Political Punch

This "little unknown guy" (Obama) has had his campaign masterminded and run by David Axelrod who has managed the past campaigns of Mayor Richard Daley II of Chicago, the man running the biggest Democratic political machine in the country.

The NYT piece is probably accurate - Hillary hung on to old friend and confidante Patti Solis Doyle as her campaign manager for far too long before replacing her with another old friend and confidante, Maggie Williams. Returning loyalty to those who are loyal to you may not be the smartest way to run a campaign, but it is a personal value that I, and many who support Ms. Clinton, find admirable. It also belies the canard, popular among conservative Republicans and now the Obama Democrats, that Hillary is "ruthless" and cares nothing about anything, or anyone, except if it advances her personal gain.

I totally agree with Change's comments again and again. dl misses points and is wrong on many aspects. No, I am not in the Clinton camp. I am not even a Democrat but an independent from Illinois. Change is very informed and his logic is intact.
dl not so.

You media people are going her far to much credit. She or they are JUST NOW beginning to run a "real" campaign. It's to late now, this little un-known guy has put a beating on her. Make no mistake about it, HALF OF THE SUPPORT SHE IS GETTING NOW IS DUE TO SYMPATHY AND RACE - moreso her sympathy votes have kept her in the race aside from her name than anything else. Hillary is a loser. McCain a 71 yr old grandfather will win b/c of her. Hell hath no fury like a loser Clinton scorned.

The Clintons can't run the race without drama, they have not been able to hold a marriage together without drama, and I think over 20 affairs is WAY too much drama to forgive, and they don't play well with others....

dl,

Okay, I chuckled when you recommended the Daily Show, but I have no preference for a specific source...I just happened to find one that attempted to allocate the balance of states to red or blue to some degree.

It's always good to try a few sources to average out potential biases. I will check it out.

and LOM not to sound like a partisan jerk but I have a problem with Rasmussen...he is always on FOX and I don't think I have ever seen him on another station...

so I am not trying to nit pick but I am very wary of his numbers... check out the maps that the daily show has up...I know this sounds like a joke but...seriously they have some that they have combined but you can even look at the separate ones.

sorry Arkansas...Hillary had a huge number 70 to 26

...and I should say that even in these states Hillary's numbers never get greater than a 10 point spread in the primary...mostly under 4

Change...you are not getting it...

Look at how those states each year got closer to the Blue Column...yes...they have gone red and there state officials may even be Repubs...but if the trends follow...and this year looks like they may in a big way...we have a chance to pick those states up.

If Barack is a really popular candidate on the democratic side and McCain is not as popular on their side...and the margins were close in the last two elections...and the numbers in the primary elections were tending strongly toward the dems...

this sets up a battle state...

I count 15 of these (in the states we have had primaries in so far 5 typical swing states, 7 challengeable (within 7 point spread)3 harder but challengable)

Out of these 4 of them Hillary...11 barack)...

Exactly Change. We don't need target practice to shoot ourselves.

dl,

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about thinking a red state would be exclusively red. I was not talking about expanding the democratic congressional base either. I was speaking directly to how a democratic nominee could win the 270 electoral votes WITHOUT the need of deeply red states and thus return a democrat back into the White House (which I think is priority number one here). I was basing the numbers on the Rasmussen Reports data that assigned states as Safely Democratic, Likely Democratic, Leans Democratic, Toss-Up and so on.

I think it should be delegates...with a very small percentage of superdelegates...like 5% or something...

I am not exactly sure how these are weighted... but yeah I agree there should be a better system... just not sure how to break it all down and back up... ya know...

The biggest pain I think is the system we have now may cost us the election...but hopefully not.

Accurate, Dog Soldier,

If there is a way to lose, the Democratic Party will find it.

Should read automatically get 75%

Let's see,

2000 and 2004.

Weren't those Bush electorate victories?

Isn't a red state win, a red state win no matter how you spin it?

Can anyone expect to pull pages from the Kerry play book and win?

Has the Supreme Court changed significantly as to favor any Democratic challenges to the voting process?

