Political Punch

ABC has something to say about the elections? They should be somewhere hanging their heads in shame for that horrible debate they sponsored. It was a complete train wreck.

It's really sad, shameful, and pitiful that I have to go to the BBC to hear unbiased news. I guess this is what a corporate run media looks like. The journalists are so caught up in the salaciousness of the people NOT running for president they can't even report correctly.

Americans have to scrape and scrounge for a good news source because we know that ABC, FOX, and CNN aren't it. Our children can tell us more about Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, and Rihanna than they ever could about the Executive branch of our government. TV, especially the news, will make you stupid. Thanks for proving that ABC.

Given the probability that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Dem nominee to win the 2008 election--a foregone conclusion at the inception of this campaign given the abysmal record of the Bush regime--there suddenly emerged the "perfect opponent" to insure divisiveness among the Democrats: a black male named Barack Obama.

Obama's campaign warchest was instantly flooded with millions of dollars.

My antennae went up:
WHO or WHAT was the OZ behind THIS curtain? WHO stood to gain by an intra-party conflict of the magnitude that has ensued?

And WHO actually had the bucks to make his campaign fly?

There was only one answer: the folks with the REAL money. There is a certain group that was quaking in their boots at the changes that Hillary's election might well bring about: a fair shake for the average American.
The Democrats I know are not known to have $1000 bills to spare, to toss into election coffers. So the true source of all the millions and millions of dollars being thrown at Barack Obama, using logic and reason,
HAD to be linked to the people who stood to suffer financially by Hillary's election: Republicans and their minions in corporate America: insurance, oil, pharmaceuticals, those who had effectively frozen all wage advances for the average worker during the Bush reign..in short..it HAD to be corporate America vis a vis the Republican Party who were betting on a "ringer" to disrupt the inevitability of Hillary's election.

No matter the outcome, their reasoning was that the entire Hillary vs Obama process would promote infighting and reveal the weaknesses of each Democratic candidate, ultimately to be (hope hope!) exploited in the final battle for the White House and have ANOTHER Republican in control.

The focus of this campaign is the ONE TRUE QUESTION facing us as Americans:
Are we going to CONTINUE TO allow ourselves to be manipulated and divided, this time using race and gender, to our ultimate defeat?
Will this Napoleonic attempt to "divide and conquer" (again) be successful?

Did we learn NOTHING in the wake of the manipulation of the Christian right that resulted in the George Bush/corporate regime that has dragged us into the "anything-BUT" Christian position of war, devastation,torture, financial and fiscal destruction, wholesale outsourcing of jobs and the medical vulnerability of EVERY American only one serious illness away from being financially devastated?

If McCain rides on the back of prejudice into the White House we have sorely failed as citizens of these UNITED States.

Dear God, I hope all Americans let the scales fall from their eyes.

Remember WHO owns the television media and controls the political commentaries--and commentators of ALL ilk, including the talk show hosts....

It ain't the man or woman who lost HIS job last month.

and THINK ON THESE THINGS.

The vote wisely and according to your conscience and common sense.

So IF you included just FL, she wouldn't be ahead...

IF you gave all the uncommited votes to Obama - meaning they voted "against" Hillary - beacuse she was the only person on the ballot - she would be further behind than she is now. She won less than 50% of the votes - with noone on the ticket.

I love those IFs...

To: mirthinstjoe
How about this missleading statment on OB's web-site!

PLAN FOR ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ
“But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

I have checked out his web page! Because I have incountered a lot of BO Followers that beleave he voted no in the Senate on the Iraq War! That vote took place in Oct. of 2002; BO did not inter the Senate untill Jan. 2005!

Might either of these candidates lead or at least sign-on to opposition to confirmation of General Petraeus as commander of CENTCOM?

I can't believe it!
The Clinton camp made a False statement!
It would be News if they made a True
statement!
It's time for Hillary Pinnochio Clinton
to Go Home!

This situation is indicative of Hillary's campaign - twisting and changing the facts. Does she really think that the Florida and Michigan votes count? Does anyone know why Michigan and Florida had their primaries early knowing the DNC rules and what the consequencies would be?

