Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

For Clinton, It's All About the Superdelegates

There are 10 primaries and 71 days left in the Democratic nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

But with those ten elections likely to split relatively evenly between Clinton (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico) and Obama (North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, Guam and South Dakota), Democratic primary voters aren't likely to produce a definitive nominee any time soon.

Thus, the Clinton campaign appears to be making appeals more and more directly to the party's superdelegates who will ultimately decide the winner.

(Yes, we know we left out Indiana in the list of states above, but the Hoosier State may be the final true battleground between the two candidates and deserves a post of its own that we will give it later this week.)

In a conference call earlier today, the Clinton communications duo of Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer spent most of their time making the electability case.

Referring to the ongoing dispute over what to do with delegates in Florida and Michigan, Singer predicted that "there will not be a Democratic president without winning one of those two states." He added that by opposing efforts to schedule re-votes in the two states, Obama is "handing on a silver platter an issue to Republicans to use against us" and attempting to win the nomination "at the expense of the general."

Wolfson, the campaign's communications director, echoed that sentiment. "If you can't compete in Ohio and Pennsylvania, [and you are] systematically disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, you are not setting yourself up particularly well for a general election," said Wolfson. He went on to ask (rhetorically) why the Obama campaign was having such a difficult time being competitive in Pennsylvania.

The electability argument as a broad campaign message has been almost entirely ineffective for Clinton to date -- if exit polling is to be believed. In none of the 27 states for which The Washington Post purchased exit polls did more than 12 percent of those sampled cite electability as the key characteristic in making up their mind about a candidate.

And even among those who said electability was the most important issue, Obama won those voters at least as often as Clinton did. In Ohio, for example, six percent of voters said electability was the key attribute they were looking for in picking a candidate, but Obama took that bloc by 51 percent to 47 percent even as Clinton won a clear victory statewide. Similarly, in Massachusetts, another state won by Clinton, ten percent of voters said electability was crucial to their decision, and Obama carried that group by twelve points.

But the decision by the Clinton campaign to focus so heavily on electability speaks to their belief that it still has real potential to sway superdelegates -- the party insiders who will be left to pick the nominee in the wake of a primary season that failed to produce a clear winner.

As we have written before, superdelegates are primarily politicians who will likely back the candidate they believe will help their short- and long-term interests. The goal for the Clinton campaign is to use the time between now and June 3 -- when South Dakota holds the final 2008 primary -- to sow doubts about Obama among the superdelegates.

The single clearest path for Clinton to the nomination is a broad reevaluation of Obama by the superdelegates. The controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright provided an opening for the Clinton campaign to begin that argument in earnest, although the endorsement of Obama by Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) late last week may have blunted it somewhat.

Remember that while the public side of the race between now and June 3 will focus on places like Pennsylvania, North Carolina and beyond, the private -- and more important -- side of the contest is the case being made to undecided superdelegates.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 24, 2008; 3:47 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A New GOP Player in the Soft Money World
Next: Fix Pick: Gene Weingarten and the 24-Hour News Cycle

Comments

So, you mean that the superdelegates may be willing to throw away a man that is very capable of being president and VOTE for a pathological liar. I CAN NOT BELIEVE THIS. JEREMIAH WRIGHT SAID THOSE THINGS NOT BARACK OBAMA. WE DID NOT SEE ANY OF THE TERRIBLE WORDS COMING OUT OF OBAMA'S MOUTH, BUT WE SAW THE LIES COMING OUT OF HILLARY'S. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

Posted by: barb | April 7, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't try to talk to me about "sabotaging the will of the people" when Obama undermined my chance to vote in a legitimate June 3 Michigan primary. Any nomination without 50 states having their voices heard is illegitimate.

Posted by: dhecht9346 | March 25, 2008 09:08 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe if you guys voted when you were supposed to this would not be an issue. Your voice was heard...it said I am going to do what I want when I want and take it or leave it...They left it...rules matter for the rest of the 48 and territories and DC so get it together

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the most dirty politician among democrats in recent history. Her negative campaign based on deceptions and lies should disgust any decent democrat, or voter in general, to vote for her for the nomination or during a general election.

Fortunately, even insiders in her campaign confirm that the chances for her to win the nomination are slim to none: see the articles

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=301838

STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

So Hillary now understands that she will not win the nomination and she is playing for 2012 by making sure that the democrats will lose in 2008.

Let's hope that the superdelegates will put an end to the campaign of this kamikaze who believes in ressurection; after all, she is supposed to be Jesus or one of his associates if Bill Richardson is Judas.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 26, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Don't try to talk to me about "sabotaging the will of the people" when Obama undermined my chance to vote in a legitimate June 3 Michigan primary. Any nomination without 50 states having their voices heard is illegitimate.

Posted by: dhecht9346 | March 25, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Boothe--The race is NOT close, and has not been for some time now. Obama's lead is larger now than it was before Texas and Ohio. So what if Pennsylvania goes 60/40 for Hillary? Do the delegate math and then say hello to North Carolina. It's called proportional representation.

Lisa8--Tonya Harding is a good comparison. Narcissism and an enormous sense of entitlement drive Hillary; she does not care one whit about the party if she must sacrifice for someone else. There is no greater good, it's all about her.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Hillary is damaging the party. The race is close enough and Obama on the ropes enough because of the Wright thing that she should stay in. A state like Pennsylvania could be 60-40. Factor in that Michigan and Florida are likely to have a redo primary, she still has a shot. I would agree it is unlikely that she will get the delegates she needs, but you never know.

like the old saying it aint over til the fat lady sings.

Posted by: boothe | March 25, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is going to have to pull off a Tonya Harding type stunt in order to win this. What is scary is she seems completely willing to stoop to that level. if she really cares about insuring all Americans and all of the other things she talks about, she would get out of the race. She is not going to win the nomination. She is only damaging the Party at this point.

Posted by: lisa8 | March 25, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

brian- You didn't even read any of adrickhenry's posts, he supports Obama, thats you saw his comment on the american indian and assumed he was a clintonite.

Hilarity..............

Posted by: boothe | March 25, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Forget 2000 and 2004 results. Look at the Dem fund raising and Dem turnout. The electorate is sick, sick of Bush and the Repubs.

Remember "Its the economy stupid"?? How can McCain win defending the Bush admin and talking about 100 years in Iraq.

No, boys and girls. This will be a Dem landslide and President Obama will have long coat tails and bring many Reps and Senators with him

Posted by: ddcegan | March 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

And I could careless who you support...focus on the politics not the historic commentary you clearly know nothing about.

Posted by: brian | March 25, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

adrickhenry,

Your obnoxious point about Indians being immigrants too is the kind of thinking the they really appreciate in the GOP, Western Saloons, and the Clinton Campaign. Your patronizing ignorant white boy logical will get you really far in the right circles...keep workin that peanut you call a brain.

Posted by: brian | March 25, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

You could mention that since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up 62 super delegatess (including Richardson and Dodd) and HRC has picked up 2.

So there is nothing to this post. Old news.

This race was won in Feb. Obama has a bigger lead in pledged delegates then he did before Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: ddcegan | March 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that Obama is dropping in the polls. Go to www.pollster.com, they publish an aggregate of the polls that are out there. Hillary's numbers are actually up.

At this stage the gig is up, the press reported on Wright too late in the game, and Obama is going to get the nomination and we (the dems) are going to lose the election in november, :(

In the end Hillary doesn't have anyone but herself to blame. When the Obama campaign went after Bill in SC, She should have revealed the Wright connection and won super tuesday going away. She didn't, she has lost the primary and the Dems have lost the general.

Posted by: boothe | March 25, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I have been going over the Electoral College votes again today and, IMHO, I cannot find any way Obama can win. I have looked at the EC votes every which way I can think of, and I still find my early statement of.."Obama has ZERO chance of being elected in 08." is more Accurate/Correct as the folks are getting information about this guy, and how The Media has made an all out effort to suppress anything that would portray him in a negative way. A look at all the most recent polling data supports my contention.

Posted by: lylepink | March 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The Fix,
Can you tell me why Hillary is getting a pass from the media? I will never understand the media. Why is it that bashing Obama is so much easier even when the words spoken are not his? And how come that the media is strangly quiet when Hillary blatantly makes up a story, in fact, stories about her foreign policy credentials during her husband's reign? We now know that she was never a part of the N. Ireland Peace negotiation team, that she never landed in the Balkans under sniper fire, and that she never really engineered that CHIP thing! Why can't she be taken to task about these things? she said them in public. I think the remaining superdelegates should ask these questions - these are the things that brings to mind her credibility! Just imagine what the Republicans can do with these lies in the fall! We are going to lose to McCain if Hillary continues making up stories just to look like she is closer to McCain - Why can't she just tell the truth for once? I hope the superdelegates are not blind and deaf to these credibility issues. And I hope the media takes Hillary to task - let her explain all these things.

Posted by: tintin08 | March 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Th Fix,
Can you tell me why Hillary is getting a pass from the media? I will never understand the media. Why is it that bashing Obama is so much easier even when the words spoken are not his? And how come that the media is strangly quiet when Hillary blatantly makes up a story, in fact, stories about her foreign policy credentials during her husband's reign? We now know that she was never a part of the N. Ireland Peace negotiation team, that she never landed in the Balkans under sniper fire, and that she never really engineered that CHIP thing! Why can't she be taken to task about these things? she said them in public. I think the remaining superdelegates should ask these questions - these are the things that brings to mind her credibility! Just imagine what the Republicans can do with these lies in the fall! We are going to lose to McCain if Hillary continues making up stories just to look like she is closer to McCain - Why can't she just tell the truth for once? I hope the superdelegates are not blind and deaf to these credibility issues. An I hope the media takes Hillary to task - let her explain all these things.

Posted by: tintin08 | March 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Guys, I am posting this on as many comment pages and blogs, as I can, so if you see if more then once, I apoligize, but it is worth looking at.
For all the Obama haters out there, please check out the following:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-year-old-letter-to-bern.php

Can your candidate say that they did this???
Maybe he is the future!!

Take this and post it somewhere.....

Posted by: lvdragonlady | March 25, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

All of you "lapel pin patriots" need to get your panties out of a bunch and stop acting like any of this will matter in 8 months. Citing people Obama knows for not sufficiently waving flags with sparklers in every oriface is not a way to win an election. Obama will get a healthy bounce with his nomination speech, which McCain cannot follow. McCain will get killed in the debates as well, and when Obama adds a foreign policy based VP the race will be won handily.

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | March 25, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins because of super delgates and loses the pledged delegate vote and national vote her nomination will be worth a bucket of wet spit. People will walk away from her in the general. The superdelegates know they are playing with dynamite on this one.

Posted by: jsherman602 | March 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins because of super delgates and loses the pledged delegate vote and national vote her nomination will be worth a bucket of wet spit. People will walk away from ehr in the general. The superdelegates know they are playing with dynamite on this one.

Posted by: jsherman602 | March 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Unless Obama melts down to the point where pretty much everyone agrees he's toast, the superdelegates won't give HRC the nomination. It would be general election suicide. The black vote would stay home and landslide victories in NJ, PA, MI & WI would soon become too close to call. VA, FL, MO & TN would be in the Republican column. HRC could get 200+ electoral votes but have no way of closing in on the magic 270.

America is embroiled in a foreign war no one likes and is facing a possible economic crisis and a definite slowdown. This should be the easiest election since 1932, yet true to form the Democrats are doing everything in their power to throw it. There are four scenarios. 1a - HRC stays until the bitter end damaging her own party and Obama is nominated. 1b - same thing but Obama melts down and she gets the nomination. 2a - HRC suspends campaigning ready in case something happens and Obama gets the nomination. 2b - same thing but Obama melts down and she gets the nomination.

Since the only path to the nomination is an Obama meltdown or unfortunate accident, why not suspend operations, save your supporter's money and not do any further damage?

Posted by: caribis | March 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't see that happening, sequoiaqueneaux.

If Hillary gets the nomination in any way other than above board and openly, the voters will buck the Party and she'll lose the general.

The only way she wins is if this Wright thing has amazing legs or something else emerges.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse


In other words...Hillary Clinton plans to steal the nomination from the voters.

It's just not right.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it likely that the Supers will choose Hillary if Obama maintains his healthy lead in delegates. They (the Supers) are savvy enough to know that that would torpedo the Dem ticket in Nov.

I think the Clinton's are pinning it all on some sort of unforeseen meltdown -- like this Rev Wright thing -- only Bigger.

Barring any bizarre revelation or some tortured and hideous rearing of racism, Obama gets the Nod. And the country wins.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 25, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Whether Obama beats HRC by 1 delegate or 1,000, in the mind of the supporters, he will have *beaten her*. If the supers however break for HRC - even if it was marginal for BO in the traditional contests - it will be viewed as grand theft election by the true believers within the Obama camp."

JD, I agree with that argument, about the race as a whole. However, I disagree that the superdelegates from any given state will face mutiny or future electoral punishment if they don't vote the way their constituents did. For instance: Kennedy & Kerry supporting Obama, while Clinton won MA. It'll be irrelevant the next time K or K is up for reelection.

If Obama gets to the convention with a majority of pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote, but the superdelegates pick Clinton, yes, the voters will punish the Dems in Nov.

Posted by: bsimon | March 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"The only true American is the American Indian"

Evn they are immigrants. They came from Asia via the Siberian-Alaskan land bridge between 10,000 and 25,000 years ago.

Don't mean to be picky...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

One needs to consider the generation that Obama's grandmother was living in. At the time his grandmother made those comments, 40-50 years ago, that was the truth about how white people thought of blacks. This is what Obama pointed to in his speech. Now we're several generations removed from that and things have changed, the typical white comment does not apply to all whites (maybe just to some of those who follow this blog).

Even white immigrants to America had to overcome prejudices based on their national origin (Irish, Polish, Germans, Italians). They just didn't have to face it for as long as Blacks have.

The only true American is the American Indian, the rest of us are bound together by our status as an American citizen. As citizens of America we need to all come together to preserve and strenghten our great nation for future generations. We need to elect people who will help us do this, not just in this presidential race but in Congressional races and local races. There are too many elected officials out there who put their interests before those of they are supposed to be serving.

No candidate is without imperfections. So in the end it's based on who has the best practical plan for American; who can work with Congress to pass the best legislation to strengthen America; who has the MOST integrity and honesty; and who will put Americans ahead of their personal ego. That person would be Obama.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I think you are missing the point a bit with this article. The Clinton camp knows it cannot win, it will not be able to catch Obama in either the popular vote or delegate count. Clinton could win all of the remaining elections by 60% to 40% margins (which she won't but just say so for the sake of argument) and still would not catch Obama.

The race is not as close here as the press likes to pretend. The ONLY way Hillary can win the nomination is to convince the superdelegates to vote contrary to the popular vote and the delegate count (and really that is not very likely, is it?). So, that is the reason for the entire focus on of her campaign on the superdelegates, she can't win without a massive defection of superdelegates to her side.

Hence, the Clinton campaign has resorted to a ridiculous, almost weekly offering of methodologies to count who is ahead in ways to enable them to be able to pretend they are 'ahead' and that the race is closer than it actually is and also pretend she has a chance of winning. They have also sharpened their tone as an attempt to force Obama to be more defensive and hope that someone finds the needle in the haystack that 'disqualifies' Obama.

Unfortunately for Hillary, the needles that are being found are likely to disqualify her, as her 'experience' claims are finally being scrutinized and shown to be a lot more thin than she would like to claim.

Also, having a shrew like Carvile (sp) on the airwaves just reminds people of all of the nastiness and over the top moronitude that the Clintons bring to the table. They may think they are being cute, I know Carvile does, but the reality is no one is impressed by those buffoonish antics.

Posted by: jacksquat100 | March 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I guess I'm not getting through to you. Which is a shame, because you're frequently a reasonable person on this board.

Whether Obama beats HRC by 1 delegate or 1,000, in the mind of the supporters, he will have *beaten her*. If the supers however break for HRC - even if it was marginal for BO in the traditional contests - it will be viewed as grand theft election by the true believers within the Obama camp.

So, I'm afraid I must disagree with you; the supers will indeed be going out on a limb if they do this.

And again: if they DON'T do it, then what's the point of even having them?

Posted by: JD | March 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris- We have just gone through seven years of a President and his enablers who believe "we create our own reality". It seems that Hillary Clinton believes she can create her own reality as well.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/what-was-she-thinking/

Posted by: Trumbull | March 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

***
Only "Typical White People" will vote for Hillary now.

Fortunately for her, they're the majority.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:28 PM
***

sv-McCarthy-KKK-reader,

Now you sound really TERRIBLE.

Posted by: pinepine | March 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

what will logan and sjlib be saying aftee Hillary wins Pa, Ky, W Va, and Puerto Rico Game Over its time for Sen Obama to drop out or Never Mind
Its utter arrogance for any of us to act like we know with certainty what will happen
Sen Obama s campaign now getting in the gutter referencing McCarthism and the blue dress reflects that they are a lot more unsure of the results then their most vocal supporters.

Posted by: leichtman | March 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me, the Clinton camp is working hard to make it seem that this nomination hasn't been decided.
The elected delegates will provide Obama a plurality of more than 100 -- maybe of 200. So, they are talking about the superdelegates. But the superdelegates, after breaking heavily for her in the early days, have been lining up behind Obama ever since.
Edwards suspended his campaign when he looked much likelier than Hillary looks now.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

***
WPost 4112 I am beginning to suspect that your support for one candidate running no deeper than the color of his skin. Take that one quality off the table, and you have nothing else which causes you to support or not support anyone.


Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 08:21 PM
***

Miata,

Bad news for you. I have been very much enjoying wpost's posting. In comparison with yours, wpost's comments are much more informing, well argued, positive, insightful, and, very importantly, with a sense of humor. I totally agree with wpost that all comments on this board should have a good will in providing information as accurate as possible. Discussion board is set with a purpose to have people educate each other. If it is full of rumors, it defeat its own goal. You don't want to be viewed as ignorant, if not dumb, right?