Caucus = Mob Rule

sorry Mccain actually got his butt kicked in Colorado (19 to mitt's 59) but Colorado too...went from 13% spread repub in 2000 to
5% spread in 2004

and the numbers republican to dem in primaries percentage wise from both of those have gone strongly 2 to 1...

As you know DL I'm a Clinton supporter, yet I look around at the democratic party itself and I'm angry. Angry because we have the stupidest system of voting of any western democracy. Who in their right mind devises a system of so called super delegate? And we sit here and take this crap. Obama wins big on weekend and ONLY picks up 7 delegate while Clinton gets 5? The Texas two step? Millions and millions of dollars and we're still here with nothing decided yelling at each other, WHY? It isn't Clinton who turned Obama supporters against her, nor is it Obama who turned Clinton supporters against him, it is the democratic party SYSTEM and their ridiculous system who turned us against each other. Why not if you win a state, even by one vote, you atomically get 75% of delegates and the rest shared? No super delegates. No caucuses. Now the democratic party is sitting there wringing their hands over a party split. Yes, we're split and may never come together. Well the democratic party got no one to blame but themselves. Period.

LOM

Look at those red states...you think they all are exclusively red...like Missouri...which went from 17 point spread in 2000 to a 7 point spread in 2004
to the numbers for primaries suddenly showing a huge jump in percentages this year toward Dems...(2 to 1 ) turn out as opposed to the last times were the opposite in primaries...and McCain got his butt kicked there..

That may turn out to be a challengable state...but only with Barack...who won by a 9 point spread

This is one of those states that I call a harder to challenge but still challengeable...there are many states where the numbers are even more favorable...

This is not just a question of winning this is a question of changing the map.

I have a list of swing...challengeable, and harder to challenge... this year there are more states on the table in both directions... CT...for instance in the other direction (although unlikely in some ways because of the tone of the nation) ...but Lieberman is backing McCain. This is a state that is threatened barack won.

It is not the big blue states that we neeed to worry about... it is the questionable ones...and expanding our congressional base.

And, when you get right down to it, this argument will go on until August.

After watching Chairman Howard Dean blather around yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democratic Convention disintegrate into complete and total chaos.

And, anyone who identifies me with the Clinton campaign needs to start paying a little bit more attention.

Caucus = Mob Rule

Why Should Hillary Clinton Be Our Next President?

Hillary Clinton is the most principled, determined, goal-oriented, and ready to deal with the complex problems we are now facing and the challenges of tomorrow. Despite the considerable challenges we are facing both at home and abroad, she will be an effective leader to deal with these problems and bring about positive changes. She has a more transparent and viable plan about the economy, national security, healthcare, diplomacy, and other national problems. I have a conviction that she will turn the economy around and also restore America’s moral leadership in the world. Let us not also forget that President Clinton created more than 22 million new jobs during his presidency and established a bridge to the 21 century for continuation of the economic prosperity which the Bush administration was and is unable to maintain and keep. It is hoped that Hillary Clinton’s presidency will clean up the current mess, end the war in Iraq and bring our soldiers home, reduce deficit, create more jobs, restore American competitiveness in the global economy, build consumer confidence, and develop a more constructive approach to diplomacy. She will also strengthen the American military. When considering her opponent’s qualifications and experience, she is more experienced to be Commander-in-Chief.

There is no doubt that America is ready for a woman president. However, it is imperative to note that it is not only her gender that qualifies her to be president but her qualities of determination, hard work, and leadership. If we want to expect a lot from our president, we should vote for Hillary Clinton. She will definitely take quick action on the problems we face. She is tough, smart, and stands for real changes that brings about positive results. She is very unhappy about the current economic situation, the war in Iraq, and the continuing foreclosures. She is ready to fight for us and work under pressure of life to better our lives.

It is imperative to note that other women in other countries have demonstrated exceptional qualities of leadership at national level. For instance, the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher’s determination, hard work, and leadership had a profound and permanent impact on British politics in the 1980s and early 1990s and beyond after she left office. The former British Prime Minister demonstrated that, despite considerable challenges, women, if given the opportunity, can be effective leaders. While Hillary Clinton is not a conservative like Margaret Thatcher, I have a conviction that she will serve the American people with determination to bring about a real change that will positively impact the American people. We should know what is best for us.

