Mr. Fact Checker." Since when are probabilities facts? Besides, I doubt the Reagan Democrats of Michigan would agree with you, nor would the pollsters and exit polls that only attribute 170K of that 230K to Obama, which means it's still Clinton's game. (Since when is 74% "most," in grade school that's a "C" at best.) And keep in mind, Obama LOST Michigan no mater how you slice it, which is why he slinked off and pulled his name from the ballot in the first place. (Of course he thought he'd do better in Florida, which is why he didn't pull his name there. Whoops!) Don't forget, losing face is the #1 no-no in the primary process and the DNC gave Obama the perfect cover to duck and run where he wouldn't have won anyway. Come November, those Reagan Democrats will be the bane of the Democrats. Especially since the media finally woke up and started covering (read: vetting) Obama as they should have been doing since the beginning of the campaign. I wonder what surprises the swift-boaters will come up with in the next few months...

On top of that, you want to heap the caucuses into the pile!?!, which by definition EXCLUDES the populace from having their votes counted in the first place. Oh please! Trying to slip those #'s into the mix is rather disingenuous "Mr. Fact Checker." Those votes are the backroom party insiders that are in fact the antithesis of what the popular vote is all about. (As if the aggregate State Senators of any given state actually represent a one-to-one balance of their constituencies. Come on!)

Please stop mixing your apples and oranges and stick with the facts. Otherwise consider becoming a columnist instead of claiming the mantle of a journalist.

Obama of 2008 is sounding more and more like George Bush of 2000 in Florida. If he wants to claim the "win" on based on such a frail "lead" (and one heck of a headwind since the media actually started doing their job and reported his shortcomings these past few months), he's the type of leader who reads too much into his own press releases.

As for me, let the super-delegates do what they want. America was never a democracy anyway. We are, in fact, a republic, as caucus process reminds us all too well. I'm tired of holding my nose in the voting booth. If Clinton's not the DNC Candidate, I'm writing in AL GORE 2008 ... even if Hillary personally asks me to pinch my nose and pull the lever for faux-Bama.

why should i admire her for being a liar?

frieda:

She did not "lie". Even ask Micheal Dobbs. He is not calling her a liar.

I hope I am wrong, but no one knows Obama. I hope that the scandals that have come out so far are not just the tip of the iceberg. The liberal and media elite have chosen to drink the Kool Aid and back someone with two years of national experience. Hopefully he will not be the first black 'president' in the tradition of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. The liberal and media elite in the Democratic party have quite a track record over the past 40 years in picking losers and letting the republicans control the White House for 28 of these years. Their choice this year may continue the tradition. Only moderate democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) have won in the past 40 years, but who is counting?

Moderate democrats and republicans will decide this next election. The democrats appear determined to keep open the possibility of driving away the moderates and giving the election to yet another republican.

I hope I am wrong, but no one knows Obama. I hope that the scandals that have come out so far are not just the tip of the iceberg. The liberal and media elite have chosen to drink the Kool Aid and back someone with two years of national experience. Hopefully he will not be the first black 'president' in the tradition of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. The liberal and media elite in the Democratic party have quite a track record over the past 40 years in picking losers and letting the republicans control the White House for 28 of these years. Their choice this year may continue the tradition. Only moderate democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) have won in the past 40 years, but who is counting?

Moderate democrats and republicans will decide this next election. The democrats appear determined to keep open the possibility of driving away the moderates and giving the election to yet another republican.

The delegate thing is an abomination of the democratic process. The popular vote should be all that counts. If Clinton "does" have the most votes she should be the Democrats candidate. Superdelegates are not democratic. Who ever has the popular vote should be the candidate period!

