Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No Re-Vote in Michigan a Blow to Clinton

The decision Friday by the Michigan Democratic Party executive committee not to hold a of re-run of their presidential primary further complicates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) chances of catching Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the popular vote count.

For much of the last few months, Clinton's campaign has pushed hard for re-do votes in Michigan and Florida, knowing that without wins in the those two states it is extremely difficult for the New York Senator to overtake Obama in the raw totals -- where he leads by more than 790,000 votes -- before the end of the nomination process on June 3.

(The two states were stripped of their delegates by the Democratic National Committee as a punishment for moving their primary votes into January. As a result, none of the Democratic candidates actively campaigned in either state and Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot.)

In the wake of the announcement by the Michigan Democratic Party, Clinton's campaign released a statement expressing its displeasure with the decision.

"Close to 600,000 Michiganians cast ballots in January and these votes cannot be ignored," said deputy communications director Phil Singer. "We urge the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to take all necessary steps to ensure the voices of the people of Michigan are heard and its delegates are seated at the Democratic convention this summer." (Full primary results from Florida and Michigan are available after the jump.)

Singer added that more than 100,000 people have signed a petition put forth by the campaign asking that the delegates be seated.

"We urge Senator Obama to join our efforts to ensure that the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida are counted," Singer said.

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe responded Friday afternoon with a call to split the Michigan delegates down the middle and move forward. "A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.'" said Plouffe. "It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules."

The news of Michigan's decision not to re-vote comes just days after DNC Chairman Howard Dean huddled with the Florida party leaders to discuss ways to move forward. The result of that meeting?

"It is my commitment, working with the Florida delegation and the campaigns, to find a fair solution so that Florida will be seated -- and we are confident enough that we have reserved hotel rooms for the delegates from Florida in Denver," Dean said.

While many people cast that statement as a sign things were moving in the right direction, Dean offered no tangible solution. In essence, he is leaving it up to the two candidates to settle the matter -- really his only option, according to those allied with the DNC.

The Michigan decision brings the process back to square one. The DNC has long maintained that there are only two ways to resolve the Michigan and Florida problems. One is to hold re-votes, the prospects of which are extremely dim in both states now. The second is for the states to appeal to either the Rules and Bylaws Committee by June 29 or the Credentials Committee, which isn't set to meet until July -- at the earliest.

The latter option is beginning to look more and more likely, which presents a major problem for Clinton. Even Clinton's loyal allies acknowledge that she must find a way between now and June 3 to narrow her deficit to Obama in terms of both pledged delegates and raw votes.

Finding a way to make Michigan and Florida count is essential to Clinton's ability to narrow the gap. If the two states remain unresolved all the way until the convention, her path to overtaking Obama becomes much more complicated.

Florida Primary Results (Jan. 29, 2008)

Clinton 857,208 49.7%
Obama 569,041 33%
Edwards 248,604 14.4%

Total Clinton vote margin: 287,807

Michigan Primary Results (Jan. 15, 2008)

Clinton 328,151 55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762 40%

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 5, 2008; 10:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Releases Tax Returns
Next: People's Choice for McCain's VP

Comments

xlhu9oyt5dukql2p http://www.1056612.com/352198.html w96t9vb0phl

Posted by: g9bpy0nodz | April 12, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

lgabqun kqfxnrv hovdfma odmnti bokivgw qjec ithoedcqm http://www.jxvqpzwsl.blomrekpn.com

Posted by: nfkc qjasvd | April 11, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

azknbyv hpcnesk ydpqfjut qmvs dexspcauj fxmsvkglo iydjzwpuc

Posted by: vrqusblh odrhant | April 11, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

What a great strategy for depriving millions of Americans their votes in selecting a Presidential Candidate! Just plant some idiot in power in the DNC or a State Political Party, preferably a large population state, to make stupid decisions that deprive that States' voters of their Constitutional right to participate in a National Election.

Do I hear the Supreme Court Calling?

Posted by: Allan LeTourneau | April 9, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

50/50 is fair because it doesn't affect the outcome of the race. That is the point - seat the delegates but do not allow it to affect the outcome of the race, the thing that they tried to do with their illegal primary.

Why should anyone play by the rules otherwise? People who don't sign up in time to vote don't get to vote. You disenfranchised yourself because you need to play by the rules. Same thing here - MI & FL need to hold their elected officials accountable, because it's THEM that screwed them, not the DNC. Play by the rules.

Posted by: 50/50 is fair | April 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Truthful statements made by Sen. Obama:
1. I heard of Rev. Wright's unAmerican and racist sermons in 2008 when they were reported by the press.
2. I never knew of the Trinity black separtist theology.
3. My involvement with Tony Rezko was performing 5 hours of legal work for him.
4. Well, Tony Rezko was only responsible for raising a few dollars for my political campaigns, but I gave it away.
5. Alright, Tony Rezko only gave me some advice on buying a house.
6. I wrote the children's welfare legislation.
7. I authored the Senate bill to provide assistance to American families facing sub-prime foreclosures.
8. Sen. Mcain said he wants to fight the Iraqui war for 100 years. I'll end it in 2009.
9. John Kennedy paid my father's way to America from Kenya.
10. My momma and daddy met at the Selma Bridge and I was conceived. So you see I am a product of the American Civil Rights Movement.
11. Questionnaire, what questionnaire says I'm pro-gun control and for unlimited abortion. I never saw it it must have been one of the aides that filled it out.

Really truthful statements made by Sen. Obama:
1. I'll raise taxes.
2. I'll meet with terroristic heads of state and totalitarian dictators without preconditions.
3. I did know about the "inappropriate" remarks Uncle Jeremy Wright made and yes I was in the audience when he gave racist and unpatriotic sermons.
4. I had a white grandmother who worked hard to take care of me who was just like Uncle Jeremy.
5. Tony Rezko gave me a boatload of money for my campaigns & well, I kept much of it.
6. Yes, Tony Rezko, did buy the lot next to my mansion for several hundred thousand and I bought back a sliver of it to have a better drive. You see if Tony hadn't bought that lot from the folks I bought my mansion from they wouldn't sold me the house. That was a requirement of the seller, they must sell the house and lot simultaneously. I got $300.000 off the sell price of the mansion.
7. Oh, that questionnaire, well yes that is my handwriting on it but I, well, it still doesn't mean an aid didn't fill it out.

Posted by: jimc3 | April 7, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

TAINTED ELECTIONS MUST NOT BE COUNTED...if they were counted it would bring the validity of the status of any candidate who benefited from them into question...

GOING INTO THIS RACE ALL CANDIDATES KNEW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO WIN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF VOTES OR DELEGATES FROM FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.... THIS WAS CLEAR FROM LONG BEFORE THIS PRIMARY SEASON STARTED. ALL CANDIDATES AGREED! ALL!!!!

HILLARY CLINTON IS ON RECORD HAVING STATED THAT THESE ELECTIONS WOULD NOT COUNT FOR ANYTHING LONG BEFORE PRIMARY SEASON STARTED!

IF SHE WERE TO TRY TO BASE ANY RIGHT TO THE NOMINATION ON COUNTING THESE TAINTED ELECTIONS where VOTER TURNOUT WAS SUPRESSED AS EVEN HILLARY TOLD THEM THE VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT... AND CHOICE WAS SUPRESSED AS CANDIDATES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CAMPAIGN IN THOSE STATES TO WIN VOTES.

TAINTED ELECTIONS BEING COUNTED LEADS TO A TAINTED NOMINEE!!!!!

I care about the people of Michigan and Florida... who knows what would have happened had they been able to have a normal primary and full choice... some other candidates may have stayed in the race... who knows what the results would have looked like...

I agree to seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan and committed delegates 50/50 as a gesture of unity. The voters of those states should hold their leaders accountable for creating such a mess and affecting their right to have their votes count. I don't know that the superdelegates of the two states should be seated... only because if they were responsible for making their state's election to be tainted.. they should be held accountable.

I am tired of hearing the spin that Senator Obama prevented revotes... there were legal issues involved.. the legislatures didn't not find it feasible.

Let's get back to playing by the rules and if you lose the game... please be a good sport.

Posted by: lbrillante | April 7, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

It is so frustrating to keep hearing the bogus 'popular' vote numbers thrown around. There is no popular vote number only delegates. I'm from WA. We are a caucus state and our state hasn't even reported vote numbers. They just report delegates. If you wanted a back of the envelope popular count, then you would take the clinton-obama percentages for each state multiply by the number of registered democrats and then multiply by the average turnout. Which would probably put Obama ahead by about 10% (since he is ahead by 10% of the delegates) not the 1% that the HRC campaign is tossing around.

Posted by: e2holmes | April 7, 2008 4:59 AM | Report abuse

Trina Bachtel's name (the woman in Ohio who died 2 weeks after a still birth) came up in the Washington Post which printed her name and the "facts" as supplied by a man who told the staff writers he had gotten them from a family friend not doctors. Hillary had the sense to keep the deceased woman's name, her hospital and details of her case secret since she could not confirm it. This very newspaper started the mess by publishing the woman's name---which no one would have ever known otherwise since the family did not recognize the case in Hillary's vague story---and then they did not bother to get any confirmation.

I have not seen a retraction in the Post yet. Should we write the Ombudsmen? Is the Post going to hop aboard the "Gore is a liar" oops the "Hillary is a liar" express?

Posted by: McCamyTaylor | April 6, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

jsindc - Obama has made an art form of spouting like a miss-goody-two-shoes in public, while his minions do all the necessary dirty work, such as torpedoing any chance of re-vote in either Michigan or Florida.

In Michigan, a fair solution would be to give him and Edwards the delegates for the 40% vote "uncommitted" got, and giving Clinton the 55%.

In Florida, his name WAS on the ballot. And he DID run commercials on TV, while Clinton didn't. But he and his campaign don't acknowledge this.

You say "If he steals the nomination by denying 33 million American citizens' voice in Florida and Michigan, he will be soundly beat in November". I agree. But that would be no consolation to either the democrats or the nation, which would be condemned to slog along another four years of a George McCain administration.

PittAlum - "He is already projecting himself as winning the presidency by his arrogance which is getting harder and harder to stomach as each day passes."

That 'arrogance' is being aided and abetted by the media, which has a collective crush on him, the likes of which has never been seen before. Even Rambo Russert becomes a tiny Tim when questioning (I mean soliciting the views of) Obi-Wan Kenobama.

ojordan3 - Pledged delegates are considered pledged, only for the first ballot. If neither of the two contenders gets the necessary 2024 in the first round, then everybody is "technically" released from their affiliation to the candidate and they are free to vote as they desire.

However, most of the pledged delegates being staunch supporters of the candidate in the first place, the likelihood of a pledged delegate bolting to the other side is highly unlikely, on a plea by Clinton or Obama.

But the dirty little secret is that they are not even 'bound' to the candidate on the first ballot, if they so choose. An Illinois Obama delegate (IBD, say) could choose to cast the vote for Clinton, and other than incurring the undying wrath of the rest of the Obama delegation, and the necessity to have armed guards while going back and forth between the convention hall and the hotel room, neither the DNC nor the Illinois wing of it can intervene to stop that. Rev. Wright might come out of retirement to G-D the IBD. After that, the IBD may not win even in a primary for a dog catcher.

When it comes to Super Delegates, the Obama camp wants to have it both ways. On The One Hand(1), they don't want the Super Delegates to decide the winner. On The Other Hand(2), they are collecting Super Delegates by the dozens, every week, by pressuring, cajoling, threatening, black-mailing them. OTOH(1), they want Super delegates to be bound by the wishes of the people in their state. OTOH(2), they don't mind John Kerry and Ted Kennedy in their camp. OTOH(1),

OTOH(1) they claim they are playing by the rules. OTOH(2), they act surprised that Super Delegates can vote according to their best judgment at the convention, which are precisely the rules. OTOH(1) Obama can lie that his father was airlifted by the Kennedys, so that he could be conceived during the Selma March. OTOH(2) they are disgusted at Hillary Clinton's misstatement regarding her Bosnia trip.

Don't get me started!

PS: castells - "It is absolutely amazing that the Clinton campaign actually wants to call attention to the fact that she only got 55% of the vote in Michigan essentially running unopposed. Now that's not as bad as John Ashcroft losing a senate election to a dead man, but it's pretty close."

Not quite - the rest of the vote, 40% went to two ghosts disguised as "uncommitted".

Posted by: pKrishna43 | April 6, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

misred your story presumed you were referring to HC.
Regardless, who cares what Ms. Obama did while a lawyer for a prominent Ill lawfirm. That is almost as peoposterous as what I misread you were referring to. Both stories are irrelevant.Worked for a major supplier of Walmart big deal.

Posted by: leichtman | April 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

jim3 and roy3 we are all relieved that you could rehash a 32 year old story when HC served on the board of Walmart while her husband was AG and Gov of Arkansas. That tired retred could have come directly from Bill O Reily or Ann Coulter and certainly proves your point that HC is evil. Glad your crack jouranlist could find that and share story that with all of us.

Posted by: leichtman | April 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Roy3, will you please cite the source for your remarks in quotation on your entry
Roy3 | April 6, 2008 08:08 AM.

I am also looking for the source of another entry floating on the blogs, to the effect that Mrs. Obama served in some capacity with a major supplier of Walmart for a $100K/yr. which she subsequently resigned when Sen. Obama stated he wouldn't shop at Walmart. Would appreciate some assistance.

Posted by: jimc3 | April 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Roy3 -

You are either misstating the facts relating to Obama's statements about Wright's sermons or you are misinformed. Obama said he was not present for the sermons on the YouTube loop. However, he did not say he was never present for ANY controversial sermons and, in fact, has said that he did hear some controversial statements/sermons from Wright -- but not the ones with the offensive content that has been shown on the internet and tv.

It doesn't help your cause to distort the facts like this.

Posted by: jac13 | April 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"- Is is not time for the United States of America to vote a women for president.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 6, 2008 08:15 AM"


Uh, not this woman.
By that logic, we should get Laura Bush to run... she's a woman, therefore we should elect her, eh?

Posted by: fake1 | April 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

SHE JUST KEEPS LYING AND LYING AND LYING


THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

She says here that the DNC gave them a choice of participating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-deGy60y9fo

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Will the Michigan situation hurt the dems in the fall?


This is soo sooo crazy.


Hillary's people should make clear to the superdelegates that they believe they should be credited for the popular vote AND the delegate lead Hillary should have received in those states.


It is pretty simple.


ADD 70 delegates to Hillary's total - count at least the Florida popular votes where both were on the ballot.


There is no reason why this dispute should impact the overall race between the candidates.


The democratic party is absolutely crazy to go down this path - they are destroyin their own legitimacy - Why would Obama want a tainted nomination ? It's the perfect "affirmative action" campaign - if a candidate can't win on his own, create a 48-state race and call him the winner.


what a joke.

Posted by: Miata7 | April 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Regarding voting RULES:

My wife's Irish Catholic family settled in Atlanta in the late 1800's. Her great, great grandfather built the first buildings at Fort Macpherson, laid the cornerstone of the GA state capitol, donated the original site of St. Joseph's Infirmary to the Sisters of Mercy and made other contributions in and around Atlanta. In spite of this, RULES prohibited him from freely voting though other RULES "guaranteed" the right for all men, including Irish Catholics, Blacks and Jews. RULES in Georgia and throughout the south said that to exercise the right to vote you had to meet certain RULES (known as Jim Crow RULES) among which was paying a poll tax. To prove that a man had paid his poll tax RULES required him to present a tax receipt to receive a ballot. In Atlanta, GA in the late 1800's and into the 1930's certain RULES allowed police to confiscate poll tax receipts to prevent Irish Catholics from voting when it suited the RULES of the power structure. The RULES of Jim Crow were far worse for the black community and RULES prohibited women of all races from voting until 1920.

Now comes DNC 2008 RULES about voting that have little to do with enfranchising party members. Has it learned nothing from Jim Crow or presidential races of 2000 and 2004? Two states opt not to follow the RULES with the blessing of the power structure and two states have their poll tax receipts confiscated. 2008 should be the year Democrats take the White House and enjoy majorities in both Congressional Houses. It appears we have risked winning 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and stand to lose substantial numbers in the next two senate and house elections. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC haven't learned the lessons of Jim Crow and voter disenfranchisement. The economic and international events show our nation is headed to hell in a hand basket and the DNC is scrimmaging over RULES.

Dr. Dean, Mrs. Pelosi, enfranchise the voters!

Posted by: jimc3 | April 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama said he never heard Rev. Wright's hate sermons. Just 4 days later, he admitted he did. I have no opinion about Rev. Wright but wasn´t this demonstrably a real lie! If it was he isn´t to be trusted.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 6, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

ANOTHER PERSON CLAIMING HILLARY IS A LIAR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&feature=related

The lists just keep growing and growing.

BTW, I'm a democrat. I'm just totally against having pathological liars in the White House.

All these high-priced liars Hillary has working for her (I won't mention any names - Wolfson) have it wrong.

They believe in the crackpot theory of mass media that if you lie consistently enough the "ignorant" masses will believe you. The truth is a figment of their imagination that we can manipulate.

Well, you are about 7 years too late. George Bush beat you to it. Americans have had enough of the lies. We've had 4000 innocent, young men and women die because of lies. We don't need another liar in the White House.

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Does singharf's sentiments express the sentiment of the Obama campaign and his supporters? I have posted that sentiment previously and been called a liar for even suggesting it haa ever been postwed here.
So here it is one more time and I ask his supporters to either repudiate or fully embrace this sentiment.

'All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party.'

Posted by: leichtman | April 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

You don't think there are intimidators out there with these calls for this campaign to stop? And who are the people calling it? Count the names and you will see that is all political muzzle from the Obama followers.

I wonder why!!!! Is it FEAR that at the end all would not be well with your Prince Charming? Because, let me see, facts will continue to come out on Obama? Or, because of FEAR that the Republican camp is going to anihilate your candidate? Or is it that he would not win the electoral and popular votes in the states? Do the REAL MATH, and see that it does not ADD in favor of Obama!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 11:20 PM

__________________________________

I asked who these intimidators were. You asked if I honestly don't believe that the people calling for the campaign to stop are intimidators.

I do not. Nor do I believe there are any other "intimidators" out there, on either side. There are a bunch of folks interested in their candidate getting the nod. Sometimes, folks cross the line (sam power, the "karl rove" comment from wolfson, etc.) but mostly, it's just politics. You can complain about the calls for Hill to leave the race as premature and undemocratic, that's fine, but to call them intimidation is a caricature. Those mischaracterizations make it impossible to address your real grievances because they disguise your true point.

Posted by: crt12 | April 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

- Is is not time for the United States of America to vote a women for president.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 6, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

"A house apparently is just one thing Rekzo helped Obama with. It turns out that Edwin J. Gray the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was coerced into calling off an investigation of Rezko by Obama and 4 other US Senators who had received campaign contributions from Rezko.

In addition to campaign contributions, Michelle Obama and her father had invested $359,100 in a Rezko shopping center in April 2006, a year before Obama met with the regulators.

The Obamas sometimes accompanied by their daughters and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Rezko's expense, sometimes aboard his private jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Rezko's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. Obama also did not pay Rezko for some of the trips.

It seems there is more to this Rezko thing than first appeared. Any politician who would attempt to cheat the system in this way does not deserve to be President."

If there is the slightest true in this statement Obama would have been dismissed from office if it had occured in Europe.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 6, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Correction, should read "The total Dem caucus vote for Obama was about 1,000 votes in Iowa... "

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

She's already lied under oath once. Do we really want to give her another chance?

"It is, in the independent counsel's judgment beyond peradventure that as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the travel office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the independent counsel concludes that Mrs. [sic] Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the travel office firings is factually inaccurate."
("New Criticism of First Lady In Final Travel Office Report." The New York Times. October 19, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1.)

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 12:34 AM

Why our you such a GOP.

If you thing travel office is real then you should switch to watching TMZ. Again for the children politics is about hard decisions - for adults - do not through food at our democracy - thanks for playing.

Posted by: mul | April 6, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

I think I saw the total Dem caucus was about 10,000 in Iowa, if this count is anywhere near accurate, that is a very small representation of the population.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2008 4:02 AM | Report abuse

He only has 30% of the Hispanic-American vote while clinton has 70%. Hispanics are the swing vote between Blacks and whites.We will never vote for an anti-Amrican of Obama and will vote for Mccain, the patriot.Man Blacks are really starting to get on my last nerve crying about everything and everything is about racism. Where are the Blacks in Iraq and Afghanistan? Their are a minority of them dying at war compared to Hispanics and whites. You don't hear us complaining about the war like the Blacks that have gone AWOL. I probably will be called a racist but i don't give a darn. Damn Jeremiah Wright and Obama and boot them to Lybia to live with Khadafy they so respect.

Posted by: mestsal01 | April 6, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not ahead by 790,000 votes. 717,000 votes from real clear.

Now from a moral perspective -GOP aka obama cultist - stop reading. Hillary could get up to 500,000 votes from Florida and Michigan if you give Obama the un-comitted.

But as Obama did not campaign in Florida and was not a the Ballot in Michigan we can just give her the Florada vote which was real ie. people went in pulled the leaver in the biggest turn out ever - and voted for Hillary. If you have a problem with this we could just do a re-vote.

She needs about 500,000 net from today to have a clear popular vote majority. That is do-able Pa just has to do its thing. She needs to not lose more then 70,000 votes on the 6th. That means IN has to go bigger for Hillary then NC for Obama. Then PR KY WV can push her over the top.

Posted by: mul | April 6, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party. Your candidate is a Fraud and a LIAR. She belongs in a class of her own, one where agreements are treated as mere notions, and her words are always to be construed in her favor. Since we in the Democratic Party are trying desperately to return our country back to the people, we do not welcome the confusion descending upon us from this faux Democrat vying for party leadership. She and her husband have played us like no other couple in our history, they pretend to be populists yet all their actions place them in opposition to "we the people." We need to wean ourselves off these carpet-baggers for our own good. They have done nothing to benefit the Democratic Party. During their tenure in the White House, the party was weakened by WJC's actions. They kept the country on the trajectory set by the Republicans, and today we are witnessing the near fatal end result of those policies. Your candidate has not distinguished herself as a fighter for us, although she has managed to bamboozle some of our people on the campaign trail into believing that she cares about them. The only thing the Clintons care about are themselves and the ever-increasing wealth, power, and influence.

Posted by: sicnarfe | April 6, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party. Your candidate is a Fraud and a LIAR. She belongs in a class of her own, one where agreements are treated as mere notions, and her words are always to be construed in her favor. Since we in the Democratic Party are trying desperately to return our country back to the people, we do not welcome the confusion descending upon us from this faux Democrat vying for party leadership. She and her husband have played us like no other couple in our history, they pretend to be populists yet all their actions place them in opposition to "we the people." We need to wean ourselves off these carpet-baggers for our own good. They have done nothing to benefit the Democratic Party. During their tenure in the White House, the party was weakened by WJC's actions. They kept the country on the trajectory set by the Republicans, and today we are witnessing the near fatal end result of those policies. Your candidate has not distinguished herself as a fighter for us, although she has managed to bamboozle some of our people on the campaign trail into believing that she cares about them. The only thing the Clintons care about are themselves and their ever-increasing wealth, power, and influence.

Posted by: sicnarfe | April 6, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

** OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida
** and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama.
** Posted by: mike_j

Thanks for gesture, but no thanks.
How about this: The Superdelegates will consider MI & FL in popular vote before deciding on the nominee.

It is a 50-state country, after all, we want the candidate who will do best in the electoral college.

Posted by: HuckFinn | April 6, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

** OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida
** and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama.
** Posted by: mike_j

Thanks for gesture, but no thanks.
How about this: The Superdelegates will consider MI & FL in popular vote before deciding on the nominee.

It is a 50-state country, after all, we want the candidate who will do best in the electoral college.

Posted by: HuckFinn | April 6, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

She's already lied under oath once. Do we really want to give her another chance?

"It is, in the independent counsel's judgment beyond peradventure that as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the travel office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the independent counsel concludes that Mrs. [sic] Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the travel office firings is factually inaccurate."
("New Criticism of First Lady In Final Travel Office Report." The New York Times. October 19, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1.)

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated, BUT Hillary won't benefit from it.
Of course, if the election were held today in FL or MI, Hillary would lose because now they know how much of a liar she is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

"I dont remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac."

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

HRC conceded the caucuses thinking she didn't need them. She didn't have a 50 state strategy and it ended up biting her in the ___. She's been out campaigned by a newcomer which has to hurt since she's campaigning on experience.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Once again when I challenged Truth to show me where I used the word disenfranchised she blinked b/c I never said any such thing and instead she threw more personal insults. Just curious if you think this is a game to you if it is I have zero interest in playing. Using words like liar and evil are petty and beneath the purpose of this site. If you come here Truth, to show your toughness or superiority I can tell you that you are wasting evryone's time. If you wish to debate issues or policies go for it that is supposedly why we come here; if you come here merely to cast aspertions and call anyone who dares to disagree with you a liar with personal insults stop wasting our time.

voice of reason stated; "I'm really disenchanted with her campaign and the Dem party as a whole"

I agree with her sentiment about the Dem Party 100% and I hope that Howard Dean understands how ticked all of us seem to be with how he has handled(mishandled) Fla and Michigan and refused to stand up to Charlie Christ and the Republican state reps. in both states. It shows a complete lack of judgment on Howard Dean's part and I hold him personally responsible for this entire mess. Just seems like Dems should have learned something in 2000 that Floridian Repubs relish in dividing Dems (Jub Bush/Katherine Harris and now Charlie Christ) I called to have tanned Charlie Christ recalled as I know many Dems in Fla actually voted for him.

BNW said I doubted you ever supported HC? Huh then I want all of my contributions and organizing time for HC returned.

voice said"I haven't supported HC since the Tuzla story" Hum that means that 2 1/2 weeks ago you were a HC supporter? Somehow I question the sincerity of that. And actually HC's chief of staff has written a sworn statement saying the staff was instructed to prepare to use bullet proof vests if necy and that they may have needed to make a steep landing. Has Sen Obama ever embelished?. We could talk about his claims of his family's ties to the Kennedy's or his first saying he had never heard Pastor Wright's inflammatory sermons or that he has been a leader in the Senate in foreign policy and to end the war which we know was not only is an embellishment but patently false. My answer to all of this is WHO CARES aren't there more impt issues to discuss in deciding the next leader of the free world? She went to Tuzla, met the troops and as first lady served our country honorably. Pitt says he served with HC and that she was honorable and decent and knowledgable.

So this is why I support HC; She has a better healthcare plan which is no 1 to my family and knows more about economics. She was never my first choice but I honestly feel her knowldege of policies that matter to my family are far superior to her opponent's.And for these statements I am labeled liar and worse. We can nit pick if that makes any of us feel better. I was sickened when John Kerry my first choice for 2008 was driven from the race when he mispoke with a bad joke about the troops.

Is it possible to discuss the real pros and cons of the candidates here rather than constantly reading the word liar and process and the math. Some how I find such discussions boring and a waste of time.

Meanwhile its Saturday Night Live.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership."