We concerned citizens, let us not be swayed away by empty promise for change and hope beyond reality. Let us be realistic. Who can lead us to success for the next four years and beyond? Let us not forget about matters that affect us in particular and America in general. Voting for Hillary Clinton means, changing the economy around, having a universal healthcare plan, better education, vigorous and constructive diplomacy, better national security, enhanced scientific research and technology development, improvement in the environment and less dependency on foreign oil.
Let us vote for Hillary Clinton and give her an opportunity to fight for us! This is what matters most.

Getahun Leta
gtoera@aol.com

Okay, dl,

You quote your sources, and I quote mine. Doesn't make you right. Doesn't make me wrong.

But, when someone disagrees with you, their positions are "twisting this stuf?"

The next response will probably be something about hate, fear mongering, or racism.

Now, how about the pay scale for Obama bloggers?

Caucus can have a different vote dog soldier, in a caucus I admit that...but people who say caucus' aren't representive at all ...I have an issue with someone who is twisting numbers...

Then explain Texas Mike. Popular support Clinton. Caucus Obama. Proof that only an Obama supporter can confuse with reality. Democrats have a history of losing exactly because we elect candidates in a system that gives us all a false sense of elector reality. Proof it doesn't work? Americans have the lowest voter turnout of any western democracy and that is because we use systems that do more to EXCLUDE voters then we do to INCLUDE.

This is the number from Real Clear Politics...

Popular Vote Total -
Barack Hillary
13,025,003 12,421,316

If you count Michigan...she wins

Oh That's right he was not on the ballot.

and your argument about caucus's not being true to the popular vote...

the funny thing is there is no evidence that a caucus says otherwise...

oh and if you didn't know Barack wins the primary states count as well without the caucuses

Change you are exactly why people that don't like the Clinton campaign don't like them...You are not doing the campaign favors by twisting this stuff.

Commander Guy,

Outhouses have been around for lot longer, but not many people seem to use them any more.

Pony Express used to serve us for mail delivery, but the rider didn't make it this morning.

Smoke signals used to work for communication, but the Dell isn't smoking today.

Caucuses served a purpose hundreds of years ago. Now, they serve to misrepresent voters.

Rules? They are made, and they can be changed.

Caucus = Mob Rule

Mike,

Your argument is flawed and incorrect. But, spin it any way you want. That is what blogging seems to be about.

And, you leave out the glaring aspect of participation in primaries versus the participation in caucuses.

Most obvious and skewed, these caucuses.

Caucus = Mob Rule

Change

Caucusing has been around for about 300 years.

Caucusing was promoted heavily by the democrat party and is the paramont reason people caucus out in the western states. People got their Traditions.

The rules are the rules. You don't have to like them (HRC poor likeability and all), but play by them.

An interesting perspective from another blog suggests that caucuses percentages are skewed and provide a false perception of what private, individual voting will produce in the November election.

"In addition to not winning the ELECTORAL VOTES of states won, Barack Obama is not winning the majority of the popular votes these primaries. Gwen Richardson (Obama website) who criticized Clinton wrote 'Some individuals are unaware or forget that Bill Clinton did not receive a majority of popular votes in either of his winning presidential elections.'

Obama supporters seem confused by the media bias, thinking that Barack Obama is getting the majority of the popular votes (or 50-plus 1 %) during the 2008 primaries.

28 Million people have cast their votes during the 2008 primaries, with 54% of the votes for Hillary Clinton and other candidates, plus uncommitted."

Don't care if you are supporting Clinton, McCain, Nader, or Obama.

