Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC News Report

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.