I have a suggestion regarding Florida and Michigan: give Senator Obama half of the delgates and Senator Clinton half of the delegates. This makes sense to me and would not cost anyone any money. Seems simple enough to me.

You gotta wonder what Hillary and her team is afraid of?

I thought wooing the fat cats, the party insiders and the party bosses was now her strategy to win the nomination. Because we all know she can't do it at the ballot box.

That would negate the vote that was taken in both states. It would also negate what would occur today if there was a revote. This is disenfranchisement at its worst. The DNC screwed up and Obama does not want to agree to a revote in Michigan because he knows he will lose again.

Wow what a mess... seems like maybe the DNC could have had some sort of foresight into what would happen if FL and MI's votes were actually needed when they made this decision. Isn't that kind of why they were elected? To make decisions that encompassed the best interests of the constituents? Well both candidates here have an agenda and I think they need to sit down and be adults and come to a compromise which will hopefully iron this out... one of the Florida representatives mentioned it last night, but I can't remember which one- I turned the TV off because this whole thing disgusts me. Best of luck to you Fl and MI ... I guess you just need to keep an eye on who you are electing to make decisions about your voting rights.

This is the outcome when rules are broken. Always we end up in problems and uncertainity. We all learn through mistakes we make!

One would thing B.O. would prefer a SuperCaucus instead of a SuperPrimary.

You cant have a decision until the convention because Michigan and Florida will now have to petition to be seated at convention.

If Obama doesn't give the go ahead to Michigan tocay, this goes to convention.

As far as the 50/50 suggestion. Lets see that would take votes away from Clinton in Michigan and since Obama only got 25% of the vote in the exit polls give him 25%. In Florida it would give Obama 17% and Clinton nothing.

This proposal is insulting, cheating, completely disregards democracy and should be completely disallowed, even as a suggestion by the DNC.

It is absurd!

If this goes to convention these states should and WILL demand that all their delegates be seated as is, without rewriting history, cheating or stealing delegates.

It will go to a vote on the convention floor.

Will Democratic super delegates be dumb enough to deny these two swing states, 8% of the electorate their delegates???

If they do they deserve to lose the white house and they will!

How about support for primaries where 2.3 million democrats voted or redo's for 8% of the electorate and electoral college, i maight add?

No that would be democracy. obama isnt interested in that.

I'm sure he does want a superdelegate caucus not a primary.

By the way, there is a superdelegate primary, its called The Democratic National Convention.

Primaries are DELEGATE SLECTION VOTES.

You can't have a superdelegate primary because they are already delegates to convention.

If this allowed, then there should be delegate primaries in FL and MI where the delegates get to vote for themselves to go to convention which would then be recognized by the DNC as being valid. It would be exactly the same thing.

Yeah that's a great idea. On the same day that superdelegates get to vote to send themselves to convention, MI and FL delegates get to vote to send themselves to convention.

Great idea Barack, you may have solved this whole mess.

Seriously any person trying to blame this mess on either of the candidates or say it is their responsibility to fix it needs a reality check- the blame lies solely at the feet of the DNC .. Of course neither candidate is going to give their approval to something that may hurt them politically. Just as Barack remains silent about the revote Hillary remains solid on only having a revote... If the two cannot compromise then the leaders of the DNC need to make a decision and everyone will just have to live with it..it's called leadership.

By the way, undeclared or undecided would have to be one of the coices as it always is in primaries. So it would be straw poll, not a primary because these delegates are already selected where the neutral super delegates could still vote undeclared.

This man's attempts to subvert the process are amazing. He doesn't want prmaries, because he doesnt win them, doesn't want votes to count, and now doesn't want a convention.

Obama is done, the Wright controversy is not going to go away and there is more to come. More radical connections, more racism. All the pretty speeches in the world will not erase seeing those clips of Wright and his hate speech. Hillary has a chance against McCain. For all of the charges leveled against the Clintons there has never been anything proven. Bill for all his faults was a great president and presided over a prosperous time in America for everyone. He truly was a president of all people. The cross over republicans and independents have been turned off as indicated in the lastest polls. The Hillary women will never vote for Obama. If Obama gets the nomination it will be a landslide for McCain.