Caucus=Mob Mentality

For those people criticizing the caucus system your argument is flawed. Most caucuses are held on the weekend. Most factory wokers work during the week. Most employers will give time off to workers so that they can vote, especially union workers. Caucuses also allow you to bring your children and provide child care usually by teenagers too young to vote. Campaign workers provide rides to voters who cannot otherwise get there (both Obama's and Clinton's did this). So the only one of your arguments that holds is that there is no absentee balloting. The interesting thing about a caucus is that it does require commitment. The candidate who has more committed supporters will win.

sorry Illinois isn't close oh yeah Obama won that one...

Change you don't understand how the state numbers are going to go in a general...

and as far as being paid by a candidate...sorry...I am just a guy from NH

who at first volunteered for the Clinton campaign...and then started helping out BIden and Obaam

has seen all of the candidates speak in some really intimate seetings

and realized Obama is not a "phenom" when I jumped on board...

I realized he is the best person to be president. that is why i get on here and correct people like you.

The numbers for states like Ohio, California, Massachusetts New York Illinois are so close in the primaries...with the numbers of republicans in them ...and compared to the last state elections change your issues with the electoral college...

so your numbers stating "Hillary won more in the electoral college states" ... are misleading at best. She won states predominantly by margins under 5% that mattered...

Barack's margins in states that matter... are huge... and there are more of them...smalldelegate count individually yes...but when you add up those delegates for the electoral college he wins 2 to 1 in match-ups between Hillary vs. McCain and Barack vs. MaCain

Check your numbers... I will keep checking the spin coming from people who twist this stuff.

Welfare checks,what welfare checks? I
send my to HUSSEIN(OBAMA)campaign!I'm
so glad we have the CAUCUSES,if we didn't were will we be right now.I don't
need MEDICAL INS,I have WELFARE.

Why would anyone even compare Obama and Clinton in the electoral college? That's not the way they are running against each other. The fact is, big states that Hillary has won will not be lost by Obama - he will carry her states. He also puts more so-called red states in play. Obama said this at least a month ago, and he was right: "I can get her voters in the general election. It's less clear that she can get mine." Obama has more independents and republican defections coming his way. Hillary UNITES the republican party - against her.

No, dl,

Your perception flawed.

I am an Independent voter from a Republican state.

I not a paid blogger of the Obama or Clinton campaign, but your jump to that accusation indicates a subject that is at the front of your concern.

So, how much is Barak paying bloggers these days?

The relevance of the Electoral College has nothing to do with good or bad or how someone views either of the candidates perception of it.

The 2008 Presidential election will be determined by the Electoral College.

The Republicans understand this.

Obama Democrats do not.

I'm sorry, her campaign is going fine, drawing $1 million a day.

This is another trumped charge directed at her -- and it is false and misleading.

Why don't you talk about the fact that Obama's "supporters" are not grassroots people, but wealthy bundlers from Wall Street, giving him millions of dollars to blow last Tuesday. He spent sometimes 2 to 4 times as Senator Clinton and STILL LOST IN TEXAS, OHIO, RHODE ISLAND.

What does that say about his management abilities or message?

The only thing any of you have to worry about is the magic number of 1627 w/o MI & FL.

Or the number of 1783 with MI & FL.

Whoever gets that will have won over half of the pledged delegates possible. Superdelegates can overturn that at their own peril.

There are alot of things that Bill Clinton whitehouse did right and responding to and helping during times of need promptly.

Yea Jake that is a low blow AS IF Hillary would show up 5 days late to a disaster, then give person in charge an attaboy.

The premise of the punch seems to be that somehow the U.S. would support a micromanager that abandons his or her management team at every turn. HILLARY CLINTON is a classic executive manager. She gives her people a chance to turn it around, but those that don't cut it get cut loose (e.g. her former campaign chief). As much as you might dislike her strategy guy, he has her still in the fight with a high probability of success. We had a micromanager for President once, back in 1976, and it did not serve the country well.

JC, do you know why our founding fathers chose the Electoral College system in determining who is elected President of the United States? Their foresight is astounding! Due to the instant media coverage, we need the Electoral College system EVEN MORE NOW than we did back in the early days of our founding fathers.

The Electoral College was devised for two purposes. The first purpose was to insure that an individual (or movement) could not sway or manipulate public opinion and then easily become president. The Electoral College provides a complex enough system that acts as a check against the population from being deceived.