They shouldn't, but they were. The voters can vote the state leadership out next go around.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 11:11 PM
--------------------------------------------
Better yet, The voters would not vote for Obama in November. Then add the ones that voted before knowing the facts in Obama and who will vote against him (quite a few) and we have a candidate in REAL trouble!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

You don't think there are intimidators out there with these calls for this campaign to stop? And who are the people calling it? Count the names and you will see that is all political muzzle from the Obama followers.

I wonder why!!!! Is it FEAR that at the end all would not be well with your Prince Charming? Because, let me see, facts will continue to come out on Obama? Or, because of FEAR that the Republican camp is going to anihilate your candidate? Or is it that he would not win the electoral and popular votes in the states? Do the REAL MATH, and see that it does not ADD in favor of Obama!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

There is something so obviously wrong here with the Obama camp:

1)Their wins are basically with the CAUCUS process which could resort to be a totally illegitimate process: opened to fraud, coercion and intimidation by many of the Obama surrogates.

2)The Obama camp from the very beginning has thrown hurdle after hurdle on Florida and Michigan to eliminate these 2 states.

What kind of game is this camp playing when it is becoming quite evident that they have played a very unfair election?

Conclusion: Obama's nomination is FRAUDULENT and ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

"The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership."

They shouldn't, but they were. The voters can vote the state leadership out next go around.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

@Hispana:

What intimidators? I haven't noticed any intimidators as I have followed this campaign. Is Charles Oakley delivering elbows near the hoop in Bill Clinton's pickup basketball games? Has Paulie Walnuts been sent to "lean" on Wolfson and Penn?

I'm confused.

Posted by: crt12 | April 5, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

It has become more and more evident of the dirty deals and influence of the Obama camp. I am so glad about the news that some of the Super Delegates will not cave in to the pressures of Dean and the Obama camp. Florida and Michigan should have been easily resolved with a bit of leadership from Dean but it is evidently lacking.

The only fair solution is a RE-VOTE on both states and I fault the leadership on these states also, for messing it up and failing majorly to its voters. The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership.

So, let these primaries be fully completed!!!

Hillary, do not let these intimidators coerce you!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

It has become more and more evident of the dirty deals and influence of the Obama camp. I am so glad about the news that some of the Super Delegates will not cave in to the pressures of Dean and the Obama camp. Florida and Michigan should have been easily resolved with a bit of leadership from Dean but it is evidently lacking.

The only fair solution is a RE-VOTE on both states and I fault the leadership on these states also, for messing it up and failing majorly to its voters. The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership.

So, let these primaries be fully completed!!!

Hillary, do not let these intimidators coerce you!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Vammap,

May I suggest the credibility gap lies with Mrs. Clinton. Not unlike the earlier gap(s) of her husband (ie. what is means)... Seems now there is another one: BETH FOUHY of AP reported: "Also Saturday, Clinton campaign officials acknowledged that an anecdote Clinton has made a staple of her stump speech in recent weeks may not have been true and wasn't thoroughly checked for accuracy before she began repeating it on the campaign trail." This one had to do with "an Ohio woman who worked in a pizza parlor and died after giving birth to a stillborn child. The woman was uninsured, Clinton said, and twice denied medical care at a local hospital because she couldn't pay a $100 fee." Apparently the hospital "disputed the story, saying the woman, Trina Bachtel, was insured and did receive care through an obstetric practice affiliated with the hospital"

Posted by: struss | April 5, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

This talk of re-votes in Michigan and Florida is total B.S.! In Michigan, Obama's name was even on the ballot. Therefore the most reasonable result is to split the delegates 50/50 and call it a day. As for Florida, take Hillary's votes as is and combine Obama and Edwards votes into one Obama vote, and give the victory to Hillary (49% to Hillary and 48% to Obama) and call it a day.

No state can afford to re-hold another primary and having multi-rich Clinton supporters paying for a re-do primary looks suspicious and would not change the delegate-lead Obama enjoys.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 5, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is part of the Democratic party and agreed to abide by the ruling of the DNC on the issue. She knew full well the votes were not going to count when she said they "won't count for anything."

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Good Night all.

Hoping tomorrow there's a more credible group of posters with less opinion and a lot more factual info...

But, then all you Obama supporters tend to mirror his campaign..

Smoke and Mirrors

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

It does depend on what is means!

Or perhaps rather on what "participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary" means....

Posted by: struss | April 5, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:12:40 PM EST
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/9/201240/0802


Judging from the comments the Obama supporters are leaving on TalkLeft, it appears there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what the candidates promised and didn't promise regarding the outcomes of the Florida and Michigan primaries.

Here's the four state pledge (pdf).

It says nothing about which delegates will count or not count in Florida and Michigan. It says nothing about whether a state's primary will count or not.

The candidates merely pledged not to campaign in any states holding a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday, other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The text of the pledge is reprinted below:


Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Hillary, Obama and Edwards all agreed to the pledge on September 1, 2007.

Now, can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton agreed the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates? It prohibited only campaigning. Even fundraising was allowed.

The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC. In my view, it was an unfair one and should be lifted. The votes should count as is, the delegates should be awarded and seated.

Big Tent Democrat favors a re-vote of some sort. Hillary appears not to be opposed if that is the will of the party. The party appears to be leaning towards a mail-in revote. When will Obama get on board?

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

America, please, please show at least a smidgen of intelligence and tell the Clinton circus to go home. Thyey are testing the theory: you can't fool all the people all the time. Anyone who votes for her has been living under a rock or just crawled out of their shell. After all the lies and distortions during this campaign AND the last 35 YEARS her experience...), can ANYONE seriously say she is believable? Is THIS the change you want? Forget party--is SHE the change you really want? If so, there will be lawlessness in the land like you have never seen. Every crook in the country will justifiably say that if this is what we have as President, why can't I do the same? While the other 2 leading candidates aren't perfect, they are a whole 3 tiers better than Clinton.

Posted by: sdansker2002 | April 5, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

If Dean had a spine he would have told both states to re vote or shut up! Both state were told what would happen both side in this campaign have sign agreement that the vote would not count end of the story. Re vote or shut up!

Posted by: johnupnorth | April 5, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I guess Hillary "misspoke" when she agreed not to contest Florida & Michigan - because she was sleep deprived... So, now no one should hold that against her .

After all, mistakenly remembering being shot at(instead of meeting a little girl with flowers) is right in line with forgetting her agreement not to contest the FL & Mich primaries AFTER her opponent respected his word and did not campaign there. No doubt this all "depends upon what the meaning of the word is means"...

Posted by: struss | April 5, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

If I were part of the Clinton campaign, I would not press for a Florida re-vote. Many people, especially Blacks, have since changed their mind and would no longer vote for Hillary this time around.

Posted by: dunnhaupt
------------------------------------------
You have one big problem there. Florida has only 14% Black population, Same as Hispanic. Better find a better argument than that. By now she will have gained a lot of white men voters she didn't have then. No way Obama can win Fla, in the General.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 5, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

It is unfortunate that Democrats don't embrace a version of Reagan's edict "Don't speak ill of a fellow Republican."

Given the middle eastern wars, declining economy and disasterous fiscal management in government ... you'd think candidates and their associates would have much in common, and more important things to talk about than ministers (none of anybody's business) and lies (every politician must lie at times)

it is not a good practice to show how tough you'd be on Iran by beating up a political kindred spirit, though you differ in who should be #1

think of some guy walking point on patrol in Iraq in a crowed urban neighborhood, wondering if a sniper or IED will end it

he should be the focus, and how to get him home to a country that can pay its own bills and take care of its citizens in need

instead i fear Democrats will again (Gore, Kerry) succeed in blowing a winnable election with TRULY petty intraparty squabbling

Posted by: Mill_in_Mn | April 5, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

THE FIX nicks a joyous little peppermint of a word , which does not appear in the text of his blog, from another newspaper's tone:

WASHINGTON POST online headline page:
THE FIX | Clinton's chances of catching Obama in popular vote reduced after Mich. nixes re-vote.

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

STICKS NIX HICK PIX is one of the most famous headlines ever to appear in an American publication. It was printed in Variety, a newspaper covering Hollywood and the entertainment industry, on July 17, 1935, over an article about the reaction of rural audiences to movies about rural life.

Using a form of headlinese that the newspaper called slanguage, it means that, according to an Iowa theater manager, people in rural areas ("the sticks") reject ("nix") movies ("pics") about rural life ("hicks").

Posted by: abovetheassault | April 5, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton promised not to run in the 2 states which were striped the rights of delegating for violating rules.this is true.but the 2 states' voters right is also sacred to respect.
so ,for me,if i were Hillary clinton,i should accept the advice to a 50/50 split .this ,does not only respect the 2 states people,but for her own integity.
50/50,right,fair.

Posted by: yjx6655 | April 5, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"The punishment was NOT to prohibit other avenues to include the voters. A do-over primary or caucus is within the rules."

Which both MI & FL have ruled out.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Voiceofreason: thanks. You know, I can't answer your questions. I think that as far as stretching the truth, ALL of the candidates are guilty - and I mean that to include ALL who had dropped out as well. It is human nature to want everyone to like us - and in this instance, they want us to like them so that they can be whatever it is that they want to be. I guess they just want to be all things to all people. Damn, but that's a hard thing to do! Think about it: haven't you embellished on something in an aspect of your life? I think we can all step back and say "yes" to that. What is sad is that it has gotten out of control. We are all growing weary of it A two month campaign sounds so good right now.

Posted by: PittAlum | April 5, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"I strongly believe that Senator Clinton is in a better position to win than Obama in the general election."

That's a nice belief, but it won't happen. She has to win the nomination which she isn't going to do. She'll concede after the NC votes come in.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK! YOUR OPINION WAS PRETTY GOOD LAST TIME YOU WENT TO VEGAS AND LOST THE RENT-REMEMBER??

Posted by: mike_j | April 5, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"I suggest everyone read the article for themselves to see that the popular vote is still a possibility for Clinton."

The only problem with that is that the popular vote doesn't count in the nomination process. It's all about the delegates. If Obama had it, or if HRC had it, it wouldn't matter, the nominee is selected by who has the delegates.

Perhaps the popular vote might influence some of the super delegates, but other than that it has no meaning except for chest pounding and media headlines.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I strongly believe that Senator Clinton is in a better position to win than Obama in the general election. If Obama vs McCain, Obama will lose the three key states FL,OH, PA, even NJ and NY are questionable, while if Clinton vs McCain, she has no problem in winning these five states.
The following website from a blogger on NY Times ten days ago, gives a state-by-state prediction for the general election, where McCain, Obama or Clinton are participants.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar25.html

Posted by: ypcchiu | April 5, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

btw - isn't Barone from FOX?

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama. We certainly need those votes to win the General Election. Now that we have settled that, let's all calm down and practice, President O-B-A-M-A. All together now!!

Posted by: mike_j | April 5, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Here's something else Barone stated that probably riled TRUTH up at bit:

"These two projections, if they come to pass, seem likely to cause maximum pain among the superdelegates. Clinton will be able to claim a lead in popular vote. But only because of Puerto Rico--and because Puerto Rico this month replaced its caucus with a primary. Obama will be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates. But only because he gamed the caucuses better. His lead in caucus-selected delegates is currently 125, as best I can calculate it; that would mean Clinton would have a 35-delegate lead among delegates chosen in primaries. Both sides will be able to make plausible claims to be the people's choice."

How nice for the DNC! They deserve it.

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications--including the Economist and the New York

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Boy, Some of ya need to take a long, slow deep breath before you burst an artery.

All this fussin' and fightin' for naught. Bottom line, the US Constitution gives all of the significant power to Congress, not the President.

Programs for healthcare, tax breaks, education, job development, etc. require appropriations and legislation--constitutional powers of Congress, not the President.

The promises made by all of the candidates are really nothing by B.S. since the President takes the orders from Congress, rather than gives the orders. About all the President can do without congressional approval is withdraw the troops from Iraq.

Posted by: txgall | April 5, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

leichtman,

I am not part of a cult. Don't insult me.

Yes - Obama is a politician, which means he is no saint.

Hillary, in my opinion, has too many ties to Washington D.C. Also, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the Tuzla deal. On top of the way her campaign has mis-used race and the Wright issue against Obama, which I see as against the Dem. party - since it was such a divisive move.

Look, I once supported Hillary. Then I was on the fence. Now I've hopped off the other side.

btw - I'm a 45 year old caucasian woman. Hillary spoke at my Grad School commencement in the 90's, and I was thrilled.

So I am not a cultist. I am not a teeny-bopper (though I wish I was).

I'm really disenchanted with her campaign and the Dem party as a whole.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

** they knew the rules, they broke the rules; therefore they do not get a do-over.
** Posted by: soonerthought

Just a factual correction: they broke the rules, so the early primary was invalidated.

The punishment was NOT to prohibit other avenues to include the voters. A do-over primary or caucus is within the rules.

Posted by: HuckFinn | April 5, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

PittAlum:

I admire your post to leichtman and zbob99. And, believe or not, I admired Hillary for years - and I'm sure Hillary is all that you say. However, it's become clear that she's all that you say and more. It's the "and more" that I take issue with. I have become disenchanted because of the way her campaign has been run so far.

Which leads me to a question for you: how do you explain her "misstatements" such the whopper about Tuzla? How can she base her campaign on "experience" that clearly has been padded at best; falsified at worst?

I really want to know.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

The Truth-

He must have read this from his predictions and decided to attack me!

"Let me add that my projections don't leave much room for a cascade of superdelegates to Obama. On each day's contests I have Clinton leading Obama both in delegates and popular votes (because North Carolina would be outvoted by Indiana on May 6 and Oregon outvoted by Kentucky on May 20). She would be getting closer to the nomination, not farther away."


Remember it's just his prediction; so why get so bent?

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse


ROCK STAR FANS

OBAMA MAKING AN AMERICAN IDOL COMPETITION OUT OF RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

FLATTERING AND COURTING 18 AND 19 YEAR OLD FRESHMAN COLLEGE KIDS

OBAMABOTS ARE NOT GROWN UPS

THIS IS A SERIOUS WORLD WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS

YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO IDEA


GOD BETTER BLESS AMERICA

Posted by: Thinker | April 5, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

leichtman,

HRC's healthcare plan is a very good one. It's her dishonest campaign that I find so troubling. I once supported her. But her entire "Experience" theme is based on typical Clinton mis-truths. We need to move beyond politics-as-usual in Washington, which is why I support Obama.
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 |
==========================================
Your logic doesn't make a lot of sense. Who are you going to vote for to get beyond politics as usual? Will there be some one on the ballot I don't know about? Obama is no different. I doubt you ever supported Hillary. Be honest. Admit you are one of the cult. I would be ashamed too.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The Truth-

I doubt you read the article that fast. It clearly explains that she can win the popular vote, but she couldn't do that if she had listened to all the Obama supporters who wanted her to get out. That was my point.

As to the five states that broke the rules, they should have been penalized the same, instead the DNC only chose to penalize FL/MI the biggest states. Those states represent votes, and discounting the votes of two important states like FL/MI and not the others is unfair no matter how you look at it.

I suggest everyone read the article for themselves to see that the popular vote is still a possibility for Clinton. Don't depend on TRUTH to spin it for you...

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

vammap: thanks for the pointer to Baron's analysis. it's a good read and something interesting to think about.

Posted by: PittAlum | April 5, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count"

vammap's "summary" of this editorial is not even close to accurate. It lays out how Clinton can torture the numbers of primaries that are in the bag in a last-ditch Hail Mary, and the supers still won't buy it.

Nice try.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"I keep hearing this same old line over and over again. It does not support the reality. The DNC did not fairly punish three states, only FL/MI. WHY? Ask Dean and Brazil. With that knowledge we shouldn't count the other three states, NH, SC, Iowa."

The most moronic post of the day. You keep hearing the line over and over again because that's the reality of the situation. Further, when Hillary agreed in 2007 not to count the Florida/Michigan delegations, her fanatics were mum.

Also, what on Earth makes you think NH, SC, and IA are in the same category as FL and MI? Are you really that stupid, or has the Clinton group gone for the bottom of the barrels in digging up provocateurs?

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Projection by USA NEWS's Barone

Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
March 28, 2008


This is quite the article, state predictions, etc.. but what's interesting is that it shows that Obama supporters wanted her out which would make it impossible for her to have the popular vote, because the article states she can't win the delegate vote. Obama camp knows this and that's why they were pushing her to get out. Also, the MI/FL, they slow-walked it and the DNC gave them latitude to do several different things, Obama refused..
SO, don't keep on tellin us that the O-Boy is so hot to count VOTES. Not only do they not want to count FL/MI; they wanted to try to ride her out of town for the remaining 10 contests.

Obama Straight shooter? Not

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Cool! The less Hillary, the better.

Posted by: John991 | April 5, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

leichtman and zbob99: I've read all of the back and forth commentary. You both are wise men. I actually worked in the Clinton White House for HRC for 6.5 years. I saw nothing but an incredibly intelligent, hardworking woman. So many have the wrong opinion of her. She is comfortable with herself and what she stands for. She's damned no matter what she does. Obama is praised no matter what he does. It is tiring watching what the press has done to their Democratic favorite. Personally, I think it will be a struggle but HRC will win the nomination afterall. Should Obama win the nomination, I will be voting for McCain as will most of the Clinton Democrats I know. What bothers me is that Obama believes he has already been elected by his continued arrogance. 4 more years of arrogance isn't what this country needs. Pax.

Posted by: PittAlum | April 5, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans had the right idea in the first place - dinging MI and FL for half their delegations and then moving forward The Demos screwed up by being so completely punitive. Hillary tries to have it both ways - before MI and FL she assured IA and NH she supported punishing the "renegade" states. Her men Ickes and McAuliffe voted for it. She pledged not to campaign. Now she wants the votes counted because she, as the high name recognition candidate in two uncontested states early in the contest, won the votes. The best, though imperfect, solution is to follow the Republicans' lead on this one - cut the delegations in half and seat them. In Michigan, Obama should receive all the non-committed delegates to compensate him for not being on the ballot. The outcome is still unfair to him because he has nearly always improved his electoral position in states where he has competed, but is the most fair outcome all around. As for counting the totals in the unofficial tally of winning the popular vote - that tally truly is unofficial no matter how it is sliced. It is all about the delegates, baby. If Clinton wants to count MI and FL popular votes in her unofficial tally no one is stopping her now or under any other scenario. I predict Obama will win more popular votes in any case - quite a feat for someone coming out of nowhere against party's establishment candidate.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | April 5, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.'" said Plouffe. "It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules."

Yeah, everybody "thought" the Michigan primary wouldn't count for anything. Except for Clinton and, by the way, Obama. I recall distinctly Obama's local pundits were urging everyone to go out and vote UNDECIDED. Apparently they, too, were hedging their bets - just in case.

Not that it matters much. All the Democratic voters in Michigan are either laid off or under-employed and can't afford the gas to drive to the polls anyway. Absentee ballot anyone?

Posted by: magellan1 | April 5, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

VOICE:

Curious: how did Iowa, NH, and So. Carolina break the rules? That's new...
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 07:33 PM

Democracy for New Hampshire did their homework...

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

>>>Obama knows if the state of MI is counted with FL the primary will be to close to call<<<

You know, the Titans lost a playoff game to the Chargers last fall. The Chargers coach knew the whole time that if the refs had only counted the Titans' field goals as touchdowns, the Chargers would have lost the game.

(That's how much sense you're making, my friend. Obama played by the rules EVERYONE AGREED TO and should not be penalized for it.)

Posted by: hammond1 | April 5, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hi Voice:

-------------------------
No one campaigned. Also, they should have discounted Iowa, N.H, and S.C. but they chose not to? That goes against common sense! This is the screw up of the DNC and they're trying to cover it up..Point being don't take it out on the voters; let the votes count; don't except the candidates to solve what is essentially the DNC's problem.
--------------------------------------

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

Also, if there was fair time and fair money and fair oversight, a re-vote would be a-ok with everyone.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke the rules (that HIllary helped make).
----------------------------------------
I blame Obama because he slow-walked making a decision and then his people in the legislature doomed it.
---------------------------------

You can't change the rules mid-game w/out consequences.

-------------------------------------------
I keep hearing this same old line over and over again. It does not support the reality. The DNC did not fairly punish three states, only FL/MI. WHY? Ask Dean and Brazil. With that knowledge we shouldn't count the other three states, NH, SC, Iowa.
All in all it makes the result pretty illigitimate. And for Clinton supporters it's a non-starter. You can't get from here to there if the DNC has your legs tied.

We all might lose w/ this one.
--------------------------
AGREED!


Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

"Pathetic" seems to be a word strongly recommended in the Obama campaign election dictionary?

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

DEAR SUPERDELEGATES: I think the whole world is watching you, not just United States. Your votes are probably going to decide the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. Please take a fair decision. If Florida and Michigan results were counted, you guys won't be in this position at all to decide the outcome of this election. Ultimately, democracy should respect the voices of people. Before you cast your votes in one way or other, please consider the millions of people of Florida and Michigan who voted in this primary. Their voices cannot be suppressed on a technicality. Even though DNC, stripped Florida and Michigan of delegates, the unspoken understanding was that the delegates were eventually were going to be seated. I think we all should work to renew the whole primary process so every state has a say in the final outcome. Democrats cannot win in November without Florida and Michigan. Let us forget the partisanship for a while respect the people's will. We go around the world preaching democracy. Let the people speak. Let all vote and let all votes be counted.

Posted by: sfrancis1 | April 5, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"Your new President (if Democratic) would have no legitimacy if two states are left "outside" the Union."

Get a freakin' clue, will you? People in MI and FL will most certainly be able to vote in November, and whoever wins will do so with electors from those states being part of the final tally. The people of FL and MI have not had any of their rights taken away, they have merely been denied a voice in who is the official party representative. They will still vote in November, and hell, they could still end up having a choice of Hillary or Obama if either decides to run as an independent.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Juked (07:40 PM) A revote is not penalizing a candidate or rewarding a candidate. Explain what you mean, please. That is the only true way to solve your problem.


Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"never used the word Disenfranchisment did I?"

More lie-chtman lies. This has been the main thrust of the Wolfson & Penn spin, which you return to like a dog to its vomit.

Get this - there will be no revote in Michigan or Florida. You are wasting your time. Obama will be the 2008 Democratic nominee, and Hillary will remain a pathetic back-bencher in the Senate. By all means, rant away like a dog howling at the moon. Let us know where it gets you.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

never used the word Disenfranchisment did I? More TRUTH apparently.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure I see the problem. Michigan and Florida knew the rules and new the reprecussions. They decided to move their primaries ahead anyway. Those are the facts.

The rules are so that you don't have states leapfrogging eachother sending the process into chaos and smaller states get some political attention. Florida and Michigan get an enormous amount of influence every year.

At the start Clinton and Obama both agreed and signed off on those rules. Now their is a certain amount of people that don't like the way things are turning out and want to change the rules to their advantage?

Don't count the states and let them vote in November. Let the candidates finish the process and the superdelegates can weigh in and be done with this childishness. Penalizing a candidate or rewarding a candidate for following the rules at the start of the contest is nonsense.

Posted by: Juked | April 5, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

interesting voice of reason, I never saw an Obama commercial here in Texas saying vote for me Sen Obama b/c I have great Illinois State Senate experience. Wonder why.

Politics as usual: Fla 2008 sounds a lot like Fla 2000 to a lot of voters including the 30% of Fla Dems who say they will hold this fiasco against Sen Obama and not Howard Dean, Charlie Christ or the Republican legislatures in Fla and Michigan. And again why has the Obama campaign that doesn't believe in "politics as usual used the phrase Punish" to describe how they feel about those voters?

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Newest on Obama and Rezko

Posted in Election, Obama, Politics by thatsrightnate on March 31st, 2008

A house apparently is just one thing Rekzo helped Obama with. It turns out that Edwin J. Gray the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was coerced into calling off an investigation of Rezko by Obama and 4 other US Senators who had received campaign contributions from Rezko.

In addition to campaign contributions, Michelle Obama and her father had invested $359,100 in a Rezko shopping center in April 2006, a year before Obama met with the regulators.

The Obamas sometimes accompanied by their daughters and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Rezko's expense, sometimes aboard his private jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Rezko's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. Obama also did not pay Rezko for some of the trips.

It seems there is more to this Rezko thing than first appeared. Any politician who would attempt to cheat the system in this way does not deserve to be President.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 5, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently HC supporters who have come to a different conclusion are somehow not entitled to do so, and perhaps why so many of them are fed up with your campaign."

lie-chtman, people who add 2 and 2 and say the answer is three come to different conclusions. This is the kind of math the Clinton campaign advances. You have had the reality of the situation explained to you several times, and you still cling to this absurd disenfranchisement argument.

The fact remains and you have not disputed that you have been wrong about every aspect of this windmill tilting called the CLinton campaign.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Nobody could possibly have known that the race would be that close! The only fair way to solve that problem is either to accept the votings in Michigan and Florida or to make a re-vote in these two states. This is not a game, or .....? Your new President (if Democratic) would have no legitimacy if two states are left "outside" the Union. Suppose that Labour Party members in Wales, UK were not allowed to vote in an election of national importance. There would have been a rising. However that would never happen in a Democratic nation like the UK.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama campaign is open to a revote IF it is truly democratic: squeaky-clean, not open to fraud, and not paid for by the taxpayers nor a campaign. The problem? Time and money." voiceof reason you are correct, Sen Obama knew if he delayed long enough there would not be time and then had his surrogates in the Michigan state legislature seal the deal. Smart politics which will come back and bite him if he outsmucles for the nomination.


interesting you should post that. His campaign inisted that the only type of vote they would accept would be his poposed Firehouse primary. The Clinton campaign said fine and sent an memo to the dnc saying that, Pflute(sp) responded by then dragging his feet until the legislature was out of session then said no. Financing was arranged that would not have cost the state of Michigan a dime, Obam's campaign knew that as well . I posted here 3 weeks ago that the Obama campaign would then come back and say see there is not enough time for a revote.
His supporters here are convinced that he would win Michigan going away. Its too bad his campaign manager didn't listen to them.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

vammap:

Curious: how did Iowa, NH, and So. Carolina break the rules? That's new...

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

What if I didn't bother to vote because my candidate wasn't on the ballot? What if I couldn't vote uncommitted because I'm committed to Obama.

If Democrats in Michigan, the worst-ravaged state in the union by Republican economic mismanagement think they'll do better by voting McCain, someone must be dreaming.

Posted by: asja | April 5, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

vammap:

you forgot two things: 1) the primary was unauthorized by the DNC, which, at the time the rule was made, the Clinton campaign supported.
2) Obama did not campaign there. The DNC didn't allow it.

Also, if there was fair time and fair money and fair oversight, a re-vote would be a-ok with everyone.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke the rules (that HIllary helped make).

You can't change the rules mid-game w/out consequences.

We all might lose w/ this one.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

leichtman,

HRC's healthcare plan is a very good one. It's her dishonest campaign that I find so troubling. I once supported her. But her entire "Experience" theme is based on typical Clinton mis-truths. We need to move beyond politics-as-usual in Washington, which is why I support Obama.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Here's what is intuitively fair:

Every candidate had the option to remove or not remove their name.

What Obama doesn't say more openly is that his camp got the word out for his supporters to vote "uncommitted."