Posted by: pinepine | March 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Just a thought. You want a dream ticket. Obama plus Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi or Maria Cantwell..Experience without the lies and scandals..and McCain will twist in the wind

Posted by: patrick2020 | March 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Bill was popular with people on the street. Just a shameless good-ol-boy that you wanted to hug and forgive him his sins because he didn't really mean it. The Democratic party machinery was never fond of Bill. Possibly they saw the self interest and little concern for the Party. Hillary was never popular with anyone. Except a small diehard core.
Her current approach seems to be that she has won the states with the large electoral votes while Obama has won the small states that will not vote Democratic. The problem is that it assumes that Obama will not carry those same Big states against McCain. I would like to see how the Superdelegates explain to the average voter that they gave Hillary the nomination because she won the 'important' states, even though Obama had the most delegates. These are professional politicians who are the most risk-averse people on earth, and are not about to split the party when there is a liklihood of winning.
So it is very easy for a lot of party professionals to drift away from her as it gets ugly. There is no loyalty in either direction. And I cannot imagine them risking their own jobs to put her in the White House.
There was a small ugly inner circle with Nixon and the current Bush. And that is what 8 years of Hillary would look like. Divisive, secretive, and and a scarcity of truth. When loyalty is the prime criteria, you get a demagogue. The party professionals own self interest is against this, especially without Bill's former popularity.
And some have floated the idea of her running in 2012 if Obama loses in November. Some speculated in 2000 that a Gore loss would make it easier for her to run if there was no Democratic incumbent. She has a 5% chance of winning at this time. I can understand someone with her blind ambition doing anything to win and holding on until forced out. The Presidency is the most powerful job on earth, so one should not expect her to play by some set of mytholgical ethical rules of fairness, or care about the Democratic Party.
But I do believe that if she pushes her 5% too far, she will permanently damage her political future. I would expect a number of new endorsements by significant party officials to begin going to Obama, unless she wins North Carolina. Richardson was a signal that it is nearly time to end this before we all lose our phoney-baloney jobs. (as Mel Brooks would say)

Posted by: patrick2020 | March 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"Barack Obamas [sic] is running for president of the United States of America, not the United States & Israel."


He's sounding more like Carter every day.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

***
Barack Obamas is running for president of the United States of America, not the United States & Israel.
Putting Israel's interests ahead of America's may play well to Jewish superdelegates, but will not gain any traction in the general election.
The Jewish community is accustomed to buying political favortism for Israel, but with on-line fundraising that advantage may slip.

Posted by: SoldiersMom | March 24, 2008 07:44 PM
***

Well said, SoldiersMom.

Posted by: pinepine | March 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"either the supers follow their state's will or they don't."

Well, sure. But when some of the states are 50-49, if a super sides with the 49, they aren't really going out on a limb. If they side with the 30 in a 70-30 drubbing, there's merit to your argument. But given the number of states where the race is close, the risk to superdelegates who 'ignore' the will of the people is overstated.

Posted by: bsimon | March 25, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"If they do follow their own state's count... then... what's the point of having supposedly independent supers? "

I agree, JD. They are gonna go against 'the will' of up to half of their electorate no matter which way they decide. The well-intentioned point of having supers is being replaced this year by the spectre of mass disenfranchisement. Talk about unintended consequences. Ha!

Meanwhile, voters in FL are seriously considering not voting at all if their primary vote doesn't count. I saw several Floridians being interviewed last night, and they have a legitimate beef.

The fallout from FL voters not showing up combined with the superdelegates selecting the nominee may be substantial.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I suppose I'm not as nuanced as you are.

From where I sit, either the supers follow their state's will or they don't. Yes, I realize some states might have gone in the other direction, given new discoveries about candidates over time, but most people believe pretty strongly for their candidate - I don't have any idea of the % of potential switchers, but I cannot imagine it being more than 20%.

That puts 80% of one candidate's supporters being able to cry 'we wuz robbed' should the supers throw their vote in the other direction. Which is a potential death penalty in a year that should by all accounts be overwhelmingly Democratic.

Posted by: JD | March 25, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"either the Supers will follow their own state's delgate count or they won't. If they don't, then they are at tremendous risk of alienating a huge swath of their electorate..."

I'm not so convinced. For one thing, the supers have a lot more time to consider their vote, while the voters are more likely to get caught up in the media cycle. We don't know the degree to which its true, but there are surely voters in early primaries who would change their vote, knowing what we know now. Of course, both sides are making the case to the superdelegates about which way those voters might change their votes - as their supporters repeat ad nauseum here. In short, I don't think the supers face as 'tremendous' a risk of alienating voters as you propose.

Posted by: bsimon | March 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I had a funny nightmare the other night about candidate Hillary telling the Supreme Court that she should be president because none of the 40 states McCain won really count.

Then he rounded up all the boy scouts and sent them to invade Iran.

Posted by: light_bearer | March 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

sflosbach: Your 09:45PM Post last night pretty well reflect the opinion of most of what I have been reading and hearing. My argument in support of Hillary boils down to the Electability Factor as well. My state, WV, will never go for Obama, and Ohio, Ky, Pa, are among others that almost guarantees McCain a win should the Dems nominate Obama.. Indiana is another state that is in play only if Hillary is the nominee. I have talked with hundreds of people over the course of this campaign, and NOT ONE thinks Obama can win in 08. I have counted the EC votes several times and cannot find any way for Obama to win. The Media keeps their focus mainly on the Repub states that will never go Dem in the GE, along with the caucus states that are skewed for Obama in all aspects, and does not reflect the majority of folks that will vote in Nov.

Posted by: lylepink | March 25, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Corridor, perhaps, but my observation is, in reply to parker's comment: either the Supers will follow their own state's delgate count or they won't. If they don't, then they are at tremendous risk of alienating a huge swath of their electorate, as the Dems follow the template they know best, claiming an election was stolen.

If they do follow their own state's count... then... what's the point of having supposedly independent supers?

Unfortunately for the Democratic party, it's one or the other, inescapably, unless one of the candidates can build a 'super-proof' lead of normal delegates, which happens most years but I don't think is possible this year based on the math.

Posted by: JD | March 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Senator B. Obama has denied re-votes in Michigan and Florida. That proves he is not only a coward but also afraid of truths.

Posted by: Roy3 | March 25, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion you have to have a president who acts with the solution as the main focus och is prepared to desist from her/his personal opinions/ideals if that serves the solution. Inflexibility and rigidity can, in my opinion, counteract solutions. Thus, which one of the two demovratic candidates is most suitable in those respects?

Besides I think it would be a monumental mistake not to let citizens in Michigan and Florida make their voice heard. If not - what legetimazy would the new president (if democratic) have? Legitimacy is the foundation of a president in power.

If there are not going to be re-votes in Florida and Michigan then the superdelegates simply have to consider that fact.

Posted by: Roy3 | March 25, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Superdelegates are for the most part politicians and state party officials. Therefore, they look to voters to help them keep their jobs. This is the one thing we can all agree upon.

Interest in this contest has increased voter participation in the primaries, and here is where I suppose Senator Clinton's attack dogs will go after me.

Senator Obama has brought young voters to the polls in record numbers, as well as a number of independent who normally do not participate. The superdelegates are going to look at who will bring Democrats and Democratic leaning voters in, with the hope that they pull the straight party ticket lever (I know there aren't any more levers - I miss them).

In terms of electability, Senator Clinton has done more to damage herself since January due to her negative attacks. If the Obama campaign can just refuse to play her game, I think it will make all the difference. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case recently.

I asked my 24 year old nephew about the Clinton years. He doesn't remember anything except that the President made it okay to have oral sex.

Posted by: corridorg4 | March 25, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Too bad for HRC that Obama has a better argument on this: It's far more likely that the SD's will cave to the actual results of voting and not on the whim of elite pol's. They have the image of the party to think of...

Posted by: parkerfl | March 24, 2008 09:45 PM

If that's true, then why the he!! does the Democratic party bother to have Superdelegates in the first place? Just have normal delegates and whoever wins, wins.

Such a stupid system. Gotta prop up the underdog. All about 'fairness'.

Give me a break...

Posted by: JD | March 25, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Last evening at 5:37P I criticized what I heard Wolfson/Singer say on POTUS '08.

Later, I learned the context of their remarks and understood them.

FWIW, I apologize to the two flaks for having judged their complaints without understanding the nature of what had occurred.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

svreader, Cheryl Atkinson of CBS News outed Hillary Clinton's lies on national television, the blogosphere is firing down on Clinton's Bosnian escapades and Sinbad was right in calling her out (she owes him an apology). Tell me what superdelegate will support this lying sack of scat? Am I gloating? Only to extent that Moses once wrote in the Old Testament: "Be sure of this - your sins will find you out!" The ancient Book is right (once again).

Posted by: meldupree | March 25, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

I always find it interesting to read through the comments here and follow the virulent hatred and racist tone in comments by svreader and proudtobeGOP and others. And I have to ask myself why they bother. Do comments such as these have a purpose other than to display a basic lack of understanding of the democracy we live in? Sure, engage in dialogue, discuss the issues in an intelligent and fair way, but don't go into the gutter. Others who contribute here present well reasoned and thoughtful positions. I did appreciate to find the link posted by proudtobeGOP to the Trinity newsletter. You obviously did your homework. What I did not find in the comments by Reverend Wright regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issues is a "campaign against Israel." Most of the settlements in Palestinian territory are illegal. Period. Everyone knows that Democrat and Republican alike, as well as the international community in respect of international law. Don't try and make the anit-Israel argument - it won't work.

Posted by: jordy1 | March 25, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

If anyone didn't know Cillizza's colors before this column was written they should now have no doubt that his bread is buttered by Hillary winning or at minimum continuing this God-awful charade that Hillary is competitive. And if anyone had doubts about Hillary before the campaign, she has solidified those doubts into unpleasant memories...of distortions and the picayune and weak attempts at character assassination. But back to Cillizza. I guess blogger Chris didn't get the memo from Camp Bill/Penn...It's the electoral college this weekend..that's how we judge a primary season!!!

Posted by: hrayovac | March 25, 2008 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Idiotto-svreader, are you surprised that the person, who lives in predominantly Black neighborhood, who is married to Black woman and has three quarter Black chidren feels himself more Black than White, though he is mulatto? I thought that even you can understand that two thirds are more than a half, and other basic mathematical rules, like these-, but, I think, I still overestimate your intelligence. How much is one plus one? Coo-coo!

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 25, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

Idiotto-svreader, are you surprised that the person, who lives in predominantly Black neighborhood, who is married to Black woman and has three quarter Black chidren feels himself more Black than White, though he is mulatto? I thought that even you can understand that two thirds are more than a half, and other basic mathematical rules, like these-, but, I think, I still overestimate your intelligence. How much is one plus one? Coo-coo!

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 25, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Why do you lot keep going on about Reverend Wright? Is he the only one who has ever said something silly or even regrettable in the heat of the moment? Grow up, America. Instead of spewing more hate and building more blast walls between you, why not contemplate, think and examine the words of the man's complete sermon, or at least larger parts of it, instaed of only the tidbits being served to you by divisive agents of the right wing. Think a bit: how many preachers or prophets, have over the course of history, attempted to admonish a nation (it's people and it's rulers). Jeremiah, Daniel, Moses, Samuel, John the baptist, Jesus, MLK, etc, and there've been many more modern day voices crying in the wilderness. It's not easy to hear critism of one's self but it's important. Why is it so difficult for America to acknowledge what's wrong in America! Charity begins at home. Self-forgiveness begins with humility, not with the arrogance of imperialism and pride. Hispanic, black, white!!Such nonsense. This is time to turn a new leaf, the rebirth of a nation. It's time to finally be a nation together, and for one another. So no to hate, say 'not this time' to the agents of division who manipulate for personal gain. Say yes to America, to the ideals of freedom and equality under one flag.
p.s. Reverend Wright also needs to finally come forward with an explanation and an apology if such is needed, after all, his words, meant to result in self reflection and the questioning of our deeds before God and men, were not understood as such(or were they?).

Posted by: melprophet | March 25, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

How could Hillary be more electable than Obama? If it were so, she would be the leader of this primary, and she is not. How could the permanent underdog of the race claim the better electability? It is the same type of arrogance, as to offer the leader of the race the second position on her ticket.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 25, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have nearly the exact same voting record on all issues except Iraq.

Seriously, bummer for Clinton, but if it had taken 6 months and been successful (like they said) she'd have looked really smart and good at the commander-in-chief thing.

I happen to like Barack Obama a great deal more, but he appeals to the idealist and the common sense in me.

On the other hand, I sure as heck won't vote for McCain no matter which Dem gets the nod. He's really really really really old, and apparently can't figure out either the economy or who lives in Iran.
Oh, and he made that same bummer vote that's gotten 4,000 Americans killed..they just stopped counting the Iraquis.
At this point I'm hoping he has alzheimer's otherwise the man is a complete idiot.

He has SOUGHT OUT the endorsements of preachers Parsley and Hagee that make Rev. Wright sound tame and sane as a pure form of pandering to the religious right since he isn't particularly religious himself. Way to sell your soul for power buddy.

He has decided to continue Bush's economic policies that have cost us 1 trillion dollars in war and waste that has now made it even more difficult to actually deal with our real problems, and profited only companies that ship America's jobs over seas and the wealthiest 3%.

No matter which Democrat gets the nomination, they've got to be better than that.


Posted by: poeticthevail | March 25, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

If the delegates to FL are not seated per the popular vote -- this will not be a legitimate win for the nominee. I am sick and tired of disenfranchisement. You can revote MI to put both names on the ballot. Hillary has offered to pay her share for both elections if necessary. What is Obama aftraid of? Could it be that he has yet to win a big state aside from his own? Gee, afraid of voters where there is no caucus.

Seat the delegates as is or have a revote.

Posted by: anifin | March 25, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Here are two articles to pump up Obama's supporters, and to destroy any hope among the FOX News pundits for a Clinton nomination (they don't believe in hope anyway):

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=301838


STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Game over!

Posted by: Logan6 | March 25, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

The problem for Democrats is that Sen. Obama is trying to run against both Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton, while Sen. Clinton seems bent on running against Sen. Obama ... and with Sen. McCain. And the Clintons wonder why the rest of the party is seeing red! Ronald Reagan pronounced the Republican's 11th Commandment -- thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican. Mrs. Clinton seems to want to turn that on its head. No other candidate trailing in delegates, votes and states at this late date would still be seen as a viable candidate by the MSM but simply continuing to campaign isn't the outrage here -- it's the "kitchen sink" tactics openly embraced by her campaign. And chief among these is the baffling decision to tear Barack Obama down by building John McCain up -- he and Hillary are the only 2 candidates ready for that 3 am phone call; only Johnny and Hill are best pals and true patriots, ready to have a serious campaign about the issues, and not focusing on all the rest of that "stuff" (like race, Bill?). So not only is Mrs. Clinton delaying the Democrats' focus on John McCain, she is destroying our ability to make these honest policy and character distinctions with this man that, to those who have not closely examined his highly conservative record, is still seen as the Republican/Independent maverick that could offer a reasonable alternative to the flawed Democratic nominee. For Obama supporters, McCain is a big unknown and their threats of "anybody but Hillary" is most likely hot air (and unlikely to pose a real problem as Sen. Obama should still get the nomination). But for Mrs. Clinton's supporters, her continued praise of Sen. McCain signals her feverishly excited supporters that if she is not the nominee -- then it is Sen. McCain that she truly believes is the best alternative. And that, my friends, is the true story of Judas Iscariot in this political Good Friday story.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 25, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

I am an independent, and this is the way I look at this democratic race.

Let us talk about Obama's pastor for a minute. If his sermon was only about those 30 sec sound bytes then yes he was way wrong. But this wasn't what Obama said, it was his pastor. Linking them togther and saying that this was Obama's opinion is just being hypocritcal and assuming that someone is guilty by association, which when I last checked was not the law.

Now, Senator Clinton just accepted that she misspoke about her statements in Kosovo. This in my opinion is a bigger issue than senator Obama. Here the candidate is herself been caught lying. There are similar stories going around about her claims about bringing peace to Ireland. I don't know about others on this blog but I hate to be lied to. I hate it when my child tells a tall tale and I hate it when the person who wants my vote lies to me.

Of late there has been a lot of negative things being said about the candidates from their respective opponents. Most of it dis-tasteful.

I was for the longest period was leaning towards Clinton, but Obama race speech and after doing research about Obama's Pastor complete speech and Senator Clinton lies I am tending towards Mcain/ Obama.

Posted by: jay.shahu | March 25, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

I know of a way that the Clinton's could still win: Get the DNC to make it 2 out of 3, then 3 out of 5 and so on until voters give up. Seriously, the Obama camp should circulate summaries of the entire Wright sermons from which the 10-sec. clips were lifted and spliced together to form the controversial video, to show people that there really is nothing controversial in his sermons. I'm surprised that they haven't done anything of that nature.

Posted by: KT11 | March 25, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

The most current case for electability being made by Senator Clinton and her campaign centers around a hoped for continued controversy involving Reverend Wright's relationship with Senator Obama.

On the basis of selected broadcasted soundbites of Reverend Wright aired without context, the negative fall-out is projected to take Senator Obama substantially down in electability among democratic party voters and superdelegates to the point that the result will be substantial victories in the remaining primaries for Senator Clinton.

This simply is not going to happen because sooner than later (as in before the Pennsylvania primary) full context will be given and in part this has already started with the release of the photo of Reverend Wright shaking hands with President Clinton while more than less offering him forgiveness for one of Bill's personal indiscretions which had occurred at that time. The underlying context of the photo is that certainly no person considered to be "militant", "unpatriotic", and "anti-American" would have been invited to the White House let alone get close enough to shake the President's hand unless that person had already been vetted as not being such.

Further context will be provided in the next few weeks by Reverend Wright himself as he directly addresses the media assault on his character and the biased negative characterization of a large part of his life spent as a Christian Minister. And I have no doubt he will do so with much more class than demonstrated by those who have continuously broadcasted these politically motivated selected soundbites.

When the voting public in general and superdelegates in particular become publicly enlightened of the true difference between the broadcasted perceptions and the actual reality of Reverend Wright in full context, the current controversy will fade away leaving Senator Clinton with no choice but to create another new case for her greater electability which will be about the fifth or sixth case she will have unsuccessfully tried to present one such as her case for having passed the "Commander-in-Chief Test" which is currently being put in proper context to her non-benefit.