The second purpose was to give the smaller states leverage. If the president was elected by popular vote, the largest 10 states could render the other 40 states as irrelevant. We are the United States of America. Not the Ten Biggest States of America.

LOM

My statement had to do with people dancing in the streets of support... not through a tragedy happening.

Change

You up to no good again, I see. Trying to confuse people by pushing the NEW math. So here's some grounding for ya:

If you search for "hillary clinton electoral college," the first result is an article from November 10, 2000, "Hillary Clinton Calls For End to the Electoral College." As Clinton said at the time, "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president"

So which is it? Electoral college good. Or electoral college bad.

One thing you can count on is that Clinton's position is always tailored to a current need. Old promises are yesterdays news and discarded at will.

@Posted by: dl | Mar 10, 2008 11:59:47 AM:

Put some music to that and have a deep-voiced narrator reading your post and voila! You have the 3 A.M. ad.

Is it fear mongering? Absolutely not. It's a great question and for my children's future, I unequivocally choose a democratic candidate who right now happens to be Hillary Clinton.

Change

You obviously work for the Clinton campaign.

Hillary does not win in a general election by the numbers you put up here.

It is disengenuous to put those numbers and if you represent what hillary stands for ...you are just another reason we need a change in politics.

Change

You really cracking me up about the Caucus obsession.

See the caucus system favors the candidates with the most likability and with the deepest support.

While HRC may have broad support and, unlike O's, it ain't all that deep. And as far as the likability goes, well she's at a disadvatage there, too.

So I can see why the HRC people don't like the caucus format. But the rules are the rules. I guess Change may be a product of a failed public school.

SteveP

I will ask you what I ask everyone (I think I even posted it here before...)

We need change. I have said this on other blogs. Put yourelves on the night of the election. Think about what is on TV. Think about how your children will be. Think about how the world will be... different or how they will be dancing for our country in Italy, Ireland, Brazil, India, Africa, Australia if...

John McCain won.

Barack Obama won.

Hillary Clinton won.

In what situation are we better? In what situation do we become the beacon that the world will be attracted to again. In what situation are we more likely to get intelligence from other countries in our fight against terrorists becuase their people's are behind our President...and their leaders follow their people's.Which scenario do you see Dems and Republicans actually working together to finsd the best ideas to solve our problems... which situation is most likely to end the logjam we have in our government built out of contentious partisanship?I don't care who the VP is as long as they can catch us from a horrible fall if we were to lose our President.

I care about regaining my country and my pride. The people we need to fight the terrorists are the ones who will be dancing in the streets in my opinion...

but put yourself there on the night of the election with each candidate...and then, yeah, vote your conscience... for what you are going to give your kids.

Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama. -Republican states Obama can't win.

Regardless of how you do the math, just remember this:

Clinton 260

Obama 190

Hey, if a pro-Obama news show like Russert's Rant gives out these figures, how can the Obama fans dissent?

Go Russert!

No,

You are wrong.

Obama wins popularity contests (caucuses) and convention delegates

Obama math sites are skewed and not significant.

Are you a product of "No child left behind?"

Clinton wins the electoral college.

More blogs to cover.

I agree with Change and Toby,

Hillary wins the electoral college numbers and most of obama wins are caucuses of red states that dont go blue.

Change is absolutely right Hillary wins the electoral college numbers. Most of obama wins are caucuses of red states that dont go blue.

did her campaign team make any mistakes? yes, of course. is it that bad? well, depending on who you are asking. I must say I think this team has been doing a wonderful job despite the attacks from media, republicans, and far left.

Wyoming - A lock to vote McCain in Nov. Obama wins in this 8,000 voter causcus. This is worthless to the Democrat chances.
He will win Miss because of the black vote. In November these black votes get watered down with the Republican and Independent voters.

If Hussein Obama wins, then that is a win for Iran and the rest of the terrorist nations. They surely will dance in the streets given their brother Muslim Hussein Obama is President!

At least, all the stuff I am reading on http://www.ecertifications.net are mind-boggling!