Yea!!!actualy input from a voter in Michigan. Again the half truths prevail with the Clinton family. Hillary has no grace (among other things like lack of trust-illegal campaigning much much more)-that is why I switched to Obama-I honestly feel terrible for people who are in need of hope and hold on to every word Hillary says. The truth is, Hillary doesn't care about any of these people-she cares about her own agenda. Watch the Hillary movie and then let me know how you feel. She can't grab the bull by the horns with super delegates on her own, she is now copying Obama's campaign style and lying about the popular vote. Does she really think American's are in the dark? Hello!
Go OBAMA-thanks for your honesty and not selling your soul to the political machine!!!!!

I am so sick of Clinton and her team claiming Michigan. She was the only one on the darn ballet. I threw my vote over to the Republican primary vs. wasting it on Clinton (or uncommitted).

Here in Michigan we were told over and over how the Democratic primary didn't count. I am not the only one who jumped the ballot. Claiming Michigan for Clinton is joke. When will the media stop this ridiculous spin? I'm sick of hearing "your vote should count" from Camp Clinton -- nice try on stealing the election in Michigan. Keep this up and you will hand it to McCain this fall.

I will vote for him over Clinton. I wanted to vote Obama; but given the choice between Clinton and McCain I will choose McCain. Again. Try me.

If any of the candidates gave a darn about Michigan they would have noticed our recession long ago. I'm disgusted. Welcome to our world - maybe now that economic woes are not just here in Michigan someone will pay attention?

Split the delegates in Michigan or do not count them. It wasn't an election it was a joke.

"Maybe I'm strong enough not to vote against my convictions and conscience."

And what makes you the flag bearer in that respect? I'm sure as hell not voting based on what is neat and cool. It's ignorant statements like those that ensure partisanship will dominate politics for many years to come.

Most of the national media is failing to do its job in failing to report how flawed the fundamental idea of a national primary popular vote count actually is under these circumstances. They simply regurgitate the meme without critique. The Florida and Michigan issue is beside the point. The entire concept is a red herring to begin with. I do have to give props to Andrew Romano of Newsweek for accurately discussing this issue weeks ago.

Some caucus states record the individual person's vote. But at least four do not (notably Iowa, for one) and only record the local precinct delegates that emerge from each individual caucus.

In a true popular democratic vote, each person's vote counts so that if you win by just one vote, you still win. But the notion of a national popular primary vote is flawed for at least two reasons (1) it can't be counted accurately and (2) caucuses and primaries have different turnout rates, so that some states are grossly underrepresented in any popular vote tallies.

Remember, America's star politician could have given voice to Florida and Michigan voters by making a call that would have allowed both states to hold a re-election. Although for months the Senator from Illinois stated political rhetoric, when it came down to action, he refused.

Then Obama went on ABC and spoke for the first 45 minutes and cried when ABC picked on him. I guess the Senator from Illinois even bored himself. It was Obama's fault that few questions were asked since Obama kept repeating himself over-and-over. His lack of experience came out. For the first time, American's partially found out about the Obama tax plan that will force the Middle class and retirees to pay more taxes. For the first time, American's almost found out Obama's position on weapons. After a while the commentator stated, "I guess you answered my question". I guess growing up in private schools did not help this politician that made race an issue in this race.

Hey, Light315...

The GOP doesn't need anything to attack Obama: "Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Hussein Obama" is all the Repubs need to win.

And "If you vote McCain over Obama, we know which side of the fence you are on." Really? You're automatically racist if you don't vote for Obama?

Well, brand me as such 'cause I ain't voting for him. Am I sexist 'cause I ain't voting for Hillary? Am I biased against the elderly 'cause I ain't voting for McCain? Maybe I'm just smart enough not to play follow the leader when it comes to politics and decisions that can impact the country and the whole world. Maybe I'm strong enough not to vote against my convictions and conscience.