Posted by: csfoster2000 | March 25, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

kingofzouk- how is it the will of the people if she is almost even if you include Florida, would be ahead if you allowed Michigan and is ahead if you subtract the ridiculous caucuses where disadvantaged voters can't really participate reasonably? Just because he is better at playing politics vs. her - running the dirtiest campaign while acting like Mr. Clean- doesn't mean he has the support of the "people"
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 25, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

kingofzouk- how is it the will of the people if she is almost even if you include Florida, would be ahead if you allowed Michigan and is ahead if you subtract the ridiculous caucuses where disadvantaged voters can't really participate reasonably? Just because he is better at playing politics vs. her - running the dirtiest campaign while acting like Mr. Clean- doesn't mean he has the support of the "people"
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 25, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

If a football team is winning 31-14 at halftime and they win 31-28, don't they still win?

Posted by: lwrzesin | March 25, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

The crisis,

She did win more popular votes- if you discount the caucuses which are inherently unfair to people of lower financial means- see realpolitics.com and click on the left hand side to see more
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 25, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

The crisis,

She did win more popular votes- if you discount the caucuses which are inherently unfair to people of lower financial means- see realpolitics.com and click on the left hand side to see more
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 25, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

svereader...you continually amaze me...even when your great candidate has been proven to be a liar...she really acted that when up good...just like Bill with "I did not have sex with that woman"..guess th ability to lie with a straight face runs in the family. You Hillary people are so stupid...what other lies has she told...she will do anything and lie about anything to get this nomination.

Posted by: Webster51 | March 25, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Electability for the presidential race, or the congressional races?

Clinton is a long-shot gamble for the superdelegates. First, she may or may not win against McCain. More importantly, she has NO coattails for the congressional campaigns. Dedicated volunteers? No, they're working for Obama. So worst case: Republican president with a Congress that isn't veto-proof.

Clinton has a huge downside risk.

Posted by: TomJx | March 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --
Go ahead and gloat now. You'll cry later.
The truth will be the end of Barry Obama.
------------------

The truth will be an end to us all. Hence the value of mercy.

No tears necessary. It's just politics.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm trying to imagine anyone sitting through a dissertation by svreader.

That should be outlawed along with waterboarding and all other forms of torture.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:23 PM

Copy paste. Lie smear. Go svu!

Posted by: meg54136 | March 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

Go ahead and gloat now. You'll cry later.

The truth will be the end of Barry Obama.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

LOL.
So much for our PhD programs.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 12:05 AM

LOL I'm in one right now and I'm glad I'm not at dr. svreader's Troll University.

I'm hoping to get a better job than copying and pasting bilious bs 16 hrs a day like the good doctor. :)

Posted by: meg54136 | March 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

The need to wake up and smell the coffee, before its too late.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:55 PM

LOL you need more than coffee Dr. sv.

It's going to be worth it to see Hillary concede just to watch you spin into orbit.

BTW what was your dissertation on Dr.?

And where do they give PhD's to babbling fools? They really need to be reaccreditated.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 25, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

All this can be solved by Obama dropping out.

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

LOL.
So much for our PhD programs.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

wake up and smell the elected delegates: It's over.

As many people have begun to realize Hillary has next to no chance unless Obama somehow implodes. His response to the Wright issue shows that he's not likely to implode.

On top of that, word is out now that Hillary "misspoke" about her Bosnia trip. This certainly isn't likely to build superdelegate support for her.

I just wonder when she will finally face the facts: She has no chance in elected delegates, no chance in popular vote... Her only path to win is complete destruction, and I think even she will begin to realize that if she wins it that way, she will lose in November.

Posted by: hermanSF | March 25, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

All this can be solved by Obama dropping out.

There's no way he can win nationally and both him and his supporters know that.

Republicans will loop his "Typical White Person", play it 24/7, turn it into a ring-tone, and use it to prove, that in his heart, Obama he feels the same way as Rev Wright does about everyone who isn't Black.

Obama can't hide from 20 years of standing with Rev. Wright, and from choosing Rev Wright as his "spiritual advisor"

Obama supporters can't deny the situation.

All they can do is drag the Democratic party down with them.

The need to wake up and smell the coffee, before its too late.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-misspoke.html

"Monday, March 24, 2008
I Misspoke

It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it cracking, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light.

As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides frozen still in their seats, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin.

"How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..."

"Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was not too much stern forcefulness, with sufficient steel and empathy combined into a firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?"

The pilot, paused, as if in amazement at my readiness , and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. A bead of sweat began to form on his brow.

I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, where he crumbled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console.

"Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie.

Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone.

Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that they had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway.

"You'll never make it!" I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!"

I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock!

I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us.

Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down.

Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had been somehow delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place.

Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle.

I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to hurtle towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited for my arrival.

I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal.

I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe.

We had arrived. All was good.


Just a moment...

Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled Continental Airlines flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy") I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired.

In short: I misspoke."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-misspoke.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Logan good post except I really don't think that even Faux is ignorant enough to hire Dr. svreader as a "pundit".

Then again LOL

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post: "Puerto Ricans will vote according to much the same proportional representation rules that govern Democratic party primaries and caucuses in the 50 states. The notion of Puerto Rico being a "winner-take-all" jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process."

March 7, 2008 | Related News

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

We must feel sory for svreader and other pundits from FOX News... Obama is on the point of winning the nomination. And with the help of Bill Richardson who is widely respected among the latinos and in the democratic establishment, Obama can put together a very large coalition that will end up in a landslide for the democrats in November:

30% votes from whites (young,liberal,...)
20% votes from latinos
15% votes from blacks

There are also other large coalitions possibles for Obama. And superdelegates remaining uncommited will soon join him, putting some nails in the coffins of the pundits from FOX News.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

I thought PR was winner take all?

I am going to find out.

Posted by: mul | March 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Better spelling mul, but still largely incoherent. Maybe try again when you're sober.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is god

Obama is god

Did I spell that right?

GD Michigan
GD Florida

I was doing math not logic. I was doing Math for the Cult members. PR is winner take all - thats a fact. Obama got 11 (not) pledged dels - thats a fact. NO one cares about pledged dels - thats a fact - find one remark by a human being about pledged dels before this primary. Dems not republicans care about votes.

Posted by: mul | March 24, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

mul,

PR is subject to the revised McGovern Rules and its primary will produce a proportional number of delegates for each candidate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

"This is her Dukakis in the tank moment. She's unelectable now. She is toast."

Poor analogy. Clinton's story looks stupid, but McCain has the real Dukakis in the tank moment: His stroll through the Baghdad marketplace surrounded by 100 armed guards while US jets flew cover overhead.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant work by PBS on "Bush's War." Part 1 now available on-line. 2 part series.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to imagine anyone sitting through a dissertation by svreader.

That should be outlawed along with waterboarding and all other forms of torture.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

mul you should first try using the spell checker. It would make your post a bit more coherent. Not a lot though.

As for your logic...well...not so much.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

wpost --
Especially when they're Obama bloggers.
They don't add up to anything.

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


LOL.
Another of your doctoral theses?
Sounds positively Himmlerian.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

For the cult member don't do math.

PR is winner take all. That is 55

11 of Obama del are not pledged so don't count by your cult code of democracy. Only eclected Dels won by any means count by your cult logic which even you do not believe.

Hillary is setting with 40 in florida. Now you are down to sixty. She can get that down to 20-10 and win the popular vote. That is the vote that real dems care about count you country club republicans.

Victory - Now instead of trying to skate trough life with Obama win the election.

Posted by: mul | March 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

svreader posts the same tired lies on every site it infests.

Thats an awful lot of 16 hour days cuttin an pastin for a Ph.D.

Maybe they're not hiring Drs where svreader lives. They have to resort to trolling. Slimy work if you can get it.


Hey svreader, look. I learned how to cut and paste in my PhD program! Its fun.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

wpost --

Especially when they're Obama bloggers.

They don't add up to anything.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

We're almost as arrogant as the Clinton's...almost...okay George.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Democrats aren't really concerned about electability. That's why they have done so poorly in presidential elections the last 60 years. Democrats have only gotten a majority of the popular vote in 2 elections. Republicans have gotten a majority of the popular vote in all but two of the elections they have won. Republicans have won 52% of the popular vote in 5 elections. Democrats have done so only once.

Obama has virtually no chance of winning 50% of the popular vote. He has never won a major contested election like Hillary did when she was elected to the Senate. The Chicago knocked Obama's opponent out of his Senate race possibility out of fear that he couldn't win on his own. Obama's speech about his pastor might placate party regulars but may not help with other voters. He also has a potentially major problem due to earmarking a million for his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary when he was elected to the Senate.

Hillary might also have trouble getting a majority of the popular vote.

Superdelegates might want to consider a third option. Considering the strong sentiment for both Obama and Clinton, supporting one over the other might turn off supporters of the other. However, selection of a compromise candidate might work. Gov. Bill Richardson has a better resume than any candidate in either party and doesn't have the negatives of Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: jalexson0 | March 24, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

You Obama supporters have got to be the most arrogant group political history.

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

LOL.
Everyone knows that a dozen bloggers doesn't equal millions of individual voters. That's like....PhD 101.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader posts the same tired lies on every site it infests.

Thats an awful lot of 16 hour days cuttin an pastin for a Ph.D.

Maybe they're not hiring Drs where svreader lives. They have to resort to trolling. Slimy work if you can get it.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

PHD...and that makes you qualified to be as close-minded as anyone else...and again...why do we care? Are you a butt doctor? Or Foot-in-Mouth specialist? I think your posts speak volumes.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Sleep tight. Kiddies. You've got a bunch of primaries to lose.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Barry can say whatever he wants.

"Typical White People" just aren't going to vote for him anymore.

You Obama supporters have got to be the most arrogant group political history.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

LOL svreader has a PhD.

Hillary was dodging snipers in Bosnia.

And I'm the Queen of England.

Pretty funny, sv even for a bot.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

svreader = Howard Wolfson

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

svreader has been outed as posting the same rants on other sites, but with Hillary Clinton's name. It is just some lunatic with some schtick that was funny for about two seconds.

Posted by: TheTruth | March 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Ph.D. = Piled higher and Deeper

I suppose that makes sense.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey sv...Billy Grahman said some very hateful things about Jews, but he was best buds with every president since Truman...but that's okay...he don't scare our white women.

And...again...Obama is half white...he can say whatever he wants about his own family...he knows them...you don't!

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

And then theres the ever present svreader:

Lie, smear, lie, smear, fling feces, repeat.

Boring. Pathetic. Liar.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, been there done that.
The WP has proof that I have Ph.D.
----------

wow.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

No lies.

Lots of "Inconvenient Truths" about Barry Obama.

p.s. The WP has proof that I have a Ph.D.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Ph.D. = Piled higher and Deeper

I suppose that makes sense.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, been there done that.

The WP has proof that I have Ph.D.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Rhetoric...Clinton's legacy...all empty now...I'm sooo scared Bill's gonna think I'm unAmerican and call the thought police on me!

Guess what...that's the last you're gonna see of him anywhere close to anything with the word democratic on it.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

And then theres the ever present svreader:

Lie, smear, lie, smear, fling feces, repeat.

Boring. Pathetic. Liar.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

svreader, it's about your lack of analytical skills. Good luck getting into college in a couple of years.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Hm.

Somone just posted an article suggesting a possible Gore-Obama ticket coming out of the convention. Interesting! Very interesting!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Obama's own words sealed his fate.

His "Typical White Person" comment proves he feels the same way about "Whitey" as Rev. Wright does.

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

They should finish drinking their Kool-Aid, lie down, and take a nice nap.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM

CBS News blowing the LID OFF of Hilary's huge Bosnia WHOPPER!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Wow. She's toast. Caught red-handed in a bald-faced lie.

OUCH!!!!!!

That Swiftboat ad just wrote itself folks. Bye Bye Hillbot.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM

Uh huh. Its definitely over sv. Now run off and vote for McInsane you sad silly compulsive liar.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

It appears that WPost4112's shift at Obama headquarters is over for now - so now we can all be spared her snipey remarks.

--------------
Yes, another cult member has taken over the blog name...so there is a seamless wpost4112 voice present. E pluribus unum!

Whoop A$$!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is ALL Toast.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Okay...I'm gonna say it...Ding Dong the Witch is Dead! And so is her Ronald Reagan/McCarthy sellout of a husband!

Its when I hear blatant threats like Bill's that make me say "God Dam America!" WE VOTED FOR THIS SOVIET BULLY!

NOT THIS TIME!

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ALL toast.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"Obama can never escape his "typical white person" comment."

Obama is half-white.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons should take their redneck style of politics back to Arkansas. And, Carville should take his redneck self back to Louisiana. Imagine that, politicians and political operatives from southern states trying to fan the flames of racism to win an election. Who woulda thunk it Bubba??

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

The Supers might want to look at this:

CBS News blowing the LID OFF of Hilary's huge Bosnia WHOPPER!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Wow. She's toast. Caught red-handed in a bald-faced lie.

OUCH!!!!!!

That Swiftboat ad just wrote itself folks. Bye Bye Hillbot.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Mainstream Democrats should have caught on to Obama the moment his supporters gleefully started repeatng every right-wing anti-clinton screed known to mankind.

Obama's groupies aren't Democrats, they're members of the "cult of Obama"

They should finish drinking their Kool-Aid, lie down, and take a nice nap.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

It appears that WPost4112's shift at Obama headquarters is over for now - so now we can all be spared her snipey remarks.


Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

David Duke, nor his forebears, were ever slaves. No moral comparison.

There is righteous anger based on a real history of injustice, and there is fascist rage based on a warped view of justice.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Billary...I've got another song for you: Idiot Wind by Dylan. Obama's Bob and you're the wind!

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader, so you support a republican hack to validate your disdain of Obama? Just like Hillary tried to use McCain to throw a fellow Dem under the bus! Hillary and svreader, pathetic together!

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama can never escape his "typical white person" comment.

It came from his own lips.

It shows what he feels in his heart.

Republicans will use as a ring-tone.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright served in Vietnam, but Hillary served in Bosnia.

She's the REAL AMERICAN!

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"Typical white People" will be glad to tell Barry Obama exactly where he can put his "torch"

He's an arrogant jerk.

Now everybody knows that.

He's not going to get elected to anything.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse


I hope the Superdelegates are paying attention to Hillary's big lie about Bosnia.

The GOP is gonna LOVE this in October. They don't even have to make their own Swiftboat ads. Hillary has made the ads for them.

They are going to compare her fake dangerous trips to McCain's real dangers and she'll be a laughing stock.

This is her Dukakis in the tank moment. She's unelectable now. She is toast.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

And then theres the ever present svreader:

Lie, smear, lie, smear, fling feces, repeat.

Boring. Pathetic.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 24, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if you knew a black person who grew up in the 1940s-1960s you might understand why they get a little harsh at times about our country's image...its not so black and white, just like America.

David Duke=Rev. Wright

I'm not that good at math, but I think you need a constant and a function to make that add up.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton knows what he is doing.

He is a master of throwing stones then trying to hide his hand.

The Clintons and the Clintonites want it both ways.

You are supposed to appreciate how slick they are.

But you are not supposed to hold them to anything they say.

Then, lo and behold, they get all prissy about an unfortunate mention of a stain on a blue dress.

The allusion wasn't uplifting, and therefore was unfortunate to be associated with the Obama campaign.

But even the mention doesn't compare with Bill Clinton's serial loutishness, and Hillary's enabling behaviors starting at least with Gennifer Flowers--all so she could share power.

The victims of Lewinsky et. al. were not the Clintons.

It may or may not have been Lewinsky et. al. (We were not there.)

And the victimizers were not just a band of hypocritical GOPers like Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston.

The real victims were the American people.

Thanks for the memories, Bill, Hillary, Newt, Bob, and the rest of you who chose the paths you did and thus succeeded in making politics, not an honorable adventure as Robert F. Kennedy used to say, but a swamp tailor made for privateers.

(For those who mock Barack Obama's politics of hope, remember it was the tough but sensitive RFK who used to challenge us not to see things as they are, and ask why, but to dream of things that never were, and say, why not?)

Obama still offers that hope and those dreams.

Let's make politics an honorable adventure once again, Democrats.

But Bill and Hillary had their chance and blew it.

Let the torch pass to others, more ennobling and more worthy.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 24, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

svreader, face it: Hillary is going back to the Senate well after August, if not sooner. Hillary is not going to be president. Now get some therapy to grapple with this news and you'll be fine.

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Commented On Articles

1. The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Only "Typical White People" will vote for Hillary now.

Fortunately for her, they're the majority.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you lie again. That article is not even listed. You are like Hillary. Liars and in the state of denial!

Hillary lies, Bill lies and svreader has no Ph.D.!

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

hope the Superdelegates are paying attention to Hillary's big lie about Bosnia.

The GOP is gonna LOVE this in October. They don't even have to make their own Swiftboat ads. Hillary has made the ads for them.

They are going to compare her fake dangerous trips to McCain's real dangers and she'll be a laughing stock.

This is her Dukakis in the tank moment. She's unelectable now. She is toast.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Billary...I've got a song for you to hear...Instant Karma...Lennon...oh, yeah he hated America too...especially NYC.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I could not agree more that the nomination will be decided by the super-delegates.The magic number is 2025 delegates to win the nomination. But to say that only Clinton needs the super-delegates to win is the fairy tale concocted by the Obama partisans because neither candidate will get the magic number.

The claim of Sen. Obama that he is leading in popular votes and pledged delegates and therefore he should already be the nominee is only part of a story.There are several factors that the super-delegates will weigh in before they actually choose their nominee. They would want the strongest and most electable candidate but most of all, the question of " whats in it for me".

You are correct in saying that super-delegates are politicians that choose the nominee based on their own vested interest. A good example is Bill Richardson, He endorsed Sen. Obama maybe because he was promised the Vice-Presidency or a cabinet post.

Super-delegates can also switch sides, like Rep. Lewis . So to say that both candidates already have a locked on the super-delegates based on their prior endorsement is pure fantasy. The actual decision shall be made during the convention.

Every super-delegates wants to be with the winner and I predict that it will be Sen. Clinton. Nobody, especially those running for office in Red and swing states would like " GOD DAMN AMERICA " hanging in their necks.

Posted by: tim591 | March 24, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

no svreader, thomas.loc.gov has Obama's legislative record (but you rather not go there). Rezko and Wright, surely you can do better (I'm sorry, no you can't). Hillary volunteered the lie and it's has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even Wolfson (Hillary's overpriced mouthpiece) said weakly that Hillary "possibly misspoke" about her Bosnian adventure. So svreader, this story for Hillary will not go away. I wonder where her income tax returns are . . .

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

cactus said:

"Is mark-in-austin still hoping for McCain to win and the Dems to keep the Lege?"
---------------------------------
Pretty much. But I am open to discussion. That is one reason I read this blog.