God help us all! I know you dems don't believe in God since you threw Him out of schools and public offices while trying to get his Name off of coins no less! And all you folks being led by the nose by this ultra-left media who really think they will be insullated from disaster when this country goes the way of the Roman Empire. The really intelligent ones can see what is coming when you vote for the Marxist Obama. It won't be long before all of you decide to risk your lives to get to paradise;Cuba or North Korea! All Marxists think they have a better plan than the idiots before them, like Stalin and Lenin. Like the man said, history teaches us that we fail to learn from history and he was talking about democrats and wimpy republicans, all of whom are in it for personal gain ONLY! Don't blame Bush for oil prices, he tried to get the democrats to approve drilling and they stopped him cold! The liberals are exactly the reason gas prices is where they are, no drilling and no refineries built in OVER 30 years! And idiots like Maxine Waters threaten to take over American companies! She should be thrown out of office immediately! This govt takes a bigger bite out of a gallon of gas than the oil companies do and my question is "what right does the government have to tax gasoline in the first place?!"You people seem to think government is actually on your side!? I guess to have it your way, eventually we will all work for the government! Remember the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuella? Get ready to have NOTHING folks! That is the change Obama is bringing to you! I did not say it, he did! Are you listening or are you just trying to assuage your guilt? And my question is why are so many of our black brothers and sisters abandoning the "first black" first lady who purportedly did so much(she and her hubby Bill,the first black president)for the black population? You democrats are really confusing(I no longer consider myself a republican because they are just as bad trying to heap more government on our backs!). We ALL need to remember This; More government, more taxes;less government,less taxes. Where have all the AMERICANS gone? I guess they died to keep us free. When the real evil comes back to our shores, we will find the liberals hiding behind the women and children,so we better arm THEM quickly!

There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties. Anyone who wants to do so may run as an independant.

Obviously being the nominee of one of the major parties is a big advantage, which is why no independant has won since the parties were established. But the point is, the parties have the right to decide how to nominate. And currently, the DNC has decided on the number of superdelegates, and to allow the state parties to decide on caucuses or primaries in selecting their delegates, and what the calendar looks like. It has been this way for a long time.

Ask yourself: Would you be upset about it if your candidate won by these rules? Are you going to become active in your state party to ensure that YOUR state, at least, has a legitimate primary?

adobelane: I agree that popular vote should be the deciding factor, but read mikeinmidland's post for a deeper understanding of the process. And by the way, Senator Obama is leading in the popular vote tally, along with the pledged and superdelegate tallies. Therefore, I assume you meant to support him, not Hillary, who is second in all categories.

Ha ha, you forgot about her claim that she's winning in electoral votes as well. I wonder if her followers realize she has ZERO electoral votes. In fact if we use her logic, Hitler is tied with her in electoral votes. Does that mean he's as popular as she is?
I don't think Hillary is delusional, she's vindictive. She knows she isn't going to win so she just wants to get her followers to feel she actually won the election but Obama stole it from her. That way they'll be sure to want revenge against him in the general election.

No one ever claimed she has won Electoral College votes, since they haven't even met. She has won more states that matter in the Electoral College and is in the lead in polling among those states:

Http://www.electoral-vote.com

This is something that all HRC fans should see. This guy is objective.

There are other groups not included in the popular vote totals like Americans abroad.

The reason the primary season is a delegate race is exactly because a definitive popular vote total cannot be established within the existing framework.

Obama technically did not get any popular votes out of Michigan. Neither did Clinton, technically. It was an unsanctioned primary. The delegate allocation in Michigan, though based in part on the invalid election, was a compromise. This does not validate the votes cast for Clinton. Fair reflection is only applicable in a fair election. The popular vote was used as is from Florida because it at least had both candidates' names, it was accepted as a compromise.

What is all this crap about Hitler?

Are you people 12 years old or something?

We can all play these childish games if you like. Hitler was a charismatic leader and spellbinding orator, who had crowds in the palm of his hand. Therefore Obama = Hitler.

Of course that is ridiculous, as are comparisons between Clinton and Hitler.

Grow up for goodness sake. How can anyone have a reasonable discourse with someone who throws about ridiculous, specious, untenable and frankly, obnoxious comments like that?