Based on the results from WA and TX, we need to ban all results from caucus states, or transfer them to popular vote based on the data from WA and TX.

You know I can't help but wonder NoMoreCaucus of you would feel that way had Hillary won the caucus states? You suggestion reeks of the same silliness as the Obama supporters saying we should ban primaries and all go caucus because generally the people who do caucus? Are the people who care and have educated theirselves on the issues. That's a fact. Soooo if a large part of Hillary's votes are coming from people who recognize the name or those who aren't willing to stand in line to caucus....then the caucus votes shows the will of the people who truly do care what happens.

The DNC truly is to blame for this fiasco and they are showing no leadership at this very critical point in time. I think the DNC is pro OBama and are buying time, hoping this will go away. However, Obama is damaged goods and we need MI and FL in the GE. Disenfranchising voters in those 2 states will hurt the Democrats in NOV. The DNC should have vetted Obama before supporting him. If you take note of the latest polls, he is dropping like a brick and it saddens me to say this, but the Dems will lose bigtime in NOV.

Firefighter and s.b. is that another fear tacticks another 3:00 am annoucement? Hillary is done. Obama is on his way to win the nomination and Hillary and her supporters have no other choice but to join the crowd behind Obama. That is the only one way to win back the White House. McCain is not a solid candidate, you may remember that Hillary said that McCain has a lifetime experience in national security and foreign affairs. But the last show in Jordan was very much troubling because McCain could not make a difference between Sunni and Shites, Iran and AlQaeda. His good friend Joe libberman has to correct him publicly.

In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular vote by 4%.

In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won the popular vote by 5%.

Should we let him steal the nominee?

Senator Obama visited FL last fall, and promised to voters that he would do everything he can to have their votes counted, now he just does not want their votes counted anymore.
I guess words are just words for him?
What a joke!

Based on his record of saying one thing and doing another, I don't trust Obama about a Super delegate primary. He is also on the record as saying he would support a Michigan re-vote. He is on the record saying he would over turn NAFTA, he is on the record saying he never heard Rev. Wright's inflammatory speeches, he is on the record saying he doesn't take corporate money. All of these "on the record" statements have been unveiled as the political spin and outright deceptions that they are - so why should we trust Obama. His words don't match his actions.

Tiffany- you contradict yourself in your first two sentences.. How can you spin this to be one candidates fault..look at the facts..the DNC is the root cause of the mess. No bias towards either candidate affects this at all- this is just the DNC showing they are cowards and don't want the fallout to hit them when the inevitable unhappy voters speak up during their campaign- they would rather people place false blame on the candidates.

The superdelegate system encourages insider wheeling and dealing with higher priority than the Voters have.

They need to get with the times and toss out the Superdelegate system "."

Superdelegate primary does not make sense until all the fifty states votes are counted. Super delegate primary is waste of time and money. Also, with recent news, I may see more "Undecided" superdelegates than the ones favouring the either candidates. If Obama going to waste money like this on New stupid ideas then economy will tank further.

Not only should the results from the Texas and Washington primaries trump the caucuses at least in the minds of superdelegates, Fl and MI should count.

They exist as states and there are no caucuses or the general election, just winner take all states.

Super delegates need to do the winner take all real vote math and choose accordingly.

BKMC

No fear, just fact.......look at the latest polls, they tell the story.

Deep Release, clearly you don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. With a *finite* pool of voters (in the case of the superdelegates, about 800) GOTV and turnout is a non-issue. So call it a primary or call it a caucus, but in fact it would be neither. It would technically be a delegate convention.

Super delegates are there sothat Republicans cant swing caucuses to the weaker candidate, which is exactly what has happened.

Democrats need to choose the strongest candidate for NOV, where yes Virginia MI and FL will be voting and sending electoral college delegates to Washington.