Now Obama wants to divide the votes 50/50 though his portion of the vote should be only 40%.

Clinton got 55% of the 600,000 votes cast, which is what she should get.


As you can see not every candidate removed their name.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,151 /55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762/ 40.0 %
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,708 3.7 %
Christopher J. Dodd 3,853 0.6 %
Mike Gravel 2,363 0.4 %

With 100% reporting

Clinton should agree to give Obama his 40% because he told his supporters to write uncommitted.

I doubt very much that she would agree to split 50/50 and why should she? The votes for FL/MI should be split however the final result tallied.

Don't forget that 3 other states broke the same rules by setting their contests earlier, but they were not penalized; Iowa,New Hampshire and South Carolina. So, that's an entire other can of worms Clinton could open up. I'd say she's got the legal upper hand. You also don't hear the Obama camp or the DNC talk about this.

You know, it's not even slightly transparent, it's ridiculously blatant: the real old Washington politics PLAYER is Obama...

Posted by: vammap | April 5, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

glosski,

MI revote proposals had many flaws. For instance, any vote funded by one of the candidates' surrogates is undemocratic and will bite that candidate hard in the end.

The Obama campaign is open to a revote IF it is truly democratic: squeaky-clean, not open to fraud, and not paid for by the taxpayers nor a campaign. The problem? Time and money. You find both and there's your re-vote. If not, divvy up the votes fairly. Or find some democratic, clean way to seat delegates and/or let the voters' voices be heard.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke DNC rules at the expense of the voters. Remember, the Clinton campaign was well-behind the DNC's decision --- until they found themselves behind in the campaign.

You can't change rules mid-game w/out consequences. If you do, however, you'd better make sure you've covered all your bases or you (Democratic party) lose in the long run.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is anyone surprised? If Hillary had not started on her crusade about this because she was short delegates, none of us would be losing any sleep or hair over seating those who broke the rules. She needs it for her purposes and would likely be on the other side if it so suited her purposes. All this is one big manipulation

Posted by: nclwtk | April 5, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

troubadour2, wrote; "FL & MI votes have been invalidated. Your candidate, HRC, agreed to that. She agreed to it and it's fully documented"

Nobody can deny any citizen in Florida to vote, neither DNC nor Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By the way, Barack Obama followers acts like facists.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

truth your immature comments are truly not worth responding to as there are some folks like mark who rationally argue their candidate's position something you are unable or unwilling to do without constantly posting vapid insults. Would you like to report that to your censorship crew?

And sorry to disppaint I read every word of Audacity of Hope and can probably site quotes from it if necessary. I was particularly disturbed by his failure to return from a vacation in Hawaii to vote for a critical Gun Bill and Juvenile Justice bill in the Illinois state legislature, that even he admitted was a political mitake that he underestimated(I will gladly site that chapter and page). I was truly impressed with his knowldge of constitutional law but left his UT Austin speech feeling empty and why I eventually decided to support John Edwards and the HC. You may not like Cramer but his knowledge of Wallstreet and economics is phenominal. The HR analysts I spoke with have healthcare certification and usually don't vote. Did you bother to read that Elizabeth Edwards also agrees that HC's healthcare plan is superior, or do you just dismiss her too as another HC partisan? Yea I am partisan but did my homework before I decided who to work for and have refused just to just be swept up by rhetoric. You seem to have a problem with that.Apparently HC supporters who have come to a different conclusion are somehow not entitled to do so, and perhaps why so many of them are fed up with your campaign.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

leichtman,

It is the state leaders -- not the voters -- who should feel the consequences.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Hillary, even your own supporters are not this stupid. You cannot talk about remaining voters and superdelegates in the same breath. The more you talk about your path to the popular vote, the more you support the nomination of Barack Obama. Split the delegates from Michigan and Florida 50/50 (the only fair and democratic solution), run the remaining 10 contests and allow the superdelegates to use independent judgement to vote whenever for whomever. Good luck.

Posted by: oneworld67352 | April 5, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else enjoy the humor of this headline?

Posted by: hausserd | April 5, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

With respect to the Democratic campaign you should consider 1) that "facist" nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Have you ever heard about a female dictator? I guess that you have not and the reason probably depends on differences in male and female mentalities and 2) that elections in a "fascist" nation are sham democracy.

Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

It´s time for the United States of America for change.

It´s time for the United States of America to vote for a women as president.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would Clinton agree to give up votes she got to Obama with a 50/50 split? Obama says to give him half of the people who didn't vote, all of the people who didn't vote for Clinton, and part of the people who did vote for her. None of her voters mistook her name for his - he isn't entitled to those votes or those delegates. You can blame the DNC for killing the Michegan revote, but, keep in mind that they would have approved it IF OBAMA HAD APPROVED IT. Obama killed the Michigan revote because the only option he will accept for either state is a 50/50 split of delegates so he doesn't have to risk losing.
Typical Obama strategy. STICK to the letter of the law and STICK it to the other candidates so that you can later STICK it to the suckers who support you.

Posted by: glosski | April 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader

I've read all the posts and yours stink the most. You are an arrogant, misinformed person hiding behind your computer. I was a Hillary supporter and voted for her, but if I could do it all over again, I would vote for Obama. Stop the hating !! It will continue to eat at your insides.

Posted by: mummylal | April 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader, what about the VOTERS RIGHTS to know that the candidates they voted for will indeed receive the backing of the delegates awarded? Hillary says that shouldn't necessarily be the case. where is her regard for the VOTERS RIGHTS?

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

troubadour --

You miss the main point entirely.

The VOTERS RIGHTS should be our highest priority.

If you win this battle, you will lose the war.

This is yet another example of full of BS Obama really is.

People aren't stupid.

Obama's making a very big mistake in thinking that they are.


Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Jesus!! Today yet another story is breaking over another Hillary Clinton bold face lie.

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Hillary - when are the lies going to stop??

America demands an answer and a apology.

You are a sick woman Hillary. GET OUT!!

America an't stomach your ilk any longer, now SCRAM ya old lyin hag!!

Posted by: BuffyTheBanana | April 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The point is this. If by now you can't see that the media is fixing this election for Obama, you would need a seeing eye dog. Gee, lets see.... all of a sudden it is MLK year, come on; most of us are not that STUPID.

Posted by: Nstaud | April 5, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you don't get it, FL & MI votes have been invalidated. Your candidate, HRC, agreed to that. She agreed to it and it's fully documented.

If she were truly about counting every vote why did she agree that they "won't count for anything"?

Obama agreed that they wouldn't count and has stuck to that original choice. HRC said they wouldn't count, but now she's behind, she wants them to count. Who's disingenuous at this point?

If Obama caved and let the invalidated votes count as is, then he'd be the one not sticking to his guns. HRC can play both sides of the argument because she's not that concerned with being honorable.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I am done here. I am off now to cheer on the Wash Capitals hockey team to a victory and division title coming back from being the worst team in the NHL about 3 months ago. GO CAPS!!!

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

leichtman --

We're probably all wasting our time here.

Its clear neither Barry Obama nor his supporters will negotiate in good faith.

They don't care about people's right to vote.

They want to win at any cost, and considering what they've done during the campaign, it would be naive for any of us to expect them to change at this point.

Their actions show what kind of people they really are, just Obama's actions show what kind of person he is.

Eventually people will wake up.

Its just a question of when.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I see the Hillary stooges are still going on about 'democracy this' and 'democracy that', and still not offering any explanation of how it's 'democratic' of Hillary to suggest that delegates people have been voting for so far aren't really 'pledged'.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just give the nomination to OBAMA then McCain will be the President. Also, OBAMA needs to apologize since he funded Randi Rhodes appalling, vulgar rally.

www.stop-obama.org

Posted by: mjno | April 5, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

To those who are STILL crying about Florida's situation is a result of a GOP Governor and a GOP state legislature, do you know the facts?

Do you know that the bill to move the primary forward was introduced by a Democrat?

Do you know that it passed the House committee unopposed, even though four Democratic representatives sit on the committee (Bucher, Joiner, Ryan and Gannon)?

Do you know that there was a single vote against the bill when it passed the Florida House (Seiler D-Wilton Mannors)?

Do you know that there were two votes against the bill in the Florida Senate, and both of those votes came from Republicans (Alexander and Gaetz)?

Yes, the GOP led the effort to get the bill through the House and the Senate, but the Democratic party members didn't even put up token opposition to the measure.

If they had, I would have some sympathy. They didn't put up even token opposition, so there is NO sympathy from me towards Florida.

And BTW - Several people have done the math, and it is possible for Obama to have a realistic probability of winning the general election even if he doesn't win Florida and Ohio. On the other hand, it is almost impossible for Clinton to win without winning both states.

Posted by: critter69 | April 5, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

HC will certainly embrace his rhetoric but not his healthcare policies. My guess: Obama will announce that he offered HC the VP spot he knows she is not interested in, try to embarass and insult her supporters blaming her for turning it down, then put his thumb in the eye of all HC supporters by offering it to Richardson or some second level suckup governor b/c Obama has so little support with Hispanics. If that scenario plays out Sen Obama will be toast.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Its clear the best solution is a re-vote.

Both candidates could split the bill.

Will Obama support that?

If he believes in Democracy, why not?

If not, why should anyone believe him when he says he supports Democracy?

Finally, if we don't count the votes of Michigan and Florida, and don't allow a re-vote, how can we argue to count all the votes if we wind up with another "tie" in the national election?

The answer to all these things are clear.

Winning is more important to Obama supporters than Democracy is.

Actions speak much louder than words.

Words get old, fast, when a person's actions show them to be empty.

That's what Obama's really selling.

Nothing but "Empty words"

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

lie-chtman:

The name says it all. You know very little about this world, and what little you know is how to lie. Your contributions to the Clinton spin machine is meaningless. She will be withdrawing soon, which will prove how little you know. Even when the nourishing truth - my world - is handed to you, you reject it in favor of the poisonous Clinton lies.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Robin if that is true ,which I doubt then your campaign should have been thrilled and embraced the Firehouse Primary your campaign insisted on then refused when it was offered. And again why did your state rep say he thought it would be in his candidate's best political interest to not have a revote. At least that was honest.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

leichtman Here is my thinking on the Obama/Clinton ticket. I know many Obama folks like myself find it almost offensive to have Hillary on the ticket because she represents so many things that are polar opposites of what we believe Obama stands for. However, if she comes clean and fully and honestly endorses Obama and pledges to adhere to the new politics that Obama is pushing then maybe, just maybe, the Obamakins can accept her into the fold. If that all happens then I suspect most of the Hillary supporters would also come on board and McCain would be toast. Maybe a stretch but I do believe that it could and perhaps should happen.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

leichtman is definitely as fake as Hillary. He claims to have read Obama's books and still finds his ideas and knowledge empty. He claims to have discussed his plan with experts who uniformly rejected it. Either he was too prejudiced or had shut is brain. Since when Cramer is an authority on economy!! Do you really think Hillary knows economy when even Greenspan and Bernarke can't figure it out? Please open your eyes. Obama beats Hilliary by a margin of 3 to 1 among educated/informed people. Obama's plan may well fail but Hillay has a FAILED plan. If she had learned anything from 1993, the plan would have at least changed. Obama is the only one who can adapt and get things done in a bipartisan manner.

Posted by: vivekkchauhan | April 5, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clinton_to_go_to_florida_on_pr.html

leichtman: To clarify, Clinton was in FLA making an appearance primary eve. See above. Or, just google Clinton appearance on eve of FLA primary -- Jan 29 or 30.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I am a MichaGANDER and we were not even allowed to write in Obama or Edwards (my choice). Counting the votes as they stand would not be "enfranchising" MI voters. Vote out the idiot state people who moved the primary, but take the DNC sanction and learn from it.

Posted by: clsvt | April 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Good for the Michigan Democratic Party Executive Committee for their decision.

Just like George Bush underestimated the Michigan citizens intelligence when he assumed that then Governor John Engler would deliver him a Michigan win, so did Hillary Clinton's estimate of Governor Jennifer Granholm's pull.

Unlike Engler (who should have known better), Granholm is not a native Michiganer, therefore, she did know.

Michigan is on one hand, known mostly as the "Motor City" and home to "Motown", but, underneath, we're also known for our politics, especially our street politics that often travels to Lansing and becomes part of our election process. Therefore, we know when we're being hustled. In Michigan, nothing much gets past us. So when Hillary Clinton sneaked into Michigan last week, to campaign on behalf of initiating a re-vote, we knew something was up. Granholn along with the other elected officials, who's still learning the roops, played it smart by not being around. Clinton's visit was seen by the locals here as the stranger coming into town selling sugar water labled "miracle tonic", or the hustler who gets in on the poker game and insisting that we use 'her' cards. Either way, we didn't buy it and we let our voice be heard. Again, most of our elected officials are up for re-election and they are not about to jeopordize their chances of re-election by standing by a candidate they know their constituantes did not support.

Michigan's college's and University's have the best urban and labor studies and business studies programs in the nation. We are very intelligent when it comes to urban, labor, and business policies. We're the "Motor City", see our jobs leaving,
business's closing, and high unemployment, etc. NAFTA hit us hard and we still have not recovered.

Michigan is "Obama Town"

Posted by: RobinBensonCEO | April 5, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

voiceofreason: I actually heard an Obama spokesman say alongside James Carvell on CNN that maybe they need Punishment. Carvell just sat there with astonishment how absolutely naive that attitude is.Your side agrees with the phrase Punishment, right?

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Go home, Hillary. Go home and enjoy your millions.

Posted by: alarico | April 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Rocky wanted to be a Marine?

You need balls to be a Marine. Hillary has no balls.

Her glasses were too thick? She misspoke again - She meant her skin was to thick.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

MI & FL couldn't get the vote right the first go around. At least they came to their senses and realized they also can't get it right with a re-vote.

Should those voters be pissed? Yes! They should vote out the state officials that screwed it up.

I hope they don't blow it again in the general election. Hopefully they'll dot their Is and cross there Ts.

Dean is talking out his ________ with the new agreement to seat FL when neither candidate has agreed to it. It won't happen.

While it makes for good election time controversy, in the end it won't mean anything as Hillary is going to lose.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton knew the rules and signed off on them. But she thought then that she would waltz to the nomination---never in her wildest dream did she think that this upstart Obama would be ahead of her. Poor poor Hillary

Posted by: clsvt | April 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The second-saddest part of this whole affair is that the Clinton team has spun this that Obama is at fault.

The saddest part is that Clinton supporters believe them.

For Obama to be at fault, here is the logic trail:

The states set up their primaries clearly in violation of agreed-to rules.

The primaries were held well after EVERYONE knew AND AGREED that they would not count, at least for delegates.

All the candidates AGREED to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Obama did as he pledged, while Clinton did not.

Yet, it is Obama's fault.

Obvious, no?

Posted by: steveboyington | April 5, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

svreader -

re "The only fair thing to do is use the vote counts as they are or to have a re-vote.

Splitting them down the middle is exactly the same as not counting them at all. --- I disagree since those primaries were unauthorized in the first place, and this way the voters could be heard. Maybe they could split 49/51 in favor of Clinton. But you can't forget that Obama did not get to campaign in those primaries, nor was his name on the MI ballot.

Obama's clearly afraid of a fair fight."
---No, he welcomes a fair fight. FAIR being the operative word. How is it a fair fight if you count the unauthorized primaries that were not contested/campaigned? Remember, the state parties knew what they were doing when they broke DNC rules. They were not thinking of the voters, which was wrong. Still, they broke the rules. And Obama's name wasn't even on the MI ballot nor did he campaign in either state. Obama has never been oppossed of a re-vote. It's just that it has to be squeaky clean. YOu can't hold a re-vote, for instance, that is funded by three key Clinton supporters. That would bite her in the end. Nor could you do a rush mail-in vote -- neither campaign wanted voter fraud. YOU NEED TIME AND MONEY. The Obama campaign would be fine with that. Still, remember: The DNC rules were clear. The state parties broke 'em. They don't like the consequences. You break a rule, you pay the price.

But, the DNC knows the voters shouldn't be punished for state leader mistakes, so both campaigns and the DNC are hoping to come up with something squeaky clean and fair.

The problem is time and money.


Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

absolutely zbob, I just think that HC would have to hold Sen Obama's hand for 4 years. Actually I would prefer a HC/Biden or Obama/Biden ticket but I doubt HC supporters will be given any consideration in that decision IF it comes to that. IF Sen Obama wins the nomination which until after Pa, W Ka, Ky, Indiana and N Carolina are heard from and which strongly except for N Carolina lean towards HC.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The DNC was shortsighted in disenfranchising MI and FL. I could see back then that this would come back to bite us all in the ass. FL and MI were fools to change their primary dates. It was arrogant. Nonetheless, both Democratic candidates agreed to accept the DNC rules. For Billary McClinton, John McCain's sibling, to whine and make demands shows she will employ any tactic in her bid. Why should Obama accommodate her? Why should he be magnanimous while McClinton behaves so poorly? Now that she wishes to renege on a deal, why should anyone let her?

Posted by: StaggoLee | April 5, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

To those who say "Obama" tactics stink --

Obama is playing by the RULES SET OUT BEFORE HIM. Clinton is trying to change the rules to fit her needs.

Obama is willing to split each state down the middle and call it day. NEITHER CANDIDATE GAINS OR LOSES and that way ALL THE FL AND MI delegates get seated.

Clinton ONLY wants a scenario that works to HER advantage and has NOTHING to do with "providing with a fair vote". She cares less about the people of FL or MI if she doesn't win.

Doesn't that sound like a certain election in 2000?

Posted by: rhinohide | April 5, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

johnwp

At least on the education bit about me, you are totally clueless, as you would be about the particulars of other posters on the internet. I won't say any thing more on that subject.

I have and would benefit much more by having a Rethug in power, but have been a lifelong dem for moral reasons.

However, the despicable smugness implied in your comment that Clinton supporters are somehow under or uneducated shows you Obama slime in the proper light.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"Obama represents a new approach"; and so did W.
As a boomer Healthcare for retirement and the specifics do make a difference, rhethoric means nothing to my family.
Fine a new approach. Then why has the dean of the Senate Robt Byrd said that only HC has the debth and breath and knowldeg of the intracies of how the Senate works and the NY Times front page analysis having spoken with Sen who know them best, even those who have endorsed Sen Obama that conclude that Sen Obama's accomplishment in the US Senate are very thin.And why has her leadership in the US Senate been praised by Byrd and by opponents like Linsey Graham? Did you see HC's interview by Jim Cramer this week, sir? I follow and know about the markets and was floored by HC's detailed understanding of intricate economic policies. I don't take that knowklde lightly.
So its agreed, its soaring rhetoric vs detailed understanding of policies. Ronald Reagan had great rhetoric sir were you OK with his policies since you tell us that policy differences mean nothing.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign did not set the rules. The national DNC did. The state parties broke the rules -- without consideration of the voters.

The Dem party is like an inconsistent parent: if you tell your child, "sneak a cookie from the cookie jar, and you're going to have a timeout." So your child sneaks a cookie anyway. What should you do? FOLLOW THROUGH with the timeout. If you don't follow through or remain consistent, you get a confused child who is prone to irresponsibility and in the long run, low self esteem.

Our party in recent presidential elections has acted like a kid with low self esteem. We're poised to win, but don't seem to have the discipline to do so. Follow through and consistency are the foundations of discipline -- and it's an honorable trait that the Republicans have used well in the past. It's how you keep your team together. It's how you win. It's how you earn respect. It's responsible.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but the way the party plays loose and free with the rules, goal posts, delegates, super delegates, atomic delegates, whatever, is very confusing.

And it continues to get us in trouble.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

jac13

The dems have never been passionate about the high ct, unlike the social conservatives. SO, your point that the dems will get scared about an extreme right ct nominee and unite behind Obama is incorrect.

Example - a solid majority of the country is against abortion ban. But, it is the social conservatives who are able to use the court as a reason to whip up their base for their man in the presidential elections.

For me as a Clinton supporter, the only reason to vote Obama would be fear of a true right winger on the ct like Scalito. That said, the Nazi-like hatred displayed by you Obamabots is scary enough to side against those crazies, notwithstanding the threat of a permanent tilt to the right of the ct.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: Would you vote for a Obama/Clinton ticket? Many think it is impossible but I do think there is a good chance it might happen.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

voiceofreason5 --

What's hard for voters to understand is how Obama and his supporters can think that voters could be as stupid as he clearly does.

The only fair thing to do is use the vote counts as they are or to have a re-vote.

Splitting them down the middle is exactly the same as not counting them at all.

Obama's clearly afraid of a fair fight.

All he's doing is making Clinton supporters more and more comfortable with voting for McCain if Obama's the nominee.

He's also proving over and over again that he's just another politician willing to do anything to win.

His Teflon is turning to rust.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

10. Clinton made an appearance on the eve of the unauthorized primary in FLA.

that is utter bs and you know that. She showed up after all votes were counted in Fla and it was actually Sen Obama who broke his pledge and allowed his CNN national commericals to be run in jacksonville according to my jacksonville relatives and McCain supporters who actually saw them.
Check your facts.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: Thanks for your thorough explanation of your position. I do appreciate and understand where you are coming from. But you must understand that this is not about specific details of someones healthcare policy or economic policy. This about even having a chance to effect meaningful policy reform in this country. Hillary can have the best healthcare plan ever conceived but if she can't get it passed through congress it will die alongside all the other good but failed policy initiatives of the past. Obama represents a new approach, to energize the masses and cross party appeal that may be able to make difficult policy changes come to fruition. That's why I support Barack Obama. No cult member here. Just a believer that this country can do better with Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

intcamd1:

You are just one of many shining examples of under-educated Hillary supporters. Pollsters sure aren't making stuff up when they cite stats showing those with the least amount of education tend to vote for her. Now, it's silly to lump all Hillary supporters in with that stereotype - I personally know lots of very intelligent Hillary supporters - but it's got to be true that many like you just don't have a firm enough grasp of reality (to put it gently) to realize the absurdity of the lies that constantly spew from her mouth. Or that she somehow cares about the rights of MI and FL Democrats when what's it's really all about is a desparate attempt to steal votes to somehow prevent the inevitable defeat at the hands of Obama. Or that she's not beholden to special interests when she's broken every fundraising record in existence.

"Cokehead supporters?" Does that include the legions of esteemed politicians and pundits who have come out in support of Obama over Hillary, even folks like former ally Bill Richardson? Doesn't it tell you something when folks who know her best don't even support her? It's not rocket science!

Where to next? Oh yeah - Obama is ashamed of his middle name? Really? Where do you come up with this stuff? A Carville blog somewhere? Another confused Begala rant? (What complete buffoons.)

And shame on you for somehow comparing Obama's legititmate real estate purchase with the dozens and dozens of improprieties, scandals, and unethical practices perpetrated by the Clintons, the two most morally corrupt persons ever to inhabit the White House. God I hope they disinfected every nook and cranny when those two left town.

The next best thing to seeing the Clintons ride off into the sunset (presumably to the Cayman Islands) is seeing folks like you crawl back under the rocks from whence you slithered, though of course I mean that in only the nicest sense possible.

Peace.

Posted by: johnwp | April 5, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

and zbob what in the world makes you think that the 13 million HC supporters if Sen. Obama is the nominee will blindly follow you candidate to the promised land. As a moderate and 35 year loyal democratic activist I can honestly tell you that unless HC or Biden is on the ticket it is likely I will not vote for the Presidential ticket. Perhaps you and your campaignthink this all a big joke and that there is some kind of entitlement owed to Sen Obama and that you can win states like Ohio and Michigan and Fla by stiffing their voters. You are absolutely wrong sir and your campaign needs to come to grips with that if they have convinced themselves its time to start measuring for curtains.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand something: why folks are so surprised and upset?

Facts as I understand them:
1. Michigan and Florida state parties and legislatures knew full well the consequences when they broke DNC rules to move their primaries up.

2. The voters of FLA and MI are the innocent victims of their states' leaders unfortunate choices.

3. The consequences, clearly stated, were that the delegates of MI and FLA were not to be seated.

4. Only because the race is so tight, the DNC has decided to bend the rules and seat the delegates, out of fairness to the voters.

5. Re-votes of many kinds all looked vulnerable to fraud, or were funded by one campaign's supporters, which is un-democratic.

6. The current situation was not created by the Obama or Clinton campaign, for that matter. The campaigns did not make the rules. The DNC did, and the state parties broke 'em.

7. Since Clinton is the one behind, it would benefit her if the curren unauthorized primary votes were in her favor.

8. Neither campaign campaigned in Mi or FLA before their unauthorized primaries. Since Obama was unknown, and had little name recognition, he received fewer votes in FLA and MI.

9. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

10. Clinton made an appearance on the eve of the unauthorized primary in FLA.

11. As victims, voters should not have to pay the tab for re-votes. Yet their voices should be heard.


Upshot: Split delegates down the middle. It only seems fair, given that the DNC really doesn't have to do anything at all since the state parties knew what they were doing when they broke the rules. This way, at least the voters' voices are heard.

Why is this so difficult for people to get???


Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that America is unable to hold a fair revote. There is time enough, there is money enough, there is interest enough and yet, the Democratic (!!!) party is not able to piece this thing together. Gimme a break!

Posted by: flosstoss | April 5, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

leichtman gives zbob too much credit in stating that Obama's supporters are being tactical in their bullying. It is a movement, which is bullying in its nature, as well as thoughtless. It is not a tactic, "bullying" is the nature of the beast. We are seeing something akin to the candidacy of Huey Long-blind populism and rousing speeches, coupled with subtle bullying. The readiness of Obama to seek to throw away Florida and Michigan, where he loses, as well as his pattern of losing primaries but winning caucuses, is proof of the anti-democratic, self-righteously narcissistic nature of his candidacy.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

zbob you once again show your lack of political knowldge. John Kerry was tied down in Michigan and Ohio in '04 and as I recall won that state after spending an inordinate amount of time and money there by around 3% points(we can certainly google that number). But Michgan sir was not a cake walk for John Kerry in '04 so your suggestion that Dems can take Fla and Michigan for granted show your lack of political knowldge sir.

"Don't worry about MI. Obama or any Democrat will win MI easily against McCain who told Michiganers a couple a months ago that jobs are never returning to Michigan."

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Hillary. This is not your time.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | April 5, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the Democratic party is changing. The old guard Clintonians are being replaced/forced out by the new blood -- Dean, Pelosi, and the Obamakins. It is difficult and ugly but it seems this is a necessary step in the evolution of the party and the country. It will take time but I believe it will all work out in the end and Barack Obama will be the nominee and most of the Hillary supporters will eventually come around to supporting him.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

To All the Clinton Supporters:

We know why Clinton is opposed to an equitable allocation of FL and MI delegates....it would not change the results in her favor.

Its interesting that Clinton's position is that FL and MI votes should be counted but yet Clinton is PERFECTLY OK with having Superdelegates OVERRULE the votes of the entire electorate, thereby discounting votes from the rest of the country! That's hypocritical.

Posted by: trainereh | April 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

TYPO CORRECTION

zbob --

The previous poster who called you to task for your arrogance hit the nail right on its head.

I can't wait to vote against Obama.