I realize that BHO or HRC may be the next Prez. They are both smart and well educated and well prepared. The debates with McC should be informative in either case.

McC will win TX in either case. I am currently wondering which D will help Ds down-ticket in TX. I know which one is my own alternative favorite if McC runs hard to the neocon right. I wait and watch.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, this IS a new turn! sv can't deal with Hillary's lie about Bosnia. Very telling indeed.
Rather cult-ish behavior, n'est pas??

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

By the way, the most commented on article in the WP is "The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud"

A Brilliant Fraud.

Yup, That's Barry.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Like the Clintons, svreader is incapable of acknowledging reality.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Or the lie when Barry Lied to the people he told he'd watch out for in Chicago?

You know. The ones who froze?

Which one of Barry Obama's lies do you mean.

There are way too many to choose from.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

No wonder!
Guess George H and Barbara never told him the truth.

http://upipics.upi.com/photo/upi/fs/d078c773d137a01cd08034955691ec93/BUSH_EASTER_EGG_ROLL.jpg

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons should take their redneck politics back to Arkansas.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

You mean like when Obama lied about all the bills he worked on, or when he lied about Rezko, or when he lied about Wright?

Which one of Barry's lies do you mean?

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Wolfson...I mean svreader...Bosnia story?...crickets...crickets...crickets...who's drinkin the kool-aid?

Its obvious you're desperately upset.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you posts does not say whether Hillary's account of the Bosnia trip is true? You and I know Hillary lied, lied and lied! C'mon, say it! Hillary lied and gave the GOP more ammo (and she cannot blame a vast right-wing conspiracy for the gift she gave to them. The Bosnia Tale -- the gift that keeps on giving).


Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

btw, cc, sorry about the Hoyas! Maybe next year (or two).

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

That's fascinating!!

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Mainstream Democrats should have caught on to Obama the moment his supporters gleefully started repeatng every right-wing anti-clinton screed known to mankind.

Obama's groupies aren't Democrats, they're members of the "cult of Obama"

They should finish drinking their Kool-Aid, lie down, and take a nice nap.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

So, the POINT of the superdelegates is to SUBVERT the will of the people??

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

svreader, Hillary is a liar! Bald-faced, shameless liar! And she told the Bosnian lie with such a lawyerly face. (At least Bill wags that nasty finger when he's agitated). What else did she lie about? Enjoy youtube lately, svreader? I sure have!

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Is that called FUZZY MATH??? I think you might FAIL if you right that on your test answer sheet.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

If the race on the Democratic side is all about superdelegates, as you suggest and I agree, the competition between Clinton and Obama is far from over.
Until the Democratic Party changes it's presidential selection model, superdelegates are free and, actually, supposed to make independent judgments; they are not supposed to follow the popular sentiments as expressed in their respective states.
For more on this, read:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/superdelegates.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove is in paradise....

---------

Don't tempt the devil!
;)

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Novamatt

You have very good numbers there - your reasoning is sound - Another calculation has Obama needing maybe 140 superdelegates.


That is the right way to look at it.

NOW - if one includes Florida and Michigan, Hillary is entitled to + 70 to catch up - PLUS if one wanted to even out the magnification of the caucus states (back-room dealing) then Hillary would be entitled to an additional +74 delegates.


This is the point of the superdelegates: to evaluate the results of the primaries and make adjustments.

BY ALL RIGHTS Hillary is entitled to +144 in any objective evaluation of this crazy primary season - so the election is even more tied - the Obama people should acknowledge those facts and then the discussion should take place from there. (To WPost 4112 those are the FACTS) This election has been bizzarro on way too many levels - it does look like a bubble economy.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

This information is quite interesting. However, I believe the media has been playing again an important role in swaying voter's opinions. Earlier poles have shown that all predictions were far off because of a distraction be the media frenzy.
Let's stick to real facts and not only to distractions like the Bosnia story.
The fact is democrats in Florida and Michigan made a mistake.
The fact is Obama is leading in the elected (pledged) delegate count.
The fact is that numerous republicans voted for Clinton in the Ohio and Texas primary, so Clinton was able to win these states.
The fact is that the Clinton Family wants to return to the White house.
The fact is that big business feel threatened by a man who pledged to minimize lobbyists in Washington.
The fact is that Obama voted against a costly war in Iraq.
The fact is that personal attacks are always bad in politics and just turn voters off.
The fact is that people are hungry for change!
Rest my case.

Posted by: peter138 | March 24, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton should take his redneck self back to AR where his style of politics is more appreciated.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton said it would be nice to have two people who loved America in the race. Here's BHO's resume:
1) stopped wearing american flag lapel pin as US Senator, stating it was 'false patriotism'
2) chooses to leave islam to worship with Rev Wright for 18 yrs, who encourages congregation to sing "g-d d-amn america'
3) Ivy league wife of ivy league senator BHO gets a $200000 raise the day he is elected to the senate as a 'community outreach' officer for a Chicago Hospital. When her hubby wins the Iowa primary, she states she is proud of America for the first time in her life.

So it appears BC was right this time. BHO is professional chip on shoulder type.

Posted by: rahaha | March 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

And McPeak was right. Slick Willy played the McCarthy card by impugning Obama's patriotism.

I love how she defends the Clintons so much. A closet Clintonista?? or just a Hannity clone?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 05:30 PM
__________________________________________

Amazing... someone who uses not one--but TWO Limbaugh/Hannity approved pejoritives ("Slick Willy" and "Clintonista")--dares to accuse someone ELSE of being a Hannity clone!

Wow.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is done, bottomline. Get over it people, right wing will have a feild day wih him.

Posted by: blevins20061 | March 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

...Karl Rove is in paradise with a candidate Obama!...

Posted by: sflosbach | March 24, 2008 09:45 PM
_____________________________________________

Karl Rove is not running the McCain campaign. Rove was an operative for George W. Bush. John McCain was a victim of Karl Rove push-polling.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what the count is.

Obama can't win a national election.

He doesn't think much of "Typical White People"

Now that they know what he really thinks of them, they've not going to vote for him anymore.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Comment from above:
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
************************************
I picked up on this comment because many mainstream articles, without giving any specifics, are making the same claim. I have read that they are doing it to prolong the excitement of a close race even if it isn't true. and of course, Hillary helps keep up the myth.

I am going to give some figures that show the significance of how far ahead in pledged Democratic delegates Obama presently is. Imagine what Hillary would be saying about Obama staying in the race IF these numbers were in her favor.
*****************************
Chris, you say Obama is favored in NC, Oregon, Montana , Guam and South Dakota, For the moment, let's assume to everyone's surprise, maybe even Hillary's, they split the Democratic primary delegates in those states.

So that would still leave us with a lead of 167 pledged delegates by Obama.

Now consider states that we assume favor Hillary: PA, WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.These four have a total of 192 delegates.

Let's assume that Hillary won 75% of 292. That's 219 delegates
Then Obama would have won 25% of 292 That's 73 delegates.

That would be a net gain for hillary of 146 delegates. But Obama is presently 167 delegates ahead. So he would still have plus 21 delegates.

To summarize: if they split 50-50 in the states in which he is favored
and she won 75 % of the delegates in the states in which she is favored.He would still be 21 delegates ahead. That is how far behind she is.

Again, if the situation were reversed, imagine what Hillary would be saying to and about obama staying in the race.


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree about the Bosnia story serving as the perfect cannon fodder for McCain...he dodged real bullets (missles, though not very well) and they will take that lie all the way to the bank.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

svreader, Hillary is the typical lying politician, and we all have proof of that on youtube!

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

svreader, should Hillar get the nod (doubtful), the swiftboaters will loop the Bosnian story like a bad rerun on your girl. The GOP cabal do not have to do much work to slime Hillary; she self-destructs every time she opens her mouth these days.

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Too bad for HRC that Obama has a better argument on this: It's far more likely that the SD's will cave to the actual results of voting and not on the whim of elite pol's. They have the image of the party to think of...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | March 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

There are a number of contests still to be decided and Clinton has good chances in most of them. So far, she has over 12 million votes and that number clearly speaks against claims that she is unelectable or unpolpular. She is not well-liked in some parts of the US population, but that holds true for all remaining candidates.

Right now, she is behind in the number of pledged delegates and in the popular vote, unless you count Florida and Michigan. She won both states and wants to have a re-vote to get the votes counted and the delegates seated. Snubbing both states, as Obama constantly does, will alienate the voters in these important and delegate rich states and the Democratic Party can not afford that.

There are still enough votes out there for Clinton to bridge the gap and that is why Obamaniacs angrily shout for her to quit, because this is the only way that their candidate can win the election. Clinton has to fold her hand, because Obama can not beat her without superdelegates. Remember that he declared right before Ohio and Texas that 50 (!!) additional superdelegates were about to announce their endorsements for him? So far, only Richardson showed up... BTW, John Murtha endorsed Hillary last week, because he feels that she is best suited to end the war in Iraq. That is an endorsement you might not have heard about, because none of the large news services felt that it was newsworthy...

I am pretty sure that with a clear victory in Pennsylvania, she can secure the nomination, because then, she can point out that she won all the big states, safe for Illinois, while Obama won lots of the deep red states that will never go democratic in November. What she needs to win the General Election is what Kerry won in 2004 plus Florida or Ohio.

She can do that, Obama can't. With his position on revotes in Michigan and Florida, he is running a 48-state stategy. People claim that he may have lost New York, New Jersey, Ohio, New Mexico, California, Michigan, Florida and even Massachusetts, but that he would win them in November, because they are secure blue states.

If the senator with the most liberal voting record fails to win in liberal Massachusetts, despite endorsements from both Senators and the Governor, despite lots of money, despite a large grassroots organisation, then this candidate is in real trouble. Some 21 states were close (10% or less) in 2004, including California with a large rural and Hispanic population. New York had a Republican Governor and New York City had a Republican Mayor for a long time. Her prospects are way better than his and that holds true for a lot of states, so I think that we should take a closer look at the prospects of the candidates in November.

Next to Clinton, McCain looks like a liberal. Next to Obama, McCain looks like Reagan incarnate. If there is a candidate that the Republicans fear then it is Clinton, not Obambi. Obama people talk about the flaws in Clinton's character (wasn't Obama about change and against character smear? Just wonderin'...), just as if Obama was still the saint that he claimed to be. Wright, the racist church, Rezko, shifting postitions on any issue under the sun, liberal voting record, no military record, too busy to chair a meeting in the Foreign Relations Committee, the question of race and patriotism... Karl Rove is in paradise with a candidate Obama!

Okay, we will see how the next contests play out. There have been so many surprises in this campaign that everything is possible.
In the end, what counts is to have a candidate that can beat the Republicans, not a candidate that looks good on paper.

Posted by: flosstoss | March 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama can never escape his "typical white person" comment.

It came from his own lips.

It shows what he feels in his heart.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Republican 527's will make sure America never forgets it.

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

Won't matter in November. $5 gas/$5 milk will be more important...and the 4,000+ dead ...and the 3 trillion dollars we have borrowed from Japan and China et al for the pointless invasion...Dem nominee will win regardless who it is.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

svreader, is the Clinton Bosia account true? This is your supreme test of loyalty to Hillary Rodham Clinton! Yea or Nay?

Brian, will Sheryl Crow and Sinbad and Chelsea get parts in the tired Rambo sequel too? Is this Hill's movie with Stallone in a cameo role (knowing Hill, yeah, LOL).

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

If the Clinton's steal the election from Barack Obama this lifelong Democrat will happily vote for John McCain. Their dirty win-at-all costs campaign of incessant mud slinging and negativity should make any superdelegate who cares about their party come out publicly now for Barack Obama. The Clinton's are masters at the politics of personal destruction and the tactics they are using now are not only tearing Obama down but they are also tearing apart any chance to beat McCain in November. Hillary Clinton and her philandering husband are going to destroy the Democratic party.

Posted by: amitai | March 24, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

McPeak was RIGHT. The Clintons are SHAMELESS. Bill's legacy will be forever tainted by his own behavior and Hillary's influence in the Senate will be undermined by hers.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

svreader, is Clinton's Bosnia account true? Why are you ducking the question?

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I heard the next Rambo movie was going to star Hillary. Sly should be able to help her in making her story really work on the big screen...a little CGI...a little human growth hormone and a lot of fake blood...and a headband...she needs a headband!

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

WPost 4112 wants me to respond to her rants with facts - sorry WPost 4112, you are a single-issue activist and that single issue is only skin-deep. Take it somewhere else WPost 4112.

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

LOL. As usual, you have the facts wrong. On all counts. But keep writing that fiction!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Chris -- you're a bright guy! Tell us something that's not real obvious. Neither you, nor any other "astute" commentator, has really broken "new ground" or gone "out on a limb". Give us something unique!
David

Posted by: dandb3 | March 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "Typical white person" comment eliminates any doubt as to whether he agrees with what Rev. Wright feels about white people.

Its a "gaff" in the "Mark Shields" sense.

It shows what's really in Obama's heart.

Republican 527's will make sure America never forgets it.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

HRC Wants it both ways:

- Supers should be independent when they come from states Hillary lost.

- But they should vote their states when she won those states.

Thus she and her surrogates smear and badmouth the likes of Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson.

In fact, while Obama overwhelmingly won places like Iowa, Georgia, etc. he doesn't get all the supers from those places because some are Hillary supporters. But I don't see any angry posts smearing those people.

See the superdelegate watch here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Take for example Alabama. Hillary has three supers from Alabama despite losing to Obama. If HRC supporters are angry at Richardson for going against his state, they should start contacting these folks to pressure them to support Obama who won their state:

DNC Joe Reed (AL)
DNC Randy Kelley (AL)
DNC Yvonne Kennedy (AL)

Other states come to mind like Iowa, Hawaii, Missouri, etc.

Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)
DNC Sandy Opstvedt (IA)
DNC Mike Gronstal (IA)
DNC Patsy Arcenaux (LA)
DNC Renee Gill-Pratt (LA)
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI)
DNC Richard Port (HI)
DNC Mary Eva Candon (DC)
DNC Yolanda Caraway (DC)
DNC Hartina Flournoy (DC)
DNC Harold Ickes (DC)
DNC Ben Johnson (DC)
DNC Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
DNC Minyon Moore (DC)
DNC Elizabeth Smith (DC)
DNC Marilyn Tyler Brown (DC)
DNC Mona Mohib (DC)
Rep. Diane DeGette (CO)
DNC Manny Rodriguez (CO)
DNC Maria Handley (CO)
DNC Ramona Martinez (CO)
VP Walter Mondale (MN)
DNC Jackie Stevenson (MN)
DNC Rick Stafford (MN)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (MO)
Fmr. Rep. Dick Gephardt (MO)
DNC Doug Brooks (MO)
DNC Sandy Querry (MO)

And so forth. This is NOT a complete list.

Just an example of the hypocrisy of the "vote your state" Clinton propaganda.

As Kos proves here (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/0190/93691/842/471056), vote your state means Obama wins anyway.

So the only recourse for Clinton is to say "vote your state" when she wins a state, an "freedom of choice" when she loses.


These are the Clinton superdelegates in states which Obama won:

Joe Reed, Randy Kelley, Yvonne Kennedy (AL); Patti Higgins (AK); Rep. Diane Degette, Manny Rodriguez, Ramona Martinez (CO); Ellen Cahmi (CT); Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Rhett Ruggerio, Karen Valentine (DE); Michael Thurmond, Carol Dabbs, Lonnie Plott (GA); Sen. Daniel Inouye, Richard Port (HI); Rep. Leonard Boswell, Sandy Opstvedt, Mike Gronstal (IA); Teresa Krusor (KS); Patsy Arcenaux, Renee Gill-Pratt, Mary Lou Winters (LA); Gov. John Baldacci (ME); Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Gov. Martin O'Malley, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Nancy Kopp, Glenard Middleton, Alvaro Cifuentes, Richard Michalski, Michael Steed, Maria Cordone, Carol Pensky (MD); fmr. VP Walter Mondale, Jackie Stevenson, Rick Stafford (MN); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, fmr. Rep. Richard Gephardt, Doug Brooks, Sandy Querry (MO); Don Fowler, Marva Smalls (SC); Karen Hale, Helen Langan (UT); Billi Gosh (VT); Terry McAuliffe, Lionel Spruill Sr., Jennifer McClellan, Mame Reiley, Susan Swecker, Barbara Easterling (VA); Sen. Maria Cantwell, Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Jay Inslee, fmr. Speaker Tom Foley, Rep. Norm Dicks, Ron Sims (WA); and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Tim Sullivan (WI)

http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/debunking-myths/

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

svreader, do you believe the Clinton account of what happened in Bosnia? Northern Ireland? Can Clinton be trusted? We know you don't trust Obama (how many postings have you given us), but can Hillary be trusted to tell the truth?

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow...didn't realize I hit so close to home svreader. There's still time to come out from the basement...its nice out in the real world.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

McPeak was RIGHT. The Clintons are SHAMELESS! I would vote for a THIRD Bush term before I would vote for another Clinton.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Hillary ran for cover in Bosnia all right, all smiles and talking with the eight-year-old girl (who should be a young woman by now). Seriously, between the Bosnia lie and the NAFTA lie (just check her datebook) and the Northern Ireland peace accord tale, do we need another liar in the Oval Office?

Posted by: meldupree | March 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Superdelegates are paying attention to Hillary's big lie about Bosnia.

The GOP is gonna LOVE this in October. They don't even have to make their own Swiftboat ads. Hillary has made the ads for them.

They are going to compare her fake dangerous trips to McCain's real dangers and she'll be a laughing stock.

This is her Dukakis in the tank moment. She's unelectable now. She is toast.

Posted by: info23 | March 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

lylepink

Your reasoning is sound, however you stop half way - the red states that Obama won will go red, however also the blue states that Hillary won will go blue with either Obama or Hillary as the democratic nominee -


you have to carry your reasoning through


The decisive sector is the center of the political spectrum in the swing states - the rhetoric of both campaigns makes no sense - I don't really care - there were so many contradictions in Obama's speech to which made no sense too - however the praise in the media was more pathetic than Judy Miller printing Dick Cheney's talking points on the front page of the New York Times.


Is anyone thinking here? You are supposed to be the inside the beltway crowd, you are at least supposed to know Electoral College 101.