Super delegates need to ensure that happens.

Humm: Gov. Bredesen's proposal specifically calls for the superdelegate vote to take place in "early June, *after* the final primaries." Did you even read it? The link is in the article, for crying out loud.

I like the superdelegate primary idea in June, because it gives whoever the nominee is time to unify the party. Both candidates have liabilities, and the truth is, that Wright was out last year on Fox, it just turns out that timing is everything and this time it got more playing time. Probably fueled by the Ferraro comments. For Clinton, we still have the Paul situation, and a rehash of travelgate, filegate, and Whitewater (and the mysterious suicide?). My point is that both candidates will be worked over by the Republicans, but the positive is that the Democratic party has them on the issues, and that will win out, no matter who the candidate is.

Why not a two-day superdelegate primary in June to decide whether Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated before the Convention.

Superdelegates primary in June to select the candidate: Any reason to have a Convention?

To emily, I said 50 states. Will MI and FL get counted before June?

we should be just as clear that Obama opposing a revote is just politics too because he knows he would lose. he's perfectly willing to change the rules when it comes to superdelegats. removing his name from the michigan ballot originally was also just politics and done to ingratiate himself to the voters in iowa and new hampshire

mhe you must be an Obama supporter. Hillary won both primaries. If the delegates would have been awarded accordingly, Senator Hillary Clinton WOULD be the front runner with the popular vote, delegate lead, and the superdelegate lead. Senator Obama MUST let the voices in Michigan and Florida be heard!!!

HIllary is not done, a new Rassmussen poll shows her ahead by 28% in west Virginia. POTUS matchups show her leading Obama in Kentucky by about 30%, She's ahead in Penn by 26% and she's drwn even in North CArolina.

Obama is trying to say this is over again because he knows he is going to lose big time come April and May.

You know what happens when Obam tries to say its over and she can't win?? People come out en masse and vote for Hillary.

She is going to win Penn, Kentucky and West Viriginia by 30% margins, Indiana by 20%, Puerto Rico by at least 30%.

Add to that MI and Fl, states that will be seated at convention 100% guarenteed, and Hillary wins.

The DNC is not dumb enough to not seat 8% of the American voting public.

The super delegates will have to consider FL and MI in their votes.

The numbers for Obama are looking bad. Will supers vote for someone who is losing contests by 30% at the end of the cycle??? Probably not, nor should they.

I think that they should have had Obama leading the DNC.

Here is my analogy to the controversy regarding the FL and MI primaries.

Supppose the Pittsburgh Steelers were scheduled to play 2 football games in August against the Bengals. The league tells them the games don't count (ie purely exhibition games) and won't affect the regular season standings. The Steelers don't even field a team to one game and in the other game they sit Big Ben and the rest of their starters. They lose both games. The regular season ends and they have a record of 11-5. The 2nd place Bengals are 10-6. All of a sudden, the Bengals claim they should go to the playoffs because they won the 2 games in August.

Any 5 year old would know the Bengals argument is ridiculous.

This is exactly what the Clinton camp is doing.

Splitting the delegates in half is exactly the same as not counting the votes. Do they think the voters are stupid?! Let Florida stand the way it is. They were both on the ballot and it certainly more fair than those caucases. Those caucases are a joke and a lot of senior citizens do not even want to attend them. Michigan should be re-done. Democratic officials should NEVER punish the voters for what they had no control over. I don't care if Clinton and Obama agreed to this, the voters NEVER agreed to it!!!!!!!!!

Clintons are asking for playing again the game using the same rules. Doing Caucus or Mail in vote is changing the rule.

So, I think even 5 year old will understand that

One thing I forgot to mention, when there is a tie, we give each team an extra time to play. So, whatever Clinton is asking is fair.

S.b. is living in a fantasy land.....and Obama fans are supposed to be the ones with our head in the clouds. Desperate attempts by a desperate woman.