"Obama technically did not get any popular votes out of Michigan. Neither did Clinton, technically. It was an unsanctioned primary. The delegate allocation in Michigan, though based in part on the invalid election, was a compromise. This does not validate the votes cast for Clinton. Fair reflection is only applicable in a fair election."
-------------------------------------------

I disagree.

There was nothing "unfair" about the Michigan primary. All the candidates that took their names off the ballot, did so voluntarily. They were not required to do so, nor were they asked to do so, by the DNC. In fact, it is highly probable that they did so for political reasons. Namely, an attempt to embarrass the then front runner, Hillary Clinton, by trying to have her beaten by "Uncommitted".

Hillary Clinton should not be stripped of her popular vote in Michigan simply because of her opponents failed stunt.

Sanctioned or unsanctioned, the election took place. You cannot unring a bell. 328,309 people turned up and voted for Clinton. The DNC may want to play funny math with the delegates they "sanction", but the VOTERS turned up and were counted.

Unfortunately for Obama, nobody will ever know how many people WOULD have voted for him, because he voluntarily removed himself. Tough. That was HIS choice.

Those VOTES for her were CERTIFIED.

adobelane:

That was the fake JakeD at 1:10 PM.

Hillery's last "lie" in this primary is that she has won the popular vote. This analysis dispels that statement also. Hopefully we can celebrate tonight!!!!! and then we don't have to liston to any more of the Clinton garbage. Go Obama!!!!!

Not clear on why you diss Michigan. People voted, votes count. In which case, Hillary DOES win the popular vote.

Maria Cardona just said on CNN that Hillary is the best candidate to beat the Democrats! Talk about a Freudian slip ...

phoffman:

Did you read the Real Clear Politics link?

Go McCain!

Grap the center and run!

I believe the Clinton campaign also conveniently leaves out the millions of Americans who voted in caucuses. I'm not sure she wants to push the "popular vote" theory because there is a way to get the individual tallies for caucus states and Obama would blow her out of the water if you broke those counts down. For all her bluster about disenfrancising the voters of MI & FL (whom she didn't care about a few months ago), she doesn't seem to understand that she would be disenfranchising many, many more by ignoring the caucus voters. If she and her advisors didn't understand how elections work, they should have found a different profession and if they want to change the rules, they should go about it properly, not in the middle of the game. She didn't lose because of sexism, she lost because of hubris.

Asked whether it was "silly" to go negative, Cardona said: "Uh, no. Again, I have always said that I think that this is a process that has been very, very good for our country and very good for our party. You know, and, and compared with past elections -- you people have short memories -- this has not been a very negative election by comparison. And at the end of this process -- and both candidates have said this and I think it is absolutely true -- the party will absolutely come together to focus on beating John McCain in November. Now if course I happen to believe that Senator Clinton is the best candidate to beat us ..."

Bottom line folks is this, Obama may have won the primary's but he hasn't won the battle yet.
Nor is he likely to do so without the hill supporters, Guess what assh***'* you need us unwashed supporters more than we need you, some of us will support McBush just so this empty suit dosen't occupy the White House, some like me will write her name on the ballot as a write in candidate, if we lose then we lose, but the empty suit will have had his ignoble experiment shoved up his racist ass where it belongs.
Will we suffer under McBush? Yep but not as bad with an empty suit with out a portfolio
Uh good luck during the General, you'll need it with the swift boating that is about to become a reality.

Maybe Axelrot can counter the negativity he started with the race thingy but I don't think so, hes about to be served a plate full of his own sheit.

Two quick notes about the Real Clear politics popular vote tallies not mentioned in this Wash Post Fact check and which may not be obvious from the articles or RCP site:

1) No votes are counted for the Texas Caucus, which favored Obama by approximately 100,000 votes. I see no reason to diminish those votes because they were cast by people who had to stand around for hours to be counted. It seems to me that they are most likely to vote in November.

2) the Kansas numbers are state delegates, not raw votes. At my caucus site (a high school), for a part of the Overland Park suburb of KC, 1650 people voted for Obama, 450 for Clinton. The turnout was very very high (for Kansas).