WPost 4112 wants me to respond to her rants with facts - sorry WPost 4112, you are a single-issue activist and that single issue is only skin-deep. Take it somewhere else WPost 4112. Well where does this leave us? Hillary is more electable than Obama. Superdelegates are afraid to come out for Obama because they are correctly concerned that come autumn Obama will have a negative impact on candidates in their areas down ticket. Again that is Elections 101.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I think it would be great if we had two real Americans, that love our country, running for president in November...really Bill. You're so cute...how you bite your lip when you pause...how you stick the knife in while you give us your "awe shucks" routine.

We're over you buddy. Give it up because you're just becoming a running joke about how to f-up your wife's campaign while simultaneously ruining the other half of your reputation.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares say anything negative about him exposes them for the dangerous cult of personality that they are.
----------

Oh Definitely! We can't wait to sacrifice y'all on altars of our black idol!! Right after we finish praying in our Obama Chapels. Instead of "Sieg Heil!" we'll be shouting "Whoop A$$!"

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

wp4112: someone called you an Obamabot, naughty, naughty.
Ha! I might lurk some around here and comment infrequently, but I know better.

I wonder how long this will go on. Are the Clintons really playing for 2012? Playing that they can divide and conquer and push "senior moment" McCain out the door is even more Machiavellian than I would have imagined, but it is ringing truer by the day. Slam Obama with the kitchen sink and half the the dishes and save up for the next round. I think she is burning all the bridges she crosses and there will be no goodwill left for her outside of NY and that might be fleeting.

Is mark-in-austin still hoping for McCain to win and the Dems to keep the Lege? I know it looks good on the study notes, but I wonder if it still holds water.

Posted by: cactusflinthead | March 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares say anything negative about him exposes them for the dangerous cult of personality that they are.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

svreader writes
"There's no way Obama can escape his "typical white person" comment.

It came out his own lips.

It shows what's in his heart."


My word. Obama said his own grandmother is a typical white person. For shame! Sen Obama - what's in your heart? How could you call your own grandmother a typical white person?

Meanwhile, over at crazy camp Clinton, kooky couselor Carville called Richardson 'Judas'. They really do have a messiah complex over there, don't they.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Let's call a spade a spade. "Electability" in this context is a euphemism for "who will whites vote for"? Until he was smeared by the Clinton campaign (who, evidently missed the Joe McCarthy "guilt by association" object lesson in their history classes), Obama was very "electable". Now, his negatives are almost -- ALMOST -- as high as Hill's.

If anything, I'm surprised HRC's poll numbers aren't higher. Obama's been likened to a Black Panther for two weeks. Just shows how entrenched her opposition is.

HRC can't win WITH black support. She wins the nomination now, blacks -- along with progressive whites -- stay home or vote Nader.

But there's no escaping that Obama's been damaged. His speech was great, but it expects reasonableness from the electorate, and I haven't seen reasonableness on a wide scale from Americans since around 1965.

If nothing else, Obama's shown he can put together a team that can run a competent campaign. HRC can't even do that. So, I think Obama is still the more electable.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to talk to us as adults about the things that are troubling our country, while Hillary wants to write comic books with her as the bullet dodging hero, flanked by her sidekick Sinbad, her teenage daughter, and the always intimidating Cheryl Crow!

Keep eatin it up...there's plenty more.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno20 | March 24, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Most voters don't care about electability. Electability is an ephemeral standard in the minds of political insiders that is manipulated as a means to justify voting for the candidate of their preference. Party hacks care about electability, but it's really not an issue for most voters.

People are more interested in themselves, in the economy, and other things that directly affect them, and they vote for the candidate that they most trust on those issues.

Of course, whatever people say, studies show that elections are about likeability. People see a face and decide unconsciously in a split second whether or not this is a person whom they can like and trust. The candidate who wins this appeal factor wins elections. It's the dirty reality of politics, but it's also been demonstrated again and again with each new election.

Posted by: blert | March 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

If Obama made up some story about running from snipers when it was clearly not the case, what would all you Clintonites and Mcsames say then?

Selective hearing and thinking...one dosen't know the difference between Shia an Sunni and the other doesn't know the difference between the truth and her vast years of experience flying into countries to negotiate peace agreements while dodging bullets.

Change...its what's coming.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

elme13 wrote:

The real question is: Without getting nearly all the black vote would Obama still be in the race?
--------------------------------
The real question is: Without getting nearly all the white trailer trash vote would Hillary still be in the race?

Posted by: smc91 | March 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Most Democrats agree that the war in Iraq was a huge mistake. We had Iraq contained while we dealt with Afghanistan after 9/11. Who voted for the war in Iraq? Hillary Clinton, of course. She's been trying to lose or qualify that vote for years. Her husband's stupidity was largely responsible for Al Gore's defeat in 2000. That's why we got Bush-Cheney. Now Hillary, the Walmart board member, is trying to give us collective amnesia while she talks about heroic (but false) trips under fire to Bosnia. Enough, enough, I've had enough. Let Bill collect anonymous donations for his library from whoever he wants (central Asian despots can apply), let Hillary invent a 35 year resume while expunging all this silly Walmart stuff, let's forget all the stupidity that led to Bill's impeachment and the waste of a landslide election for a second term. Only Senator Obama has a prayer of winning in November. Let the Clintons go home to Arkansas, once the people of New York figure out how they've been used to set up this year's Presidential campaign. Obama 2008 is the only way ahead for progressive voters.

Posted by: karlanne1 | March 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Bush's WAR on PBS tonight. Stupidity writ large.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nom, then the GOP has some ready made attacks, thanks to his recent stumbles and HRC's attacks.

If HRC gets the nom, then much of Obama's constituency (blacks, young people, idealists) will stay home rather than vote for the hag who they think stole it from them.

My, aren't the Dems in a pickle...

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

Laughable.
Party should come together eventually...prob right after North Carolina. Repubs aren't out of the woods either. Depends on who McCain picks for VP.
Good Lord, it's only March! Lots can happen between now and Nov....I seem to remember that Dukakis was 30 points ahead of Bush in August. Politically, anything can happen in a day, a week, a month...

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama is a big problem for Hillary (and that's why the Clintons' camp is so angry and calls Bill Richardson, Judas, even if he owes absolutely nothing to Hillary).

Bill Richardson's endorsement highlights the emergence of a large White-Brown-Black coalition around Obama...

If Obama picks a hispanic VP like Richardson (who happens to be very experienced in foreign affairs), then he might get the following distribution of votes during the general election:

30% votes from young/liberal whites
+ 20% votes from hispanics
+ 15% votes from blacks

The Obama coalition could end up in a landslide for the democrats in November

That's maybe why Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. And that's maybe what many remaining uncommited superdelegates will think.

Other coalitions are also possible around Obama (with a woman as VP for exemple). Superdelegates will certainly consider all the possibilities of coalitions as well as the elected delegates when choosing who to endorse. Obama seems favorite.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

The typical black person finds the postings of svreader to be nothing more than a frustrated, lonely old man, with no life complaining to his cats about having to live in his mother's basement because he was never promoted from Wal-Mart greeter.

Think about the use of the word typical and you might understand what he was saying...but then again that's all you have to hang your sock on.

Posted by: brian | March 24, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

If, as you suggest, the Super Delegates override the will of a majority of Democratic primary voters and appoint Hillary Clinton as the party's presidential nominee, I am one registered Democrat that will quit the party and either not vote in November or bite my tongue and vote for McCain. I suspect there are many, many Democrats who would react the same way, not to mention the possibility of a more forceful reaction by millions of Americans, black and white, who already sick of the Clintons' blatant use of the race card.

Posted by: Ozexpatriate | March 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

svreader and willygoo, here's the problem...

If Obama gets the nom, then the GOP has some ready made attacks, thanks to his recent stumbles and HRC's attacks.

If HRC gets the nom, then much of Obama's constituency (blacks, young people, idealists) will stay home rather than vote for the hag who they think stole it from them.

My, aren't the Dems in a pickle...

Posted by: JD | March 24, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is leading in Pennsylvania by 26 points. Clinton could potentially blow Obama out of the water. She has the momentum with the voters on the ground. Obama is only now getting the scrutiny he deserved back in January. If he had been properly vetted, Clinton would already have won this nomination long ago. It is odd that Richardson should step in the minute Obama's campaign hits the rocks, and claim Clinton should drop out. Dukakis didn't clinch the '88 nomination till June. Neither did Bill Clinton in '92. It's not even April yet. People need to look beyond Obama's own words, and investigate his history with folks like Rezko, Wright and Emil Jones. Clinton cannot run the kind of campaign that the Republicans can. There is enough fodder in Obama's closet to make Rush Limbaugh's radio show air day and night for months on end.

Richardson claims the superdelegates should vote the way their voters did, but throws his own superdelegate vote, not for Clinton who won his state, but for Obama? (The same for Kerry and Kennedy in Massachusetts.) Go figure.

Posted by: howdy999 | March 24, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

What is White America Afraid Of?

My question is.....what is White America afraid of?

I myself, being raised in a white family have wondered that question since I have been old enough to think.....What is the white man afraid of if a black man is in power? Why does the white man feel that the only way he can justify themselves is by oppression?....I.E. police brutality, discrimination in the workforce, laws that target one specific ethnic grp, ideas and concepts of fear floated to the public, and alot more, these are just a few examples.Watching this election and the reaction of some bloggers and ppl in general....I always come back to what is white America afraid of? There has to be some type of fear of something happening to them.....that is the question I would like to know.....Is white America afraid that if a black man is in power that we will make slaves out of them? That they will no longer be thought of as supreme? and if so, why would you desire that anyway?

So, again my question is........What is white America afraid of if a black man is in power?The floor is open.....I really do desire to know!!

Posted by: Hheeaatt | March 24, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Electability.

Last month:
McCain - raised 10 million.
Hillary - raised 30 million.
Obama - raised 50 million.

You do the math.

==
After I heard Obama's new Rev sort of rap (he rapped not preached) the sermon yesterday, I wonder how much of that money is coming from church donations.
The church's new "Rapping Rev," asked the congregation for a special offering, but he couldn't mention what he was going to do with it because the sermon was being streamed.

Posted by: badger3 | March 24, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Richardson was the guy who was running Dept of Energy when a bunch of files went missing from their Nat'l Lab, including a hard drive filled with classified data.

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

And......????

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

It was not Bill Richardson. It was former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 08:43 PM

Yeah, Richardson was the guy who was running Dept of Energy when a bunch of files went missing from their Nat'l Lab, including a hard drive filled with classified data.

Posted by: JD | March 24, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

WPost 4112 I am beginning to suspect that your support for one candidate running no deeper than the color of his skin.

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

You must be new to the party.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

...Richardson? Isn't he the guy that got caught stealing records from the National Archives. ...
Posted by: willygoo46 | March 24, 2008 08:39 PM
______________________________________

It was not Bill Richardson. It was former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

If only some important super delegates would wake up and save the democratic party from Obama. Richardson? Isn't he the guy that got caught stealing records from the National Archives. Obama wil do anything to win the nomination, sell out his religion, his kids, his grand mother. He has sikened me with his lies these past few weeks, sickened me more because I believed in him - Change we can believe in. He is a fraud. As I lifeling democrat I am devasted as to te mess he has got us into.

Posted by: willygoo46 | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

If only some important super delegates would wake up and save the democratic party from Obama. Richardson? Isn't he the guy that got caught stealing records from the National Archives. Obama wil do anything to win the nomination, sell out his religion, his kids, his grand mother. He has sikened me with his lies these past few weeks, sickened me more because I believed in him - Change we can believe in. He is a fraud. As I lifeling democrat I am devasted as to te mess he has got us into.

Posted by: willygoo46 | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

If only some important super delegates would wake up and save the democratic party from Obama. Richardson? Isn't he the guy hat got caught stealing records from the National Archives. Obama wil do anything to win the nomination, sell out his religion, his kids, his grand mother. He has sikened me with his lies these past few weeks, sickened me more because I believed in him - Change we can believe in. He is a fraud. As I lifeling democrat I am devasted as to te mess he has got us into.

Posted by: willygoo46 | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

There's no way Obama can escape his "typical white person" comment.

It came out his own lips.

It shows what's in his heart.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans would loop his "typical white person" quote over and over and over.

And it would be over for Democrats.

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

LOL. Hardly.
Dems/Indies/Repubs will vote for Obama in droves.
He got a very important endorsement by a leading Republican conservative constitutional law dean who worked for Reagan and Bush I. Catholic too.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/24/conservative_lawyer_endorses_obama/7349/

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary knows she cannot win the nomination in 2008. Her campaign is geared to destroying Obama so he loses to McCain in the general election. Then Hillary becomes the nominee in 2012.

Posted by: OscarMayer2 | March 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Miata7 writes
"the question is which candidate is stronger among the voters in the center of the political spectrum - that question has virtually nothing to do with the voters who have voted in the democratic primaries, or those who have voted in various states."

What a ridiculous contention! Of course there is relevance in whom has voted in the primary contests. When one candidate draws new voters to the primary process, that is a reasonable predictor of that candidate's ability to draw new voters to the general election. In state after state, Sen Obama has drawn more of the independent / undeclared voters than any other candidate of either party. To try to claim this has no bearing on his ability to draw the same people in the general election is preposterous.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Superdelgates are going with Obama. What a ridiculous article.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

WPost 4112

You have made several posts here demanding people back up comments with facts, charts and figures.

First, this is simply a comments section, not an essay writing contest.


Most importantly, the question is which candidate is stronger among the voters in the center of the political spectrum - that question has virtually nothing to do with the voters who have voted in the democratic primaries, or those who have voted in various states.


WPost 4112 you keep on challenging people with your posting, however you never ever come up with any facts or figures, or support or anything.


WPost 4112 I am beginning to suspect that your support for one candidate running no deeper than the color of his skin. Take that one quality off the table, and you have nothing else which causes you to support or not support anyone.


Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Another sham argument from Shillary. Polls do not consistently show her running stronger vis-a-vis McCain. Exactly, how is she more "electable"? This is just more evidence of the "say and do anything to win" Clinton campaign. She should be embarrassed but she has no shame.

Posted by: RealChoices | March 24, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Ahiggi8085 - Real thinking Americans can understand and appreciate Obama's sincere thinking. How can you argue that Clinton cares about average Americans? She's getting a free ride on her lies about NAFTA - how she was out there ACTIVELY SUPPORTING IT ON BEHALF OF BILL "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN" CLINTON. But at least she was caught RED HANDED with that idiotic lie about sniper fire in Bosnia.

Shrillary will say and do anything, and if there are any automotons gobbling this garbage spewing out of her arsehole, it's Shrillary's blind followers.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | March 24, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, repeating the Clinton talking points seems to pass as "reporting"...

Politico has it spot on. This is all just meaningless drivel to pretend it is a two horse race and keep us buying papers and watching the news...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Posted by: Boutan | March 24, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

With the slant of this story, it's clear that The Fix is trying to keep this race horse alive. Except the problem is that Obama is a world class thoroughbred and Shrillary is a classless glue horse.

Bosnian sniper fire? Good God!! Shrillary is a phuqing liar, and that's all she wrote.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | March 24, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

It's not about superdelegates, it's about the general election! If the superdelegates cannot vote with secrete ballots, they will not vote based on their conscience, and the superdelegate system will be meaningless.

Posted by: work2play | March 24, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

The thing is, Hillary can't win the November election now. She has alienated too many Democratic voters with her old-school negative campaigning against other Democrats. Her own party voters will either sit on their hands in November or vote for Nader. If she is the Democratic nominee, McCain will be the next POTUS. It's that simple.

Posted by: dlopata | March 24, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Math, pesky math: if you tally up the delegates earned thus far, divide the remaining pledged delegates and add-on superdelegates equally (which is pretty generous to Hillary), and leave the rest of the superdelegate count as is, Obama would end up with 1920 delegates and Hillary with 1800 votes.

So Obama would need ~100 of those outstanding non-add-on superdelegates, and Hillary would need ~220 of them. That's the best-realistic-case math facing the Clinton campaign. The worst-realistic-case math probably has Obama needing ~40 of the outstanding non-add-on superdelegates and Clinton ~280.

Posted by: novamatt | March 24, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Now people are starting to see Satan Obama for what he really is. Who is going to believe Obama attended a church whose sermon's words he doesn't believe in? I mean what else is he suppose to say? He has so much to hide and the media is so soft on him. I guess people don't mind if a person with negative motives for America is running this country. I mean, he's friends with America's enemies. How safe is that? His preacher said, "Damn America" and preached hatred to whites! He attended this church and I know he believes in the sermons or why attend? Well, as long as he says he doesn't believe it- then, he must be telling the truth, right? Please let's not be naive. This man is fake and does not truely care about normal Americans- he's hiding a lot of hate towards us.

Posted by: Ahiggi8085 | March 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The corpse is dead. Why cann't Hillary's supporters and the media accept that? The more they try further artificial resuscitation, the more difficult it is for the Democrats to win in November. But do the Clintons really care about that?

Munir

Posted by: Munir1 | March 24, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Q: Can the Dems win in Nov. without Florida and Michigan?

The DNC leaders must be feeling real cocky to punish these Dem voters by not counting their votes.

The DNC leadership says "they broke the rules," so must be punished. Their 3rd grade logic goes, "If we let them break the primary rules in 2008, what will happen in the 2012 primary?"

A: There will be a Republican in the White House in 2012 if the DNC believes punishing voters is a winning strategy.

Q: Name one "successful" political party that punished its voters?

A: LOL

Q: what's more important to the DNC leadership?

A.) following the DNC's wise rules

B.) keep Lady Hillary from getting more votes than the Obama-man

C.) winning an election

D.) if you have to ask, you've already lost

Posted by: mcohill | March 24, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

There is no way Obama's going to win any national election after his "typical white person" comment.

It shows what he thinks of whites, and it obvious that he doesn't think much of them.

It doesn't matter how many votes or delegates he had before.

Now that people know what's in his heart, there's no way he can win a national election.

Republicans would loop his "typical white person" quote over and over and over.

And it would be over for Democrats.


Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Penn and Wolfson still haven't gotten the message. Most of the votes in this year's real primaries and caucuses (as opposed to the beauty contest primaries in Florida and Michigan) have gone to Senator Obama. He has the most pledged delegates. He will have the most pledged delegates two months from now. Penn and Wolfson can't spin those facts away. If the elite of the Democratic Party feel that we mere voters don't count, then we need to set them aside before 2012, either by changing the delegate selection rules, or by voting the reprobates out of office. Penn and Wolfson and their ilk need to go as well (along with Carville, who displayed no class in his response to Governor Richardson's endorsement of Senator Obama - Carville should go get another Coke or two so he can treat fellow Democrats as well as he treats Bill Frist). Today's new spin was about rebaselining everything to electoral votes. Funny, I don't remember that being the criterion for selecting delegates. These folks keep changing the goal line every time they fall short. No do overs, no new criteria, Hillary Clinton needs to admit defeat and let the Democratic Party get on with the very important business of winning the election in November. Enough is enough.

Posted by: karlanne1 | March 24, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Obamabots, but the Wright issue and Obama's dishonesty concerning it hasn't gone away. And, don't assume that the remaining states will be "evenly split." Once Michigan and Florida, which represent approximately 10% of the country's population, weigh in (and they will) then we'll see who really should be the Democratic nominee. And, it won't be Obama, in spite of all you Obamabot's nastiness and negative campaigning to convince everyone that "he is the one" (to quote high priestess Oprah).

Posted by: mo897 | March 24, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to what some will say, the Wright controversy won't last until the Penn primary. The next Clinton crisis will wipe it off the slate and then we will hate Hillary, then a new Obama crisis and we will hate Obama, and so on and so on. Rev. Wright's word were terrible. But, lets be real, no preacher keeps a congregation for 36 years speaking like that every single sunday or even frequently. There is no proof that he spoke this all the time and some of what he said was quoted from statements made by others, white people included. This Wright uproar show how gullible we are. It's like the tail wagging the dog from Hillary to Obama to Hillary to Obama. The media creates this hysteria and then sits back and laugh at us jump mindless as they form our opinion for us. What happened to reporting the news and letting the viewer form their own opinion. We now wait until CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and other tell us how to feel about what we have view. I am stepping away from that and will look the candidates under a deifferent scope and see who they are minus the media slime. I have to move away from what the media is making us become. In the last 2 months we have completely devolved into hateful beings and that does neither candidate good. Our loyalties and judgement have become blinded by opinions formed from half truth and edited realities. Regardless we have facture the party so neither Dem will win in the fall and I don't fault the candidate. It is the fault their supporter. It the fault US and our behavior. Why can't we simply support one candidate without tearing at and hating the other. If we continue like this the DEM will lose in NOV no matter who the nominee is!!!!!!!

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obamas is running for president of the United States of America, not the United States & Israel.
Putting Israel's interests ahead of America's may play well to Jewish superdelegates, but will not gain any traction in the general election.
The Jewish community is accustomed to buying political favortism for Israel, but with on-line fundraising that advantage may slip.

Posted by: SoldiersMom | March 24, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obamas is running for president of the United States of America, not the United States & Israel.
Putting Israel's interests ahead of America's may play well to Jewish superdelegates, but will not gain any traction in the general election.
The Jewish community is accustomed to buying political favortism for Israel, but with on-line fundraising that advantage may slip.

Posted by: SoldiersMom | March 24, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

If the Clinton is arguing that Obama is unelectable because of the kind of church he goes to, they are very close to saying that he is unelectable because he is African American. They may be justifying their actions by claiming that the Republicans will be even worse with Obama once he is the nominee, but I did not decide to support the democrats only to see them become Republicans in order to get elected. A scandal about someone's pastor that does not involve them should not be enough to end their campaign. If voters really thought Obama was that unelectable, they would not have voted for him in so many states.

Posted by: jameshauser | March 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Actual Wolfson quote from a Klinton Konference Kall this morning that didn't make this Fix post:

Wolfson, discussing the Obama camp's calling Hillary on her bs sniper story that every news org except The Fix called bs on: "This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push 'cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate."

No, it's something to push because your candidate is a god****ed liar.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

This latest Kool Aide being passed around about Hill being the "most electable" is pretty funny. We know that the gangsters in Hill's posse: Penn, Ickes and that low-life Carville will do anything to get the nomination, but most electable? For heaven's sake! On the other hand, where can they turn in their desperation? They woke up in a cold sweat last night when they realized that if they keep goading Barack about the "patriotism" thing, he'll just deliver another epochal speech to the nation on the meaning of patriotism and there goes Hill back to the Democratic Ladies Cucumber Sandwich Forum or wherever she can still get polite applause. Barack is the most exciting politician in a generation and the supers can see that. Now that I think about it, I LIKE the idea of a Barack speech on patriotism; I like it a lot. I know one former President with a serial philandering habit who won't be enshrined in Barack's Pantheon of Patriots. Bring it on, I say, and let the supers decide the day!

Posted by: PJTramdack | March 24, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

cactusflinthead wrote:
I don't think the Wright blow-up is going to destroy Obama, it happened in March not October.
.........

Bingo.

And what an unfortunate development to the McCain campaign that this Wright issue came up in March. I'd wager this Wright bit was the knock-out punch republican strategists were hoping to keep under taps until long about mid-October. But now Obama has ever-eloquently diffused this issue which will have long dropped off of the radar screen by November.

Obama '08

Posted by: binkynh | March 24, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Well, we're back in that ironic universe where Obama supporters tell Clinton supporters to give up hope.

Obama can't win without super delegates either.

They use the "pledged delegate" argument, like that's the ONLY one that matters.

Let the people vote! Let's see what happens.

With such a close race, wouldn't we want the most information to make the best informed decision? Wouldn't you want to make such a momentous decision based on a host of factors rather than one? Why stop the process now?

I know, I know. Because this election, ALL candidates, Obama, Hillary, and McCain just care about power, not the people. So this is supposed to be different?

Still, aren't we for us? Don't we want all of our countrymen to weigh in and help us decide?

Posted by: camasca | March 24, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

For the Clinton propagandists who can not get enough fibs, you can go to this site:

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Apparently Wolfson & Penn read it every day for inspiration.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 24, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

More electable? Oh, I see, so that's why every single Republican in the country is hoping she gets the nomination.

Posted by: lioninzion | March 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, The Fix has become like one of those websites that releases the latest bin Laden message. Its intended audience is for those interested in credulous appraisals of the Clinton spin machine.

And obviously, The Fix has found those devotees. I wonder how many of these new Clintonistas that have crawled from their spiderholes are really sock puppets for fascists like leichtman or Ctrl-V mashers like svreader.

brigitte, Miata, keep SwiftBoating. Your lies, calumnies, slander, and ignorance reveal the Klinton Kalumny Kampaign for what it is - a desperate attempt to revive the politics of sleaze to serve the interests of the Narcissist-in-Chief and his selfish, Lady Macbeth-like consort.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

...oops...sorry...double post due to browser issue.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

sinesk1 wrote:

"I'm glad that I don't know a lot of you in the real world, but I am scared that you actually exist."

//

That is probably one of the best things I've heard all day. And I mean that in a good way.

It's amazing some of the things people will say without having to look you in the eye.

I'd rather look people in the eye, or at least hear their voice. Typing doesn't give you that connection, at least not for me.

Something to be said for caucuses and small-state primaries. The candidate has to look the voters in the eye. Not something you get in big media markets.

And, as for a previous post about Michigan ~ They Knew they were violating the rules, and did it anyway. Democratically.

NOT Dramatically.

You can't change the rules to suit you. It doesn't work in college basketball, and it doesn't work (for me, at least) in politics.

The rules were there, Michigan and Florida broke them, most of the candidates (including Ms. Clinton) signed onto them.

Questions? There shouldn't be. If so, look up the meaning of the words 'rule(s),' 'honor,' and 'integrity.'

Really.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 24, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

For the love of god stop putting the Obama presser as news/analysis. Clinton is 1 point back of Obama in NC. Guam Montana and South Dakota have no people or del. This is Geography OK.

That leaves Oregon as a Obama sure thing. If he can win big in NC and win IN it is over but just think before your write this crap.

see below
But with those ten elections likely to split relatively evenly between Clinton (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico) and Obama (North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, Guam and South Dakota), Democratic primary voters aren't likely to produce a definitive nominee any time soon.

Posted by: mul | March 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

All this dithering only tells me it is not a done deal. Is there any super delegate anywhere who wants to close the bidding now? I don't think so. This will drag on for quite a while. All that time, both sides will be saying "The other side ought to quit. We need unity."

Sure.

Do not pay any attention to what they say - just what they do.

Posted by: gary4books | March 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Since Hillary can't win, her campaign must spin (and spin, and spin, and spin...)

Posted by: Gipper1 | March 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Three men and three women startled the crowd during Cardinal Francis George's homily, yelling "Even the Pope calls for peace" as they were removed from the Mass by security guards and ushers."
====================

They were lucky Isaiah didn't show up:

"The multitude of your sacrifices--what are they to me?" says the LORD.... "When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me.... When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you;even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow...."

Even Jesus interrupted services to make a point. Justice is more important than ritual.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

piul05 wrote:
It's all been very quaint and fun, but the Easter holidays are over and the superdelegates should really start coming off that fence, and put an end to Senator Clinton's deplorable campaign.
..........

I agree with you completely.

The percentage of Obama supporters who currently say they wouldn't support Clinton, and vice-versa with Clinton supporters, doesn't concern me right now. I understand peoples' passion and loyalty to "their" candidate--been there when Gov. Dean was derailed and I was left with Kerry, who I like-it-or-not did get behind, for the sake of my party. So I also understand people do get over the loss of their candidate and, given some time, for the very most part support their party.

But people need a little time to get over their hurt, and asking people to begin their healing at such a late date as August might be asking a lot.

At what date the Clintons finally decide to "throw in the towel" will be the real indication of who they love more--themselves, or the Democratic party and the country.

Posted by: binkynh | March 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The pile of compost the Obama campaign is handing out has its nauseating smell reaching high heavens, and I doubt many people are smelling the ammonia and calling it perfume du jour anymore. Simple fact of the matter is, Obama and Clinton are tied neck in neck in pledged delegates, with ~ 100 delegate difference. Not only that, neither candidate has reached the magic number to claim the nomination, therefore the current push by the Clinton AND Obama about the electibility issue.

2 months ago Obama was running on the electibility issue. He claims that he is more electible than Clinton, he will win over more Independent votes, and that his experience factor should not be taken into account because of that. After Super Tuesday when he lost overall on the amount of delegates he can garner, he again reiterated on the electibility issue. NOW when he has more delegates, he is arguing that the SuperDelegates should vote for him because of his marginal gain in delegates. Hippocrite much?

How electible is Obama now with his Wright episode? Not very electible anymore. If you can disgust a section of Liberal Democrats on the Wright issue, you can bet that you will disgust the entire GOP AND a majority of Independent voters out there. He has argued that with his candidacy, he will bring healing to the nation and therefore will be more electible come November. He now has blown that cover with the Wright episode, and has fractured the Democratic party into pieces. Come Pennsylvanna that fairytale lie will rest in a shallow grave dug by his own campaign.

Remember how months ago Obama was arguing that his electibility will bring him SuperDelegates? That SuperDelegates should be voting for him because he is more electible? That SuperDelegates should not be automatically defaulting to Clinton because of name recognition and more pledged delegates? NOW he is singing a completely different tune. NOW he is claiming that since he has more pledged delegate, ALL superdelegate vote should go for him or else "it violates the will of the people". Isn't that convenient! Nevermind Obama's margin of delegate is marginal, nevermind that after the Wright Scandal you will not win in the ensuing 10 primary states in such a way that will lock the nomination, never mind that you may actually LOSE MANY of those states. You want to lock the nomination RIGHT NOW, you want to lock OUT Michigan and Florida, and you want Clinton to just lie down and die. Good thing the Clintons don't die very well, or else my party affiliation would switch from Democrat to Independent very very quickly and I would be voting for John McCain.

You ask, why would anyone within the Democratic party vote for John McCain? First, it would be the same reason as why Obama supporters would vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton wins. Can we expect Obama supporters to behave like Democrats come November if Hillary Clinton wins? Nope, we can expect them to vote for John McCain. How do I know, you ask. Simple - look at the vitriol Obama supporters have been spewing about the Clintons. Clinton has character flaws, Clinton is playing dirty politics, Clinton is slinging mud, Clinton is disenfranchising voters, Clinton is playing Michigan and Florida because she is a sore loser, Clinton does not represent America, Clinton was the past, Clinton is lying about her record as much as Bill Clinton was lying about Monica Lewinsky, etc etc etc. Hell, Obama supporters will believe that HRC prayed to Satan to throw some tornadoes around so she can win the election. In face of such ignorance, of such pettiness, of such ingrateful Democrats who FORGOT that it was Bill Clinton who brought the dead Democratic Party back to life in the 1990s, there is no hope for the party itself. It is one thing to not like a candidate. It is quite another matter on spewing vitriol, hate, ignorance, etc and fracturing the Democratic party itself. Come November, the Democratic party will learn that this primary is the most divisive primary in the history of the USA, and it will cost the party the White House.

Second, John McCain has distinguished himself with his services to the country. Does he have flaws? Absolutely. Do I agree with all the issues he is espousing? Absolutely not. I do know these though: he has served his country, he has suffered for his country, he has an impressive legislative record, he has bucked his own party on issues he deems important to the American People, he has crossed the aisle to negotiate with Democrats in good faith in the past, he does not pontificate from his pulpit, he has gone through the worst of politics and survived (Karl Rove), and I believe he has the USA at his heart. He does not do anything politically expedient to further himself for the past 20+ years, and the reason why he is running for President is because his desire to make the country a better place. He is a good candidate. Compared to Obama, McCain is a candidate ready to lead. Obama is some fresh face in Washington who got over his head thinking he is the Comingof Messiah in the USA. I want a President in the office, not a megalomaniac.

Third, Obama has no chance against McCain. McCain has as much record as Obama has hot air. Obama has never tried passing any legislations of his own, has never lead in any significant manner in drafting, creating, negotiating, fighting any bills within the Senate. Obama, because it was politically expedient, shunned his work in the Senate to run for Presidency with an impressive 1 year record within the US Senate and 8 years within the Illinois State Senate. He didn't even "slay a dragon", and he presumes himself a good candidate. McCain has passed legislation regulating Campaign Financing, has championed a VERY unpopular bill in the GOP for latinos on the issue of illegal immigration, and has voted consistently against Bush on the issue of Guantanamo and torture just to name a few. Obama has nothing. Reagan Democrats, Independents, and even Liberal Democrats are drawn by McCain's sincerity, and that is why come November Obama doesn't have a chance. You think FOXNEWS is done digging Obama's dirt? Its only what, 2-3 months since SuperTuesday and Obama already has so many dirty laundry? It will be worse come November

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | March 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, what happened to the passport "scandal"? Why did all of you stop covering the story the second we found out it was Obama's guy behind the breaches?

Posted by: bobmoses | March 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

sinesk1:

"I'm glad that I don't know a lot of you in the real world, but I am scared that you actually exist."

...is probably one of the best things I've heard all day. And I mean that in a good way.

It's amazing some of the things people will say without having to look you in the eye.

I'd rather look people in the eye, or at least hear their voice. Typing doesn't give you that connection, at least not for me.

Something to be said for caucuses, and small-state primaries. The candidate has to look them in the eye. Not something you get in big states like NY or CA.

And, as for a previous post about Michigan. Spot on. They Knew they were violating the rules, and did it anyway. Democratically.

NOT Dramatically.

You can't change the rules to suit you. It doesn't work in college basketball, and it doesn't work (for me, at least) in politics.

The rules were there, they broke them, most of the candidates signed onto them.

Period.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 24, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Where in the hell were these fools in 2000.

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

Gore ran a poor campaign and the Clintons were busy getting donors for her Senate run.

And many WERE too young.

Obama is the most inspiring candidate we have seen in years. And will continue to be for many years to come.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton started out with a huge lead in money, organization, name recognition (for better or worse), infrastructure, party support and enough high priced advisors to pay down the national debt and yet she trails in every category; delegates, states won, votes gotten, contributions, polls.

She has no one to blame but herself for the failing of her campaign. It's time to bow out gracefully. (as if she or Bill ever did anything gracefully) It's time to learn gracefulness.

Posted by: cfeher | March 24, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

. WHY IS OBAMA AFRAID OF REVOTE IN MICHIGAN after the republicans already voted. HILLARY IS THE TRUE FOUNDATION OR BACKBONE OF THE DNC.

Everyone watch the republicans turn against obama in the upcoming states other than PA. OBAMA IS DONE!!! the media have turn the republicans against obama. THEY NOW WANT HIM OUT. THEY VOTED INTITIALY TO GET RID OF HILLARY BUT THEY NOW REALIZE IT IS A BIG MISTAKE, the press has been hit by obama voodoo for anything to happen. INSTEAD THEY WANT HILLARY AGAINST MCCAIN.

WATCH OBAMA POLITICAL OBITUARY IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS

Posted by: hb357 | March 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow, lots of long winded comments today. I can see there are some who I will have to add to the ignore list.

I don't think the Wright blow-up is going to destroy Obama, it happened in March not October. The electablility factor is not in Hillary's favor IMO, particularly in my neck of the woods. If she is trying to win over the superdelegates then she is losing that battle as well.

The math is that without a superdelegate coup she is not going to win the nomination. Hillary should drop it and give CC a chance to review some of the rest of the races out there.

Posted by: cactusflinthead | March 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

News Flash--- Obama CANNOT win without Superdelegates either. If the media had acutely reported responsively... Obama would have been out long ago!!

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

Newes Flash: the media has been reporting this quite accurately. We know that the Dem nomination depends upon the superdelegates, for either candidate.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash! But Obama has more actual votes from people all over this country, and more elected delegates, and Clinton cannot change that at this point. Just like with Mondale, the superdelegates are there to push over the candidate who has clearly won on the votes, but still hasn't made it to the total. They are not there to OVERTURN the vote. To go that way runs the real risk of destroying the party.

Posted by: david.nielsen | March 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I have one big question for Obanites. I read your post bragging about all those new first time voters he has gained. Buckets full, I hear.

Where in the hell were these fools in 2000. Had they voted then we would not be talking about the war or recession or high gas prices or lots of other things. We did not need many. Again where were you in 2000. Don't try to tell me they were to young. The percentage of young compared to older voters is small.

Do you think they can stay focused until Nov? I would hate to bank on it.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 24, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

News Flash--- Obama CANNOT win without Superdelegates either. If the media had acutely reported responsively... Obama would have been out long ago!!