Every time I start to soften in that feeling, all I have to do is come to these boards and see how his supporters think and how they talk to people who disagree with them.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

zbob: I am a 56 lawyer that worked in the national 1972 McGovern office, in Denver for John Kerry's legal dept and alongside the Ohio Ted Strickland campaign manager in '06. You may be educated but obviously know little about Presidential politics. Obama will not connect with rural and blue collar Columbus or Youngstown voters so he has effectively written off Ohio and possibly now Fla not an auspicious beginning that Al Gore and John Kerry could certainly disagree with. Hispanics and a large number of Jewish voters including my rabbi pledge to never support him. I opened my eyes months ago to Sen Obama, read his books, attended his speeches and reviewed his healthcare plans with doctors and H.R. experts who have uniformly rejected it as has Elizabeth Edwards. I find the breath of Sen Obama knowldge about intricate economic and healthcare policies as empty as his rhetoric.I heard HC debate Jim Cramer on Mad Money about sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds and Sally Mae and Bear Sterns. You see sir HC supporters are not just blind followers nor intimitadetd by your bullying posts here posting inflated Obama stories and acting like anyone who does not drool over your choice is somehow irresponsible. As I have stated repeatedly IF HC does not get the nomination I will see how he and his supporters respond to the 13 million HC voters. Name calling abusive comments like Rhandi Rhodes convinces most HC supporters that your campaign could care less about the 48% of Dem voters who do not agree with you sir, and in my political experience that is a sure recipe for a repeat of 1972. You may be educated sir but your posts read like a mesianic follower of Sen Obama.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

zbob --

The previous poster who called you to task for our arrogance hit the nail right on its head.

I can't wait to vote against Obama.

Every time I start to soften in that feeling, all I have to do is come to these boards and see how his supporters think and how they talk to people who disagree with them.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Singer added that more than 100,000 people have signed a petition put forth by the campaign asking that the delegates be seated.

"We urge Senator Obama to join our efforts to ensure that the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida are counted," Singer said."

Hillary herself signed a form indicating that Michigan votes would not count! Lets move on...

Posted by: macboy4u | April 5, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obama was anything like the kind of guy he paints himself as, he would have been working day and night to make sure every voter's vote would be counted.

His actions never match his words.

People aren't stupid.

They see the disconnect.

What he does, and what he fails to do, speak so loudly about what kind of person he really is that no fancy speech can ever paper it over.

The answer to

"what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes"

hasn't changed.

We're going to believe our own eyes.

Actions speak louder than words.

Obama's actions stink.


Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry about MI. Obama or any Democrat will win MI easily against McCain who told Michiganers a couple a months ago that jobs are never returning to Michigan.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

It is not Obama's choice to re-run those elections. He is happy to. Michigan and Florida have decided not to.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 5, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, Michigan and Florida are going to play no part in the selection of the candidate. But after the candidate is selected, their delegations are going to be invited to participate in the Convention in their current makeup as by that time it isn't going to matter. After the June 3 primaries, if not before then, the numbers are going to be clear, the Super Delegates are going to move and the nominee is going to emerge. At that point unification is job 1 and these states are going to be seated. Unless, of course, someone continues to fight to the convention even if another candidate has sufficient pledged delegates to get the nomination. Then, these folks might as well order lots of room service cause their hotel rooms are the closest they'll get to the convention floor, and that would be a shame.

Posted by: Omyobama | April 5, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Aaargh. Party politics are merely the ingredients. The general election is the main course. Deal with it.

And if McCain wins - um, yes, it actually IS possible - then all this DNC garbage is moot.

Posted by: terpfan2000 | April 5, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

None of the Clinton supporters I know intend to vote for Obama, and most will vote for McCain instead. The Lord could descend from the heavens and order me to vote for Obama and I would respectfully decline- whether his running mate were Biden, Clinton, or the Holy Ghost.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Bigs222 --

You clearly don't understand th concept of "winning the battle but losing the war"

You'll learn the hard way.

If Florida and Michigan's votes aren't counted, kiss the general election goodbye.

McCain's a stand-up guy and if he wins the election, he'll move the Republican party to the center and make good centrist choices just like Bill Clinton did with the Democrats.

I'd rather have Hillary as President, but McCain is much closer to traditional American values that Obama is.

I'd rather have left-of-center than right-of-center, but the center is where I want the country to be.

Obama supporters dramatically overestimate party loyalty.

Obama supporters haven't been loyal to the Democratic Party, anyway.

How dare they demand party loyalty when they've had absolutely none themselves???

Obama supporters are the most arrogant group of people I've ever seen.


Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

svreader said:

"Obama supporters know what the results will be from blocking the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan.

The result will be that if Obama gets the nomination, McCain will be the next President.

The rest of Democrats will never forget what they did to the Democrrats best chance in years, and the glee with which Obama nuts threw President Clinton and Senator Clinton under the bus."

... I can't believe I agree with YOU. Obama's making a strategic mistake not re-running those elections, because circumstances have changed-

HRC was as much as 30 points up in the nationwide polls.

Now Obama leads.

The Florida and Michigan races were 3-way races; Clinton, Edwards, Obama.

Now it's down to two.

HRC had a money advantage.

Now she barely has two nickels to rub together, leaving upaid bills all over the country.

Obama's campaign is well managed, well organized (they planned ahead to compete in EVERY race) and has plenty of money.

People don't see her as Saint Hillary any more, I think he could do very well in those races now.

Posted by: chuckhampton | April 5, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bugs: I truly hope that voters in Fla and Michigan are not listening to your rants calling them and their hundreds of thousand of HC voters crybabies. If that is your's and your campaign's idea about how to win a general election you should think twice.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

On another note, Clinton's story about the pizza girl that we were all talking about a few days ago turns out to be untrue:

Also Saturday, Clinton campaign officials acknowledged that an anecdote Clinton has made a staple of her stump speech in recent weeks may not have been true and wasn't thoroughly checked for accuracy before she began repeating it on the campaign trail.

Since competing in Ohio's March 4 primary, Clinton has shared the story of an Ohio woman who worked in a pizza parlor and died after giving birth to a stillborn child. The woman was uninsured, Clinton said, and twice denied medical care at a local hospital because she couldn't pay a $100 fee.

Clinton said she learned of the story from a deputy sheriff whose home she visited while campaigning in Ohio. She told the story as recently as late Friday, at a rally in Grand Forks, N.D.

Officials with O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio, have disputed the story, saying the woman, Trina Bachtel, was insured and did receive care through an obstetric practice affiliated with the hospital, The New York Times reported Saturday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble_clinton

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 5, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: Funny, you call me a GenY Obama supporter. I am probably older and more experienced than you.

I am 53 years old with a PhD (science realted) and have lived overseas for several years and traveled to over 20 different countries. I have lived in over 10 different states and traveled to 47 states. I cons8ider myself to be a moderate. I actually donated to John McCain once. But now I am completely and totally supporting Barack Obama. He is unique and inspires me like no one else has in my lifetime. Maybe someday you will get over your Hillary fetish and get on board with the campaign that may change this country and the world. Peace.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Clintonistas, but these rules were set in place when your crony Terry McAuliffe ran the DNC, specifically to enable Billary to blow everyone out by Super Tuesday. Since that didn't happen, you crybabies want to change the rules. Sorry folks, you made the rules, you gotta live by 'em.

Posted by: Bugs222 | April 5, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

johnwp

Your virtuous Obama is ashamed of his own middle name, and his name calling cokehead supporters like you accuse any one who uses his middle name of racism.

Before you sing his praises, find out wy he bought his house from a slum lord at a discounted price, and if that makes it a bribe.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

There's no way you can make Florida and Michigan voters feel good about quashing their votes.

Wake up before its too late.

Otherwise, say hello to President McCain.

Voters aren't as stupid as you think they are.

They know when they're being played for fools.

They demand their right to vote

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

jac13 obviously you did not read my post b/c I never said I am supporting McCain but might register my protest by voting straight D and abstain for Pres. Somehow else posted they didn't think McCain would appoint a right winger but correctly said Dems could block any extremist Supreme.
My guess is that McCain might choose someone like Ted Olson to replace aging Stephens and yes as a lawyer that scares the h*** out of me as a Federalist member and head of the Bush recount outrage, so yes I fully understand what is at stake. Reagan chose Sandra Day O'Conner, someone I admire, except for Gore v Bush, so I will just wait and see if he cowtows to his extreme right in his Convention speech. If he talks about Scalia and Thomas as his idea of great Justices its doubtful too many moderates will tolerate that.

Unfortunately for your side its not over and Pa may still be a big surprise for the Obama supporters. An unwritten story is the Rhandi Rhodes UTube moment which I wish was CZ story. I have shown it to a few women who have responded, oh my gosh is this what Sen Obama thinks of women.
Others here listent to that filth.(incidnteally I used to admire her, now I am convinced she needs med).

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

cam8

Mighty smug are n't you? You don't even have the nomination yet. But then, no one accused you Obama slime bags of haing any brain cells, or modesty.

Harold Ford thought he had the TN senate seat won, before the right wing unleashed their attack dogs. I don't agree with them, but they are coming. SO, before you disdainfully tell HRC supporters to get lost, read your history, and know that Obama's poll numnbers are vastly overstated in a predominantly White country.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary continues to underestimate American intelligence. MI and FL didn't matter to her before when she thought she was going to win the nomination. All of a sudden (now that she is under sniper fire:), it is all about not disenfranchising MI and FL. If she really cares, then split the votes 50/50. That is the only fair solution. Any other split would show that she is just USING MI and FL.

The best article ever written on the Hillary campaign IMO is by Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons better than any of us:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/04/03/hillarys_biggest_mistake

From the very beginning of her solo political career, Hillary Clinton has manifested a consistently low opinion of the intelligence of voters. Sometimes the bet has paid off -- as when she tried to convince New Yorkers that she wanted to become one of them (when, in fact, she would have run in Montana had there been a vacancy). But lately, it hasn't. Her entire decision to predicate her campaign on the basis of her so-called "experience" reflected a belief that she could put one over on us by co-opting Bill's experience and making it her own."

Wake up, MI and FL and see how you're being used!

Posted by: DrSubtle | April 5, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows caucus is not democratic. Obama ran up a huge margin on Washington state caucus. Two weeks later in the non binding primary, many more voters turn out and the vote difference is like 5%.

Republicans have more knowledge in "rules" than Democrats. They use winner take all in a lot of states because that's what the general election is about. If the democrats used the same rule as the republicans, Hillary would be comfortably ahead.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The majority of this country can't wait until Hillary drops out, or more likely, is forced out of this race. The devisiveness and rancor of this primary season is just a small taste of what she'd bring to the table as President. Yeah, she'd be ready on Day One. Ready to bring us more scandal, bickering, political gridlock, absurdity, and scumbag hubby Bill getting serviced by the latest starry-eyed intern (though he'd have to find another room to do it in, I guess). Maybe she'd even top Bill's propensity for starring into a camera, wagging his finger at us, and lying straight to our faces.

(And I don't even want to know how Bill has earned $11 million from some shady Cayman Island-based "company" or what favors Hillary is supposed to perform in order to repay the benefactors who continue to pay her hubby outrageous speaking and appearance fees. 100 and some million $$ in eight years? $90 million wasn't enough, you have to pursue quasi-legitimate - at best - avenues of income generation? They know not the meaning of "excess" in any context the word can be spoken in.)

If you want to gauge the difference between Obama and Clinton, it's this: Obama would never stoop to the outrageous, disgraceful tactic of trying to reverse the existing decisions and AGREEMENTS regarding Michigan and Florida. Hillary, completely lacking in honesty, integrity, and honor, however, does so as naturally as the rest of us breath in air. Does she not realize that folks aren't stupid, that they, for instance, can perform the basic arithmetic necessary to figure out that "35 years of leadership experience" includes twenty years as a private sector attorney and eight years as a First Lady, when the only leadership role she can claim, heading up the disastrous health care reform effort, failed miserably and left her with nothing more than traditional First Lady duties for the rest of hubby's tenure?

Hillary, please just drop out. Now! We can thus end this bush league primary circus and go on to have an honorable race between two honorable candidates, either of whom will elevate us out of this tiresome, unproductive Inner-Loop-establishment muck that you and your hubby are so happy to slop around in.

Posted by: johnwp | April 5, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

'One more conservative appointee can skew the Supreme Court for a generation.'

that's right. no US citizen will ever have a chance against a corporation again... and forget your Constitutional rights.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Aren't these issues a joke? The very discussion of these issues is a waste of time - all the votes should be counted - there is shame on the part of those who would try to use this dispute to actually decide an election.


The voters' interests are paramount.


The democratic party comes off like a bunch of hypocrites - the proof they hand us that they are in fact WORSE than the republicans - then the money democrats try to buy an election in Mich. Take your money and lose yourself.

Posted by: Miata7 | April 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

sorry dyinglikeflies I won't go there or slam Jimmy Carter. Yes I recall him saying that in his '78 State of the Union and chuckled and don't know who his idiot speech writer was, but Carter is a decent and honorable man, and a nuclear engineer I believe, who I highly respect regardless of his flawed judgment and personal animus towards Bill. The folks like Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, and Joe Biden and even John Kerry and Edward Kennedy who I have high regard for won't change even after this bitter nomination process. I question their political judgment but not their integrity or love of country.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"His selection by Obama IF he is the nominee would move to be an Obama supporter in the general, and that is a very hard admission for me to make."

I understand that completely Leichtman-- I admire Biden and agree that he would give real credibility to whomever selected him for VP. I actually think he'd be better as Secretary of State, but VP would work for me too.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

Don't count on McCain to appoint anybody to the Supreme Court other than more Roberts/Alito clones. And don't count on a Democratic Senate to have the balls to deny confirmation to ANY appointee on the basis of ideology. There will be no more Borks, trust me.

That's why the people wo are supporting either of Democratic candidates who say they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination scare the hell out of me.

Roberts is barely 50 years old. One more conservative appointee can skew the Supreme Court for a generation.

Posted by: jac13 | April 5, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

What Rove advised McCain to do:

"He should take a biographical tour to the places in the country that have made him who he is. Go to the Naval Academy and talk about the values he learned there. Then he should go to Pensalcola, Florida and Corpus Christi, Texas where he was trained as a naval aviator, and talk from the heart and the call to service. Go to Meridien, Mississippi and Jacksonville, Florida and talk about what he learned about leadership commanding the largest naval air squadron in the United States. He should go to wherever it was that he first stepped foot back in the United States after the Vietnam War and meet with his POW buddies and talk about what he learned about character when he sat in that cell. And he should give a speech in Sedona, Arizona and talk about the people and places in his hometown that affected him."

And McCain followed Rove's orders, just like he will whne he becomes president. and we'll have 4 more years of the same.

And all of you here wasting your time attacking democrats will have only yourself to blame for it.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Can't you-all see the Clintons BOUGHT THE WHITE HOUSE with donations from thier rich BILLIONIER friends. So she can't stop she must win at all cost even if it puts this country it to a 3rd world war. If she and Bill bow out of the race, it would be a "MARGIN CALL" just like on wall street. Thay would halft to return all the money thay got from thier RICH friends like Bob Johnson and the rest of the "CLEAR CHANNEL"
Crew!!!!!!!!
GO Figure!!!

Barack is a JEWISH Name!!! for those of you who don't know!!

Posted by: mlhkfh | April 5, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

This is not a blow to Clinton as she has already lost the nomination and she knows it.

Everyday they're hit with more bad news

What will be bad news to the Clintons is when they realize they can't steal the election by working in the shadows on the super delegates.

I will also add it's not the campaign that's failed it's the candidate who America no longer believes anything coming out her mouth

This woman is a liar.

Her latest whopper is how she tried to enlist in the Marines and was told her glasses were to thick.

Yeah right!!

Imagine that, gets her law degree and then decides to enlist in the Marines.

She's such a liar and will say anything to get a vote.

Posted by: BuffyTheBanana | April 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

This is not a blow to Clinton as she has already lost the nomination and she knows it.

Everyday they're hit with more bad news

What will be bad news to the Clintons is when they realize they can't steal the election by working in the shadows on the super delegates.

I will also add it's not the campaign that's failed it's the candidate who America no longer believes anything coming out her mouth

This woman is a liar.

Her latest whopper is how she tried to enlist in the Marines and was told her glasses were to thick.

Yeah right!!

Imagine that, gets her law degree and then decides to enlist in the Marines.

She's such a liar and will say anything to get a vote.

Posted by: BuffyTheBanana | April 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

drindl I am very interested in whether Sen Biden will be making an endorsement. IMHO Sen Biden was the most qualified of our candidates and deserves to be selected as VP by either Obama or HC. His selection by Obama IF he is the nominee would move to be an Obama supporter in the general, and that is a very hard admission for me to make.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

leichtman- you forgot, Carter said the reason he thought nuclear proliferation was a big problem is because Amy brought it up at the dinner table when she was like 9. (This claim by Carter made him look like an idiot- ironic, because nuclear proliferation IS now a big deal).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse


"WASHINGTON -- A leading Democrat on Saturday declared last year's troop buildup in Iraq a failure. Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the military push didn't succeed because U.S. troops remain committed there in large numbers and political reconciliation has not been achieved. "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically," said Biden, D-Del., in this week's Democratic radio address. "Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon."

"I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq," Biden said. "His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor." Republicans say they are satisfied with the recent drop in violence and that more time is needed to improve the situation there."

5 years more, 10, 15 -- how many more thousands will die?

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

DNC's proportional allocation rules are really out-of-whack in modern democratic society. These rules are not designed to produce best candidate to win in the general election. It is like playing NFL games with one set rule for the whole season and come-up with totally different game rule on Super Bowl.

Democratic Party nomination has lost 8 out of 10 presidential elections in last 44 years. Here is a list of Democratic Party candidates who lost to Republicans:

Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Carter (1980), Mondale (1984), Dukakis (1988), Gore (2000), Kerry (2004) and Obama (2008).

Every four years, democrats go through the same song-and-dance. In the end, they end-up losing more states to Republicans. So, what's new!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 5, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Roy3, I heard that same innane comment from Arriana Huffington last night; oh my children love Sen. Obama. Its outrageous that my generation would be intimidated by their children. As for Jimmy Carter he and Pres Clinton never got along after Pres Clinton told him to butt out of Bosnian peace talks. I respect Pres. Carter but understand the reason for his opposing the Clintons but proclaiming its because their children told them to. is beneath these folks.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

to trainereh re "double standards"- If more voters (not pledged delegates from caucuses) choose Clinton, would you feel the same way? Look at Texas, where actual voters decisively picked Clinton, but the less democratic caucuses went to Obama (my sisters live there and say the caucuses were a joke). I would be shocked if Obama retires his campaign if at the end of the process Clinton has more actual votes (which is a major possibility).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

ndolan622,

Obama gave most of his donation to the racist church he associated for 20 years, albeit not much, only less than 1% of his income between 2000 -2004.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

ndolan622 --

You should check your facts.

If you did any research at all about what Obama did in Chicago, you wouldn't even vote for him for dog-catcher.

Have you ever read any posts from people who have serious concerns about Obama based on record of extremely poor performance, especially with respect to the slums in his district in Chicago?

Have you ever read anything about how he got elected in Chicago in the first place?

Have you read the NYT or WP articles on his dismal performance in the Senate?

Or are you just in love with the guy's image?

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Basra Backfires:

"Reuters explained, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backfired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections." Experts agree:

Jonathan Steele: "Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki...has emerged with his authority severely weakened. ... Meanwhile, Moqtada al-Sadr, the target of the assault, comes out of the crisis strengthened. His militiamen gave no ground and, by declaring a ceasefire that has successfully held since Sunday, Sadr has demonstrated his authority and the discipline of his men." [LINK]

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "Here, Maliki says he's going down and he's going to take out all these malcontents, as well as take out Sadr and his Mahdi Army. And it looks to me like, at least on the surface, Sadr may have come out a winner here. You know, he lives to fight another day." [LINK]

Juan Cole: "For the Iraqi government to depend on Badr and Peshmerga militias, however, weakens its independence and makes it hostage to allies of Iran...So not only did Iran gain stature and authority in Iraq by negotiating a (fragile) ceasefire between al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr, but al-Maliki has is now more than ever dependent on Iranian clients."

Brian Katulis: "This was a thumpin' for the Iraqi army and this was a thumpin' from a political perspective for the Iraqis."

It was Maliki's government -- not Sadr -- who traveled to Iran and requested the cease-fire, and it is Maliki's government that remains close to Iran.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

ANOTHER SHOOT-OUT AT CLINTON CREDIBILITY GAP ...

Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror

New York Times
April 5, 2008


Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.[...]

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | April 5, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Let Florida and Michigan Democrats be punished for the stupidity and obstinacy of its elected leaders. Happens all the time. You have to live with the decisions of the leaders you elect. Cannot be helped. Maybe the people will vote the stupid leaders out of office. But for now, they must suffer.

Posted by: rammmohan | April 5, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dicarlop | April 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

To All the Clinton Supporters:

You know, its interesting that Clinton's position is that FL and MI votes should be counted but yet Clinton is PERFECTLY OK with having Superdelegates OVERRULE the votes of the entire electorate, thereby discounting votes from the rest of the country! What a double standard!

Posted by: trainereh | April 5, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

'Patrick, One of the funnier moments was when the Jumbotron showed a shot of a person holding up a big homemade sign that said
"Bill for First Lady"

Hillary started laughing a little when she saw it, even though it was a serious part of her speech. My sense is that she's gotten more human throughout this process and actually more likeable and a better campaigner.'

Appreciate, proud... had a hard time finding it among the pools of spew. Maybe a fuller report in the morning, when it is quieter here?

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

jsindc --

I agree completely with your analysis.

Nominating Obama would ensure defeat for the Democratic Party in November, and result in the largest loss for the Democratic Party since McGovern.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

As the kids would say, LOL on the Obominations here taking their arrogance to Facebook. LMFAO.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

svreader,
You probably should have read a bit more before posting...Yes, the Clinton's have given 10% of their earnings to charity...but have you heard? The charity they gave it to is the Clinton Foundation!
Always good to have the complete story before you post...

Posted by: ndolan622 | April 5, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

It´s remarkable that none are seriously worried about the Obama personality cult. He appeals to young people in a way that maybe not is as nice and harmless as it seems to be. Many politicians (sometimes dictators) have had unsuspecting youths as their base in order to achieve his own blurred goals and personal power. I don´t think that Barack Obama is going to be a good diplomat if elected President.

When Bob Casey endorsed Barack Obama he told that he had been persuaded by his "four beautiful and intelligent daugthers". For almost the same reason Jimmy Carter said that he would endorse Obama. Since when have former Presidents and Senators ended to make their own desicions. After all, are they not supposed to represent the American people and not their family, or..? To me this seems to be a sign of unhealthy mass-psychosis.....only.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

your sense of arrogance zbob is amazing. YOU have now established yourself as the arbitror of what a win is in Pa. YOU apparently know more about Pa politics then Gov Rendell and mayors Street and Nutter, amazing. OK if she wins in Pa by 8-12% points in Pa after Obama spends $10-15 million in your delusional world its a loss. Yes day is night, night is day, grow up and take your arrogance to face book.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

High time for the Democrats to just say "no" to the daily diet of sour grapes the Clintons are forcing us to share with them.

Just move on!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | April 5, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

I agree there is a very good chance that Obama will lose California if he steals the nomination denying voters in Florida and Michigan. Latinos and Asians don't support him. Jewish people will be much more comfortable with McCain. Whites have been insulted by his association with Luis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

Scientists, engineers, doctors, anyone who deals with solving practical problems, knows Obama is all about abstract and nothing in the reality. Barry will lose the blue states, swing states, and red states.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Elections in "fascist" nations are sham democracy. Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I do not support clinton neither do I support Obama, but the rules must not be changed in the middle of the game. Both candidates agreed from the beginning even before the votes were cast that delegates from Michigan and Florida should not be seated, therefore the delegates must not be seated. I actuallydon't know the full history of the disqualification of delegates from Florida and Michigan - maybe Clinton was against disqualifying them initially, if this is the case then something mustbe done to seat the delegates, but if she was against seating them initially then she must stop making noise.

Posted by: obohokechukwu | April 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

zbob don't try and bully, intimidate, or guilt us into supporting Sen Obama IF he is the nominee,it doesn't sit well with HC supporters. Personally IF he gets the nomination in a manner that I feel is illegitimate by interfearing with Michigan and Fla voters I vow to never support him. Last time I checked I have the right to vote straight D except for Pres. Currently I am leaning towards abstaining for president and your bullying tactics only makes me want to question that as well. You will not dictate who or if I vote for Pres in Nov. A vote for Obama in the general would be my affirmation that I support him personally and his policies which I don't and your bullying tactics will only do more to turn the 13 million HC voters more firmly away from Sen Obama. It is really sad that your side doesn't seem to comprehend that.Personally I have dealt with quite a few GenY folks in the legal system who act like you and I am not impressed. Constant threats, intimidation and bullying like I experienced here in Tx from Obama supporters pushes me further and further away from Sen Obama, so you might try a different tactic sir.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

zbob99 --

Any win in Penn is fine for Hillary.

Obama supporters are the ones that put the 15-20 point spread out there.

Obama will never be President.

That's a good thing.

He'd be a horrible one.

He's completely incompetent at doing real work.

He'll either lose the primaries or the general election.

We'd rather see Clinton as President, but we'll be glad to settle for McCain.

We'll probably pay less in taxes if that happens, so maybe its not a bad result after all.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is playing a very dangerous game here.

The could easily lose a lot more than just this election.

They could cause lots of mainstream Democrats to the leave the party as well.


Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

intcamd1: I am well to the left of supporters, such as yourself, of that corporatist sellout Clinton.

Posted by: stickeen | April 5, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

zbob- and another reason that moderate Democrats won't vote for Obama is the rabid, insane and cult-like way (as demonstrated in your last response) his supporters are dealing with this process. Even his educated "experts" resort to calling the opposition a "monster". Pardon me, but the lessons of the 20th century dictate that it is not good for any country to be led by a "movement" rather than by true, clear ideas (of which Obama is sorely lacking- and DON'T refer me to his website again). Any candidate who draws his or her strength from crowd frenzy rather than from a deliberate, common sense appeal to the voters based on the soundness of his or her positions does not belong in high office in this country. Maybe in Argentina, but not here.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

To delusional Clinton supporter in CA:

Latest polls have Obama with a bigger lead over McCain in California than Hillary does over McCain.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: I thought PA was supposed to be a huge win for Hillary that was going to turn the tide. Any thing less than 15-20 point win is PA is a major loss for Hillary. Even some of biggest supporters are admiting this like Corzine and Murtha. Do I need to post what they said?

This thing is soooooo over. Get over it.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

jsindc --

Obama may not even win California.

Here in Silicon Valley we love Hillary and hate Obama.

Engineers don't like empty suits.

They've shafted us too many times.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee, he will be lucky to win 3 states, Illinois, Washington, and Hawaii. California, New York, and Massachusetts are all in play if Barry steals the nomination. American citizens in Florida and Michigan are very angry about his obstruction of democracy. He will have virtually no chance in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan.

He has nothing to offer. No experience, no accomplishment, empty talk, do nothing is his candidacy. All John McCain needs to do is have 527s running Rev. Wright's videos over and over. There are plenty of footage and voters won't get bored.