Say No to Hussein Obama - and Iran

Change...

we are talking about the electoral college...

go look at the numbers...Obama wins...

overwhelmingly...

Her primary passes with a few percent is not significant enough.

GO LOOK AT ALL THE NUMBERS

They even have maps to help you... if you have a tough time with the numbers.

Interesting, so even though she would be ready on day one to bring change to the white house and the country, she finds it difficult to make changes to her campaign team when things are going wrong. If my memory is not failing me that sounds like good ole George Bush and the Iraq war that was so mismanaged by Donald Rumsfeld, but loyalty was greater than competence so Bush would not fire him. America be careful what you wish for.Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is not a good look.

Can you say, Electoral College?

Say it again! Electoral College!

Clinton is winning the electoral vote!

Obama is losing the electoral vote!

Democrats did not pick up on this basic premise of Presidential elections, and the result was two terms of George W. Bush.

Win the Electoral College, and the rest will fall into place.

Don't win the Electoral College, and the game is over.

Enough said!

On to another blog!

With these deceptive, divisive and undignified statements and positions on 'pledge delegates are up for grabs', etc that Hilary Clinton frequently takes, one can only shake the head.

Very very pathetic and pitiful position of the Clintons. To watch public people sink to such low levels has to turn a lot of Americans off and cause them to lose respect of their so-called 'leaders'.

It's as if the repeated and public humiliations of Hilary by Bill Clinton and his innumerable affairs have left Hilary with so little dignity left that she does not think even a little dignity is worth saving.

Well, JC,

What we NEED and what IS are two different things. People in hell need ice water.

The electoral college will determine the winner of the Presidential election in November of 2008.

Senator Clinton has won states that give her a significant advantage in the electoral arena. Senator Obama has not.

The amount of Democratic convention delegates or caucus popularity contests that a candidate wins are not the key component to winning in November.

Not confronting reality shows in politics shows immaturity and inexperience...evident qualities of the Obama campaign and fans.

Change...

Not enough said...

You need to go look at the numbers as many are doing now finally...

Barack didn't win just "insignificant states " as the Clinton campaign and supporters keep calling them "way to go"

...he won by huge margins as opposed to Hillary who focused on the big states...but most of those states are going dem... Ohio and Penn are two that could swing...but look at the numbers in those states ...how dems and repubs are voting in the primaries this year (PENN we don't know yet)

The battleground is much larger than that... and Barack has suddenly opened us up to be able to change the politicval map ...when you look at these huge margins and numbers in states we didn't win before but were close...

That helps the congressional seats as well...bonus!

Hillary's margins against another dem aren't enough in almost all her states to be of any significance in a general election...

I don't know what kind of manager he would be but I do know both McCain and Hillary ran out of money...Barack created a movement with his...and I haven't heard too much contention coming out of his team....

There is something to be said for that.

We need to get rid of the electorial college and go by popular vote ONLY! The EC was a good thing when communication was limited and we were spread out across the country. We have instance media cover and the internet now, we DO NOT NEED THE EC anymore.

We dont know what kind of manager obama is he has never called a meeting with his committee in congress. It is becoming obvious that obama is really the puppet that is given for the day a set of talking points outlined for him by his campaign people or giving speeches with a teleprompter to appear smooth and knowledgeable.

Obama notches another electorally insignificant, red state, caucus win in Wyoming.

Hillary Clinton has won states that would net approximately 260 electoral votes in November, while Obama trail with about 190 votes from his "wins."

The remaining contests in smaller states will do little to alter the overall electoral landscape. Larger prizes, such as Pennsylvania, will go to Senator Clinton.

Florida and Michigan will do revotes, probably by mail in ballot (instead of Chicago-style caucuses) and will provide an additional electoral advantage for Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton can win in November.

Senator Obama cannot.

Enough said.

Change

For a math major ...you aren't so great...

It is important to take into several factors when looking at the race in Nov.

MARGINS!!!!! MARGINS!!!!