Why has no one mentioned the Paul VS Clinton trial? This is big news. Fraud and illegal campaign contributions? With video evidence? Yet they play the Rev. Wright sound bite ad nauseum. I'm beginning to lose track of all the Clinton misdeeds. The GOP is salivating right now. They can attack her on so many fronts, it's pathetic. However, McCain certainly can't make a big deal about Rev. Wright (see Hagee). There is no viable way they can link Obama to Ayers. Rezko has borne no fruit for either HRC or the GOP. If the best they can do is call him on the "bitter" comment and (lol) the "flag pin" controversy, they don't have a leg to stand on. If you think that Obama appeared to be off his game in the last debate, consider how you'd perform after being sucker-punched by the "fair and balanced" media. I don't think they will catch him with his pants down (my apologies to Bill) this time. The only thing holding him back is the fact that a portion of this country is not ready to vote for a black man. Which is the stronger motivation? Racism or self intersest? If you vote McCain over Obama, we know which side of the fence you are on.

Does anyone stop and think that if Hillary were elected that would mean that either a Bush or a Clinton would have been president for almost a quarter of a century? How can she call her campaign about change? Of the millions of families in America, there must be someone other than a Bush or a Clinton to hold the highest seat. Having HRC elected would sound more like a monarchy than a democracy.

Besides her spin on the PA results, I love the one about having more experience. By that logic her husband should never have been elected president, I mean George H. Bush obviously had more experience during that election, he was only the president at the time.

"This is about HER ambition, not the welfare of the people."

Oh, that's rich! As if Obama's camaign isn't all about HIS ambition! As if any candidate's campaign isn't about their own ambition! But especially these two since they have absolutely ZERO chance or winning in November. If it were about the welfare of the people they would never have gotten into this and let a real candidate win this thing.

A University of Pennsylvania study conducted before the Penn Primary says that despite the Clinton claim that caucus states are unfair and really aren't as important as primaries, the rules of caucuses actually HELP her. The raw popular vote in caucuses are not counted, rather each caucus site selects a number of delegates. So the numbers that get reported are only DELEGATES not raw popular vote. If popular votes were figured in ( and this isn't 100% accurate) the U of Penn estimated that Obama would be ahead by roughly 2 Million votes.

The larger point is that this is exactly why people hate Hillary. She moves the goal posts to suit her notion of victory. She has 0% chance of winning the nomination without forever fracturing the democratic party. Yet she clings to whatever metric that she can spin to justify her staying in the campaign. This is about HER ambition, not the welfare of the people.

((( "10% is double digits as I count it, friends." )))

Sorry, Rev.St.Huck, but the actual final numbers were: Clinton, 54.6% and Obama, 45.4%. That's a difference of 9.2%. In other words, a single-digit win.

Unfortunately for many of us Khan, is the fact that WE didn't put ourselves on the bubble, the lovely Baby Boomers did. The younger crowd, including myself, are now stuck with the prospects of a failing economy, record oil prices, no social security, etc. So thanks for that... good reason enough not to vote for Clinton, or the status quo.

HRC is representative of the "me" generation. The yuppies who grew up selfish and said the hell with the rest of 'em, I'm only thinking about me. Well, after having that bubble population come through American culture, we got nothing but hell to pay. We live on a bubble economy, the bubble stock market and now the housing bubble. We deserve what we get. It's our short-sited culture that got us into this mess and we're not ready to give up our short-sited ways and take our medicine. We want to continue with this false reality of endless freebies w/o really paying for them. Why else would we let ourselves be talked into a war that had no reason for being. I've got nothing against any of these people. We're just getting what we put out there. And we still don't want to take responsibility for ourselves or our actions.
Good luck!

"yet Obama ran ads on CNN breaking the rules!!"

CNN (television, at least) is a national broadcast network and thus does not support specific localization of markets. So if you're talking about TV, then no, he did not break the rules. He simply ran national ads.

If Clinton had the money to do so, she would have done the same.

Obama supporters are whiny losers? Pot and kettle supreme from the Clinton camp. Gimme a break pal... no one is buying your snake oil nor are we buying the crap the Clintons are spewing.

In all seriousness, after the completely botched and biased debate, does this network still have a shred of legitimacy?

I would argue that it was the ABC handling of the debate that turned this entire campaign into a three-ring circus. The sad fact is, they're continuing to do so. Please stop. You're harming America.