To: nomorecaucus You're argument that Obama won by 37% in the Washington state caucuses but only by 7% in the primary is ridiculous. You obviously know nothing about Washington state Dem Party rules. The Dem Party in Washington state told us months ahead of time that they were NOT going to count the primary vote. It would do nothing to count towards the delegate allocation so most people did not vote in the primary (sound familiar FL/MI...a lot of people stayed home because it wasn't supposed to count?). Anyway, Obama is not stealing this nomination. Think about it...if caucuses allow for fewer votes for Obama and he has won a lot of caucuses, what explanation do you give that he is ahead in the POPULAR vote as well, even with winning a lot of caucus states? The explanation is that he is well ahead in POPULAR vote, ELECTED DELEGATES and STATES won. So how does that equate to stealing this thing. I am soooooo sick of Clinton and her supporters telling me (a caucus goer) that I don't matter. Yet, she stands up in Michigan and says "every vote should count". Oh, really, Hillary??? You mean every vote that is for you. Obama 2008!

To: Humm "a tie"???? How do you figure there is a tie. Obama is leading her in the popular vote, elected delegates by an insurmountable margin, and states won. How does that figure to a tie? If Hillary was ahead by one delegate, one popular vote or one state won she would be screaming for Obama to get out of this race. And, I guarantee, that if Obama had lost 12 contests in a row he would have been drummed out of this thing by the media. In fact, it wouldn't have taken 12 contests. If he had lost 3 in a row they would be calling for him to quit...the media and Clinton included. Give me a break! We need the leadership the Obama exhibits. We do NOT need the status quo!

To: s.b. You are just like nomorecaucus! You talk about the Washington state caucus and primary as if you know what you are talking about, but YOU DON'T! AGAIN...the WA state Dem party told us months before our caucus and primary that the primary would NOT count for the allocation of delegates so many, many, many people said why waste the effort voting in the primary and just caucused. Stop putting down the millions of people in this country who have caucused for BOTH candidates. You are not only deriding me, an Obama supporter, you are deriding all of those people who got off their lazy butts and went to the caucus for Hillary. It's amazing that you can't see that. And, what is truly pathetic is that Hillary does the same thing and those people still support her. Just like when she lost in Wisconsin and gave a speech in Ohio that evening. She was "moving on" and didn't say one word about Obama's win in Wisconsin (how ungracious) but even worse she didn't even thank all of those thousands of people who voted for her and worked hard for her in Wisconsin. What does that say about her? Doesn't that bother you? If Obama did that to me I think I would definitely be rethinking my support.

Look, everyone saying that Obama won't support a revote needs a reality check. Obama WOULD support a caucus do-over, and this would actually be easier and less expensive than a primary. But Clinton won't agree to that, for obvious reasons. She has not done as well as Obama in caucuses. So it's OK for Clinton to turn down a caucus revote, but if Obama won't agree to a primary where Republicans and independents can't participate, and it's financed by Hillary Clinton supporters, some how HE'S standing in the way of a revote????? This is spin at it's absolute worst. Both candidates WILL, and HAVE A RIGHT TO, look out for their own political interests. The real culprits here are the state parties that voted to move the primaries up in violation of DNC rules. I support the DNC holding firm to their decision because it would not be FAIR to ignore a pre-existing and pre-agreed to decision just because Senator Clinton is no longer "inevitable" and needs the votes to count in states that she previously stated "don't count."

Google "Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count" -

And you'll find 50 times Sen. Obama claims she said it, 100 times some blogger claims she said it.

And not one single example of Sen. Clinton ever saying it.

Surely the blame for this lies with the state leaders who decided to flout the rules?

No one including these state leaders expected the primary race to be this close at this stage. So when they decided to move up their dates it was to position themselves in a more important part of the race.

So its pushing in line - for understandable reasons - that has caused this mess... no?

A caucus is not Democratic, it favors people who don't have a life and important things to do such as work and feed their families. Obama's supporters tend to fall into this camp, ether college students, or fairly well off people who can afford to take several hours off to participate in a caucus.