Jerry, you are talking about your opinions. I'm addressing facts. The Michigan primary was unsanctioned by the DNC. The votes cast in their unsanctioned primary are not a fair reflection of the people's preference. It is disingenuous to assert that so many people in Michigan were truly uncommitted. Clinton wasn't stripped of any votes because, as even she admitted earlier in the season, they weren't going to count. This talk about the efficacy of Obama's strategy is diversionary.

And JakeD, it doesn't matter if Michigan certified the primary results. They were unrecognized by the DNC.

Lucy:

Did you read the Real Clear Politics link? There WERE estimates for the caucus turnout.

For Hillary supporters threatening to support McCain, please consider:

1) Across the boards there is broad agreement that Clinton and Obama are very very close to each other's policy positions. Even if you can't stand voting for Obama, vote for (most of) Clinton's policies, which Obama will help push forward if elected.

2) The supreme court. We are likely to have at least 1-2 appointments during the next presidency. Lifetime appointment of two conservative justices made by McCain is a much bigger hit to the country than whatever you fear from a term served by Obama.

Matt:

How many Texans who went to the caucus DIDN'T vote in the primary?

Best wishes to Senators Kennedy and Byrd both in the hospital today.

JakeD = HITLER

MFM:

Votes in Florida for Al Gore were "unrecognized" by the Supreme Court. Were you OK with that?

So much for President Carter staying neutral until after the primaries. I guess if we want to return to the Carter years, vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

JakeD (June 3, 2008 3:15 PM)says:
Matt:

How many Texans who went to the caucus DIDN'T vote in the primary?
---
All Texas caucus participants had to vote in the primary portion as well.

The RCP methodology ignores the half where Obama did better (caucus) and counts fully the half that Clinton did better (primary) which seems odd since the caucus had a much larger impact on the delegate selection (per vote) than the primary portion.

If anything, I think it's fair to say each Texan got two votes (primary and caucus) for the sake of comparing results apples-to-apples with other states. In other words, count all caucus and primary votes from Texas, but count each as a half vote (sound familiar?).

I am an Obama supporter, but I assure you I'm not just coming up with this to torture you. I just can't reconcile the ignoring of a million+ Texas caucus votes with the Clinton camp's message of counting every vote. That is unless of course the answer is the obvious: the arguments were just ways to "win" and not at all about fairness, rights, abuse, or all of the other words that were used to push for inclusion of Michigan and Florida.

The caucus votes etc. are all second-tier second-guessing happy hour conversation topics for people who like politics though. Everyone was clear the contest was about delegates, however the DNC and it's state chapters divided them, not raw votes.

The other objection I need to raise to the Clinton popular vote argument is why Clinton thinks the results show that she would perform better than Obama at getting the popular vote. He has done better at getting degates when that is the goal. I have no doubt he would have beat her in popular vote every way it could be sliced IF that was the goal. One obvious example: Obama has not campaigned aggressively in the last several contest, which he would of if he needed to (for popular vote every way it could be sliced ).

"A good portion of Obama's votes are from states that won't be in play in the general election (e.g., the south and west). Taking away those states, Clinton has a big lead in popular votes and delegates."

So which side is disenfranchising people now? I love that you dismiss two large swaths of the country but get to count popular votes for Hillary in Puerto Rico, where they literally won't be able to vote in November. Welcome to reality, Hillary-style.

Look: Obama has a substantial lead in delegates and will have clinched a majority of them within 24 hours. Any of this crap about caucuses being undemocratic, or "red states" not counting, or the popular vote having any direct bearing on the election are all just red herrings, because according to the RULES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, which BOTH CANDIDATES AGREED TO, none of that matters.

If you really think caucuses are horrible, bring it up four years from now for the next election cycle. In the meantime, those arguments have no meaning.

Matt:

So, you admit that every caucus goer was already counted in the primary total, but your argument is that they should be "counted" again?

LOL!!! Has anyone else seen the McCain-Bush ad from MoveOn.org?