Well, Pennsylvania reports:

Hillary 55%
Obama 45%

10% is double digits as I count it, friends.

Popular vote counts for something. Especially when the popualr vote gives you wins in Ohio, Michigan, Florida...

As for the debate, this is a joke. As if minor "scandals" have not always been part of politics. Bill Clinton had to fight off the Gennifer Flowers accusations in '92. Gary Hart before him. John Edwards was accused of cheating and getting a woman pregnant. McCain has been accused of cheating. On the eve of the 2000 election was revealed to have had a drunk driving arrest. People love to see politicians squirm, half the time that's all they care about 'cause it's how people perform under pressure that influences a lot of voters. Issues are secondary for people who only rely on soundbites.

Politics is just entertainment for most of them so don't hand me a bunch of crap about how the debate was stupid and unfair. It's what the sheep-people in most of this country wanted to see so that's what ABC gave them. If you need proof consider why this was the most talked-about debate of the election. All the others focused on issues, didn't they? The one that was all about the BS gets alll the attention. Imagine that.

You can't exactly call Michigan a victory against Obama when they didn't even put him on the ballots to begin with.

Um.. way ahead? No she wouldn't. Even if you cheated and counted both Florida and Michigan, which is ludicrous considering Obama and the other Dems didn't campaign, then Hillary would only be ahead by less than 50 delegates. So let's not use the Clinton's skewed math here. As Richardson said so poignantly last night, "whatever it takes to hold on to the throne." Screw the Clintons, I'm tired of the same old useless politics of promises and no delivery.

After the ABC-hosted PA "debate", I find it hard to believe that ABC is not directly supporting Clinton's ridiculous position regarding the popular vote count.

For those who are either mathematically challenged or inclined to hyperbole, Mrs. Clinton didn't win Philadelphia by "double digits". The margin (with 99% of the precincts reporting) is 9.3%.

Double digit win? 9.2 rounds down to 9, not up to 10... You must be using the same abacus as Clinton.

If popular vote mattered at all, we'd be finishing up the end of Gore's second term. Popular vote is only important when you have NOTHING else to go on.

HRC cannot mathematically beat Obama and therefore should not get ANY super delegate votes. At this point her ONLY plan is to somehow damage the Dem Party and Obama enough to the point where Obama loses the general election (impossible) and she runs in 2012. Even the Rep party is afraid of an Obama nomination, hence the Rovian/Limbaugh push for Rep party members to vote for HRC. If she had any moral compass what so ever she would "gracefully" bow out now and put her support behind the PEOPLE'S Choice.
The rules to which HRC agreed to were in place over a year ago and now that she is losing she wants to break those rules. In my mind she should have been disqualified from the entire primary process by cheating when she allowed her name to go on the ballot in Michigan. At this point she sounds like a spoiled child who isn't (and frankly shouldn't) getting her way. If you want to count Florida and Mich. make it a 50/50 split and be done with it.

The popular vote is a farce. The caucus states do not count by popular vote so the very idea that anyone can use them as a measurement is absurd.

Neither Michigan nor Florida should be shown in any totals. By the rules that the party and each candidate pledged to follow the elections were not binding.

It is ridiculous that the Clintons are changing rules to suit them and having the media bow to their tactics.

Rick,

It's hardly fair to cry fowl on the Clinton Campaign when ABC on its Politics page lists the popular vote WITH Michigan and Florida (and without). By even listing it with, you give it credence. Therefore, Clinton has every right to tout it, since you shout it.

Frankly, the DNC ruled these contests could not be counted, Obama wasn't on one of the ballots---there is nothing remotely FAIR about them and yet, you count them. That's like saying, as one respondent has pointed out, that's like including the government-stuffed ballot box in a communist election. It's illegal, not democratic. If I were teaching students and said that these assignments didn't count, and my students did no other work, then Iwouldn't expect them to pass. I sure wouldn't expect them to say "If you count assignments you said you wouldn't count, I'd get an A"

Why are you perpetuating a lie? The DNC, the candidates--all agreed these didn't count before---why should anyone reconsider, even in Fantasy Politics?