Obama is playing the typical politician on this and other issues. He is no different than George Bush and others when it comes to playing political games. If Obama wants to win, he should try to win the right way, by actually winning in states that the Democrats have to win to take back the White House. Without Michigan and Florida it will be 4 more years of Republicans in the White House. Exclude Florida and Michigan now and Obama will lose them in the general election.

Ken: She signed a pledge agreeing with the DNC ruling that Michigan and Florida won't count and promised not to participate in the two primaries. Quit being so pedestrian. Hillary is breaking a signed pledge. Simple as that.

Voting in the Democratic party primaries is NOT a constitutional right. Therefore, the democrats in FL and Michigan can NOT be disenfranchised! It is a privilege to vote in a party primary. The party is free to set its rules and punish those that flout them.

I keep hearing people talk about a record turn-out in Florida and that oh a lot of people went to the polls because of the property tax amendment was on the ballot. And I just ask myself, how about the folks who DON'T OWN PROPERTIES and who decided not to waste time because EVERYBODY INCLUDING HILLARY, knew that the results wouldn't count because of the BREACHING OF THE RULES. Come on people, grow up

To:Gregory Brian

Your search for Would FL and MI was incomplete. If you listened to Dan Abrams spot on MSNBC, you will not only learn that Hillary said that MI and FL primary will not count but that statement is on tape- period!

On the streets of the South Side, where the Black Panther movement, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson flowered, Obama was mocked as a dispossessed newcomer who failed to grasp the historical urgency of the black struggle. "The white man in blackface," a political rival once called him.

Though Obama would later convince many black skeptics of his commitment to justice and equality, he made clear he would not be bound by their antagonism toward the white power structure.

"Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and toward black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing," he told an interviewer in 1995, before his political career had begun. "But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. . . . We've got communities to build."

Ken, you are wrong? Hillary did say that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count and signed a statement for the DNC accordingly. She also reiterated that fact while campaigning in New Hampshire on the radio there. It has been widely reported. The problem is that once she saw that she needed those votes and delegates to get "closer" to Obama's lead she decided that "every vote should count"...at least the ones that voted for her.

Jim --

A caucus isn't democratic? Ok. Was a caucus undemocratic when she was ahead? Was a caucus undemocratic when Bill won? Was the caucus undemocratic when any other the other nominees ran for office? For Hillary, the process didn't become undemocratic until she was losing. That speaks volumes about who is playing politics here, as if this needs some sort of sophisticated analysis.

She knew what the road to the nomination included, both primaries and caucuses. Unfortunately for her, she couldn't out-organize, out-think, or out-strategize the Obama camp. Now she wants to change the rules when she and everyone else knew rules. Pathetic. She couldn't command her campaign, why should we believe she's the most qualified to command the country?

Thanks, Iowa Democrat! Great post!

Donn - your argument is not backed up by data. While it is true WA changed their rules to award delegates based on a caucus, they also agreed to keep the primary so that all voters can participate. I spoke to one of the WA committee folks who told me the reason that was done was because they did not have a solid majority agreeing to use the caucus for delegate apportioning. The opponents felt all the voters would not be able to participate and a primary provides data to either support or negate their argument. In this case, it supports the argument that a select few voters in a caucus can skew the numbers so that they do not represent the will of the voters. If it were an all or nothing apportioning it would not matter. Since it is proportional, it does matter. I suspect WA will be arguing in the future about changing their rules.

More Caucus says:

"In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won the popular vote by 5%."

This is true. But of course many of O's supporters didn't feel the need to turn up to the polls a week later on primary day. You see they already cast their vote and knew that the primary did not count.

Hey Jim- you need to get over the exit poll categories and realize that not all Obama supporters are young or rich News Flash! We Aren't! lol but I'll tell you what if this election was important enough to ME I would be taking a couple hours off of this "dream job" that I have to attend a caucus. It's all about priorities... Home in time for the game? ...President of the United States..hmmmm you decide!But I suppose my opinion doesn't matter because WI had their act together and voted within the rules..so mine did count ( not to Hillary because I know I know Wisconsin didn't matter)...