Posted by: glamourchild1 | March 24, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It's all been very quaint and fun, but the Easter holidays are over and the superdelegates should really start coming off that fence, and put an end to Senator Clinton's deplorable campaign.

Unless they think it's within the boudaries of acceptable behavior being called irrelevant/traitor, or being misspoken to.

Posted by: piul05 | March 24, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

These are the people that give Dems a bad name:

"Iraq war protesters disrupt Chicago Mass

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

Who said they were Dems?

Frankly, I don't think God was at all perturbed. The only thing that bothered me was the fake blood possibly scaring the children. As a former Chicago Jesuit, I know many Catholics have been murdered and imprisoned protesting unjust wars. It is a Catholic's duty to follow their conscience and protest all injustices...and awaken consciences...but I suspect they were preaching to at least half the choir in the cathedral.

Much is forgiven the young.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The problem for Hillary in both the primaries and the general, has always been her high negative ratings. About 50 percent don't like her and that has not changed at all in over a year of campaigning, and barring some kind of miracle, isn't likely to change for the general. Therefore, Hillary can win, but barely (remember Bill needed Ross Perot in '92, and candidate Dole in '96, because he couldn't muster a majority in the general either). She can't win a mandate or win convincingly and will be forever hobbled (not to mention Bill being back in the WH and all the drama that will ensue due to that!).

The promise and upside of Obama was his low negatives, and his natural political talents that can sway people and drive up his positives like no other candidate left in this race. That is still true, although his negatives are being driven up by the Wright controversy, and the continual hammering by Clinton campaign. The fact that Democrats are participating in driving up his negatives is why many in the party feel it is playing with fire and imposing self-inflicted damage (Hillary has been and remains "damaged goods"; Obama hasn't had to agressively go negative because of this fact).

Both can still be elected in the general. But she is a woman married to Bill (raising issues not only of scandal but of dynasty), and he is a black man trying to become President!!

But the critical background to this story will be whether the superdelegates choose to overturn the pledged (i.e., elected delegates). And on this factor, I believe they would destroy the party. Mainly because if the superdelegates will overturn the elected delegates, then why have elections? If the party is going to take such actions they would be better off just stating up front that they will do a few polls and then have the superdelegates make the decision based on their political instincts and calculations. Of course, that would destroy the party. But the problem is even more precarious, because even if the superdelegates were to take this risk based on Clinton's superior "electability" in the general, this action alone might tip the balance away from the Dems because I believe a significant number of the folks that Obama has drawn into the process, such as youth and independents, but also the longstanding and most loyal core group of African Americans, are likely to stay home in disgust with the party.

As for some of the other comments, they are insane. There is no way that CA, NY, MA and probably NJ are going to go Repub just because of Obama being the nominee. Does anybody really believe after hearing and seeing Obama campaign for a year that he will not run circles around McCain? He is right on the policies, he is right with the rhetoric, and he is the right age. By November, the American voter will have a clear choice and for their own economic and health care interests, not to mention the war, foreign policy and global warming, they will still be inclined to reject the Bush/McCain path to ruin.

But one can never underestimate the ability of Dems to self-destruct. They better straighten this out quickly, or it could indeed end badly.

Posted by: david.nielsen | March 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I somewhat disagree with Chris on his basic premise. It is not all about the superdelegates. The only way that it will be left up to them is if Obama and Clinton are in some kind of virtual tie after all the primaries are done. That seems very unlikely, given Obama's current lead. In a way Chris is right because the supers are Hillary's only possible avanue to the nomination. Her strategy in the last month seems to be a scorched earth policy where she tries to get enough people to actually FEAR Barack Obama that she not only wins states and delegates, but the supers will be AFRAID to vote for him. Believe me, the Supers want no part of overturning the decision of the pledged delegates. Once this thing with Rev. Wright is over and Obama has a few more wins under his belt, Hillary will mercifully conceed defeat.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | March 24, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Well for starters, I hear from the Obama camp that Michigan and Florida can't vote because of DNC rules. So their voice can be muzzled because the party rules say so.

Well, superdelegates being able to decide on their own is a DNC rule as well, so I take it Obama supporters are O.K. with superdelegates deciding the outcome, after all, rules are rules.

I personally think that if Obama has the popular vote and the pledged delegates he should get the nomination.

However, Michigan and Florida should be included, they are too big not to include. Who in their right mind can ignore those two key states? It's ridiculous. The people who shot down the revotes are just interested in their own power, not what's best for the party and the country. After all, they'd just re-vote, so the best candidate can still win them.

If Hillary were to get the popular vote, and Obama the pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should get to make the call.

Then a whole host of deciding factors should come into play. Like who is ahead in key battle ground states, demographics, etc.

Posted by: camasca | March 24, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

For the electability argument to be valid, we have to ask, what group(s) that voted for Clinton wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the nominee and likewise, what group(s) that voted for Obama wouldn't vote for Clinton if she were the nominee. Otherwise there's no net change in results.

Based on all the exit polls, it seems to me as if Clinton is getting the base of her support from more "traditional" Democratic demographic groups, while Obama also has a significant amount of support from younger voters and independents. I'd argue that most of Clinton's supporters would still vote Democratic if Obama were nominated, but that most of Obama's independents would go to McCain while most of his younger voters would stay home if Clinton were nominated. It seems to me as though electabiity works against Clinton, not for her.

Posted by: glowing_plasma | March 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The vindication that comes with being right is as painful as it is sweet. After the Clinton no-show on Feb 5th and the next couple of losses. I started seeing comments and articles trying to justify why the 'superdelegates' will go with Clinton, not Obama. It almost creeps me out that Rev Wright came out while Clinton was flailing. Now the argument that she is more electable will allow the 'super delegates' to subvert the popular vote. Although, the delegates awarded do not always match with the popular vote. Texas is the best example Obama - less votes more delegates; Clinton - more votes less delegates

Posted by: parnum | March 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

If we'd known Hillary was lying about her experience,as she did about Bosnia, and NAFTA and Ireland, would she still be in the race AT ALL?

Today we are presented with two new theories put out by Penn and Ickes about why Hillary is more electable. Honest to God, its enuf to make your head explode, and its being reported as if these are just usual, realistic, normal ways of determining who should be the party's candidate. One has something to do with Hillary having won more electoral votes (except they don't count in primaries) and another theory about holding a "Superdelegate Primary."

Someone please give her a towel so she can throw it in!!

Posted by: smeesq | March 24, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

are you really trying to twist what has been up to now and continues to be the one issue that really pigeon holes clinton, YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT DISINFRANCHISEMENT, wow, Hillary wants to wave away the will of the people to steal this race, even with how florida and michigan turned out hillary would of still lost, and you want to talk about disinfranchisement, god, that is rediculous, do you really want HILLARY TO WIN SO BAD THAT YOU DO NOT CARE IF SHE DESTROYS THE PARTY, obviously ur alegiance to Clinton, has bliinded you to what she is doing, she will never be elected, me and so many democrats that I know, can not stand that political slimy, slippery politican, I would rather see another 4 years of Republican rule, than have her as president her constant track of discontorting the truth, twisting it every way she saw fit, stabbing so many in the back with her political opportunism, disgusts me, and if she somehow does win the primaries she will never in her life become president, every poll you see has McCain up on Hillary, and every poll you will see will have that.

Posted by: breww21 | March 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

LylePink writes, "The important thing to remember is states supporting Obama are almost sure to go Repub in the GE."

Another important thing about the states Obama won. Two-thirds of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates come from these states. Oops, the Clinton campaign was too clever to think of that when called those states unimportant and the results undemocratic (in the caucus states.) Something tells me those superdelegates will have a clear message for the Clinton campaign at the appropriate time.

Posted by: optimyst | March 24, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

One question I have is "Why have I not seen any attempt by the press or the candidates to explain that the delegate votes gained through caucuses does not necessarily reflect the popular vote in the national election. Caucus voters are a small number compared to popular vote of a state. A big problem I see is that many believe that since Barack is winning the delegate vote and the vote of the few that have already shown up at caucuses and primaries, that he should be the winner when super delegates cast their vote. Most of these people believe that the only way Hillary could win now is through some "behind the scenes" maneuvering for super delegates. That perception is very dangerous and makes it appear that only through something bordering on unethical could she win. The fact is that one of the main purposes of the super delegate system is just this, that the caucuses and primaries do not necessarily reflect the popular vote. They only reflect the vote of those who turn up to vote then. That number is small compared to a national election. This is a key message for the press to get out there to better explain, objectively, what is going on.

I believe that there must be a clear and simple explanation to show the numbers and people that showed up at caucuses and primaries, the demographics of those who did vote compared to those who will likely vote in the national election, and make the point that the super delegates need to vote with that in mind. Again, a clear and simple message. That, I believe is the way forward to a successful result for the best candidate to be elected. In my opinion, nothing is as important than to make this point. I like both candidates for different reasons and either one would be a win for me.

Posted by: GURUJOTSINGH | March 24, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad that I don't know a lot of you in the real world, but I am scared that you actually exist.

If the concept of the superdelegates was not established to overthrow the will of the people, what was it created for? I don't support the concept at all (but I also don't support political parties); nevertheless, why are Democrats complaining that something that is within their system could happen? It's irkful.

Posted by: sinesk1 | March 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Elme, saying the candidates are "virtually" tied is not the same thing as "actually" tied. You, and whomever you were quoting in that long blabberpile of nonsense, are completely and utterly foolish in your logic.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't Obama who disenfranchised Michigan voters. It was Clinton supporter and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and the leaders of the Michigan legislature who arrogantly defied the DNC's warnings that if they scheduled their primary outside the approved calendar, their delegates wouldn't be seated. They went ahead and did it anyway, believing they could use political blackmail---the threat that angry Michigan voters would defect to the Republicans in the general election--to force the DNC to back down. They failed, but the Clinton camp continues to try to use that same political blackmail argument and now tries to blame the whole fiasco on Obama. What a crock! And it's shameful for the WaPo to parrot this patently fraudulent political spin. It's Granholm's fault, pure and simple, and by extension the Clinton campaign's.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 24, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Three Myths About the Democratic Race
by Peter Daou 3/24/2008 11:26:17 MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.

FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.

While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful,"
"dishonestt," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to "win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," and "playing politics with war."

This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a "monster;" and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is "deeply flawed" and has "character issues." That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?

=====

MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.

FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.

"The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.

In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.

=====

MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."

FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.

The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.

An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.

Posted by: elme13 | March 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Really lets not kid ourselves, people that say Hillary is more electable are totally delusional, half of her supporters wish for a female president, and there is no problem with that and the other half long for the clinton years as president some how believeing if hillary is elected that you are in fact electing bill. Now besides the fact that she has stoked so much animosity in this campaign, republicans and independents by large margins do not Like hillary, for so MANY REASONS, she will NEVER BE PRESIDENT, with half the democrats hating her, and independts along with a huge majority of republicans, there is simply no way to her gaining the position as commander and chief, so keep your arguments alive, because if she does somehow steal this election"and with her cabal I do not dout it is possible" we will see another four years of Republican mismanagement.

Posted by: breww21 | March 24, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: Several posters are pointing this out by using polls that I have never heard of, but to get to my point about the states won by Obama are mostly Repub in the GE. I have even seen that Mass., [The Bluest of the Blue states] has McCain winning over Obama. The recent LIES by Obama is having an effect that The Media is not reporting, as has been their practice all along. The "Losers" are supporting Obama due to the "Envy/Jealous" Factor and most of all, by the "Clinton Haters" that are hell bent on destroying the Dem party solely by this hatred.

Posted by: lylepink | March 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Elme13's pathetic arguments in CAPITAL LETTERS = DISMISSED

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

>>>

Yes ... Unless ... Obama played the race card to fool most of the black people into voting for him.

The real question is: Without getting nearly all the black vote would Obama still be in the race?

Posted by: elme13 | March 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

These are the people that give Dems a bad name:

"Iraq war protesters disrupt Chicago Mass

Six Iraq war protesters disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium.

Three men and three women startled the crowd during Cardinal Francis George's homily, yelling "Even the Pope calls for peace" as they were removed from the Mass by security guards and ushers."

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The current superdelegate system was installed in the wake of the McGovern disaster. It was installed, along with proportional delegates to insure that such an unelectable nominee did not bring the party to such an electoral disaster again.

With that in mind, the way the superdelegates will shake out depends almost entirely on what the election polling shows at the time of the Democratic convention. If the current Obama erosion continues until then and McCain shows a strong lead and Clinton fares better, that will tell the tale of the superdelegates. They will do what they were designed to do, select a more electable candidate.

This year, though, they will be faced with a more difficult task. Can they afford to offend the most loyal voting bloc within their big tent, the black population, by ever choosing Clinton?

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The sub-line of this article on the front page of the Post says it all:

"Clinton campaign's heavy focus on electability speaks to their belief that they still have real potential to sway superdelegates."

KEY WORDS: 'Their belief' and 'sway.'

Sorry, that's not going to happen. The superdelegates aren't concerned with the Clinton's 'belief' system, nor should they be 'swayed' by it.

They are free to vote, as are we all. Swaying and belief have no part in it.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 24, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama's NEW Kind of Politics = FAIRYTALES

FAIRYTALE #1 - He will usher in a new kind of politics, get past the politics of division; "a uniter not a divider" .... uh huh, yeah riiiiigt... but ... in the real world, as the Right Wing Repub Smear Machine has already begun to demonstrate it takes TWO to tango and the Right Wing Repubs are going to be just as negative and nasty to him as they have been to the Clintons all these years.

Ok.... WHERE IS IT? I haven't seen him DO any kind of "NEW" Politics. All he's done is the same old negative campaigning, name-calling, and personal attacks .... AFTER .... FIRST... proclaiming he wouldn't do negative campaigning .... and bragging about being .... better than that, above it all. He's continued with the same ol dirty politics ever since .... while periodically PROCLAIMING that he's not doing dirty politics ... and bragging that he's abvoe it all.

"New Kind of Politics" = NON-ISSUE. DISMISSED.

FAIRYTALE #2: Its about JUDGMENT (& His Judgment is best): "Hillary voted to INVADE Iraq". "She was in favor of the war". .... uh, Noooo, she voted to use MILITARY FORCE, if necessary, to find out if Saddam had WMD's, or Not. Quoting Obama: "I don't know how I would have voted if I had been in the Senate."

Welllll .... IF it was a Vote to INVADE Iraq ... and ... he was opposed to invading Iraq ... how come... he doesn't know how he would have voted?

Answer: Because HE KNOWS it WAS NOT a Vote to Invade Iraq. Having said that he doesn't know how he would have voted -THAT- should have been the END of that: NOT Entitled to Criticize Clinton for her Vote. He is using the very same negative distortion and smear campaigning that he so hypocritically denounces.
"HIS JUDGMENT is best = NON-Issue. DISMISSED.

FAIRYTALE #3: "I'm not the black candidate". Yes. He is the black candidate. He MADE HIMSELF the black candidate WHEN he FALSELY (& ridiculously) accused the Clintons of racism - in order to win the South Carolina Primary. He CONTINUED to make himself the black candidate by making MORE false accusations of racism ... everytime ... he got behind in the the polls.
RACISM= NON-ISSUE. DISMISSED.

FAIRYTALE #4: Clinton is the Establishment Candidate. Clinton is in league with the Big Corporations that have too much control over our government.

Clinton voted AGAINST the Dick Cheney Energy Bill of 2005 (H.R.6). Obama voted FOR it. GE (2nd Largest Corporation on earth), Excelon Corp of Illinois, Entergy, along with 3 consortiums of other corporations - want to build 29 new nuclear power plants.

For the past 30 years the banks would not loan them money to build nukes - too risky....until The Cheney Energy Bill ENABLED them to proceed with their plans ... by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke loans that go into default. (With the Risk of Default Rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater.)

p.s. the BOP-N (the "boppin" B.arack O.bama P.ropaganda N.etworks)-(Formerly known as NBC/MSNBC) ... are owned by GE ... just in case you were wondering WHY MSNBC/NBC were transformed (last fall) into foaming at the mouth rabid Obama PUSHERS. OBAMA = The Establishment Candidate.

FAIRYTALE #5: Its about the future, turn the page. Nope. Its about TURNING THE PAGE ...BACK... to the PAST
building CENTRALIZED Monopoly Nuke Power Plants - with thousands of tons more nuke waste; with all existing nuke waste dumps CLOSED; nuke waste stored ONSITE providing terrorists with DIRTY BOMB nuke TARGETS all over the country .... instead OF Proceeding to the FUTURE with CLEAN, Renewable, DE-Centralized, CHEAPER Energy.


FAIRYTALE #6: Better Foreign Policy: Electing Obama will "send a message" to the rest of the world ... enhancing America's "image" ... as a new kind of country ... ready to get along ... and do things differently.

Wanna put the rest of the world on notice that U.S. Foreign Policy will very likely be just as insane, or insaner, than Bush/Cheney's ... and ... put Russia on an even more nervous HAIR TRIGGER than they are now? .... just elect Obama and that's what would happen ....Because .... Zbigniew Brezinski is an Obama Foreign Policy Advisor.

Zbig used Billions of $$ and the CIA to gin up a War in Afghanistan between the Russians and the Taliban/Al Queda
(because he rabidly hates Russia). He CREATED the Taliban/Al Queda/ JIHAD Muslim TERRORIST "movement". He supported Pol Pot ... who massacred MILLIONS of innocent Cambodian Villagers. Asked if he had any REGRETS about creating the JIHADI'S, or supporting Pol Pot; given the benefit of hindsight does he wish he would he have done anything differently. Zbig's answers: No. No Regrets. Wish he'd done anything differently? No, Zbigniew is satisfied with the results.

Elect a man President on the basis of such FAIRYTALES --- NIGHTMARES are likely to follow.

Posted by: elme13 | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure what the problem is with the Clinton strategy, as described by CC. Arm twisting, promises, pretty-pleases, personal phone calls/visits and the like are all perfectly fine, given the way the DNC has set this process up. At the end of the day (well, end of the convention), all that matters is that someone gets at least a total of pledged and super delegates equal to or greater than 2,024. By design, the DNC has basically put the supers up for sale. I doubt that Obama has been ignoring the supers. I'm sure both candidates are talkin possible future possitions with them. But remember, the folks that designed the process that gave you the "super" problem (which disregards the will of the people) and the MI/FL issue (which disregards the will of the people) are the ones that are probably going to be devising your healthcare.