If the measures relevant to the general election are considered - electoral college votes and winner-take-all logic and popular vote count - Clinton is clearly the stronger candidate to go up against John McCain. Add to this the realities of Obama's demographic performance and his associations it looks improbable that Obama can defeat McCain. Clinton, on the other hand, is competitive against McCain.

The party elders - who seem to be walking in a fog - need to wake up and ask themselves a straightforward question: "Do we want to win the White House?" If that's the question they ask, Clinton will be the nominee. The question, "We just need to count the delegates," is political suicide.

Caucueses - they count the votes there so lets say 50 people show up for a caucus 30 got to Obama and 20 go to Hilary, well the popular vote would be the 30 - 20.

All it is ballots given and people discuss the voting, but they still get a people count on the vote!

ABC you gave her a forum in the last debate.

As Dr. Phil says "If they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you."

You haven't seen anything yet with this runaway train of a no conscience, all denial, opportunistic, "me me me" "mine mine mine" candidate. This great personality has run off the track into the ditch of blind ambition and there's no moral compass and there's no truth.

It will be a worse tragedy to watch such a pathology play itself out in the White House than to let her down gently now. Or not gently.

The superdelegates need to choose wisely and not from pity for a great talent run amuck.

How do you count the caucus votes? Especially where there is NO evidence of the raw vote tally? Do you just "estimate" the vote? Do you use the Washington state beauty contest vote or the "estimate" for the caucus? The difference is about 50,000 extra votes for Obama if you use the caucus estimate.
Overall the caucus "estimates" might add an additional 100,000 votes to Obama's total.
So how you can discount Florida where everybody was on the ballot and no one campaigned but yet except "estimates" for caucus states is beyond me.

Libre must be living in a confused dimension by saying that Obama is unelectable!! So who has been voting for him all this time, such that he has an insurmountable lead over lying crying hideous Hillary Clinton? Get real for once in your miserable life!

You sound indignant, to discover that the Clintons would spin and lie; why? - that's all they've done this campaign, that is all they seem to understand. "Say anything, believe nothing:" the Clinton code of ethics - and why every campaign promise she makes is pointless dribble. "Well, all politicians do this" - no, they don't; until Bush II most of our presidents could be held accountable for their elections. Clinton has already made it clear she intends to continue an imperial presidency and do what she likes in office. That means we cannot allow her back into the White House, and would need to impeach her if gets there.

What about the caucus states? Do they "suddenly" not count? (The Clinton campaign has been ignoring them since they started losing them.)

Last I knew, the "popular vote" is only applicable to a general election where there are no caucuses.

It is foolish to believe that Hillary Clinton does not have a chance to win the nomination. If that were true there wouln'dnt be a race anymore and superdelegates would have pronouced already. Obama is unelectable. the popular vote and superdelegates will decide the nomination in favor of Hillary Clinton. Only chance to take the Republicans out of the White House. ABC and all the media orchaestrated by the Republicans won't stop Senator Clinton. She won't back down.

ABC has misrepresented everyting Hillary or Bill Clinton say. They are trying to push Obama as the Democrat nominee to favor the Republicans they fear Senator Clinton but they know that Obama does not have a chance against McCain.

Delegates cont and popular vote counts. Superdelegates will decide. What some people is confused about is with the general election. Electoral votes count not quantity ofstates, and Hillary Clinton has won the sates with more electoral votes, Obama has not won one single big state with importanat number of electoral votes. Obama is unelectable

Reuters, 1/31/08
"It's useful to win states, but states don't vote—delegates do," said Harold Ickes, who is heading up the delegate operation for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton..."This is very much a race for delegates at this point."

Howard Dean, 3/6/08 (AP):
"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."

Yes, the MI/FL voters are not directly responsible, but their respective governors and legislatures are wholly responsible for violating DNC rules. The leadership (for lack of a better word) knew the consequences and chose to play chicken. (And the Democrats in the FL legislature voted almost unanimously to support the early primary date, so don’t blame the Republicans.)