Regardless, no one thinks that he will offer the VP spot to Hillary? If so, then Iraq and "change" are off the table.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2008 4:08 PM:
Matt:

So, you admit that every caucus goer was already counted in the primary total, but your argument is that they should be "counted" again?
---------
Yup. As I wrote, counting only the primary but not the caucus results does not make sense to me. "Respecting the will of the voters" (Florida argument) should apply to the million people who took hours to be heard in the Texas caucus too, shouldn't it? If the caucus favored Hillary, can you honestly say you don't think the Hilary camp would count them?

To the other point I raised, don't you think the caucus voters from Kansas (like me) and elsewhere should count toward the national popular vote totals? If so, Hillary is NOT ahead in the popular vote, regardless of how Puerto Rico, Michigan or the Texas caucus are counted.

Message Force Multiplier,

You claim I'm dealing in opinions, not facts and yet you say...

"The votes cast in their unsanctioned primary are not a fair reflection of the people's preference."

This is not a fact, it's your opinion.

What IS a fact, is that Obama voluntarily and unecessarily removed himself from the ballot. The DNC would not recognize delegates from Michigan because it did not sanction the election, but that does not mean the election did not take place. It was a free and fair election in which over 600,000 people participated.

Just because Obama withdrew his name, does not mean it wasn't fair. That was entirely his choice. Blame him for the fact that we will never know how many people wanted to vote for him.

Not recognizing the result of the election does not mean it didn't happen, even if you'd prefer to believe otherwise.

In any case, the results ARE now recognized, but in a totally unfair and arbitrary fashion. The DNC may have awarded Obama delegates he didn't earn, but nobody can claim that they know how many people actually wanted to vote for him.

I never said that nobody WANTED to vote for Obama, just that they couldn't and therefore DIDN'T.

It is simply not acceptable to guess how people would have voted.

Contrary to your assertions, I am dealing in only facts. It is YOU who wants to speculate and guess as to voters intentions.

VERY generous, Fact Checker. I'd call this one a Bosnia-esque whopper.

One of the most disappointing things about this election has been the compliance of the media in promulgating narratives that are misleading and misguided. Just because a candidate says it doesn't mean it has value.

One of the functions of the media, I thought, was to help separate the important information from the nonsense in an effort to help educate your readership about what goes on in the world.

Matt:

If the tables were turned, I would be hammering the Clinton camp too. As for Kansas, I believe Real Clear Politics HAS included an estimate for caucus goers.

To Matt in Kansas City,

The results of the Kansas caucus ARE included in the Real Clear Politics totals.

In order to vote in the Texas Caucus, you had to first vote in the Primary, so ALL the caucus voters voted twice. Sorry Matt, but I know Obama likes a rigged election (see how he got all his opponents taken off the ballot in his first run for office), but you can't count voters twice in a popular total.

Finally, the caucus ctates of Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine have not released popular vote totals, so unless you're happy to guess the results (as it seems most Obama supporters are), we have no way of knowing how to add these votes to the total.

All these things considered, Clinton currently leads in the popular vote, as far as we KNOW.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Matt:

If the tables were turned, I would be hammering the Clinton camp too. As for Kansas, I believe Real Clear Politics HAS included an estimate for caucus goers.
-------
The fact that RPC appears to have represented the Kansas vote is the reason I posted that they hadn't. If you click on the hyperlinked "Kansas" it takes you to the supporting data: NYT clearly labeling the numbers state delegates.

From my personal experience, I am certain many more people voted in Kansas and this is not a mis-print. My sister-in-law who lives a half mile away went to a different, equally packed HS than we did. also, we live 15-16 miles south of KC proper. A lot more caucus votes were cast than represented for all of KC, let alone Kansas (don't forget Topeka, Lawrence, Witchita etc...).

Jerry:

Again, very good points : )

Posted by: Jerry | June 3, 2008 5:08 PM

To Matt in Kansas City,

The results of the Kansas caucus ARE included in the Real Clear Politics totals.
----
No Jerry, I don't think they are. Read my post right below yours.