In TX, the matter is even worse. Evidence of cheating and the results being opposite of the primary is a problem. Both candidates were told prior to the voting that TX guaranteed they could handle the large turnout and if there were any problems, either candidate could audit the results. Clinton officially requested permission to audit the caucus results and TX is refusing. One poster claims that disenfranchises the caucus voters... umm excuse me, the caucus voters already voted in the primaries so no one is disenfranchised.

I am not surprised TX is blocking an audit. Republicans always try to fix Dem elections in TX. They redistricted to try to negate the Hispanic voting bloc impact. There were more delegates given to black areas than hispanic areas in the primary. Republicans voted in the open primary and caucus with the intent of fixing the election as always. The funny part is that Rush fans are claim they gave it to Clinton. However, the facts dont support that. According to the analysts, the crossover Republicans accounted for 9% of the vote and the majority of that 9% voted for Obama not Clinton. What tipped the primaries in Clinton's favor was the non-black female vote, the leaning of white males back to Clinton (happened elsewhere also), and the huge turnout of Hispanic voters supporting Clinton by 77%. Their turnout was so large in number that the black voting block (traditionally 34% of the dem voters in TX) was reduced in impact to 19%. With their extra delegates they unfairly get, the hispanic bloc cancelled the black bloc. Men were split between the candidates mostly so the end result was that the female vote is what gave TX to Clinton. Exit polls show voters making up their mind in the last 48 hours overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. This is happening in other states also. TX is a Red state. They have not voted for a democratic president since LBJ (who was Texan). The goal of republicans in TX are to divide and conquer democrats and prop up the weaker candidate so that the republican nominee has less of a fight. I am from TX and lived in the heavily republican areas for 37 years. If you think they do not use the dem rules against them, you dont know politics.

Overall, I think caucuses are undemocratic because many voters cannot participate and it is not secret ballot. We would not promote this in another country. In fact, we have fought against non-democratic processes when promoting democracy in other countries. Yet we allow it in our own? For a voting process to be democratic by definition, it must be secret ballot and all voters must have the opportunity to vote.

Actually a revote in Michigan is opposed by many election clerks - as it will disinfranchise voters more than they were before the January 15th primary. A revote at this point would not be fair - many reasons - including the number of people who voted a republican ballot because there were assured their vote for a democrat would not count. These individuals would not be allowed to vote in a primary.

Se and others - the pledge was to "not campaign". Neither candidate can decide who counts and who doesnt and that was not the pledge/agreement. Even now, neither candidate can decide what counts and what doesnt. You seem to forget all these people agreeing etc are lawyers who would never sign an agreement that back anyone into a political corner.

What they can do is recommend, oppose, agree, fight, or appeal.. all within the rules of the DNC and the rule of law. Right now we are waiting a court decision in FL 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and we are waiting a meeting by the DNC credentials committee in April. So FL is not settled yet. Al Sharpton (Obama's man) has publicly stated that he will sue the DNC if they seat FL or MI delegates. A FL superdelegate has filed suit on behalf of FL voters. an independent voting group in TX is expected to file suit because TX is not allowing a caucus audit. I have no doubt MI will become a fight in court also. The only chance to keep things out of court is if the DNC credentials committee in April comes up with a solution that is fair, does not disenfranchise voters, and is implemented regardless of what either candidate wants.

Caucuses are a traditional way of selecting Leaders. Guess you could say they are a truly AMERICAN institution.

And yes the Caucus favors the Candidate with high:

a)Likeability; and/or
b)high numbers committed supporters.

A caucus measures depth of support as well as the breadth of support. A primary measures name recognition and/or familiarity.

So Hillary is at a disadvantage in a Caucus because of the Likeability Factor (or lack thereof) as well as the lack of truly committed supporters.

But Hillary does better in a Primary where the Clinton name is well known.

The rules are the rules, however. It is something they try to teach you in kindergarten.