All the candidates signed pledges to abide by the rules, even HRC. Most took their names off the Michigan ballot, and the Clinton campaign said there were logistical issues, “the letter got lost,” and that’s why her name wasn’t taken off. Florida did not allow the candidates to take their names off. Now consider:

HRC on New Hampshire Public Radio’s show, The Exchange, 10/10/07
NHPR: So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"
CLINTON: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Top Clinton campaign advisor ICKES:
As a DNC Committee member, he voted last year to strip the two states of their delegates, "to prevent the gaming of the system."
Now he supports seating the delegates. "When I voted on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, I did that as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, not as a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign."

Clinton campaign advisor McCAULIFFE now argues for seating the FL and MI delegates. But in 2004, as head of the DNC, when MI threatened to hold an early vote he said, "Move your primary too early, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

And yet Clinton and her campaign have vowed to take this contest to the convention floor to settle FL and MI if the delegates are not seated per the January votes.

Give me a break—does she really think Obama got ZERO votes in MI? Can she actually say this with a straight face? Does she really think Obama would not have at least closed the gap in FL had they campaigned? This behavior is the height of hypocrisy!

And the height of cynicism is how Clinton and her surrogates are fomenting the voters’ anger about “disenfranchisement” and pointed their collective finger at Howard Dean and, most absurdly, at Obama.

Huh? What’d Obama do wrong? Be respectful of, strategize by, and compete by the agreed-upon rules? He has said he'd abide by what the DNC decides. Early on, he proposed seating the delegates 50/50, or in some way that didn't determine the outcome. Delegations would be seated but there'd still be a negative consequence for the rule-breaking.

It's not surprising that the Clinton campaign said no; their aim is not "enfranchisement." She wants to game the system for more votes—the only way she can win.

Talk about poisoning the well for Obama when he’s the nominee! How can anyone respect this behavior? If Clinton is willing to disrespect her fellow candidate and her own Party, and if she’s willing to break the rules and cheat to win the nomination, how much more abuse of power can we expect down the line? I, for one, do not want to find out.

Harley, i find your logic lacking. You try, as the Clinton's have tried, to lie about Obama. Obama is not "blocking" anything. Just as they lied and said he was going negative. Just as Hillary LIED about smipers in Bosnia. Please try and tell the truth, if you Clinton supporters know what the truth is.

Lastly if the republicans are telling you to vote for Hillary, then i guess they think she definatly can beat McCain huh? Makes so much sense my head is going to explode.

Well Harley .... its because all the democratic candidates signed pledges to agree to not including Michigan and Florida. They attempted to reschedule their primaries without consent from the party, the reprecussions of that was being stripped of their delegates.

In case you haven't read a single news story about this for the past 6 months, Hillary Clinton agreed to these rules, and in fact strategized around it.

Here's Hillary on New Hampshire Public Radio, October 11th ... "You know its clear, in this election, they're not going to count for anything".

If it was clear then, why not now ?

How does the Democratic Party leave Michigan and Florida out??? Why does the media let Obama get away with blocking revotes? The media's bias that causes them to side with Obama's position is just wrong for voters in those states. How can Guam get a say and not Michigan and Florida??? Obama will lose a General.

Yes-Jane--Hillary claims that she is being mis-treated because she is a female.And she is milking that for all it is worth.---But let Obama even hint that he is being mis-treated because he is black--and he is accused of playing the race card.

If Hillary's lips move, she is lying.

Crazy Clintonian Spin continues - first after IOWA it was all about delegates, then race, then caucuses dont count, then super delegates can over ride delegates, then small states dont count, then even after signing/agreeing to not to count / contest Michigan and Florida - start raising 'count the votes' argument, then complain about media, then spin the media (SNL & ABC debate) and then say any one who complains about media / hard questions should get out, then its about popular vote, lies and spin will continue because Clintons feel that they are entitled to rule this great nation! In the process if party, democracy and will of the people gets crushed - who cares when we have fans who can hate others! And party leaders as well as media folks but their ever changing arguments and help it in many ways! For example Clinton's win is not 10% but everyone felt by sounding 2-digit win they can project a better story - American public believes everything that TV/Internet/Newspapers tell them - just like justification for Iraq War - they have bought it and will continue to do so :(

If you look at the polling numbers for states that Hillary won in early primaries, such as California, you will see that Obama is now polling much higher than Clinton.