Obama is toast.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I love my country more than I love the Democratic party, and more than I hate the thieving Republican party. That is why I can never vote for Obama.

=======

Nah. Your rabid love of your dysfunctional candidate has affected your judgement. You are afflicted with acute sourgrape syndrome.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

zbob: CBS and Gallup show it to be a 3%-5% difference well within their margin of error with HC well ahead in Ky, West Va and 3-12% points ahead in Pa and Obama well ahead in N.Carolina. You can selectively post polling if that makes you feel better but we are not impressed.And that is after a massive Obama $3 million dollar buy in Pa where HC expenditures will likely come in Pa the last 7 days.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

its also rich to see Hillary supporters talk about the principles of 'democracy' just days after she said that 'pledged' delegates, the ones people have been electing, aren't really pledged at all. These people have about as many faces as brain cells.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 11:43 AM

--------------------
Was Hillar referring to those darned superdelegates. If so, she is right - some of them who were pledged to her turncoated and ran to the messiah.

Posted by: mafox1 | April 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

More bad news for Hillary:

A new poll in North Carolina says a key element in Obama's success is that the state's voters value trust over experience. The survey for the Charlotte Observer/WCNC-TV reported that only 25 percent of voters gave high marks to Clinton for trustworthiness compared to 48 percent for Obama. Nearly 9 in 10 voters said trust would be a major factor in deciding how they would vote.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

zbob: I love my country more than I love the Democratic party, and more than I hate the thieving Republican party. That is why I can never vote for Obama.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies

I think you hit on the head.

I plan to vote top to bottom BLUE< except at the very top, where my vote will be going to the Rethug party for the 1st time (I am assuming Obama will be the nominee, since the Obama slime machine has succeeded in blocking MI and FL votes).

I agree that McCain will not nominate a Scalito to the high ct. Even if he does, the democrats have enough majority to block it and vote it down in the senate (although the dems were in the majority when they put the abominable Thomas in there)

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

All this hand-wringing about Florida & Michigan will be moot once the May primaries demonstrate Obama's indisputable lead (which personally I believe he has now). But let's offer HRC a face-saving exit and let her finish the primaries. I wonder why Chris Cillizza is wasting so much time and effort writing about such irrelevant subjests.

Munir

Posted by: Munir1 | April 5, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies: Clearly you are not a real Democrat.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

turshish- thanks

for the poster comparing mi/fl votes and WW2 ? THAT IS A BIT TOO MUCH? DONT YOU THINK ?
Fact is that the DNC was issued fair warnings and the candidates agreed to it, now Clinton wantts to change her word; while it is her right, I must say It bodes very ill for international relations as how can we believe her word, if she is ready to renegade it towards her very own people i.e. the democrats.
International relations are like that, if you say that you are supposed to act like so; if you change your word, then dont be surprised foreign nations dont pay attention to you...

Posted by: THERESEPRIEUR04 | April 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The democratic party is in trouble as evidenced by the fractured nature of the debate here. It does not matter which democratic candidate wins the nomination for either would serve us better, especially considering the atrocities under George Bush during the last two adminstrations. Somewhere in this debate surrounding Clinton and Obama that truism is lost. We are playing right into the strategies so marvellously orchestrated by Karl Rove over the last seven years, which is to divide and conquer. This delegate matter will be resolved, there is enough blame to go around, and when it does I will support the democratic nominee. So don't destroy the house just because you dont't like one of the rooms. This type of thinking is what got us twenty (20) years of "one issue presidencies" like Reagan, Bush I and Bush II along with the current economic, financial crises and lost of respect around the world. Looking past your own arm and seeing the body is sometimes required. We can not allow these one issue mentalities to distract us any longer. Stay focus on the body!

Posted by: dldkinchen | April 5, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

stickeen

Slime bags such as yourself were on the other side making the same argument that popular vote does not matter in 2000. I wonder why pondscum like you switched parties and trying to pollute the liberal politics. SHould n't you be somewhere else weighing in on whether Tom Tancredo or David Duke makes the best nominee for your Rethug party?

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

If there are people (legal voters or non-legals) willing to swear that they were bussed in for the express purpose of caucasing for Obama, then some of the states where Obama won the vote by caucas may be invalid. There's a cult in action here, subverting the democratic process. Michigan and Florida should be permitted to vote because that is our system of government, and no newcomers can decide otherwise.

Posted by: drzimmern | April 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

intcamd1: Apparently you are the one with a reading comprehension problem. Latest polls from PA show it a tossup between Obama and McCain.

Quinnipiac (03/24-03/31) 39-43 Obama +4.0
Strategic Vision (03/28-03/31) 47-42 McCain +5.0

These numbers will improve once the Dem candidate is chosen and the Dems stop bashing each other and focus on McCain.

FL and OH will be tough for any Dem candidate.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

zbob-Your "suspicions" notwithstanding as to why any moderate Democrat will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic candidate, McCain is seen as an accptable relative moderate. Here, from another post about McCain:

Initially voted against the tax cuts for the rich and, based on wording he is currently using, will support a grand compromise that cuts back on them;

Supported and still idealizes Sandra Day O'Connor, who preserved Roe v. Wade. Would likely appoint a Justice in her mold;

Brokered compromise in Senate to avoid "nuclear option" on Federal Judges;

Not a hero of the NRA or the tobacco lobby. They hate him;

Opposes deficit/porkbarrel spending, which will ultimately leave more money in the treasury for schools, infrastructure.

There are many other examples. No, he is not a liberal. But ask any conservative if he is their darling and you will get an honest, clear "no". And even on Iraq, he'll likely support a phase out, albeit not as quick a pull-out as Clinton and Obama. We can live with that.
Can't live with Obama, however. His constant hypocritical play of the race card while he accuses the other side of doing it is just too much for me. To my mind he is a bad man, like Bush, and should never be President.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are sealing his political grave by their continued efforts to prevent the voters of Florida and Michigan from having their votes count.

Like Barry Obama, they show very poor character and very poor judgement.

I'm starting to wonder how smart Obama supporters really are.

They don't understand just how angry Clinton supporters are, and how close to the center most of us are.

We won't vote for Obama.

But we won't just stay home either.

McCain's no "Bush Clone"

He's a pretty good guy.

He's much more competent than Obama.

McCain appeals to lots of Clinton voters.

We'll feel pretty comfortable voting for McCain.

Its not spite, its a question of who would be a better President.

So we won't stay home if Obama gets the nomination.

We'll vote, and we'll vote for McCain.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Boy, it sure is strange that Clinton's supporters--who boast of their political experience--have only just now figured out that caucuses are worse than the Holocaust.

But I'm sure this sudden revelation has nothing to do with the fact that their candidate is losing.

Posted by: christoffel | April 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris? The nomination is decided by delegate count, not popular vote. Nobody cares if Clinton has any chance of getting closer in her made-up spin metric.

Posted by: stickeen | April 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

My querry: If HC should win the nomination should we expect that same class from Sen. Obama?

Yes, of course. He has said it many times.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,
Hasn't the Clinton campaign already been including Michigan's and Florida's votes in their calculations of the popular vote? Will anybody really call them out if she passes him in popular vote with those states included but doesn't hold a lead in all the other states? It seems a bit too complex an issue to clearly argue that she is wrong.

Posted by: viola061985 | April 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, was speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana yesterday ....".

If Hillary Clinton had done the same she would have been accused for not paying enough attention to honour the memory of Martin Luther King! She couldn´t just run for primary in Indiana! Obama on the other hand was free to chose a strategy which made it possible for him to play the race card in Indiana were primaries is run on May 6th.

Off topic! Maybe but this might be the true face of a true manipulator.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"michiganians?"

sounds like an alien species

Posted by: davequ | April 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

zbob99

WHen you learn how to read, you will see and read polls which will tell you that Obama is badly bahind McCain in FL, OH, and PA, w/o which he will be toast - you however, still will be pondscum, as now.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The democratic party is doing all it can to have Mr Hussein as their candidate.
If Mr Hussein is elected, which I doubt, he will be a one term president.
Too bad that after 8 long years of Bush/Cheney mismanagment we'll have a "present" president to continue to screw up the Country.

Posted by: deligimario | April 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Today's Gallup daily tracking poll has Obama now tied with McCain for the first time since before the Rev Wright controversy. Another indication the issue is dying or dead. McCain will be easy to beat once the Dem nominee is selected and we can focus on beating him and the Republicans instead of beating up on ourselves.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"What are you die-hard Clinton supporters going to do when Hillary endorses Obama"

IF that happens it will prove that HC has much more class than the Obama supporters. Should we expect an apology from the Obama supporters or would they continue to denigrade HC and her 13 million supporters. Fair question since I have answered your question.

My querry: If HC should win the nomination should we expect that same class from Sen. Obama?

I am sure that will be met with more nasty comments here since civil conversation is now vorbotin.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: di54 | April 5, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

zbob --

Some sources are saying Obama's smoking crack again.

I view them as just as credible as the sources you quote.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

zbob99

You can suspicious all you want. The fact is, Obama is the one who claims proudly that he is getting a lot of Rethug support. Obama groupies such as yourself are the ones who adore him because he tells you he will get you that group hug with the Repugs which will be denied you if the dividing and polarizing Clinton is the nominee.

Statistically speaking, it is much more likely that a Obama supporter is a Rethug; the popular vote is so close, and yet he claims he is getting a lot of vote from the right, which clearly means Hillary got most of the traditional democratic vote.

However, logic is not the domain of your cokehead candidate or dittohead fans like you.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Some sources are saying that the Clinton campaign knows they cannot win and are only staying in the race to raise enough money to pay off their debts, including the $2.5M owed to Mark Penn and Hillary's $5M personal loan.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

zbob99

Obama will lose the general and Hillary will become President in 2012. Obam supporters will develop schizophrenia which may last for at least 6 months. That is a fact and you can take that to the bank.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | April 5, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

zbob99 --

Rev Wright will keep coming back.

The latest NYT poll shows Obama fading.

The earlier posts were dead on.

Republicans will bring up all the stuff Democrats have been holding back on.

I will be proud to vote against Chicago Barry Obama!

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

mikel7

Obama slime machine like you may believe caucus counts as much as primaries and secret balloting. Neanderthals like you might as well live in some banana republic or 17th century, or both.

Caucuses suppressed weak voiced. In numerous caucuses around the country this year, there have been reports that Obama supporting groupie scumbags such as yourself outshouted, hissed, booed, made ballots unavailable and generally tried to suppress voting for opponent supporting voters. Caucuses don't allow absentee ballots. Caucuses don't allow shift workers, people who need to take care of others such as kids and older parents, caucuses make it difficult for old people who can't drive up and spend 4 or 5 hrs in a useless debate with bad smelling rascals like you, caucuses make it impossible for people who need to make a living who don't have all that much time to spend in that useless caucus fracas, and most of all caucuses drive away people who value their privacy and would rather not let other people know about their voting preference.

There is a reason why the general election uses secret balloting and not a dumb caucus. Nazis like you Obama gas bags can't see that.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Rev Wright issue has died. All polls are moving in Obama's favor. In fact just today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Obama with his biggest lead ever, 10 points.

Obama: 51%
Clinton: 41%

Most voters are more concerned about Hillary's lying than Rev Wright's controversial statements.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Now we all know that if the votes are not counted that the Dems risk a lawsuit because the action violates Federal Voter law. Now Obuma beat Hillary in Iowa by about 230 votes so he was big cheese on the day even though it was a joke in Iowa. Hillary is the best candidate but with political correctness they will try and give the job to the negro. It is a sign of the times. It isn't fair at all but Hillary will be discriminated against.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | April 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

You have to wonder what the voters are looking at when they make their choice on which candidate would be best suited to be the next President of the United States. Perhaps much of this decision making has little to do with the issues that Americans face in their daily lives in this campaign. For instance, when I was young and first attended college, I felt alive and healthy. I never for a minute even considered such things as affordable healthcare, longterm care, effective retirement plans, access to tools to manage my finances or social security.

My first chance to cast my vote was in a presidential race between Nixon and McGovern. It was the addition of the 26th Amendment that gave me that right to vote.

But again, I was young then and if the issues facing me today were on the line then, I haven't a clue who I would have voted for or in some minds, against.

I understand that with any election process, there will always be those candidates who eloquently draw voters to them because of how that speaker looks or what words they may transmit in order to move me to become active in the Democratic process - I know that this happens, I witnessed the same when John F. Kennedy moved Americans during his campaigning.

But the fact still remains, will we wake up after all is said and done and be happy with our choice?

Will our youth wake up to find that their parent has become seriously ill and now they have the burden to take care of that parent? Will the same youth who may be an unexpected accident victim without insurance be happy for the choice that he or she made?

I know that this is meaningless dribble for some, but I am no longer young. I am no longer able to give my attentions to a candidate who merely moves me to take action... I must look at the issues closely in order to make an educated decision. Yes. An educated decision.

I support Hillary Clinton because she does care about America. She presents a solid plan for handling all the issues I face in my everyday life. She has a conviction to never give up and that is what I want from someone who is going to be entering the office of the President of the United States. I am not looking for someone who can swoon me with words, I am looking for someone who can help me achieve those things I need in my life. That someone is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: di54 | April 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I am suspect of anyone who claims to be a Democrat and says they will vote for McCain if their fav candidate does not win. McCain is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years, he wants to bomb bomb Iran, he will appoint conservative Supremes who may try to overturn Roe v Wade. How's all that going to work out for you?

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

svreader (or should we just call you by your real name: hillary?), you are either the biggest fool or the biggest liar I've seen yet. You post continual lies about Sen. Obama and make up the dumbest "facts" about hillary.
Fact: she knew votes would not have counted, but had no problem with that because she believed she would have the nomination wrapped up.
Fact: in interview with Phila Inquirer, she said that all delegates, committed or not, are free to vote for whomever they want. Quote:"Those are the rules of the Democratic Party. RULES ARE RULES. If you don't like them, change them forward." Unquote. So why is she trying to change those rule of the DNC? Because she, like you, is a loser. And a liar.
Fact: caucus votes count as much as primary vote counts. In Nev, hillary went to court to obstruct previously set and agreed upon Nev rules allowing greater caucus participation, but lost that ruling. Howver, when she won the Nev caucus, she never said those votes did not count for her.
Fact, while Obama has consistently said that hillary is a worthy candidate, she has consistently degraded his candidacy and basically wrote john McCain's campaign strategy: "Sen Clinton said..."
Fact: if the shoe were on the other foot and hillary had Obama's #'s, her campaign would be calling on him to drop out.
Fact: if Bill Richardson had endorsed hillary, they would have blared it to the heavens, not called him a Judas because he decided on the better candidate.
Fact: if hillary were not married to bill clinton and NY had had a residency requirement to run for senator, hillary would not even be a senator.
Fact: it is the clinton people who are doing the name-calling and making up the lies and, like good Rovians, turn it around on Obama.
Fact, you hillary supporters are rivaling the bush supporters in your idiocy and irrationality. What makes you worse is that there are more clinton supporters than those who still believe bush is relevent. That's scarey and that's a fact!

Posted by: mikel7 | April 5, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

zbob --

The posts here are proof that the Rev Wright hasn't faded and that it won't.

Anything else is wishful thinking on the part of Obama supporters.

If anything,, it will build with time.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

zbob99,

Obama will not end the war. He may lower the number of troops in Iraq but he will not end it. Listen to what his advisors have said. Can you tell me what Obama means by keeping a strike force in Iraq. How many troops will that include. Hillary will bring our troops home.

Obama says that teenagers having children are being punished and he does not want his daughters being punished. I did not feel punished when my daughter was born. I felt blessed.

Obama is losing support as voters get to know him.

Rev Wright will not go away in the general. There is probably more to this story that republicans are waiting to use in the general.

Obama's ties to the terrorist Reyes and business favors to Rezko will also be general election problems.


Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | April 5, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

MEET THE NEW POLITICIAN, THE SAME AS THE OLD POLITICIAN

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe called for splitting Michigan delegates down the middle and moving forward. "A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution." [Yet if an election were held today, Hillary would receive 60% of the vote.

Remember in 2000, when Bush said he'd bring a new paradigm to politics, that he was a uniter not a divider, that he would bring honor to the White House that people could be proud of. . . . . And then the first thing he does is block the recount in Florida. If he had said, "I'd rather have a straight forward honest count in Florida, than be President," think of what honor and nobility he would have brought to politics and to America. . . . Instead, he showed his true colors, and we have what we have.

Now Obama comes along sounding from the same page that George W. campaigned on. . . . And now in Florida and Michigan, Obama is showing his true colors.

Posted by: coldcomfort | April 5, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O'Bleness Health System.


Hillary The LiaR

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 5, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

z-bob: She has said that's what she would do if she lost. And if she does that, we already told you- we'd rather vote for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I get absolutely sick to my stomach when reading Clinton supporter's posts accusing Obama of not caring about the votes or blaming him for this mess. THIS WAS NOT A DECISION BY OBAMA. Mich and Flor, I'm sorry to say, but your states (people who handle election times) did this. Neither of the candidates were involved in the loss of your votes. Further, Clinton already said those votes didn't matter and didn't care about your votes counting... of course until she fell behind. Now she needs them. Obama has been nothing but fair in how he thinks this should be handled. BLAME YOUR STATES, NOT THE CANDIDATES.

Posted by: hippiejohn1020 | April 5, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What are you die-hard Clinton supporters going to do when Hillary endorses Obama?

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

zbob --

Unlike Obama supporters, Clinton supporters aren't robots.

Clinton supporters will never vote for Obama.

We will never forget and never forgive the stuff he and his supporters have said about Hillary, Bill, and even Chelsea.

We will never forgive and never forget how quickly Obama supporters latched onto right-wing talking anti-Clinton talking points and the glee with which Obama supporters threw President Clinton and Senator Clinton "under the bus"

Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama.

Neither will anyone else once the truth about him gets out.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

The Rev Wright issue has faded and is nearly dead. In fact, recent polls in PA show the voters are more concerned about Hillary's Bosnia sniper lies than Rev Wright controversy. Most normal people do not hold Obama accountable for something his pastor says but they do hold Hillary accountable for lying.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The "Rev. Wright" issue has not "faded". It has settled in as a fact with most voters that Obama is a hypocrite and a feckless moral coward. We don't need to scream "Rev. Wright" over and over, the way Obama people keep screaming "Hillary the b-tch" etc. etc. The voters have gotten the point. Obama cannot be rehabilitated. He is what he is. He is a horrible choice as a candidate, but the Democrats don't know how to nominate their better people most of the time, and liberals won't support them if they do. (See, Democrats who voted for Nader).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

If you can find this post -- Thanks for your view on the D convention. Your personal observations confirm the my feeling that HRC is getting more comfortable on the trail.

mark_in_austin:

The problem with your proposal to seat the FL delegates is that it is much to reasonable. Howard Dean is no King Solomon either.

Posted by: mnteng | April 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The Colombian Government announces its decision to terminate the contract with Burson-Marsteller. This firm conducts public relations and communications consulting services on behalf of Colombia in the United States for the approval of the Free Trade Agreement and the continuation of Plan Colombia.

Mr. Mark Penn, President and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, responded to claims by Union representatives who questioned his relationship with the Colombian Government by declaring that it was an "error in judgment" to meet with his client the Colombian Ambassador on March 31. The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable.

Why the Clintons like to employ sleaze bags?

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Most of the Dem party is coming together behind Obama and turning on the Clintons. It is just a matter of time. Even Hillary and Bill will eventually endorse Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Seating Michigan delegates based on the vote that occurred is not Democracy. Obama ALWAYS closes the gap when he campaigns, as people see him, hear him, get to know him, and find they like him more than Clinton and think he will do the better job. So, you ask him to take his name off of the ballot, he doesn't campaign, Clinton gets the 'name recognition' vote, and she wins. If seating these tow states ends up in reversing the election, then it must be fair. Any ordinary person who is not a fanatic knows the Michigan Vote is unfair and cannot be seated as is.

Same for Florida. I'd love to have revotes, so Clinton can see her lead evaporate as Obama holds rally after rally of 20K+.

Counting the votes of an election where the candidate hasn't made his case is not democratic- it's political.

And, Blaming Obama for this mess is either seriously confused or disingenuous. This is between the DNC and the state parties. However, never fear. Delegates of both states will be counted, because this will all be over soon, and Obama will seat the delegates, uniting the party....

Posted by: william | April 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

zbob99 --

The Rev Wright issue will never fade.

Obama would like it to fade.

It will follow him forever, as it should.

For 20 years he allied himself with Rev Wright.

That says a lot about Obama's total lack of judgement and total lack of character.

God Bless America.

God Damm those that Damm it!

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I hope Mccain gives a lot of thought to his VP.

He needs to attract the moderate democrats who will not vote for Obama.

McCain needs a governor with lots of experience.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama would probably win Michigan now in a revote.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters don't understand that they just keep on digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.

They're not just going to lose this election.

They're going to permanently damage the Democratic Party as well.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Rev Wright issue has faded. Obama's poll numbers are higher now that before the 2 weeks of non-stop playing of the "Worst of Rev Wright" statements on all media.

You die-hard delusional Clinton lovers need another bogus issue to flame.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton and her supporters trust the voters in Michigan. Obama is afraid of them. Simple as that.

Posted by: brewstercounty | April 5, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary you can run but you can't hide from the video camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08W-jgyLlA

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 5, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

zbob99 wrote, "The Clinton campaign is fanning this flame hoping to keep it an issue. It seems its all they've got right now. Pathetic."

We live in a democracy that gives us the freedom to actively support our choice. Was there a time you supported Bill for President and defended him against the attacks of the republicans. I respect your right to support Obama with every bone in your body. Are you mature enough to support my right to support Hillary. Your comments fanning the flames and calling Hillary supporters "Pathetic" is being hypocritical.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | April 5, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Having read most of the comments posted here by Clinton supportes, it is obvious that common sense, logic and reason are lost on you in this debate. How sad it is that most of you Clinton supporters are like the members of this Bush administration, having no common sense and perverting logic and reason to support your opinions. You can't even agree on the facts. It was deemed by "the DNC rules," and agreed to by all pertinent parties before the primaries, that the votes in MI/FL would not count.

Any assertion that the vote there is legit is illogical and defies common sense and logic. Only a re-do is fair.

Posted by: scullen1 | April 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

zbob --

Democracy is important to us.

Why is that difficult for you to underatand?

Why do Obama supporters fail to understand the importance of both Democracy and fail to understand the outrage most Americans feel about Obama's choosing someone who preached "God Damm America" in church, who taught anti-white, anti-semitic and anti-americanism to Obama, his wife and his children?

Democracy and love of country are important to most Americans.

Why do you find that so hard to grasp?


Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

hateful and false bullcrap right TRUTH. First of all anytime ANYONE post ANYTHING the least bit critical of Sen Obama you scream hate. Try reading Michigan and Fla polls and blog sites and read what their voters are saying before you start your usual rants and threats(I am obviously breaking YOUR rules TRUTH because I don t drool over Sen Obama) Apparently that has become a felony. Polling shows as many as 30 per cent of Floridian Dems currently say they will hold a failure to revote against the dem nominee and HC holds an 8 per cent advantage in Fla vs Sen Obama in a general election matchup. Would you like to censor that comment Truuth as hate speech?

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is fanning this flame hoping to keep it an issue. It seems its all they've got right now. Pathetic.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Digi wrote, "I am also tired of stupid people..why did all those IDIOTS in MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA go to vote."

Calling Democrats stupid for voting is what will cost Obama the general. You sound like a petulant child and I worry you may need serious help when your candidate loses the general because of us so called stupid voters.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | April 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

n2 --

They'll count in November when they remember what Obama did and they vote for McCain.

If we nominate Obama, we lose the national election.

Yet another example of bad character and bad judgement on the part of Obama and his supporters.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

both florida and michigan knew the consequences of moving their primaries up,they suffer the penalities.blame their powers to be who made the decisions to move the primaries.i bet the voters of both states have no idea of those that made the decisons.the media probably has not identified the persons.the media keeps talking about both states voters being disenfranchised.the media needs to let these voters know whose responsible for them not being able to have their votes counted at the convention.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | April 5, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 5, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

MARKinA: I answered you on the other thread. PROUD: something there for you also.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

cam8 --

Obama's not going to be elected to anything.

More likely, he'll be indicted in connection with what he did back in Chicago.

To answer your question --

"Yes, I'd rather vote for the war-hero than the coke-head"

You can gloat now.

You'll cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"He has no legitimate claim to the nomination:

1. She won by 17% in Florida; almost 300,000 votes, in a state where she did not campaign but St. Obama ran TV ads.

2. She won in Michigan.
"

Uhhhm...Dickey...There's a small problem with your logic:

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DONT COUNT!

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The Obama slime machine does not care that MI vote is not counted.

They read their history in 2000 - vote suppression works.

What kind of slimy proposal is it to split 50-50? WHy even bother having a vote, just split every thing 50-50 in all states. They talk as if seating a few delegates from MI at the convention is important! The point is about trying to count the will of MI, not about finding chairs for a few people. The Obama slime machine thinks democrats don't know the difference or don't care, and they are mostly right because his butt kissing groupie fandom does not indeed care.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

While people will cite rules, and rules are rules, there have been a series of events lately that could have the effect of weakening our democracy.

Those three events are Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, and now Florida and Michigan in 2008.

For while technically t's may have been crossed and i's dotted, the actual and emotional effect of three electoral events have brought into question the sanctity of the vote.

In Florida in 2000 we realized that even if we vote on election night, that a fight can drag on. Votes can be discounted, new ones can be discovered, and one expected result can turn out to be another.

In Ohio 2004, another state, despite irregularities, determined the outcome again. Because of the chaos after Florida, the candidate affected adversely decided not to challenge, but could have. That message was,"oh well, stuff happens, why fight it."

Now with Florida and Michigan in 2008, we simply cite rules, and that a party can make any decision it wants, as long as it follows its rules. The spirit of the republic, the sanctity of the vote does not apply. Who needs electronic vote machine consipiracies when the vote can be taken away right there in the public eye in the race and on television?

So the message sent to the public lately may be that your vote may be wiped out, don't try to fight it, and rules are rules.

This is a different message from, our votes are sacrosanct, stand up for your right to vote, and rules can be changed to meet the spirit of democracy, the constitution, and our founding fathers.

Posted by: camasca | April 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Don't fret it. This will be worked out. FL and MI will be seated and counted but this issue will have to wait until the other states, who complied with the rules, have completed voting.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

So why didn't 1000,00 people sign a petition to the Democratic party in Michigan asking them to refrain from scheduling the primary so early? This is a clear case of people going ahead with a stupid decision when they fully knew the consequences. Now, like the whining brats so many Americans have become, they want to change the rules. Do "Michiganites" want to behave so petulantly that they will refuse to vote in November unless their delegates are seated? That is their right. But it shows their immaturity. If people really care about changing the course of the country, they will vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is. To hand the election to McCain simply because "your boy" or "your girl" got shut out and is the ultimate vanity. Do you think Romney and Giuliani supporters will sit this one out?