You also say "Finally, the caucus ctates of Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine have not released popular vote totals, so unless you're happy to guess the results (as it seems most Obama supporters are), we have no way of knowing how to add these votes to the total."
----
Even a conservative (low) estimate of these states results in Obamahaving a popular vote edge. Because the numbers weren't recorded (because they really don't matter) does not mean they didn't happen.

To play along with the Clinton popular vote assertion, I am happy to guess, and the answer is clear: Obama has more votes. But, I guess this is Hillary's fantasy; she can include or exclude whoever she wants for whatever joy it gives her.

His name did not appear on the ballot but he was registered and any votes cast for him by write-in or absentee what ever count. It is incorrect he was not on the ballot, just his name did not appear. He was a registered candidate. By the way, there are like 800,000 votes from overseas that count but Hillary does not use them in her voodoo numbers game. Obama is most certainly ahead in the popular vote as well.

++++++++++
I disagree.

There was nothing "unfair" about the Michigan primary. All the candidates that took their names off the ballot, did so voluntarily. They were not required to do so, nor were they asked to do so, by the DNC. In fact, it is highly probable that they did so for political reasons. Namely, an attempt to embarrass the then front runner, Hillary Clinton, by trying to have her beaten by "Uncommitted".

Hillary Clinton should not be stripped of her popular vote in Michigan simply because of her opponents failed stunt.

Sanctioned or unsanctioned, the election took place. You cannot unring a bell. 328,309 people turned up and voted for Clinton. The DNC may want to play funny math with the delegates they "sanction", but the VOTERS turned up and were counted.

Unfortunately for Obama, nobody will ever know how many people WOULD have voted for him, because he voluntarily removed himself. Tough. That was HIS choice.

Posted by: Jerry | June 3, 2008 2:16 PM

Let me try and sum this up, except for a few marginal differences Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama at the same policies. The choice of the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not been between who has the best policies but who is best able to implement them as president. Under the rules of the Democratic Party it has been decided in early very close contest that Barak Obama that will be best. Those who supported Hillary Clinton are not expected to agree but they are expected to accept the result. If any of them say they are going to vote for John McCain it means that they did not really support Hillary Clinton and what she stood for. They shame those who genuinely support Hillary Clinton and who now must support Barak Obama to see that those policies are most likely to be implemented. To vote for John McCain is to vote against what Hillary Clinton stood for.

Correct, they spit in the face of everything Hillary has fighting for.

++++++++
Let me try and sum this up, except for a few marginal differences Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama at the same policies. The choice of the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not been between who has the best policies but who is best able to implement them as president. Under the rules of the Democratic Party it has been decided in early very close contest that Barak Obama that will be best. Those who supported Hillary Clinton are not expected to agree but they are expected to accept the result. If any of them say they are going to vote for John McCain it means that they did not really support Hillary Clinton and what she stood for. They shame those who genuinely support Hillary Clinton and who now must support Barak Obama to see that those policies are most likely to be implemented. To vote for John McCain is to vote against what Hillary Clinton stood for.

Posted by: Chrisle | June 3, 2008 5:25 PM

So, Matt, how much more than 26,634 is your estimate?

"Thank you for pointing this out...this "popular vote" business has been driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this was a VERY close race, no doubt about it. But for Clinton to claim she won the popular vote (without counting certain states that held caucuses and giving no votes to Obama from Michigan) is disengenous. At best."

Yeah, but the problem is that a lot of people don't know the facts and Clinton isn't really spreading the truth. The next time you hear someone talk about the popular vote, ask that person if he knows how many votes Obama got in Michigan. There are quite a few people who aren't aware that he got a big goose egg.

They need to redefine themselves and now call themselves "Clinton supporters for Obama." Anything less is to completely disrespect Hillary Clinton and everything she has stood for her whole career. This is not personal, it is about your candidate and the issues, your party and most of all you country If they can't understand that you should not be involved in politics.