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

you're supposed to be ignoring moonbats, SFB.

Once again, Ace McNumbnuts shows no self-restraint, the mark of a child.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 24, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, i know that Pope John Paul II declared that opposition to the state of Israel is a sin.

It's a very complex matter, esp since Israelis want to maintain a dominant number of Jews thus weakening the notion of democracy, and there is internal strife about the Palestinians, esp the settlements. Much is orthodox vs reformed vs secular.

Beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

Way to spread complete b.s. to the rest of the readers here.

Please tell me exactly how California, New York, Massachusetts or New Jersey is supposedly supposed to go to McCain if Obama is the nominee. After all, recent polls in New York and California, the two states you mention, have Obama up by around 15% over McCain, even in the midst of Clinton and McCain piling on Obama.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

LOUD and DUMB, where have you been? The IQ of the blog has been stratospheric since you and drindl are missing. Patrick did his best to drag it down, but he is an amatuer compared to you poltroons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

'I did dodged bullets, at that place, Bosina.' Hillary Clinton
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Bill Clinton

Should she now disown Bill Clinton, as his influence on her is evident. If Barack is influenced by his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright surely Hillary is influence by her 30 plus year relationship with Bill. Hmmmm.

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | March 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

'I did dodged bullets, at that place, Bosina.' Hillary Clinton
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Bill Clinton

Should she now disown Bill Clinton, as his influence on her is evident. If Barack is influenced by his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright surely Hillary is influence by her 30 plus year relationship with Bill. Hmmmm.

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | March 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

'I did dodged bullets, at that place, Bosina.' Hillary Clinton
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Bill Clinton

Should she now disown Bill Clinton, as his influence on her is evident. If Barack is influenced by his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright surely Hillary is influence by her 30 plus year relationship with Bill. Hmmmm.

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | March 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

maybe, just maybe Hillary is just as electable - I don't think so, though, because everyone forgets about this hard core group of Independents and Republicans that would rather do anything but vote for another Clinton or Hillary in particular.

Start 'em even, give them an even race, and this is what makes the difference to me.

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

'I did dodged bullets, at that place, Bosina.' Hillary Clinton
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Bill Clinton

Should she now disown Bill Clinton, as his influence on her is evident. If Barack is influenced by his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright surely Hillary is influence by her 30 plus year relationship with Bill. Hmmmm.

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | March 24, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I listened to Wolfson/Singer on POTUS '08 and what they spent most of their time doing was complaining about a retired general who compared WJC to Joe McCarthy and about an IA blogger. It sounded like insipid high school student council politics to me. I turned it off and missed the argument that Ds will vote R in the Fall, which is so much more persuasive :-)

Meanwhile, McC visited with Gordon Brown. He had a better week, I think, despite the business about Iran and AQIA.
---------------------------------
Anti-Israel pro-Palestinian politics has been preached from mainstream Protestant pulpits for years now. This is another discomfort I have with the left - its insistence that Israel = South African Apartheid. It is obvious that Israel has not kept its side of the street clean - It still builds and does not dismantle settlements in the West Bank, a classic gratuitously stupid idea. But Israel remains one of the few places where Arab citizens of the female persuasion can get an education and have the vote.

I think the WJC and GWB Administrations were both too soft on Israel. But I do not think there is moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel and Apartheid, either.

Most mainstream Protestants are rejecting "divestment" despite their church's positions, as I understand them.

Any knowledgeable comments are welcome!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Most of the states Hillary has won will stay Dem only if she is the nominee.

---------------
Nope. No evidence for this at all.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no "Jewish problem," however much proudtobeGod throws out the religion card.

And McPeak was right. Slick Willy played the McCarthy card by impugning Obama's patriotism.

I love how she defends the Clintons so much. A closet Clintonista?? or just a Hannity clone?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Miata7: The important thing to remember is states supporting Obama are almost sure to go Repub in the GE. Most of the states Hillary has won will stay Dem only if she is the nominee. The biggest of these are NY and Ca. where some are thinking Obama will lose despite the overwhelming support of the Dem party in recent elections. This is something I had not seen until this past week or so when the LIES by Obama have been pointed out for the first time. My early "Feeling" about this guy as to him being not something he claims to be, is now supported by recent information clearly showing how bad/wrong he is for our country, has been proven accurate.

Posted by: lylepink | March 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

McPeak's comments are worse than McCarthyism. They reflect the views of Reverend Wright and other Obama advisers who believe that Israel is just a problem to be solved, not an ally to support.

"I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it," McPeak said.

And last month McPeak had to retract his statement that as president, Obama would not be reduced to "crying fits" like Mrs. Clinton.

Well, it is likely that Obama will soon be having to retract Merrill McPeak. McPeak, who was arrested last year for driving under the influence, apparently has a problem controlling more than his thirst for fermented beverages. He also has a penchant for bashing Israel or, more particularly, Jews who oppose negotiating with terrorists.


Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants.

But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12937#


Obama stood right next to McPeak while he was calling Clinton McCarthy. He stood right next to him and silently, tacitly, gave approval of every word his "surrogate" uttered. Sound familiar?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe Superdelegates must chose the nominee they believe can win back the White House and not based on the will of people?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1935

.

Posted by: PollM | March 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

proud is probably the only Forward reader in North Dakota (or South, for that matter).

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS,

jkallen001 is right.
Whether true or not, you come off as an HRC brown noser b/c that "disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida" quote from Wolfson could easily be taken out of context.

You really need to provide substance from both sides of an argument, THEN proceed to disect it. I know this is an op-ed, but more people take this stuff in as fact or actual news. Don't just "try harder next time," rise above.

Posted by: 1142739192 | March 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

So much for unfiltered democracy.

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

America has never been about unfettered democracy. Ever.
It's an empty argument.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

It's all about Superdelegates for the entire Democrat Party, not just Hillary.

Sound undemocratic? It is!

The 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries.

This from the party that litigated to "make every vote count" in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.

Democratic Party reforms in 1982 gave super-delegates about 20% of convention votes -- so that party greybeards can stop a popular, but politically extreme, candidate from seizing the nomination.

The Dems deliberately rejiggered their party's rules to head off insurgent candidates, like a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter, who might be crushed in the general election.

Unelected delegates thus have more than twice the votes of the richest state prize, California.

So much for unfiltered democracy.

In truth, the Democratic Party runs by rules that are the epitome of the smoke-filled room and ensure, in essence, that congressional incumbents exercise a veto power over the nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631654451858227.html?mod=rss_opinion_main


Gotta love those forward thinking dems.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 24, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to say, sorry about Georgetown, Chris -- although, in full disclosure, I am a GW alumnus.

Posted by: andrewgerst | March 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

When has Rev. Wright ever been anyone's foreign policy adviser?

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Heckuva foriegn policy advisor, that Rev.

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

More bother and blow from proudtobeGod.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton appears "more electable" at this point in time, it is ONLY because we haven't seen her INCOME TAXES yet. The Clintons are a wholly owned subsidiary of some pretty creepy power brokers and they've just managed to delay making that public long enough to get Hill where she is today, hoping that once she had the nomination "sewn up" even with the ugly facts in full view, we'd all just hold our noses and vote Democrat ANYWAY.

Not this voter...

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 24, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

wpost writes, to Miata
"here's your argument: Hillary is more electable because she's more electable."
Further, he argues she's more electable in the general, despite her winning less votes in the Dem primary. Obama's winning more votes from swing voters in the primary, which seems to imply he'll do the same in the general.
For the Dems to not nominate this guy will, indeed, be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

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

but there are no facts backing up the general statements....Why is she more electable? Why is she the stronger candidate? Why will she get more votes than Obama? why is nominating Obama snatching defeat etc? What makes you think so? And since polls are out, where are you getting your info on what voters or delegates are likely to do?

Where the the facts? the reasons behind the assertions?

If you want to make an argument, give me the reasons to actually believe what you say beyond the fact that you say it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Electability.

Last month:
McCain - raised 10 million.
Hillary - raised 30 million.
Obama - raised 50 million.

You do the math.

Posted by: DonJasper | March 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

If Obama got the Rev's newsletter, he must have been aware of the church's campaign against Israel, which is itself a "dirty word" according to Wright.

Wright wrote in the newsletter's July 2005 issue:

"Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."

http://www.cmaucc.org/EMRJeremiahWright.pdf


Heckuva foriegn policy advisor, that Rev.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 24, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Sounds like Hillary made her an offer she couldn't refuse."

Sounds like Hillary is a lot like that guy that knocks on the door trying to sell me a security system during dinner and waits for me to slam the door in his face before leaving. I understand he made a sale at Binah's house.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Either candidate is a fair bet to win in the general; my only problem is that with Hillary, you'd lose young voters and lose new voters and lose black voters and suck the life out of Party believers. There would be NO coattails to pick up congressional seats, and it's quite apparent, fund-raising would suck wind. I mean it, just imagine any local Dem candidate who is NOT an incumbent if they want to have Hillary campaign for them in their state. I doubt their would be many takers.

Posted by: dburck | March 24, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS,

you and other pro-clinton biased reporters let the clinton camp get away with saying things like Obama is "for disenfranchising michigan and florido voters."

I AM SICK OF IT. he is not more responsible than he is but when its printed and talked about by the media without that caveat it only makes Obama look bad when they are both just as "responsible." in fact, ickles was a member of the DNC that voted to stip them of deligates.

get your nose our of HRC's a$$ please.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 24, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

wpost writes, to Miata
"here's your argument: Hillary is more electable because she's more electable."

Further, he argues she's more electable in the general, despite her winning less votes in the Dem primary. Obama's winning more votes from swing voters in the primary, which seems to imply he'll do the same in the general.

For the Dems to not nominate this guy will, indeed, be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

According to a new survey conducted by the Forward, a disproportionately large share of the Democratic party's super-delegates are Jewish. Many of them have declared their support for Hillary Clinton, accounting for more than 15% of her current backers.

Rachel Binah, a longtime Democratic activist from northern California, said she committed to the New York senator after some "heavy arm-twisting," which included phone calls from both Chelsea and Hillary Clinton. Binah explained her quandary a bit more bluntly.

"Anybody who had any sense wouldn't have declared, and if I were smart, I wouldn't have," Binah told the Forward. "But how can you say no to the former first lady, and potentially the first woman president, who personally talks to you for 20 minutes on the phone?"


http://www.forward.com/articles/12998/

Sounds like Hillary made her an offer she couldn't refuse.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 24, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately this will all be over in less than 3 months. Too many of my very close friends are Hillary & Barak supporters. I am ready to for us to be one group again...friends. Good luck to both camps...this has been a year.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 24, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

It is bizzarroland.
Hillary is more electable - it is pretty simple. There may be a million polls showing Obama to be a better match against McCain however those polls do not take everything into consideration. Hillary is the stronger candidate for the fall.

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

bizzarro?

here's your argument: Hillary is more electable because she's more electable.

rather weak.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon--that is an interesting take--I agree with your point about his policies--I do think they are the most pragmatic-one reason why I was supporting him; but his main focus is "change", his main strength is "change"--that is the part that is optimistic--that someone with his common sense and approach could actually be elected by our plutocratic society.

I do see the difference between the idealistic candidate and voting for idealistic reasons--it all comes down to wpost said about not self-destructing--but we are Dems--famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just a side-effect of actually trying to give people a voice and a choice. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 24, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

prigettepj writes
"The media deliberately sat on this story "

When, oh when, will the media and the vast rightwing conspiracy cut Hillary a break? Nothing ever goes her way, boo, hoo, hoo.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Who is kidding who here - I just do not care what any of the wacko polls say anymore - this primary election has been more out of bizarroland than anything I have seen or studied ever.


It is bizzarroland.


Hillary is more electable - it is pretty simple. There may be a million polls showing Obama to be a better match against McCain however those polls do not take everything into consideration. Hillary is the stronger candidate for the fall.


The Superdelegates should care about electability and impact on the ticket more than any other demographic in the country. That is why so many have been holding out - they hate Hillary, but more importantly they do not believe in Obamamania and they do not want to go with Obama because they know deep down he is too risky.


Obama is like a bubble - he is an internet stock - every event re-enforces the idea that all these wacko people were right all along - the truth is Obama is running on irrationality - the very nature of a bubble is that the irrationality stamps out all the rationality - someone tries to be rational and they just get beaten down - A bubble destroys all rationality until there is nothing but irrationality left and then it bursts.


Don't argue you all know it's true.


The thing about the nature of the bubble is that it always lasts much longer than any rational person would believe - that's because a bubble is irrational. Having said all this I don't know how long Obamamania will last - It's just that it will not last into the fall.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Who is kidding who here - I just do not care what any of the wacko polls say anymore - this primary election has been more out of bizarroland than anything I have seen or studied ever.


It is bizzarroland.


Hillary is more electable - it is pretty simple. There may be a million polls showing Obama to be a better match against McCain however those polls do not take everything into consideration. Hillary is the stronger candidate for the fall.


The Superdelegates should care about electability and impact on the ticket more than any other demographic in the country. That is why so many have been holding out - they hate Hillary, but more importantly they do not believe in Obamamania and they do not want to go with Obama because they know deep down he is too risky.


Obama is like a bubble - he is an internet stock - every event re-enforces the idea that all these wacko people were right all along - the truth is Obama is running on irrationality - the very nature of a bubble is that the irrationality stamps out all the rationality - someone tries to be rational and they just get beaten down - A bubble destroys all rationality until there is nothing but irrationality left and then it bursts.


Don't argue you all know it's true.


The thing about the nature of the bubble is that it always lasts much longer than any rational person would believe - that's because a bubble is irrational. Having said all this I don't know how long Obamamania will last - It's just that it will not last into the fall.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj,

Do you keep bringing up Wright because your candidate is done for and lacks a reason to elect her just a reason not to elect him. Let us get back into the issues and not the "Politics of Personal Destruction"...remember that one. You should ...she stated it first.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Hillary will flood the landscape with portraits and references to the 90's good times, leaving out the negatives that those memories so vibrantly revive among Republican and the neo-libertarian "independents". Her self proclaimed electability is a product of willpower and calculation, and a far remove from leadership.
I am reminded of a psychological assessment made of the candidates, where her persona and decisionmaking most closely hewed to that of "The Supervisor". God spare the Democratic Party from being led by a Supervisor, because as much as you are talking about winning one election, you are talking about who will be the Party's flag bearer and leader over the next 4 years as well; especially after having been out of power for so long. IF she were to win both primary and general, we could witness the beginning of the end and ultimate dissolution of the Democratic Party as a national political force.

Posted by: dburck | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

All this being said, I am not ready to abandon my dreams of Obama in '08--but I am finally starting to lean back to the idea of "dance with the one that brought you" and wanting the absolute best person with the best chance of beating McCain in Novemeber-

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

Seems to me that as long as the Dem party does not self-destruct, either candidate will beat McCain.
The self-destruct part is the problem...not the eventual candidate.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"While we still disagree on our support--he raised a point I cannot hide--Practical pragmatism over Idealism."

Obama is the practical pragmatic candidate in the Dem primary. Your reasons for supporting him might be idealistic, but that doesn't make him the idealism candidate, it makes you an idealistic voter - like the Nader voters.

If you look at Obama policy positions, they are far more pragmatic than Clinton policy positions.

Posted by: bsimon | March 24, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: "I remember landing [in Bosnia] under sniper fire," Clinton recounted. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Actual photo: http://www.wnd.com/images/hillarybosnia.jpg

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis,

I misposted the first time, but I'm sure you, being an Obama supporter never make mistakes. If we'd known about Wright two months ago, Obama would be history by now. The media deliberately sat on this story (which has been on the blogs for months) until he had enough of a lead to secure the nomination. Because of that, the Democrats will lose in November.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree--the focus is going to be fast moving from the public primares (I expect our "ADHD" population has fatigue already) and to the supers.

Bill Richardson was a nice touch, but forgive my cynicism, but I think it might have been an olive branch-- a way to go out gracefully and attempt to restore the "esteem" of Obama before the supers (in the visiage of Gore and Edwards) endorse HRC.

I had an interesting debate/argument/conversation with my Af-Am, HRC supporting, bro-in-law. While we still disagree on our support--he raised a point I cannot hide--Practical pragmatism over Idealism.

I have been SEVERELY disappointed with the way the Clinton campaign has handled the Obama campaign--but I do believe HRC is RIGHT on the issues, and has her focus on the things America needs to do to get past these past 8 years of neo-con h3ll. The final straw in our discussion was where I realized I was arguing in favor of Obama and voting for "what is right and ideal" in the same vein that I argued for voting for Nader in 2000 (to teach the Dems not to forsake the progressive agenda)--now I don't know how you feel, but I think I was the one (and all other Nader supporters and progressives) who got taught a lesson with 8 years of Bush.

All this being said, I am not ready to abandon my dreams of Obama in '08--but I am finally starting to lean back to the idea of "dance with the one that brought you" and wanting the absolute best person with the best chance of beating McCain in Novemeber--I don't think the Rep's will let the race/Wright thing die--and we cannot have another term of Rep's and Bush's failed policies.

such a quandry . . .

Posted by: chadibuins | March 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Occasionally I agree with you, zouk...

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Here is an interesting analysis of the new argument that primary victories are related to general election victories:

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/testing-clintons-argument-does-winning.html

They find:

"In fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states)."

Posted by: MAB4 | March 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Which is it Brigit? How far back in history do you need to go to supplant a scandal to make your candidate the greater choice?

Maybe if we knew about Clinton's Bosnia lies last year she wouldn't even be in the contest?

By the way, we did know about Wright two weeks ago. We knew about Wright back in February, but the Clinton Campaign and the right-wing of America didn't realize Obama was a real competitor until he slaughtered Clinton in eleven contests in a row, with a 17-point margin being the smallest win. That's when Clinton decided they needed to take anything they could get their hands on and try to smear Obama with it to see if it would work. It didn't, and it won't.

Facts are facts and right now and through June, Obama is leading in every measurable way. Deal with it.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary knew what was good for the party and America wouldn't she of dropped out weeks ago???

Posted by: sjxylib | March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

For clinton - it's all about subverting the will of the people.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

If we'd known about Rev Wright two months ago, wouldn't Hillary be the nominee already?

Posted by: brigittepj | March 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

If we'd known about Rev Wright two weeks ago, wouldn't Hillary have more votes than Obama?

Posted by: brigittepj | March 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary was more electable, wouldn't she have more votes than Obama?

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company