Posted by: djmolter | April 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I am not an American citizen. Nevertheless I strongly believe that you should think more than twice when you elect your new president. In my eyes Barack Obama appeals to young people in a way that maybe not is as nice and harmless as it seems to be. As long as they agree to what he says or does it might be okey. The problem is that you don´t know anything about his TRUE face.

He said that he opposed the war in Irak, or... ? But he was wasn´t a senator when it was time tome vote, or was he? After the decision was made to invade Irak he has done nothing in order to stop the war, has he? Personally I am a strong opponent to the war in Irak but on the other hand you don´t know anything about the situation in Irak and the Middle East today if Saddam Hussein had continued to rule. Thus you don´t even know whether it was a wise decision to invade Irak or not and neither do Barack Obama.

However wars are almost always bad and I know that Bill Clinton in 1968 publicly opposed to the Vietnam war including organizing the October 1969 Moratorium event. He did not only TALK about the war in Vietnam. He actually did something to make an end to that discaster - though he was young.

Personally I don´t trust tough and loud voiced men to be able to handle severe international or national problemes especialy if their power is based on some kind of personal "cult". The mentality of men either black, half-black or white are all the same. If you really want some change than you should elect a woman as your new President. Barack Obama is tough, he speaks loud and skilful though I can´t find the slightest kind of humility and listening in his way of being. He is literally looking down at people and he is too calculating to be believed in. There is an Obama hausse on the "market" - take it easy and think twice or three times or maybe more and think for yourself....

Barack Obama should actively talk for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan. If he doesn´t than his ideals does not match his speeches of equelness. Then he is not to be trusted.

THERESEPRIEUR04 (01:42) wrote "Dura lex, sed lex" and that means - The law is harsh, but it is the law. In my European eyes that sounds as cynical and missused as the sentence "Order is order" which paved the way to kill 5 000 000 Jews World War II.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader, leichtman, Thinker (I love the ironic handle!)

While I grant you the full right not to support, and in fact rail against, Senator Obama and his campaign for the presidency, I think you're all insane.

Once it becomes a 1 vs. 1 choice. A 72 year old man who is the epitome of a continuation of the Bush Presidency against a 46 year old change agent with charisma and the power to inspire, no amount of hateful ads will beat Obama in November, especially with the Democrats ability to outspend the Rs and Obama's ability to put the South in play.

So I ask the three of you this:

Since your're all going to be so unhappy when President Obama is sworn in on January 20, may I be the first to say "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out."

Posted by: cam8 | April 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, this is a mess. Florida and Michigan are two very important, and very populous states. It is neither candidate's fault that this problem has occurred. Senator Clinton seems to have been hurt more by it because a) she is trailing and needs the chance to catch up; and b) she won a plurality of votes in both the Florida and Michigan "beauty contest" votes in January. I don't know wny they didn't do revotes, which would have been the obvious and fair thing to do. The only upshot, as I see it, is that any claim from Senator Obama that he should get superdelegate votes based on his lead in the popular vote has to be taken with a grain of salt. He is leading in the states that complied with the rules, but, because the tally doesn't include two large (and, arguably, pro-Clinton) states, we really don't know who would be leading if all the votes were counted.

Posted by: Brandeau | April 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

By excluding the Florida and Michigan voters votes because they changed their primary dates, the DNC and Howard Dean have assured those states will go Republican in the November Election. McCain just has to choose Jeb Bush as his running mate and 4 years later we will have another Bush for 2 terms as President.
Stupidest decision in the history of politics, and with Obama as President, it's probably one and done. As I see it, if we elected Hillary/Obama we would get 8 years for her, and then 8 years for Obama.
Otherwise I fear it's Obama one and done, but more likely a win for McCain/Bush.

Posted by: tuttlegroup | April 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters know what the results will be from blocking the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan.

The result will be that if Obama gets the nomination, McCain will be the next President.

The rest of Democrats will never forget what they did to the Democrrats best chance in years, and the glee with which Obama nuts threw President Clinton and Senator Clinton under the bus.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of the dishonesty and lack of ethics constantly demonstrated by the rank and file American citizen.

Listen to the arguments for re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

WAS THERE NOT A RULE BEFORE VOTING THAT THE VOTES WOULD NOT BE COUNTED?

How does it become ANYONE's fault that the PARTY is sticking to the rules??

I am also tired of stupid people..why did all those IDIOTS in MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA go to vote, SURELY THEY KNEW they would not be counted? THE ENTIRE WORLD WIDE WEB AND EVERYONE WATCHING CNN FOX AND MSNBC IN THE WORLD KNEW!!!!!!!!

WERE THESE VOTERS REPUBLICANS TRYING TO FORCE A CLINTON VICTORY?

IT is downright unethical for anyone to be calling for re-do's much less to be blaming one side or other for not having them. RULES ARE RULES!!!

HONEST JOE"S ARE HONEST JOE'S..DISHONEST PEOPLE HAVE EVERY ARGUMENT to prove they are right...but...THEY ARE WRONG!!

Posted by: Digi | April 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Campaign Blocks Re-Vote!
Democracy Triumphs!

Seems Obama,the "candidate of the people," is anything but. For every nasty, vile thing that the opposition says about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure she would not have the unmitigated gall to exert her influence towards disenfranchising an entire state. Or the stupidity of p-ssing off a state which is needed for a general election victory. Welcome to opposite world, where the "populist" candidate blocks the vote.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 02:28 PM

Clinton crybabies need to get over it. MI broke the rules. Period.

They voted. They were NOT "disenfranchised". They chose to break the rules and they knew damn well what the results would be.

You don't get to vote twice.

Posted by: onwaj6 | April 5, 2008 02:29 PM
-----------------'
Just what I'm talking about. Take a breath you idiots. Look at the bigger picture, Man are you haters such tools.


Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

By not coming forth to support a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, the Obama campaign is intentionally preventing a fair resolution of the problem.
As a Michigan voter, Obama has disenfranchised my rights as a citizen and he can be assured that I will not be voting for the Democratic Party in the fall.
After all the hype about unity and honesty, the Obama campaign is nothing more than dirty politics as usual. The infatuated media and the delusional Obama supporters are forcing this inexperienced and weak hypocrite on the American public.

Posted by: alee21 | April 5, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Clinton crybabies need to get over it. MI broke the rules. Period.

They voted. They were NOT "disenfranchised". They chose to break the rules and they knew damn well what the results would be.

You don't get to vote twice.

Posted by: onwaj6 | April 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Campaign Blocks Re-Vote!
Democracy Triumphs!

Seems Obama,the "candidate of the people," is anything but. For every nasty, vile thing that the opposition says about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure she would not have the unmitigated gall to exert her influence towards disenfranchising an entire state. Or the stupidity of p-ssing off a state which is needed for a general election victory. Welcome to opposite world, where the "populist" candidate blocks the vote.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 5, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

PROUD,

Once again, while we do not walk the same lane I am glad you went and gave your view. The more open minded folk read the more we can make a good, or hopefully wise decision.

I don't agree with you most of the times, but I think you put your feelings out there with respect on both sides.

Have a good weekend sir.

Patrick NYC

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 5, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

If Florida and Michigan are allowed to thumb their noses at their party's rules and be rewarded for it, there is no incentive for any state to follow the party's rules next primary season.

State #1: "We want be first. We're having our primary on December 14th."

DNC: "If you move your primary to December 14th, we won't seat your delegates at the convention."

State #1: "Ooooooh! We're REAL scared! You said the same thing to Florida and Michigan in 2008 but counted their primaries anyway. Nuts to your rules. We know you don't have the balls to enforce them."

State #2: "We're moving our primary to December 12th."

State #1: "We changed our mind. We're moving it to Decemeber 11th."

State #3: "Our primary will be November 27th."

And so forth...

Posted by: ComfortablyDumb | April 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Proud -

Thank you very much. Please republish your post on a thread with less noise on it, perhaps on Monday.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 5, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I see the CLINTONISTAS are following their precious leader down the hypocritical path.

Would Swilerly be " defending " the voters if Obama would have won Florida and/or Michigan, like he probably would have if he had the chance to campaign in both ?

Of course NOT.

but this is typical Clinton double face, double speak and the CLINTONISTAS are in lockstep right behind them.

They remind me of Bushy and the RePUKEblicans back in '00. Anything to get to the office is allowed.

One thing is for sure, if any of you want to see McCain continue Bush's policy for 4 more years, go ahead and steal the elections away from Obama and crown Swilerly. You'll get what you deserve.

Posted by: miamilaker32 | April 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan-don't disenfranchise them. DON'T SEAT the superdelegates. I am sure that would punish the people who fiddled around and messed things up.

Posted by: jonstephens | April 5, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama as shown no ability to win the white votes in Pa,Mi,Fl and Ohio.All told about 87 electoral votes.How is he going to win in the General Elections? After the Wright controversy,no one in his right mind will vote for someone who sat there with his young children while his church applaud and cheer as his pastor vilified white america and condemn America itself.Don't waste the nomination with Obama, Hillary has shown that she can win these states against McCain.this is not the right moment for affirmative action.Hillary,McCain or stay home.

Posted by: tony1161 | April 5, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary loses no matter what happens in FL & MI.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters prove over and over again that Democracy doesn't matter for them, and that what Obama does, as opposed to what he says, doesn't matter to them.

All that matters to them is winning.

They're not going to.

Hillary would be a Great President.

Thanks to Obama supporters, we'll wind up with McCain instead, who will be tolerable, but nowhere near as good.

Obama will not be President.

That is one thing everyone can be sure of.

That's good, because he would be a lousy one.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, One of the funnier moments was when the Jumbotron showed a shot of a person holding up a big homemade sign that said
"Bill for First Lady"

Hillary started laughing a little when she saw it, even though it was a serious part of her speech. My sense is that she's gotten more human throughout this process and actually more likeable and a better campaigner.

At the end of her speech she made a reference to the UND Fighting Sioux men's hockey team going to the frozen four after almost getting beat by the MN Gophers in the semi-finals....but they're fighters like her. Cue the Rocky music.

(Well, at least it's not Fleetwood Mac this time)


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

You Clinton supporters are frigging nuts, you get everything exactly wrong! Clinton was running unopposed in Michigan, how is that a fair vote! AND she only got 55%!!! Why won't she accept Obama's generous offer to split the delegates 50-50? It's because all she cares about is her own personal ambition, she doesn't care how much she hurts the party and the country! She sure as sh*t doesn't care about the poor voters in Michigan and Florida, where did that sh*t come from? She wants those fake primaries to count because she thinks it's to her advantage! And when it comes to counting delegates and the popular vote, she wants to throw the primaries out the window and have superdelegates coronate her the nominee, even though she clearly lost the popular election! Jesus H. Christ, I don't know how anyone can support her!

Posted by: ottoparts | April 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

To Senator Clinton and her supporters who are unhappy about this decision and think she is getting the short end of the stick, I ask you, where was Senator Clinton's opposition when the DNC announced the sanctions on Michigan and Florida? She supported the DNC decision by signing the pledge because she didn't think it would affect her. She didn't start speaking out on behalf of those states until she felt she needed them. And if you think she cares about disenfranchising voters in those states, what about all the voters who would be disenfranchised if the pledged delegates (based on voters) listened to her and changed their votes from Senator Obama to her. I'm sorry to say, because I used to be a Clinton supporter, but this is all about her personal ambition, not what's good for America but what's good for her. She can't hide that fact. Her words speak it.

Posted by: rcjwhiting | April 5, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

It does seem like we visit and re-visit this every few days. In the hope that my contribution may help others better understand why Michigan has happened, I've copied the pertinent info from the two pages from the Detroit Free Press specifically dealing with the facts as they were in the days before the primary.
-
The muddled field for Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary appears
unlikely to include four Democrats after all, as the state Senate on
Tuesday declined to act on a House measure that their names be on the ballot. John Edwards, Joe Biden
Senate Majority Leader Mike
Bishop, R-Rochester, said he was
not inclined to spend more time
on the primary legislation
because "Democrats can't seem
to decide what they want to do."
Four Democratic candidates Joe
Biden, John Edwards, Barack
Obama and Bill Richardson have
opted out of the Michigan
primary because its early date violates national party rules.

The legislation approved in the House on Monday evening would have
required their names to appear on the ballot anyway, and was similar to a
bill passed by the Senate two weeks ago.
But Bishop said Democrats continued to insist on inserting unrelated issues into discussions about the primary fix legislation and he had run out of patience.

"We'd like to have all the candidates on the ballot," Bishop said, "but I
can't tell the Democrats to run."
-

I hope this will help show that Four Democrats were not on the ballot, but one was. Doesn't it make you ask the question - why?
The Republican Senate did not choose to approve an existing House bill (in Michigan) that would have included all names on the ballot. Doesn't it make you ask the question - why?

Who did the Republicans want to run against? Does it make you want to ask the question, or other questions?

It could have been done, perhaps it should have been done, but it was not done, by the inaction of the Republican Senate in Michigan. Blaming one Democratic candidate today, for what were the actions of at least four (why not five?) Democrats prior to the primary, would not appear to be appropriate, would they?

Did candidate Clinton not sign a pledge in regard to the two "improper" primaries? Why did she not remove her name as the others did? What was the reason, and what did she benefit?

The folks are dancing around and around this subject and not dealing with the underlying facts as they happened.

Michigan appears to have screwed it up, and Michigan may have to live with the consequences. That includes the Governor, House and Senate in Michigan, as well as the citizens.

I don't think it is a good idea to make this another case of "Mugabe tactics", do you?

Posted by: thesfg1 | April 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

PROUD,

While as a very liberal NYC native I am on the opposite side of the isle, I do respect and appreciate your input into this election. I only wish more on both sides did as well.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The inimitable svreader writes: "If Obama was found in bed with a dead girl, his supporters would say she died of happiness.

If Obama was found in bed with a live boy, they'd say Obama cured his leprosy."

And if svreader ever limited himself to fact and reason, Fixistas would say it is a miracle.

Posted by: optimyst | April 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"We don't need to win Florida to win the WH."

Ok, we'll just put it in the red column then. No problem!

What a remarkable 180 the progressives are doing since FL 2000!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Seems like Obama is looking for affirmative action here.He knows that he will not win the delegate count without the superdelegates and he will lose the popular vote when they revote or count MI and Fl.I know they have given jobs and preference to minorities in college admissions,but a presidential election? no wonder the blue collar workers won't vote for him in the general election.This dem is choosing between Hillary,McCain and staying home.say no to Obama,say no to affirmative action in elections.

Posted by: tony1161 | April 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Blacks and women have been disenfranchised in Michigan and Florida. On the night of the Democrat Caucus' in Texas many voters were not allowed to participate.

I am beginning to believe that the Democrat Party is not very democratic.

Old rules and even older men WHO THINK THEY KNOW MORE THAN THE VOTERS run it.

We will see who has the last vote in November when the voting booth cannot be violated by Democrat operatives.

Posted by: Gary11111 | April 5, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't win fairly, which means she can't win period. It's time for her to quit trying to kneecap Obama and start working with the rest of the country to keep McCrazy out of the White House.

Posted by: ottoparts | April 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"- Why did Mi/Fl insist oh holding their elections on dates that meant those votes to be pointless - Why did the candidates agree to discount those votes and now renegade their acceptance (not looking nice for a future presidential pledge, isnt) - Why do Mi/Fl insist those votes count (see above) when Mi procedure was dubious to its best as only Clinton name was on a ballott and Fl is by rule worthless." -- THERESEPRIEUR04

1. Previous Democratic races have not been as close as this one, so they have occasionally all but ended by Super Tuesday, meaning the states that voter after that effectively make no difference in determining the nominee. In Michigan, a number of Democratic Party leaders believed that their state was so crucial to the party nomination that the national party could not afford to carry out its threat to exclude their delegates. In Florida, it was largely the result of the Republican-dominated legislature, and a few Democrats, pushing for an earlier date on the same theory, i.e. that Florida was massively important in the general election and should therefore have an earlier primary. Both were simply cases of brinksmanship.

2. The candidates were put in a difficult position. If they declined to follow party rules, not only could it be a public-relations disaster, but it would severely complicate their relations with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC may ultimately disqualify a candidate from the nomination if he or she refuses to follow its rules (although that's unlikely). However, if the candidates refrained from campaigning, they risked other candidates taking a less restricted view of the DNC's refusal to count the primaries, and campaigning for votes in a state that might later become a factor. Obama took this risk to some extent by removing his name from the Michigan ballot. Hillary did not go so far, but she refrained from campaigning full-scale in either state. Naturally, the potential dilemma has come to fruition, as it was virtually inevitable in a close race that a candidate who played a bit looser with the rules would have a powerful incentive to reopen the issue of counting the primaries.

3. In point of fact, there are excellent arguments against counting either result. We can never know what the results would be if neither candidate had held back in either state; therefore, the results that we do have are simply not representative. It's also been pointed out that due to the news that the primaries would not count, Democratic turnout in both states was far below the national average. The people who are insisting these results should be accepted are almost certainly all Clinton supporters. The reason they want the results accepted is twofold: first, they help Clinton somewhat, although not enough to overtake Obama in either the popular vote or the delegate totals; and second, although Clinton has called for re-votes and has a strong chance of winning them if they occur, she could still lose.

Posted by: turkishd | April 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

With respect to the Democratic campaign you should consider 1) that "facist" nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Have you ever heard about a female dictator? I guess that you have not and the reason probably depends on differences in male and female mentalities and 2) that elections in a "fascist" nation are sham democracy.

Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

It´s time for the United States of America to change.

It´s time for the United States of America to vote a women for president.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Yes, HRC's claim that she can win Florida in the general is laughable. I am a die-hard progressive and I wrote off Florida a long time ago. We don't need to win Florida to win the WH.

I also don't think that she has a better shot of winning MI in the general than Obama.

PG

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

After attending the state Dem convention last night and hearing Obama and Clinton both speak, I have to say, I really don't get what all the hype is about over Obama.

He was ushered into the arena after a glowing introduction by Sen Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy, then all the ladies started to swoon and get all giddy. U2 was playing over the loudspeakers. But, after he started his speech, the audience really didn't get behind it that much. It was a let down from the anticipation of seeing this person who has been built up by the media as a larger-than-life figure, and his speech really didn't fire them up.

His speech can be summed up as :
lofty rhetoric, criticism, red meat Bush/Cheney references, lofty rhetoric, criticism, I love this country, criticism, war that should never have been waged, criticism, change, unity, criticism, lofty rhetoric, MLK quote.

One thing that stuck in my mind that he put at the very end, was a reference to MLK Jr becuase of it being the anniv. of his assassination. He quoted MLK as having used the phrase "The moral arc is bending toward justice".

Then, he said, if MLK were there today he would see him, Barack Obama, there as a candidate for president and he would say the arc is bending toward justice.

I'm not sure how well that played with the typical white people up here.

Overall, his speech was big on criticism and offered no solutions, just generic rhetoric about change. He came across as elite and not very connected to the concerns of average people...lecturing and preaching but not very sincere.


Clinton was introduced by some guy named George Sinner, a former governor or somthing, and it was probably THE worst into I've ever heard, monotonous and extremely dull. Despite that, she bounced out onto stage to the Rocky theme and looked pretty chipper despite being a little late (must have been that corkscrew landing at GF airport).

Hillary's speech offered plenty of criticsim of the current administration, too, and a few red meat references of Bush and Cheney, Halliburton, etc...but this WAS the Dem convention, so it was predictable.

She has gotten better at doing her stump speech over time, her cadence is more natural now and she comes across as -dare I say it- caring when you see her in person.

Her speech was about twice as long as Obama's, and offered plenty of details. She had many proposals, and specific solutions that she wove into the talk at the same time as she connected with the people of the state with local anecdotes and facts. It was good!

She started right away with bringing up the great flood and ensuing fire of '95 which devastated Grand Forks. This is really big in the minds of locals to this day...it wiped out the entire downtown- it was sort of like the Katrina of North Dakota.

Other things she discussed with proposals for and a desire and commitment to help:
urban development
small businesses
family farms
Indian Health Service
Native Americans and their tribal chiefs
"RNs, teachers, waitresses, janitors" basically appealing to the working class.

One thing I really liked was her idea of a "Declaration of Energy Independence"

She said she had waited after 9/11 for the President to summon the nation to a cause greater than themselves. (I found myself nodding in agreement) The cause of energy independence she pledged to champion -so we don't have to be beholden to the Saudis and the Middle East.

Obama mentioned none of this.

I don't agree with their politics, and despite all the feel-good, campaign promises of change and reaching across the aisle in unity, the record clearly shows Clinton and Obama both consistently voting along the democratic party lines. But I liked Clinton's speech better last night.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Florida's Democratic Party Leaders need to be replaced. In 2000 the Democrats were responsible for the infamous "butterfly ballot" that confused the voters. Now this. In both Michigan and Florida they should have worked this out BEFORE the primaries began. Rules are Rules.

Posted by: joy2 | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that Obama has a popular vote lead by even the most generous count.

If you add Florida and Michigan, and assign Obama 0 votes in Michigan, he still comes out ahead by 94,000 votes.

Posted by: mikedow | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have never done anything that doesn't first benefit them, period. Her stepping aside would ensure that she forever loses her chance of ever becoming president.

The Clintons have this erroneous belief that they built the party into what it is today and therefore the party should show their gratitude and nominate HRC as their Pres candidate. What they don't mention is that during Bill's reign, the Dems lost more seats in Congress than at any other point in history. How's that for a legacy?

Now, HRC is plotting a course of "if not me, then nobody" in regards to the Presidencey in 2008. HRC cares about one thing...WINNING, and winning at all costs.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

jellybean1 --

Gloat now.

You'll cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Seeing the Hillary supporters jumping up and down in their bare behinds like mad moneys brings me joy.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The time for complaining about the decision not to seat the delegations from michigan and florida was when the state committees or whoever decided to break the rules and move up the primary voting dates. To blame Senator Obama, Howard Dean or anybody other than those responsible for breaking the rules is laughable. As for losing the election because of the ruling, HAH! Democrats wont win Florida regardless of who heads the ticket. As for Michigan, it's 50-50, and I like Senator Obama's chances regardless of the whining coming from the state at this time. Move on and get over it.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | April 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Refusing to let MI and FL re-vote is great news for McCain.

Clinton supporters will be enraged if Obama wins because votes will not have been counted and the process will have been unfair.

Obama supporters will be enraged if Clinton wins because, presuming he has the most elected delegates and votes which appears nearly inevitable, they will perceive the nomination was stolen.

Mix in sexism and racism and we have a witches brew. The bitterness will lead to a divided party and a McCain win in what should have been a Democratic year.

The good news for Clinton is that she'll be able to run again in four years against a 76 year old incumbent.

Posted by: Wolfeman | April 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

For pity's sake, everyone was told if you break the rules this would happen.

Why does everyone now act like they had no idea this was going to happen. What does it say about a candidate that agrees at one point to follow the rules, then when it's not to their advantage talk about "disenfranchised voters".

Why wasn't Clinton worried about these poor "disenfranchised" voters when this was all taking place months ago?

Posted by: mtnsteve | April 5, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters will never forget and never forgive Obama and his supporters blocking the rights of Florida and Michigan voters.

Obama claims everything but does nothing.

If Obama becomes the nominee, Democrats will lose by a landslide and the Democratic Party itself will lose its core mainstream supporters and not just for this election.

This will go down in history as one of the great political blunders of all time.

Obama supporters have proven they have no loyalty to Democracy, to the Democratic Party, or even to America.

America will hand them a landslide loss.

Then, Americans will turn a hard eye on social programs to boot.

The damage Obama and his supporters have done and continue to do to the progressive movement is enormous.

Instead of moving us to the left, they'll wind up moving us to the right.

Obama's arrogance and ego, and that of his cult followers is going to do more damage to the left than Bush did.

George Bush and Karl Rove must think Barack Obama is their patron saint.

Heck of a job, Bambi!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The rules say the votes do not count.

If the votes count than what about the voters who believed the Democrats who said the votes would not count and DID NOT VOTE???

If the votes count then the DEMOCRATS DO NOT KEEP THEIR WORD and change the rules in the middle of the game.

YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAY!!!!

DEMOCRATS DO NOT KEEP THEIR WORD! ! ! ! !

Posted by: hschmitter | April 5, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Look, Obama is going to win the nomination whether Hillary gives up or not. We are not counting on Hillary to give up. Then he is going to beat McCain because of Iraq and the economy. The only question is, why is Hillary getting in his way? She can't win! Doesn't she have any goddamn class at all? She and Bill are turning their names into sh*t for most Democrats.

Posted by: ottoparts | April 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I wish that woman would stop her infernal whining. She agreed to the rules going in. She now wants to change the rules to her advantage. Where is that EVER done except perhaps in some corrupt 3rd world country election. Do we need to call in foreigners to monitor the D E M O C R A T I C nominee nominating process to ensure that the rules are followed and fairness prevails? She's been finished since February 5th no matter how the press and the Clintons try to spin it. Do they think we're stupid? Ah ... I take that back. If Bush could be nominated for a second term, I guess they think anything is possible.

Posted by: ac11 | April 5, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Living in the UK, far from the bustle, I cant help noticing the Fix and many posters dont answer to the 2 questions that really matter. - Why did Mi/Fl insist oh holding their elections on dates that meant those votes to be pointless - Why did the candidates agree to discount those votes and now renegade their acceptance (not looking nice for a future presidential pledge, isnt) - Why do Mi/Fl insist those votes count (see above) when Mi procedure was dubious to its best as only Clinton name was on a ballott and Fl is by rule worthless. In any country of this world, any association who forfeits its word is grounded , cant anyone inform Michigan and Florida that as said Caesar Dura lex sed lex....

Posted by: THERESEPRIEUR04 | April 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

hearts and minds...

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department's renewal of Blackwater's contract to provide security in Iraq "is bad news," an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

Blackwater guards shot and killed 17 people, including women and children, last September, prompting an outcry and protest from Iraqi officials.

"This is bad news," al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari said. "I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims."

About 25,000 private contractors from three companies protect diplomats, reconstruction workers and government officials in Iraq. Under a provision put into place in the early days of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, security contractors have immunity from Iraqi law.

Al-Askari said he would push for the Iraqi government to contest the contract renewal.

"The U.S. government has the right to choose what contractors it chooses, but Iraq should also have the right to allow or ban certain contractors from operating on its territory," he said. Watch Blackwater contractors conduct simulated raid »

Al-Askari said there is a general mood of displeasure within the Iraqi government because of the contract renewal."

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Bush pushed for changed from the Clintons and look what we have. Their are a lot of Clinton haters for what? Clinton did a lot for the African-Americans and now look at the ingrates trash talking her and Clinton. Clinton did more for Hispanic-Americans than any President in History!! obama always points out this and that about Hillary's accomplishments but what has he done? Oh yeah, work at a community center. Wow, what an accomplishment, laughable! Remember that his pastor Jeremiah wright showed him the way and credits him for his uprising. Please, Brezko discovered Obama and financed him all the way til he got caught. The Michiganders and Florida should be counted and not ignored by radical Obama. It's still the United States of America and it stands for all the states to be United and counted in every state. It does'nt say the United States minus two. Radical Obama just wants to steal the election like George W. Bush!