So that argument goes both ways.

Everyone who has any interest in politics has known how you were "reporting" the vote count.

You owe Ms. Clinton a formal apology for this story of non news and your misunderstanding and if you want to say so your mistake with the count. It was posted. That's on you.

Okay, now I am annoyed!
I was on last night and saw that blog, and it cheered me up as I imagine it did to whoever saw it in the Clinton campaign. Do you not think it possible that, hmmmm I don't know, maybe they did read it this morning, even though you wrote it last night. I mean it WAS still there this morning, I saw it again.
Also, isn't the number you have had posted and did update as well, reporting???
I would have called anything you have as a measure, vote count, delegate count, etc. as reporting. I don't need a sentence to go with it. You posted it as a number, thus it was reported.
I am just a voter in Oregon, but come on, be fair. Nowhere in their quote do they quote a person.
Are you really being fair???
I think not

Jake, I was very, and I repeat, very impressed with CG on WNT Weds'cast.

Though they could have played everyone's 'gotcha of the day' - especially this one, CG avoided it. Even in a piece where the opportunity arose.

Or I'll tune in tomorrow and hear about all the gotchas they didn't use today!

tr that is more truth than I have heard in months. True, True.

Yea, let's not count Florida or Michigan. It's not like their votes will be counted in the general election, right?

Oh wait.

Well, it's not like the Democrats care about winning the general election, right?

Why dignify the 'rogue state' tally by including it at all? Such concern for
putative 'balance' requires an inadequate concern for the real meaning of what's being reported, and is a serious disease in modern American journalism. Or perhaps it's one of the other banes of our media today, an undue desire to stoke the fires for controversy.

This election will simply have to run its course. The numbers aren't foreign to Hillary. What we have are people who understand the facts/numbers and those who do not. What's really ironic is how comfortable the Clinton supporters are with ignoring the candidate with the most pledged delegates, popular votes and wins. I'm quite sure many of these so-called "Democrats" were crying in their beer when Gore lost.

The million dollar question is what is behind Hillary's effort? Is it because she wants to win badly or is she afraid that Obama will beat McCain and possibly be President for 8 years? Hillary would be in her 70s by then. This "election" of hers is nothing more than a plan to poison pill Obama. She wants to be President but lost this election. What she needs is for McCain to win so that she doesn't have to challenge an incumbent. Too bad thousands of her supporters are still focusing on lapel pins and such.

The popular vote theory is flawed.

The popular vote is not including washington state, nevada, colorodo, or iowa because those caucus states don't allow their voter tallies released

Clinton is excluding those 4 states.

The popular vote theory is flawed because Obama's strongest region is out west where they had caucuses not primaries.

Obama would have had big popular vote margins if iowa had a primary, if colorodo had a primary. If Minnesota had a primary.

Clinton is very weak west of the mississippi. Her old school uninspring personality hurts her out west.

Obama would be crushing her in the popular vote if his strongest states had primaries where his popular vote margin would be bigger.

Clinton is saying Obama should get no votes from Michigan. That she shut him out 320,000 to ZERO. Those black voters in detroit who voted uncommitted shouldn't count. Those 230,000 votes shouldn't count.

Candidate Clinton has no chance for the nomination. The math is against her.

The greatest day will be august 28th when candidate Clinton cries that she lost. She is a power hungry lying fraud.

"Betty,

I don't like Obama as our next president. I don't think it is racism."

Well Betty, when you know for certain, be sure and let us know.

Thanks.

To alessandro Machi, Clinton would not have won michigan in a real election.

Obama wasn't on the ballots and independents voted in the gop primary.

Clinton is running 9 percent behind Mccain in michigan while Obama is running 2 percent ahead.

McCain is ahead of candidate Clinton 46-37 in Michigan.

Granholm moved the primary up before colleges were in session.

Michigan is much more upper midwest and well educated with huge campuses.

She would have lost michigan in a real election.

Polls showed Obama up 8 percent over candidate clinton in a real election.