The states that Hillary won are going to go democratic (look at the margins, the numbers of dems to repubs this year...take into fact the sway of movement from the Republican column to the Democratic column, go look at the last two elections...or three if you like... see the changes year to year....see which states we may actually win that went republican by under 10 %)

and then take all of those overwhelmingly Obama leaning statistics ...and throw in the idea of Hillary's polarization and the dems supers "changing" the choice from what the regular delegates do...

of and throw and the hangover from this nasty battle that is erupting...

That is the math ...math major.

Well, I'm no math major, oh wait, I am! While it is true that Senator Obama leads in the delegate count and while it is true that Senator Clinton cannot overtake his lead in the remaining contests, it is important to recognize that NEITHER candidate can procure the necessary 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The Obama camp likes to maintain that they have approximately the same delegate lead after every contest, but it may prove to be a silly to continue that line of reasoning. He is basically pointing out that the margin between the two is actually diminishing as the race goes on. A 110 delegate lead now makes up about 3.61% of the total delegates and if that same gap continued to the end, his margin would only be 2.47%.

Superdelegates are not going to steal the election for a given candidate, as both have to rely on them to secure the nomination one way or another. Their role is to exert independent judgment and if the margin remains small between the two candidates, no superdelegate is going to feel guilty or feel like they are going against the will of the people about casting their vote one way or another.

The rules are the rules and we all need to let this play out. If you don't like the rules, then you should be as passionate about changing them for future elections as you are about your candidate. Given the fact that the electoral college remains in tact after Gore lost the 2000 election despite winning the popular vote, I would guess that the DNC nomination process is going to remain intact for years to come as well.

People need to remain focused on how the election will be won in November...by winning the vote of the electoral college.

Obama fans are quick to point out more wins in individual states, while Clinton supporters point to experience and electability.

The winning candidate will remain focused on the November election. John McCain and the Republicans are already doing that.

At present, Hillary Clinton has won states which would net approximately 260 electoral votes while Barak Obama could garner about 190 votes.

It doesn't matter how many battles you can win if you can't win the war.

The big failing of this Democratic primary system is not having the state's delegates awarded on a winner take all basis, as is done in the electoral college. Neither candidate will be able to have a majority of delegates at the end of the primary season,therefore neither one is in a commanding position. That's a fault of the Dem primary system which combines "proportional allocation" with superdelegates. Throw out this system next time and have winner take all primaries, period.

We dont need delirious, deranged or biased voters i.e. Obama supporters.

People making an informed decision always vote for Hillary. She deserves it because she is prepared for it.

Hillary-Edwards '08

MC,

That Zogby poll is hysterical. He always has his guy Obama 10 points higher than he really is and Clinton 10 points lower.

Do the math Hill, you're gonna have to steal the nomination.

Wake up America. First, Bill Clinton screwed the country and left the white house with a big mess. now, people want to send his wife back. their daughter will be next. does it make sense? think before you vote. this is not about "She is a woman" we need use our mind vs our emotions.

WHAT! I guess if you call talking from the two sides of your mouth a skill.

1. We care about the Florida and Michigan people and want to hear their voice and have their vote count.

2. We think the super delegates should vote for themselves and disregard what the voters have said.....HUH???

It's interesting how Hillary has claimed that she is a great manager and Obama only has vision and speeches. It appears that he has managed his campaign impressively and she has not. I know it's hard to believe...another false accusation by Hillary!

Clinton's disastrous handling of her own campaign and campaign staff is certainly deserving of scrutiny. Ready on Day One my foot!

Obviously her 'experience' didn't amount to a hill of beans when forming a team that should have laid waste to the rest of the Democratic nominee's. Oh and to the Hillary supporters that say the dems should't press her to leave the race: we are really doing her a favor, the longer she's in the ring with Obama the more foolish she will look in the long run. The media knows this and really resent the Clinton camp for assumming they are their willing puppets. So everytime she pushes the goal posts the media is happy to oblige, she gets more rope to hang herself. True dems. want her out to preserve whatever dignity she has left. Hillary haters want her permently maimed by continuing to allow her to take this drubbing by a virtual unknown.