Posted by: mestsal01 | April 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It is absolutely amazing that the Clinton campaign actually wants to call attention to the fact that she only got 55% of the vote in Michigan essentially running unopposed. Now that's not as bad as John Ashcroft losing a senate election to a dead man, but it's pretty close.

Does anyone believe she would be saying the same thing if she had received 6% less? Either you stand on principle or on convenience, but let's not confuse the two.

Posted by: castells | April 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

For those readers who can't stop posting about their constitutional right to vote, or for those who insist on using the term "disenfranchise" or a variation thereof, a well-settled line of cases establishes that national party primaries and conventions are not subject to state action designed to ensure that every vote the state wants counted will be. See, e.g., Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975).

So, while you may feel deprived that your vote will not impact the Democratic nomination, from a legal perspective you have no right to cast a vote for the nominee except via the method set down in the national party's rules.

Posted by: turkishd | April 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Nobody has the guts to stand up to Obama and his cult of thugs.

If Obama becomes the nominee, McCain will be the next president.

The worst thing is that Dems will probably lose congress too.

Obama nuts have destroyed everything in their path includng the Democratic Party itself.

The only thing good that will come out of this is that Obama will be exposed for the fraud he is.

Obama's actions speak louder than his words.

He's blocked all chances for Florida and Michigan voters to have their votes count.

Obama's made a joke of Democrats demand to have all the votes counted in Florida in 2000 and his supporters have proven that their loyalty is to their cult leader, not to the Democratic Party and not to America.

I hope their parents cut of their money supply and they're forced to earn a living.

Even better, I hope McCain re-institutes the draft and ships the lot of them off to Iraq.

They don't deserve the cushy life they've gotten off the backs of the rest of us.

Like Gore, the Clintons have proven that they can succeed with or without the whitehouse.

Obama's an empty suit.

If he does get elected, it will be worth the pain he causes everyone just to see him fall flat on his face.

Either way, life will go on.

Obama, and his supporters, are the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen.

Heck of a job, Bambi!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

For all of you Michiganders and Floridians who are mad that you will aparently not have a say in who is the Dem candidate, take it out on your elected state officials. When they come up for re-election, work to get them ousted from office. This should be a galvinzing moment where the grass roots take hold and take the party back from the fat cats who have obviously gotten too comfortable and drunk on their own power.

Now, I understand that Florida is a different situation, but how many Dem officials in Florida spoke out against the Repub plan to move the primary? It seems to me that they should have gone to the DLC and laid out their very difficult situation and at that point, tried to come to some sort of compromise, just as the Repubs did.

The Dem state legislature in Michigan took action that they KNEW would lead to the disenfranchisement of their citizens. I would not want anyone like that representing my interests in the government because they obviously don't have my best interest at heart.

Its time to take our party back!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"On a side note: the attack on liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro was an outrage."

Whereas, of course, Hillary's attacks on every single liberal in America are fine and dandy?

Posted by: christoffel | April 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"The papers agree that Barack Obama's earlier tax disclosure put pressure on candidate Clinton to reveal her returns, but the WSJ and the LAT are the most aggressive in explaining the significance of it all, saying the disclosure makes clear the big income disparity between the candidates and could make Clinton vulnerable to political attacks over her extreme wealth."

Gee, wonder why the Clintons' $100 million that they EARNED is an issue -- and the $100 million that John McCain's wife INHERITED is not. Why is Cindy McCain's extreme wealth not on the front page of the NYTimes?

WHY WON'T MCCAIN RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS?

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

With all due respect, your reasoning that the voters of Florida and Michigan will rise up in righteous wrath and "punish" the Democratic candidate for invlidating their primary -- or Obama only, if he is the nominee -- is flawed. The suggestion that the voters will make their decision based on bitterness or resentment, as opposed to what they think is best for them, their state or the country, insults their intelligence. (This argument is similar to the flawed premise that there is a correlation between a candidate's success in a state's primary and how that candidate will poll in that state in the general election.)

My guess -- and I concede it is only a guess, albeit an educated one -- is that the Republicans would have carried Florida in any event, based on its GOP leanings the last cycle, and that the Democrats will win Michigan, based on the dire economic conditions there.

Posted by: jac13 | April 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

svreader says: Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 10% of their earnings to charity and have been doing it for 10 years.
-----------------------------------
And so it is. BUT, the vast majority of their "charity" went to the Clinton Foundation, and most of it is sitting idle. So much for being "charitable."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | April 5, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The argument to push Hillary out of the race is predicated entirely on the assumption that she will be behind in BOTH delegates and popular vote. But given that Florida and Michigan could make enough of a difference that she might be ahead in the popular vote come June, then the two states are hugely important. Because, to me, the person who has the lead in the popular vote has the true moral claim on the nomination. If Obama manages to get the nomination without clearly establishing that he has that lead -- when ALL states are considered -- then I will not be satisfied. Conversely, though, if Florida and Michigan are considered and Obama still has the popular vote lead, then I (and probably many other Clinton supporters) would willingly relinquish the fight.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Personally, it's not over until it's over.
If the DNC stupidly fell for the feint the Republicans launched in Florida, and perhaps Michigan (i.e., the Republican dominated legislature changed the dates for the primaries, then only took away half the delegates from the GOP primary returns), then that's on them.
Howard Dean, with the use of these frigging caucuses, has twisted the Democrat Party's primary process into the greatest cluster f..k the world has ever seen. These caucuses are ridiciulous. There are millions of Democrats who showed up for primaries, not all of us fully conversant on the machinations and formulaes designed to apportion representation of votes.
It was too simple to just say: x gets y votes; a got b votes; c got d votes ... D wins.
Dean had to screw it up. He comes from Vermont. A tiny state so he had the brilliant idea that the entire process needed an algebraic formula for primary elections. The people WILL demand the DNC recant, and seat the delegates at the CONVENTION, regardless of re-votes. The PEOPLE of Florida and Michigan BOTH CAME OUT, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THE DNC WOULD PENALIZE THEM, AND VOTED. In both cases, they gave the majorities to Clinton.
Chris is a regular speaker on Chris Matthews, and the Ultra Liberal MSNBC. He frames this part of the story as final ... typical of Ultra Liberals who are trying oh, so hard, to discourage Clinton supporters from showing up; contributing; supporting. Get a grip, Chris. I won't stop until these people from florida and michigan are represented at the Convention. It is rude, and arrogant of the Obamista crowd (totally supported by guys like Matthews and Cillizza), to hammer the only woman running for President.
The Ultra Liberals are oh, so enamored with an African-American candidate. They can preen and sound so thunderous in their prognostication ... and not even understand that the hammer blows they strike again and again to demand Clinton drop out ... is smug, and elitist. These Ultra Liberals ARE the epitome of elitism. And, they betray their sexist tendencies.
America needs a woman who serve as the equivalent to Dr. King.
Women, I hope, will consider the possibility ... just the possibility ... that as Dr. King ultimately spoke for millions of us ... regardless of race and color ... Senator Clinton, as President Hillary Clinton, WILL BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN HER HUSBAND.
Women should try and open their vision to the incredible change that might stem from electing the first woman President in America. If you allow the Ultra Liberal press and network media to run your mind for you, you won't see anything but Obama.
George McGovern is right: it IS easier for an African-American MAN to get elected President than a woman.
51% of the population are women.
Isn't about time women and men took the chance, and elected a highly competent woman, to see what a WOMAN can do for America? Jesus, aren't we ready to break the 43-0 male to female run on Presidents? Aren't we as bold and visionary as many foreign countries? Lord God, tell the Ultra Liberals to shut their sexist rant up, and stop trying to doom a woman's chances.
This woman is closer to becoming President, if people will give her a chance than Obama is, to becoming an African-American President.
"All I am saying, is, give HER a chance."

Posted by: zennhead614wheatland | April 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Were I asked to arbitrate this controversy I would first separate FL and MI on the facts.

I would only permit the DNC, the candidates' representatives, and the State D parties before me. No "Fixistas". No voter advocacy groups, no Governors.

I would take into account that the Ds need to enforce Party discipline, although the Ds now realize that they may have produced unintended consequences for themselves.

I would take into account that in FL the candidates were equally disaccommodated, but that in MI the primary was inherently flawed beyond the rule violation.

If I were convinced to allow the FL vote to stand, I would probably halve the delegate vote total strength, as the Rs did, in order that some semblance of discipline be imposed.

I could see no role for MI absent an agreement between the candidates.

Try to see it not as a supporter of a candidate, but from the view of the DNC, which ultimately will face state rebellions every four years.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

There have been many accusations against those of us who are Clinton supporters who are saying that we will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Many of you have said that we are racist, or vindictive, or just plain stupid - I am none of those things. Here's the reason I am one of those people: the Party and the media decided a long time ago who they wanted for the Democratic nomination - that is quite clear. The media has given Obama a free ride in this campaign, and have blasted Clinton at every turn with as much silly and negative attention as they could drum up, up to and including this nonsense today about the Clinton's tax returns and how much money they've made since President Clinton left office - frankly, nobody should care, but it's obviously designed to stir up resentment amongst people who haven't been able to earn money in recent years due to Mr. Bush's economy. The Saturday Night Live spoofs about the media, Obama and Clinton would be much funnier if they were less close to the truth. The Party also has given grossly inequal treatment to the two candidates, and that so many Democratic leaders have supported a do-nothing Senator over one who has done much for the party in her lifetime is disgusting. I'm sickened by how many prominent Democrats have been so quick to point out Clinton's weaknesses (sure, she has some) while ignoring Obama's obvious weaknesses. Now the Party is doing whatever it can to prevent a fair accounting of the delagates from Michigan to Florida, knowing that those delegates would support Clinton and not Obama. So once again, we Democrats have made a fiasco out of an election that should have been an easy win. Will I vote for McCain? - honestly, I doubt it - I've never cast a vote for a Republican candidate in all of my life. But I also doubt very seriously if I'll vote for Obama either, because Obama and the party haven't earned and don't deserve my vote. So I probably won't vote at all, which I've also never done since I reached voting age, and I'll just hope that the country can survive the result of the election without too much further damage. I've never wanted so much to be so uninvolved in politics. No matter how the cards fall, I suppose we'll be better off than with Bush and Chaney, although not by very much either way.

Posted by: rgs_tnr | April 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The Obama people argue that it would be a moral outrage for super delegates to go against the "will of the people", save Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill richardson-- they don't have to follow the will of the people in their states. The bottom line is that if the tables were turned, the Obama campaign would be turning the Michigan and florida fiasco into a big racial thing. Can you see the rhetoric: "They are trying to disfranchise black people". But since he is not likely to win those states what does he care, right?

On a side note: the attack on liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro was an outrage. for one thing, Obama had said the same thing, about himself almost word to word to the Chicago Tribune. But I don't see the Post or the National media pointing this out. Only the WSJ has the guts to point out that the Obama people are the ones playing the race card. What would MLK say?

Posted by: dcpsychic | April 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Look, Hillary is not entitled to the nomination, and she is not entitled to change the rules until does get the nomination. She is losing. There is no way for her to win unless the popular vote, pledged delegates, and every public opinion poll are set aside. That means she needs to drop out, she's lost the primary election and should face facts instead of helping McCain beat the Democrats' choice of a candidate, Obama.

Posted by: ottoparts | April 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It's a case of chickens coming home to roost. A commission composed of Democrats only decided that if the primary was moved up then the delegates would not count. Curiously, on this commission was one Harold Ickes, head of Clinton election campaign. Hillary, always one to spot a potential advantage, had her name placed on the ballot anyway. Then she said she knew,"it would not count for anything." Obama, in recognition of the rules of the DNC, did not put his name on the ballot. As a result, he received no votes.

Now here comes Clinton demanding that her votes count. What a disengenious tact: she could have her cake and eat it too. Her current mantra is that: It would be un-American to not count those votes. And Obama had the same opportunity to place his name on the ballot as she did.

What a woman of integrity. (NOT)

Posted by: rhbate | April 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Thinker- check your medicine cabinet for help my man! Acting out the town fool routine is a bit tedious.

Posted by: robertell | April 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

harry4: I agree that Super Delegates should be able to excercise judgement when excersing their vote. Let me posit that...

(1) Good judgement should dictate that the Super Delegates should stamp the will of the people, barring a compelling reason to do otherwise (such as a scandal or compelling polls showing the nominee would be very un-electable). Failure to do so would be a huge slap to democracy.

(2) Even if Super Delegates cast their vote with complete disregard of the popular will, Obama would be the best choice. He is generating more enthusiasm, does better in the polls, making more money (from small donors even!), is seen by both Republicans and Democrats as more electable, and is more acceptable to the nation as a whole (80% of Americans pick Obama as their first or second choice compared to 70% for McCain and 60% for Clinton-- Clinton garners the most "most unacceptable" votes).

Posted by: Tetris | April 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Heres's my stab at a solution. keep in mind, I'm not taking into consideration that each state decides how it assigns its primary date, so in the end, my solution may be a non-starter.

I believe that we should have a series of 5 regional primary dates. if it makes Iowa, New Hampshire and SC happy, they can be moved up front to hold their caucus/primaries on the same date, a date in late January.

After that, there would be a series of regional primaries/caucuses that would be held in the first week of each successive month (Feb - June). In each region, you would have about 10 states holding their contests.

To make sure that it remains cometitive through the end, there should be some mechanism that requires the eventual nominee to show some sort of competitiveness in each region, ensuring that a nominee is not picked before the last geographic region weighs in. It also allow the party to see which candidate will have broad appeal in each region of the country.

Anyway, that's my general idea. I know there are issues with how each state decides when its primary will be.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The delegates seated at the Convention must represent the will of the people. If Democratic Party seats MI & FL delegates without an election, I will support a lawsuit against it because the delegates don't represent me and they defy all rules of equal representation - candidates get delegates though no one ever voted for them.

How's it fair to the rest of us...maybe, scrap all elections and divide the delegates 50-50?

Posted by: srow2u | April 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I CAN'T STAND IT ANY MORE!!!

How can you Clinton supporters use the word "democracy" to describe her after-the-fact attempt to impart legitimacy to primaries that were agreed by all -- including her, IN WRITING -- to be meaningless?

Changing the rules after the votes are counted may pass for democracy in Zimbabwe, but please don't try to make your candidate a champion of democracy when she tries it here.

Shame on the MSM for buying into the cynical Clinton ploy of blaming this mess on Obama. He followed the rules; she didn't. End of story.

Posted by: jac13 | April 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Ah, Borincano. If only well-reasoned argument could change minds or shut up trolls, yours would do so.

One correction -- there was actually a bit of campaigning in Florida, as Obama ran a few of his ads as part of a national buy (nothing on local stations) and HRC benefited from union efforts on her behalf, but nothing comparable to a real statewide campaign push.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/

Posted by: turkishd | April 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse


MR. OBAMA DOESN'T LIKE PEOPLE TO VOTE

THAT'S JUST WHAT HE'S GOING TO GET IN NOVEMBER IF HE STEALS THIS NOMINATION


Posted by: Thinker | April 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA THE ARM TWISTER JUST GOT HIS WAY IN MICHIGAN. DISENFRANCHISING AMERICAN'S RIGHTS - AND STILL GOING AFTER THEM IN FLOIDA.

HE CHEATED VIA "CAUCUSES" TO GET WHERE HE IS - AND WHERE ONLY A THOUSAND OR TWO PEOPLE VOTE AND SENIORS COULDN'T GET TO THEM.

HE REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HIMSELF UNTIL HE GOT DELEGATES IN HIS POCKET.

WE'RE GONG TO GIVE MR. OBAMA AND HIS MARKETEERS SOMETHING IN NOVEMBER IF HE STEALS THIS NOMINATION


WE'RE GOING TO GIVE MR. OBAMA A GREAT BIG DEMOCRATIC LOSS !! HE'S EARNED IT.

Posted by: Thinker | April 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Only fair solution is to let Billary win and be the next President. How else is she gonna be satisfied. No matter how talented she might be,I would like to remind all democrats, that in a democracy,it is not the talent and name recognition that count, "BUT" how many votes that a candidate recieved counts. Mr. 911 la Rudy got his behind kicked all the way to Florida. Billary "the heir apperent" did not play her cards well, so unfortunately does not get to win. It is never whose time it is, but who the voters elect. So I am proud to say...............Ladies & gentlemen Here comes the next President of these United States Barack Hussain Obama.
May God bless this republic.

Posted by: smatken | April 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Trailer boy Cilizza speaks of a blow to the Clinton Campaign?

For the reality based crew, said blow was like somebody kicking her coffin as it was lowered into the dirt.

It's over, stop the delusions.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O'Bleness Health System.

Hillary, the lost liar.

Posted by: robertell | April 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

soonerthought I am with you on this - - this is not rocket science. It is so simple. What amazes me is that people try to blame it on Obama like he had anything to do with the state party's decision. The ignorance of that is beyond any rational realm of thinking.

Posted by: ddraper81 | April 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

BorincanoDC

Re: Your last four paragraphs

Preach brother. Preach.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I have been looking for a total of caucus votes and can find none. These caucus state votes are very misleading because of so many people being unable to attend. I can see no way Mi. and Fla. can not be counted. Many problems within the Dem party will have to be addressed and it can only be done at the Convention, where all will, and should have their concerns brought to light.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Many people challenged the Clinton story when it was reported in the Post, as they pointed out that, under the law, you can't discharge a patient until they are stable, even if they lack insurance. This, from the NY Times:

"Since Ms. Bachtel's baby died at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O'Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O'Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.

The hospital would not provide details about the woman's case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.

"We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient," said Mr. Castrop, the health system's chief executive. Any implication that the system was "involved in denying care is definitely not true."

Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday. " The most depressing part, for me, is the next sentence: "Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton's account." What are papers good for, if they are not letting us know when politicians are lying? And isn't it interesting that when the press DOES examine Clinton claims, they always turn out to be false or grossly exaggerated? When is someone in the press going to call Clinton on her 35 years of experience claim and out it for the lie that it is? When is someone in the press going to connect the dots on Clinton and NAFTA and lobbyists? When is the press going to do their job? It would be a h@ll of a lot more constructive than film clips of Obama being irritated by a pushy guy who wants his picture to sell on eBay.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?ref=us

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

a) to all of you blaming Obama -- the decision not to hold a revote was made "by the Michigan Democratic Party executive committee". Not Obama. So stop blaming Obama, or complaining that Michigan has been disenfranchised. THEY broke the rules, and THEY decided not to do anything to rectify the problem. Breaking rules MUST have consequences.

b) what PeixeGato said.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Hussein Obama is a sick sick man and Hillary needs to stop him. She can still win...YES SHE CAN!!!!

At least she loves her country unlike the racist she is running against. Anyone read Osama's first book? He clearly states he does not like white people.

Obama is about the politics of divisiveness. Wake up people!

Posted by: knight1977 | April 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I am a Michigander who would have voted for Biden, wife for Obama. It was clear at the time that the votes were not going to count, our candidates were not even on the ballot. We boycotted voting to protest against our state Democratic party "leaders" who messed up in the first place. I know many Dems who did not vote for the same reason.

Look, both parties (Obama and Clinton)agreed to the rules, regardless of why they were established. Quite honestly, I feel disenfranchised by the state party, not the national party and will hold nothing against the candidate in November.

That said, for Clinton to be asking for the state's delegates to count based upon the earlier vote is ludicrious. Many Democrats did not vote, Obama's name did not appear on the ballot (at a time when his name was not recognized by many Americans) and nobody campaigned here. Name recognition got her to 55%.

To me, the solution is simple. When it was established that the Democratic nominee would need 2,025 delegates for the nomination, Florida and Michigan delegates were included in the count. Now that those delegates will not (or should not) count, the number of required delegates for the nomination should be lowered to reflect the new number of delegates which would equal 50% + 1. As it is right now, the nominee needs almost 55%, which is one reason neither candidate can make it to the needed 2,025.

There is a lot of negativity out there from both camps' supporters and it is quite unbecoming. Obama backers are not cultist nut-jobs and Clinton backers are not crazy feminists. They are just passionate about their candidate.

I have seen a lot of posts about voting for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Are you crazy? The People need to take this country back from warmongers and economic dunces who are not in it for most Americans. Get behind our nominee whoever it is.

Posted by: estimatedeyes | April 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

svreader -> still spewing hatred and stupidity, eh?

Posted by: michael4 | April 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Question for the political junkies out there: when the candidates are throwing around "popular vote" totals, how are they dealing with the caucus states? Is it just a straight up count of caucus votes? If so, it seems like the "popular vote" totals might overweight primary states because the numbers of caucus votes are likely to be less, held constant for state, than primary votes.

Posted by: dumb | April 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

How odd that all you Clintonites (this article included) fail to report *why* Obama's campaign didn't respond to Clinton and MI's revote plan- it was because the revote didn't allow those who had voted GOP to vote Dem in the revote. That is, all the people who had decided to vote Republican because they knew a Democratic vote didn't count, did not now get to vote for their true preferred candidate. And that's why Obama's campaign said "this isn't fair and won't do" and why Clinton's campaign was too scared of what would happen if they did allow these people to vote. Her claim of disenfranchising is all spin, smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: sallylinuslucy | April 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

All this high-falutin' nonsense about the law of the land and the spirit of the Constitution regarding voting is just crap. The Democratic Party is a private organization that sets its own rules, in a process run by volunteers who are members of the party, for picking nominees.

In an effort to stop a stampede to the front of the line, the party told certain states not to run early primaries. Those states rolled the dice and went ahead anyway, some leaders in MI and FL probably figuring, "Hey, what can they do to us, not count the votes?"

They have thrown a monkey wrench into the gears, these jerks. A lot of attention has been paid to the Obama team's efforts to block re-runs. Less attention has been paid to Clinton's desire to count ballots and award delegates from a state in which she was the only candidate on the ballot.

Clinton would love to count Michigan "as is," since she would NEVER have carried the state by a margin like that if a competitive race was run.

Florida is a little more complicated. All candidates were on the ballot, nobody campaigned there, and the primary date was in large measure engineered by a Republican establishment that would love nothing better than to complicate the Dem race. (Of course, senior Democratic office-holders in Florida didn't do much to stop it.)

Florida has a better claim to getting counted "as-is" than Michigan. Award Michigan 50-50 and let it go.

Obama will still be ahead in the popular vote when all is said and done. Obama will still be ahead in delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses after Montana votes in early June.

How come Clinton, if she loses, can't just lose? Why does it have to be representative of some deeper neurosis in the American people? When women and minorities ask to compete on equal footing in politics, don't they also have to accept the risk that they'll lose? She may lose because people simply found her the less preferable candidate. A Democratic electorate that may chose a black guy instead could hardly be accused of "not being willing to take a chance and do something new."

And what's all this baloney about black people voting for Obama because he's black? Black voters, in the vast majority of elections since black people have been able to vote, have had no choice BUT to vote for white politicians. I don't recall white people finding that a problem.

When the first opportunity to vote for a Puerto Rican for president presents itself (and believe me, I'm not holding my breath), I will walk to the polls with a spring in my step at the opportunity to cast that vote. (As long as the person's political stances are not repulsive to me, or the candidate isn't manifestly unfit for office)

Happy fin de semana to all...

Posted by: BorincanoDC | April 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I fully believe that the Dem party needs to review its primary procedures to prevent such a catastrophe in the future.

We need a new Primary calendar, period. The way it currently works means that states are incentivized to hold their primaries as soon as possible.

It would be interesting to have a discussion about potential solutions to the primary calendar.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

The facts DO matter. And you have no facts to support your claims that (a) a book you claim to have read named Obama's Slums is anything other than a lie that you have posted and (b) anyone Rezko tenant died due to lack of heat in his buildings. As I have laid out, your claims are simply not borne out by common sense. Why would anyone believe that you, and you alone, have read this book, and know of these deaths, and experienced Chicago reporters (not to mention reporters from all over the nation) have just missed this? For that matter, that this bombshell book exists, is being published in secret, and NO ONE HAS LEAKED IT?! I don't know anyone gullible enough to believe all of that.

I would remind you (again) that, as a state legislator, Barack Obama helped write Illinois state laws. Not Chicago housing codes. He was not charged with the responsibility of enforcing ANY laws, state or local. That responsibility fell to the City of Chicago. Elected officials can do no more than check with authorities charged with enforcement. It is stated _in the article you cited_ that city officials were well aware of the state of Rezko's buildings (or do you think all those citations wrote themselves, like that book's going to sell itself?). So even your claim that Obama failed in his responsibility is false.

STOP. LYING.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

As a registered Michigan voter, I am more upset with my states legislature for going against the rules established by both parties and scheduling an early primary. It is them who are to blame in this fiasco, not the candidates. As far as the split, since a re-vote is not going to happen, the delegates should be assigned based on the votes cast. HRC gets those that voted for her and BHO gets the uncommitted since it was primarily his supporters that pushed for people to vote that way.

Posted by: teucan | April 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

And yet another blow:

In North Carolina, Barack Obama has opened up a twenty-three percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Obama attracts 56% of the vote while Clinton earns 33%. A month ago, Obama's lead was just seven percentage points.


Things are not looking good in Clintonia today.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Did Hilary complain about Florida and Michigan being stripped of their delegates at the time the Democartic National Committee made their decision or did she wait until after the primaries?

Posted by: DavidAu | April 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I find it amusing that the Clinton campaign apparently thinks it is so entitled to what are already disenfranchised voters that Obama should help them. Is it really a brilliant strategy to publicly beg him to negotiate against himself? I think not...strikes me more as stupid to suggest. But it is transparent.

Posted by: michael4 | April 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Another blow for Hillary:

Obama has largest lead ever in Rasmussen daily tracking poll! Leads by 10!!!

Obama: 51%
Clinton: 41%

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

First of all, lets get this straight; HRC did not beat ANYONE in Michigan. She was the only major candidate on the ballot and people were told that write-in votes would NOT be counted. Furthermore, none of the candidates campaigned there and the voters were under the distinct impression that their state's delegates would not be awarded. How anyone can claim a victory in this scenario is beyond me.

I find it interesting that when Michigan originally hatched this plan to violate party rules regarding the primary date, HRC didn't have a problem with their delegates not being counted (why would anyone agree not to campaign in a state where they believed the delegates might be counted). Could it be that she believed she was the de-facto nominee and therefore she wouldn't NEED any delegates from Michigan (or Florida).

Then, when it becomes clear that she will lose to Barack Obama, she decides that the delegates should be counted and that it was wrong to strip them of their delegates in the first place. Now, its a matter of disenfranchisement. She didn't mind disenfranchising them when it looked like she was going to win. But now that she can't win without them, all of a sudden its a travesty that these delegates aren't seated and that the vote isn't allowed to stand.

She is exhibiting the behavior of someone who truly believes she is entitled to the nomination. She'll change her story to go along with whatever is in HER best interest at whatever particular moment in time.

Shameless!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 5, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

But Dean's working to seating the delegates regardless - no questions asked. Works for her just as well.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | April 5, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Super Delegates would be redundant if they merely rubber-stamped the popular vote (if that is there purpose, why have them).

Posted by: tokonoma | April 5, 2008 12:29 PM

Dear tokonoma:

Superdelegates were created to prevent a recurrence of the McGovern disaster. Most here are too young to recall. I worked hard and donated heavily to that campaign.