Clinton is a lying fraud. Her supporters like liars. They are like peasants that want to be lied to by the great queen of the dynasty.

To John,

Candidate Clinton hasn't won more popular votes.

Candidate Clinton and ABC are counting 320,000 votes for Clinton in Michigan and ZERO for Obama. They aren't including the 230,000 uncommitted votes.

The popular vote isn't including the votes from washington state, nevada, iowa, or colorodo. Those caucus states aren't releaseing their vote tallies.

Candidate Clinton said Michigan shouldn't count. Candidate Clinton wouldn't run another election in michigan if independents could vote. Candidate Clinton loses by 9 points to mccain in michigan.

In a real election Obama would have won Michigan. Michigan is much more upper midwest and well educated like Wisconsin. It would have been a good obama state.

Clinton that lying fraud said Michigan shouldn't count and it didn't make a difference if her name stayed on the ballot. Now she is giving Obama no votes for michigan and not including 4 caucus states.

The popular vote count is also wrong because Obama is very strong in the west. The west had caucuses. If they had primaries his popular vote margin spread would have been much larger.

Candidate Clinton is very weak in the northwest, mountain west, and upper midwest.

Media doesn't focus on her weakness in washinigton state, colorodo, oregon, minnesota, iowa, wisconsin.

I am sick and tired of the media's east coast bias.

Clinton would be getting destroyed in the popular vote if the states out west had primaries. Obama would have huge popular vote margins.

Before super tuesday Obama has been generally on top of candidate clinton by over 10 percent.

Clinton and her comments about southern whites got no attention.

The media is in the bag for their dynasty clinton.

"Nor does anybody talk about how Obama has between around 51% of the total vote yet has around 56 to 57% of the delegate count. Why is that fair?"

It's not fair in the concept of straight voting but is fair in a system designed to address differences in demography and regional proportion. It is also not fair to imply that it is somehow Obama's fault.

As to Hillary's lost momentum, you can't have momentum when an event never happened. It's just as imaginary as Hillay being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Florida and Michigan violate DNC rules-not Obama's rules but DNC rules. Hillary agreed to those rules before the primary season started.

Whatever the outcome, neither Hilary nor Obama can claim a mantle of legitimacy.

I wish Obama and his supporters would stop arguing they have a lock on the nomination because they have won the popular vote or have the most delegates.

This bears repeating: Obama has only won the most popular votes and the most delegates from among a restricted sub-group of Democrats whose votes are being counted.

The DNC has two ways have determining its candidate for presidency:
1. it allows the popular vote through elections held in 50 states to determine the outcome. If one or another candidate can garner enough delegates, that candidate becomes the de facto nominee.
2. If no candidate wins the popular vote outright, then it leaves it up to superdelegates to determine - in light of this uncertainty - which candidate has the best chances of winning the national election.

NEITHER Barack or Hilary can claim they have won the popular vote or the most delegates from the entire population, since Michigan and Florida never held proper elections. Who wactually would have won the popular vote will always remain uncertain. We WILL NEVER KNOW, since we never held a proper vote.
We should frankly go to option 2 and let the superdelegates make up their minds and choose the best candidate to win the national election - with a clear conscience.
Now here's the twist. I actual support Barack Obama, and would have voted for him in the Michigan primary. But I am tired of people trashing Hilary. For all we know, if proper elections had been held in Michigan and Florida, she would in fact have won more votes and more delegatese than Barack.

no worries betty...whats that saying..
"you dont miss a good thing till its gone?" People fail to realize, Blacks are not going to vote for a Clinton-ever again. We gave them 80-90% of our vote in 92-96...one one owes the Clintons anything-especially after how they have run this campaign.

If you factor in the caucus states by assigning a voter number to each national delegate, probably 15 or 20, then Obama is ahead by over a million

Of course the Clintons have problems with facts. What's new about that?

Just another example of ABC trying to play with the numbers to make a headline and the Clinton camp taking this and running with it. I'm not sure who's more pathetic, ABC or the Clintons.

If "polls" were taken over the weekend showing that people regretted voting for Obama, why are his na