++++++++
Let me try and sum this up, except for a few marginal differences Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama at the same policies. The choice of the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not been between who has the best policies but who is best able to implement them as president. Under the rules of the Democratic Party it has been decided in early very close contest that Barak Obama that will be best. Those who supported Hillary Clinton are not expected to agree but they are expected to accept the result. If any of them say they are going to vote for John McCain it means that they did not really support Hillary Clinton and what she stood for. They shame those who genuinely support Hillary Clinton and who now must support Barak Obama to see that those policies are most likely to be implemented. To vote for John McCain is to vote against what Hillary Clinton stood for.

Posted by: Chrisle | June 3, 2008 5:25 PM

Posted by: | June 3, 2008 5:37 PM

She lies right in the face of her supporters and the people who trust her. I got an email asking for money from Hillary and she exaggerated the number now by another million votes. Why not since she is lying anyway.

+++++++++
"Thank you for pointing this out...this "popular vote" business has been driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this was a VERY close race, no doubt about it. But for Clinton to claim she won the popular vote (without counting certain states that held caucuses and giving no votes to Obama from Michigan) is disengenous. At best."

Yeah, but the problem is that a lot of people don't know the facts and Clinton isn't really spreading the truth. The next time you hear someone talk about the popular vote, ask that person if he knows how many votes Obama got in Michigan. There are quite a few people who aren't aware that he got a big goose egg.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2008 5:41 PM

The Fact Checker is not claiming that she is "lying". Real Clear Politics does have an ESTIMATE of caucus goers included.

Super delegates can change their minds all the way up until they actually vote in Denver. However, it seems as if enough of them are currently committed to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. So, congratulations to the presumptive Democratic nominee (good thing he was able to steal all those Michigan delegates ; )

Christopher, nice cut and paste job.

As an Obamiac, I think the Clintonites make two very salient points.
Popular vote should be a factor in persuading the Super Delegates. The drawback here for the Clintonites is she did not clearly win the popular vote. It falls in the category of "too close to call". It's no ones fault, the system is designed to track delegates, not register popular vote.
With that in mind, the second salient point the Clintonites routinely make is Hillary is not some kind of uber-b*tch she's just a competent and motivated politician trying to win public office. She can make the argument she got more votes, so she should make that argument (though in this case it's unconvincing).
Any politician would do the same. What did you guys think we were electing here? An organist for the church choir? I think, the most that can be said of her dogged campaigning is that perhaps the lady does not like to loose. I certainly don't see that as a disqualifying trait in a president.
I wont consider a vote for Clinton because I don't believe in electing one of the last guys relatives. Power in a democracy is derived from the will of the people. Appeals to family trees and pedigrees have no place in that equation.

Question... These Super Delegates - Are they bound to cast there votes for either regardless as to the popular vote or etc.?
Or they can vote for whoever they decide?
__________________________________________

Or another scenario... If it is "too close to call"... Could this possibly turn up on the steps of the Federal Courts to determine the out come?

We've seen as to the 2004 election and the length it took to determined the out come back then.

This is a serious question: do people ever get bored with being hot-headed, uninformed, biased, hateful, closed-minded, etc.? what I find interesting is extremely intelligent, well-reasoned, documented (from respectable sources) reflections of wisdom and good will. Are there any sites where people are rational and knowledgeable, and write well, and display decent human compassion? Just thought I'd ask -- in the unlikely event anyone who visits this site visits the other (possibly non-existent, definately rare) type of site.

I know one or two, but I wouldn't want to tell the whole world -- it is just the same as with lovely natural scenery -- and have all the unthinking tourists trash it up. Some secrets are best kept.

How is it NOT front-page worthy that a sitting president of the United States had 35 articles of impeachment brought against him yesterday?

How is it NOT newsworthy that phase II of the Senate Intelligence Report regarding the runup to the Iraqi occupation was released yesterday, finding that the Bush administration actually DID exaggerate and manipulate intelligence information to garner support for the occupation??