They were also created so that elected party members plus a few poo-bahs would not have to go through the delegate selection process and would get automatic admission, with voting rights, to the convention.

If a primary is even remotely close, and the candidate with the most delegates implodes before the convention, showing poll numbers that ensure defeat in November, then (AND ONLY THEN) the superdelegates step in and fix the mess - presumably by choosing someone who can (and will?) win in November.

Posted by: harry4 | April 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"He didn't spend a dime or time in Michigan and doesn't deserve one vote as far as I'm concerned."

Some of you people are ridiculous. Both Clinton and Obama agreed not to campaign (spend time or dimes) in either MI or FL... Clinton ONLY was in favor of seating the delegates AFTER she realized she needed them to win.

The reality is that many people will be disenfranchised if the delegations are seated as-is. Many people stayed home or voted for McCain because they were told the election was meaningless; in fact, Florida and Michigan, while experiencing a surge in voters, had comparitvely low turnout compared to the hyper-turnout of the other 38 states that have voted.

This Michigan resident will be very upset if the shoddy delegation is seated as-is.

Posted by: Tetris | April 5, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Actualy, I think, given enough time to campaign, Obama could win both MI and FL. Look what is happening in PA. It is now down to single digits with more than 2 weeks to go. I suspect the Hillary campaign knows this really does not want a redo they just want to keep this as an active issue to bash Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Around 1 500 000 votes were cast by anticipation last december for the California primaries, even before the Iowa/New Hampshire primaries. Barack Obama was not even known by these early voters!!!! Hillary was known because of her husband. If all states would redo their elections, the results would be quite different. If we allow one state to redo its election, to be fair we should allow all states to redo theirs. If we allow one state to change the rules for its election, then we should allow all states to change theirs.

So Florida and Michigan should not re-vote or change their rules after the fact.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It is hilarious to see Obama nuts think 50/50 split is fair. Yeah right, he didn't campaign there, neither did Hillary. Obama campaigned heavily in Ohio, outspent her by 3 to 1. Well he lost by 200,000 votes. Hillary beat Obama and Edwards combined in Michigan by 15 points. A 50/50 split is fair?? Only in fantasy land.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Firstly, Clinton supporters do not help their candidate by denigrating those on the other side as "nuts." Same for Obama supporters. Keep the discourse above the mud, please.

Secondly, would you rather have the Republican solution of seating half of the delegates, or giving each half a vote, or simply adjust the victory margin by 1/2 and seating all? I cannot imagine either side being able to make a strong argument (they'll make arguments, of course) against cutting the margin by 1/2 and allowing a full delegation to be seated.

There remains just the problem of giving a free pass for rules violations. It sets a poor precedent. Perhaps, this would be a good time to find a new method of setting primary dates.

Posted by: harry4 | April 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

This is amazing.

Michigan and Florida were not real elections.

No one campaigned there, because they were determined to not matter.

The Clinton campaign really has no argument here.

And I really don't understand how the state officials were so stupid as to knowingly deny their citizens the right to vote. They're the ones to blame here.

Posted by: tiredasalways17 | April 5, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"One state down and one more state,Fla, that will not vote for Sen Obama in Nov if he is the nominee. "

leichtman, you profess to be some expert insider, but all you do is pull bullcrap like this out of your bum. You have been consistently wrong on every point you have made as your candidate goes down in flames. Why would anyone believe this nonsense? By your "reasoning," neither state would vote for Hillary either, since Hillary so proactively insured that neither state's primary would count.

I am going to check the rules to see if parroting hateful and false campaign spin is inappropriate according to the rules, and ask that you be banned.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Trina Larae Bachtel

Publish Date: August 17, 2007
Word Count: 179
Document ID: 11B3229E93FB3818

MIDDLEPORT - Trina Larae Bachtel, 35, Middleport, passed away on August 15, 2007, at OSU Medical Center in Columbus. She was born on Nov. 25, 1971, in Gallipolis, daughter of Diane L. and Ronald H. Bachtel. She was employed as a manager at Pizza Hut.

She was preceded by an infant son, Trey Dean Hutton; paternal grandparents, Audrey and Willard Jeffers, and her father-in-law, Eugene Hutton.

She is survived by her mother and father, Diane L. and Ronald H. Bachtel, Chester; her fiance,


Tray Dean Hutton

Publish Date: August 10, 2007
Word Count: 124
Document ID: 11B02D9D686DC6F8

RUTLAND - Tray Dean Hutton, the son of Tony M. Hutton and Trina L. Bachtel of Rutland, was stillborn Aug. 1, 2007 at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens. Also surviving are a sister, Jessi Hutton of Rutland; grandparents, Ronnie and Diane Bachtel of Chester and Charles and Minnie Young of Langsville; great grandmothers, May Mayle of Pomeroy and Vivian Coy of Rutland; and several aunts, uncles, and cousins.

He was preceded in death by his grandfather, Ewing

Above are the obituaries of Trina and her son.

Posted by: di54 | April 5, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Trina Larae Bachtel

Publish Date: August 17, 2007
Word Count: 179
Document ID: 11B3229E93FB3818

MIDDLEPORT - Trina Larae Bachtel, 35, Middleport, passed away on August 15, 2007, at OSU Medical Center in Columbus. She was born on Nov. 25, 1971, in Gallipolis, daughter of Diane L. and Ronald H. Bachtel. She was employed as a manager at Pizza Hut.

She was preceded by an infant son, Trey Dean Hutton; paternal grandparents, Audrey and Willard Jeffers, and her father-in-law, Eugene Hutton.

She is survived by her mother and father, Diane L. and Ronald H. Bachtel, Chester; her fiance,


Tray Dean Hutton

Publish Date: August 10, 2007
Word Count: 124
Document ID: 11B02D9D686DC6F8

RUTLAND - Tray Dean Hutton, the son of Tony M. Hutton and Trina L. Bachtel of Rutland, was stillborn Aug. 1, 2007 at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens. Also surviving are a sister, Jessi Hutton of Rutland; grandparents, Ronnie and Diane Bachtel of Chester and Charles and Minnie Young of Langsville; great grandmothers, May Mayle of Pomeroy and Vivian Coy of Rutland; and several aunts, uncles, and cousins.

He was preceded in death by his grandfather, Ewing

Above are the obituaries of Trina and her son.

Posted by: di54 | April 5, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Reasonable Resolutions (Change That We Can Recognize As More Than Rhetoric):

1. The Florida vote should be split as follows:
Clinton 49.7% Obama 33% Edwards 14.4% (votes for Edwards will be divided equally between Clinton and Obama). Face it, Obama ran TV ads in Florida even when none of the other candidates campaigned there - the votes should count.

2. Michigan votes will be divided as follows:
Clinton 55.3% Obama 40%. This is extremely fair since the 40% represents ALL of the uncommitted votes cast in Michigan. There is no explanation in this article about the missing 5% but let Obama have those, too.

3. Obama supporters (and anyone else who argues that Michigan and Florida Democratic Party leaders KNEW what the rules and consequences were before selecting their primary dates) will not be allowed to argue that Super Delegates should commit to a candidate according to popular votes in primaries and caucuses since Obama knew as well as Clinton the nature of Super Delegates prior to the beginning of the election. Super Delegates were created to give party leaders and insiders more of a say in the nomination of a candidate - Super Delegates would be redundant if they merely rubber-stamped the popular vote (if that is there purpose, why have them). Further, Clinton won handily in Massachusetts (despite Super Delegates Kerry and Kennedy coming out for Obama). If the Super Delegates must vote the will of the voters in their states, Kerry and Kennedy will have to detach from Obama and give their Super Delegate votes to Clinton.

4. Both candidates will commit to lobby the Democratic Party to abolish Super Delegates for future elections.

Posted by: tokonoma | April 5, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

MI and FL delegates will be seated but not based on the results from their bogus primaries. There will be some compromise but the apportions must be fair to both candidates.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:23 PM

Yes, and I suggest adjusting the victory margins down by half. Of course, in MI, you'll have to make all non-committeds into Obamas. HRC still gets more delegates in both states.

What Hillary actually is looking for is not delegates but popular votes. Unfortunately for her, populars votes don't nominate. Heck, they don't even elect in the Presidential contest. (Remember 2000?)

Posted by: harry4 | April 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

It is hilarious to see Obama nuts think 50/50 split is fair. Yeah right, he didn't campaign there, neither did Hillary. Obama campaigned heavily in Ohio, outspent her by 3 to 1. Well he lost by 200,000 votes. Hillary beat Obama and Edwards combined in Michigan by 15 points. A 50/50 split is fair?? Only in fantasy land.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

If I were part of the Clinton campaign, I would not press for a Florida re-vote. Many people, especially Blacks, have since changed their mind and would no longer vote for Hillary this time around.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | April 5, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

MI and FL delegates will be seated but not based on the results from their bogus primaries. There will be some compromise but the apportions must be fair to both candidates.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Michicgan and Florida are essentially playing the 'don't you know who I am' card....like some spoiled rich athlete who gets caught up in illegal activity, they think tossing out 'don't you know how important I am' can get them off the hook. Fug 'em. And if McCain wins in Nov because of it, better the real McCain than the McCain impersonator from NY.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Here's another blow:

Apparently Hillary has been lying again. Over the last several weeks she has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio, but hospital administrators said that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O'Bleness Health System.

Lying is becoming a habit with Hillary and her campaign.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama had the choice, just as Hillary did, to put his name on the Michigan ballot. But he decided to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire and decided to hide. Now he is crying, oh, my name was not on the ballot. What a filthy, two-faced scoundrel he is.

Posted by: Umbria | April 5, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The problems of denial of delegate seats to citizens of Michigan and Florida arose as a result of other citizens of those states moving forward their primaries knowing full well of the conseqences down the road.

The blame is not on the other 48 states and territories who complied by the rules of the party. Nor is the blame afixable to the candidates. This mess was created in Florida and Michigan.

And thus it's up to Florida and Michigan Democrats to fix THEIR OWN problem.

To blame others for your own problems and lack of foresight is childish at best, grossly irresponsible at the other end of the behavior spectrum.

Florida and Michigan Dems: Stop whining; clean up your own mess. And for heavens sakes, stop blaming the rest of us including the candidates.

Thanks much. Responsible Citizen/Veteran

Posted by: HLBeckPE | April 5, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The caucuses have no popular vote. So, those voters don't count? The popular vote in primaries and caucuses is a myth perpetuated by Clinton's campaign because they hope to change the rules (again!) to benefit themselves. Stop it with the popular vote already. It's just bogus.

The popular vote in MI and FL is meaningless because lots of voters didn't bother to vote at all or to vote for presidential preference because they were told it didn't count. How do they feel about this situation? If the MI and FL primaries had been held later, the results would certainly have been different.

All candidates signed statements agreeing to the rules. Clinton didn't care then because she assumed she'd just be coronated. The others took the rules seriously. Now, she's treating her actions like those in Bosnia. Did she have her fingers crossed behind her back when she signed?

Hillary (and lots of her supporters too) is just pissed off because she didn't walk away from super Tuesday with the nomination. Not having access to a time machine, she's doing her best to revise the past in order to change the future. Ain't gonna happen.

I like the effects on the electorate that the extended campaign has produced. So, let her stay in. But, put a cork in Bill. Stop the divisiveness. Both candidates should spend more time on why McCain is a bad choice, which will improve the favorability ratings of both.

And just seat MI and FL under a fair formula such as cutting Hillary's margin in half to recognize that these were half-a&&ed primaries and that her victories were more based on name recognition very early in the campaign than on substance. She still wins more delegates, just not as many. Don't tally the phony popular vote at all.

Posted by: harry4 | April 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

MI and FL are not going to matter anyway. Obama is closing the gap in PA and extending his lead in NC. All polls are heading in Obama's favor now. Hillary is on the ropes. It is essentially over.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Clintonistas, looking at the Michigan vote from January 15, the 50-50 split proposed by the Obama camp seems incredibly generous to you folks.

Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama actually campaigned in that state! The 55-40 split from January 15 would have tilted to at least a 50-50 realignment, and most likely a 60-40 split FOR Obama.

As for Florida, most edwards supporters were not likely to lean towards Hillary Clinton. While Sen. Clinton polled 49% in Florida, Barack Obama did not campaign their - unlike Hillary's tours and numerous speaking engagements. Had Obama and Edwards focused resources on Florida, the election would have probably pulled another 5 to 7% in favor of Obama and 2 to 4% to Edwards away from Clinton. In these scenarios, the final split would have had Clinton's overall vote drop from 49% to 38 to 42% (a decrease of 7 to 11%), and the results would have shifted Obama from 33 to 38 to 40% (an increase of 5 to 7%) and Edwards shifted to 16 to 18% (an increase of 2 to 4%).

Howard Dan knows this is the case, too. His original offer of splitting the delegates 50-50 again, was the fair thing to do because the REAL difference between 38 and 42% (whether it's in favor of Hillary or Barack) is essentially a draw.

So, all of your brass-knuckle, alley fighting, kick-you-in-the-groin, character besmirching name-calling scoundrels and surrogates and die hard Clinton supporters, it's time to show your campaign understands the practicality and pragmatic aspects of the campaign. If you follow the money - and believe me, the Clinton's can certainly bankroll lots more from their pocketbooks versus begging for money from supporters - March was a 2:1 gain for Obama. At this late stage in the primaries when people are weary, that speaks volumes of th econtinued suppoort for Obama as the preferred grassroots candidate of Democrats form all states - Red and Blue.

Posted by: AngryAmerican | April 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

No Re-vote is a victory for the rules.

How anyone can claim that the results in Michigan should count in any way is beyond me. SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE BALLOT! OF COURSE SHE WON!

If there is not going to be a re-vote, then any plan to divide the delegates can not fairly be based on the results of the original vote. They are completely meaningless.

Don't blame Obama for this, blame the party officials who moved up the vote in clear violation of the rules, knowing what the consequences would be.

Posted by: stewiegriffen | April 5, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Neither side is offering reasonable solutions for what to do about Michigan or Florida.

Surely no one in the Clinton campaign can say with a straight face that it would be fair for the DNC to seat the delegates under two primaries which were known in advance to be illegal under party rules. Candidates chose not to participate at all in Michigan and not to campaign in Florida based on the rules. Changing the rules after the fact can hardly be viewed as fair.

Why would any candidate or state ever agree to play by the rules again if the votes from illegal primaries are allowed to count? Surely California, New York and other big states can hold their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire next time, because the party can't afford NOT to seat the delegates from those giants.

The Obama campaign's "offer" to split the delegates 50/50 is equally absurd and self-serving. A re-vote in each state would have been ideal, but that's not going to happen.

Neither state should be allowed to fundamentally shift the results from the states that have held their primaries and caucuses within the rules. Neither campaign can afford to be seen as winning because they manipulated the rules in Florida and Michigan.

There is lots of room for compromise between these two bargaining stances. The real game for each campaign, I suspect, is to maneuver to make the other side look petty and manipulative. (It's working for both sides!)

These two campaigns have made much of their ability to cross partisan lines to get things done. It's time for each side to show that they can bend a bit for the benefit for the party and the country.

Posted by: bpaton | April 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

There is much case law in American history which states that the peoples' votes are paramount to disputes like this. Someone has to be adults here - Hillary deserves her votes.

Pencil the votes in, hand them to her.


Obama should win the old-fashioned way - by a win - The caucus states should be adjusted too - and then let the party decide - all these bizarre rules should be adjusted and they should do what is correct.

Posted by: Miata7 | April 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

jsindc:

The constitution grants that right in a general election, but party policies (i.e., Michigan and the DNC) apparently don't. I agree that Michigan and Florida voters got a raw deal, but any attempt by the Clinton campaign to depict this as obstructionism on the Obama campaign is purely opportunistic, not based on the facts, and ultimately hurtful to the Democratic party. If Clinton supporters are upset by what has happened, they ought to take it out solely on the DNC, Florida, and Michigan. The Obama campaign has played by the rules throughout the campaign.

Posted by: ChrisDC | April 5, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree. Both Michigan and Florida were aware and thoroughly cognizant of the rules as to delegate selection and they refused to follow the rules. Now they wish to be rewarded after the fact by claimang disenfranchisement.

Give me a break. If you don't follow the rules, expect to experience the consequences. I can not say I have much sympathy for them in this regard.

Posted by: louisjosephmichael | April 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 10% of their earnings to charity and have been doing it for 10 years."

The Clintons donated MOST of their money to the Clinton Founation, and only 1/2 of the money was actually used. And how the money was used is still unknown. My guess is to further Hillary's ambition to be the Prez.
I can see why Hillary is so kin to be in the WH. So she could make another 200M.

The Ohio woman who was denied medical care was a BIG LIE AGAIN by Hillary. The hospital in Ohio dispute Hillary's claim. Just like the sniper fire.

Mark my word - When Hillary fail the bid of running, she will kick BillJ out of the house pronto.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Amy is exactly right. One state down and one more state,Fla, that will not vote for Sen Obama in Nov if he is the nominee. Amy and the rest of the Obama campaign are obviously joyful at this turn of enents. My guess is that they disagree with zbob's post.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I understand why Florida democrats should be able to revote or have some other compromise made to allow their delegates to be seated. The process in Florida was rigged by the Republicans (again) determined to punish Democrats who choose to live--and vote--in Florida.

Michigan, on the other hand, has no excuse. The rules were very very clear. Even I knew them last year, and I don't live anywhere near Michigan. So, sorry that there are consequences for your blatant refusal to follow the rules. But that's the way a democracy based on LAWS is supposed to work. Break the law, experience the consequences. Follow the law, experience great rewards.

www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

Posted by: radiocboy | April 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

zbob with your theory the Obama campaign should have embraced a revote even when offered the firehouse type primsry they insisted on. Why not or is that too 'throwing mud' to dare ask a quwstion of an Obama supporter.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The Constitutional right to vote applies to actual elections that carry the force of law, not parties choosing their candidates for crying out loud. Amazing that some of these people even know how to turn their computers on.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

This makes PA all that more important- 20% + victory needed. However with MSM polls and Internet stats like this, it may be hard to obtain;

Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83

Posted by: davidmwe | April 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"No Re-Vote in Michigan a Blow to Clinton"

No Re-Vote in Michigan is a Blow to Democracy at its best. The No Re-Vote moves America back in time - back to what we fought so hard to achieve - back to taxation without representation. Another sad blow to American History.

Posted by: di54 | April 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

We should all be grateful that Howard Dean failed in his presidential bid.

Who knows where his indecision might have led our country if he had been elected?

Posted by: ceton | April 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

One down, one to go. States who break the rules should be punished. What will happen in next primary season if they aren't?

Hilary agreed to rules until they did not suit her. Just like in Nevada with the Culinary Union. For several months, she said nothing about them getting on site caucus because she was convinced she would get the support of that Union. When she didn't just days before caucus, her Teacher's Union supporters and Bill Clinton cried foul and filed lawsuit. What machiavelian opportunist these Clinton folks are.

Posted by: Arny | April 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Judge a person or a group by what they do, rather than what they say.

Judge them by what they do when the cameras are off, not when they're on.

Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 10% of their earnings to charity and have been doing it for 10 years.

Obama gave 1%, and gave it to a racist anti-white, anti semitic, anti-american church and went to that church for 20 years.

If Obama was found in bed with a dead girl, his supporters would say she died of happiness.

If Obama was found in bed with a live boy, they'd say Obama cured his leprosy.

He is a cult leader and they are a cult of personality.

That's dictatorship, not democracy.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse


The Constitution of the United States of America, all 50 states, gives American citizens right to vote. Then Howard Dean said I have a stupid rule that doesn't like the dates of January 29 and January 25, they ought to be held a week later. Which one is more important to democracy? Howard Dean's calendar book or the supreme law of the land?

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse


pulakimo precisely how is it throwing mud to say that I just emiled the Clinton campaign and told them to respectfully refer to Michigan voters as requested, as Michiganders? That is truly baffeling

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse


pulakimo precisely how is it throwing mud to say that I just emiled the Clinton campaign and told them to respectfully refer to Michigan voters as requested, as Michihanders? That is truly baffeling

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Actually I suspect Obama would have won any revote in MI.

Posted by: zbob99 | April 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

GOOD! NO RE-VOTE, THEN HONOR THE PREVIOUS VOTE AND GIVE CLINTON THE DELEGATES AND POPULAR VOTES FOR MICHIGAN.

SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAT OBAMA CAN NEVER BE PRESIDENT. NOBODY IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD VOTE FOR ONE EMBRACING A PASTOR
THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS AND DAMNS HIS
OWN COUNTRY.

Posted by: tim591 | April 5, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

~

He has no legitimate claim to the nomination:

1. She won by 17% in Florida; almost 300,000 votes, in a state where she did not campaign but St. Obama ran TV ads.

2. She won in Michigan.

3. It is now common knowledge that the Obama campaign bussed people into caucus states to stuff the ballot box. There are plenty of Obama campaign workers who have admitted as much, publicly.

4. Superdelegates are not respecting the will of their state's voters. In Massachusetts, even though Clinton won by 17+%, Kennedy, Patrick and Kerry are all voting for Obama.

Kennedy is doing it because she dissed his brother. Kerry is doing it because he does not like the Clintons. Patrick is doing it because he's friends with Obama.

So the vaunted "will of the voters" is denied.

This whole thing is making me sick. I'm done with the Democratic Party. Not one more dime. Not one more vote.

Senator Clinton is getting totally screwed by this process. If she'd pulled the same stunts as Obama, she wouldn't even be in the race.

P.S. And, Obama is not even qualified to be the president. If elected, it will be a disaster, just like neophyte Deval "Yes We Can" Patrick has been an unmitigated disaster here in Massachusetts.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | April 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

its also rich to see Hillary supporters talk about the principles of 'democracy' just days after she said that 'pledged' delegates, the ones people have been electing, aren't really pledged at all. These people have about as many faces as brain cells.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Shame on the Democratic party for disenfranchising the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida. Instead of trying to find a way for these state's party members to have their voices heard, they keep screaming about "how they broke the rules". What rules? It was all a PR move to try and pump up the artificial importance of Super Tuesday. And when is preventing people's votes to count following any rule?

Posted by: mamiller35Post | April 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The question left outstanding is why Michigan poo pahs ever betrayed their own voters in the first place, knowing the rules would strip them of their delegates. Except for the Hillary campaigners there, Michigan itself doesn't seem to be all that interested in being used to prop up Hillary's flagging campaign, small petition not withstanding.
They seem to know instinctively this is soley all about Hillary and no one else.

Posted by: Rita2 | April 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

If the votes for Michigan are to be counted, they should not be split down the middle as suggested by the Obama camp. The split should be as shown: 55% for Clinton and the remaining for Obama. He didn't spend a dime or time in Michigan and doesn't deserve one vote as far as I'm concerned. Obama is certainly not the kind of person that should be a head of state - he is NOT the person he portrays himself to be. He is already projecting himself as winning the presidency by his arrogance which is getting harder and harder to stomach as each day passes.

Posted by: PittAlum | April 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Actions speak louder than words."

More true than ever coming from a supporter of Hillary, whose words aren't worth the air used to speak them.

Posted by: ojordan3 | April 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse


A blow to Obama and Howard Dean's DNC. Obama's call for 50/50 is ridiculous. I know he is used to free ride and anything handed to him without him doing any work. But my gosh, he and Edwards combined got 40% of the votes while Hillary got 55%. What is the matter with Obama campaign? No shame? Stealing under daylight?

This is a blow to Obama. Everyone sees he is obstructing democracy. If he steals the nomination by denying 33 million American citizens' voice in Florida and Michigan, he will be soundly beat in November.

Posted by: jsindc | April 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama will do anything to get elected.

Democracy means nothing to him or his supporters.

Actions speak louder than words.

His actions stink.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

FLORIDA CANT SEEM TO DO ANY ELECTION RIGHT.I FOR ONE THINK THE STATE OF FLORIDA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY VOTING OF ANY KIND,JUST KIDDING!

Posted by: RENEA1 | April 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Another compromise: toss the popular vote numbers into the trash heap; nobody gets credit in the "popular vote" column.

Seat the delegates as they would have been seated had the vote actually counted, with all delegates not in the Clinton column allocated to Obama.

She gets more than half the delegates so very transparent of her to cry foul over that outcome.

And Obama shouldn't complain too loudly because he picks up at least 60 more delegates. If he does no better in the remaining primary states than he did in the handful of states Clinton "won", then he will need only 86 more of the remaing 300 superdelegates to reach 2024.

If he does as well in the remaining states as he has done to date (seems much more likely) he needs ZERO additional superdelegates to reach 2024.

Follow the same approach in Florida; toss the popular vote and award all delegates to Obama that would not have gone to Clinton and he needs no additional superdelegates under either of the above two scenarios.

Problem over. Nomination is known. Hillary can keep running if she wants, but Obama can focus solely on McCain and the general election.

Posted by: 33rdStreet | April 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

damn, i read chris via email, came to the site to post about the Michiganders, and found IMGoph beat me to it. good work, IM.

so the abreviated version:

. . . they look quite askance at people who call them things like Michiganians.

i'm sure singer wants those people to feel that he really cares about them, and feels their pain; and when you get someone's name wrong when you're acting like they're you're buddy--particularly more than two months into feigning buddyhood--you undermine your cred with them.

his title is deputy "communications" director?

Posted by: cullendave | April 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Not sure whether this was decided by DNC or Michigan, am just seeing that this ensures a contentious convention where Sen. Clinton will say, and about half the Democrats will agree with her, that Michigan is unresolved.

She's already told us that is what she will do. Remember?

Posted by: GaiasChild | April 5, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

If the state of Michigan is not recognized at the Democratic convention this summer the dems. will only have themselves to blame when they lose the general election in Nov. Obama knows if the state of MI is counted with FL the primary will be to close to call, and then the super delegates can vote their conscience and not be bullied into voting for Obama. If they allow themselves to be bullied, they will have stolen the nomination for Obama just as Bush and Cheney stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, with the help of Supreme Court.

Posted by: jeiken | April 5, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What is so hard to understand about this? They knew the rules, they broke the rules; therefore they do not get a do-over. All due respect, but the Party leaders in those states should be removed from office, as they have effectively disenfranchised their constituencies.

Posted by: soonerthought | April 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Again,in leichtman, we see Clintonites or is it Clintonians?, always ready to throw mud and see what sticks. I think Michiganders have every right to throw out all their elected representatives who placed them in this position. However, how can fair-minded voters place blame on those candidates who followed the rules and removed their names? Apparently Mrs. Clinton initially signed her name to a document detaiing the rules....then she left her name in (because it wasn't going to count anyway). It's called hedging your bets (think "hedge funds"). You know, I still remember shaking hands on an agreement, now even a signature on a document means nothing.

Posted by: pulakimo | April 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Respectfully I will see if there is anyway to pass that on to their campaign.

The real question this morning should be why a Michigander and Obama supporter State Representative gleefully told CNN last weekend that it was in their candidate's best political interest not to have a revote?

I am sure that Michiganders like to be played for fools by the Obama campaign.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

hey clintonites: if you want to get in good with those of us in michigan, you can start by using the term preferred by the majority of the residents in the state:

michiganders, not michiganians....

Posted by: IMGoph | April 5, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company