CG - I dont think that is totally true. I have a lot of associates in WA who voted in both the caucus and the primaries. They said most of the voters in WA had no clue about the caucuses and are ###### their traditional primary vote by mail did not count.

DC Voter -- I think that many of the points you make about caucuses are valid. But it is a bit unfair to walk into the contest, painfully aware of all of the rules and expectations up front, and then complain about it as soon as you start losing. I think most, objectively, would approach an individual with this approach with a healthy amount of skepticism. This is a Clinton, she knows what the systems are, she claims to be the experienced one, and yet she's only crying foul about this system that she's been familiar with for decades, coincidentally, once she starts losing.

The exercise here isn't whether caucuses are democratic or not, it is why did this experienced candidate get the rule book and get out-organized and strategized by a neophyte? Hillary knew the game and has been beaten thus far by a candidate who played by the same rules she was given.

BTW, the rules also say that superdelegates can vote for who they please. So, she's well within her right to seek their support now that that's her only road to the nomination. That's what the rules say. Simply put, she needs to follow them across the board, but she won't because that's not politically expedient for her.

Becky - while I wont argue that most clerks do not want a revote, i would question their motive... perhaps they dont want the work LOL

on the people that crossed over to try to fix the rep primary by claiming to be republicans, well i have no sympathy there... democrats dont want reps doing that to their primaries yet they will go do it to theirs since they were given the opportunity?... imho they reap what they sow

Commander,

I agree with much of what you say, but caucuses also measure who can get to the caucus. But this brings me back to organization. All the candidates should know that and need to strategize around that. Obama has been the much better and innovative commander of his campaign, which is the first test of the prospective commander in chief. HRC hasn't shown the same ability to do this, especially given all that "experience" she has.

I'm from WA and we were ticked off the primary wouldn't count. All the Obama supporting major newspapers did their best to let us know it wouldn't count, probably so we wouldn't go out to vote. Well, a lot of us did anyhow.

In regards to the article, why is Obama just fine with a Superdelegate primary and not letting those people in MI and FLA have a say? Every day he looks more and more like a typical corrupt, self serving politician.

DCV say - CG - I dont think that is totally true.

Maybe. But close enough. My sources say that if the O supporters pounded the polls on Primary Day, O would have won the state by 33.82% instead of 38% he won on caucus night.

But the rules are rules and nobody is above the law. ANd we all gotta respect the law.

BTW, DCV did you hear there was one county (garfield or a nearby Cty off da top o my head, good pheasant hunting there) in WA where NOBODY caucused for Hillary...lol.

Rstar - I agree she was out-organized out-raised and out-campaigned... I also agree she knows the rules well. Wolfson is incompetent without a doubt. Her last campaign manager (controlled the funds) just was not ready for such an unpredictable election. Since Maggie took over, Ickes came on board, and Clinton started doing what she knows best, she has been turning things around swiftly. If she had Carville instead of Wolfson and Penn, she would have already locked up the nom.

However, one very important point to note is, even with the odds against her as stated above, she is still standing and gaining ground fast. Even the expert pollsters I watched yesterday stated the election was already turning in her favor prior to Obama lying about Wright last Friday.

But for me this is not a decision we should make based on who plays the game better. This is not a game, it is a a nomination process for a very serious job in a very serious time in our country and the world. I think that is why she has held onto the core and is gaining ground in spite of Obama, Axelrod, Rice, and Bill Clinton - all of which affect her negatively. Everything she wants is within the rules - what she is doing is encouraging them to follow the process to get the delegates seated - both candidates claimed to be for this prior to January. Proposing a superdelegate convention is not within the rules that I know of and that is why Ickes said it would never happen.

I dont doubt that CG - every state has its share of areas that include mostly prejudiced people. That is why it is a good thing there are systems that do not allow any one demographic to determine the outcome of the election. It works both ways. So I dont pay much attention to small area statistics like that. That would be just as bad as paying attention to a poll that only sampled one area of a state and called it a national indicator. LOL

DCV say: "every state has its share of areas that include mostly prejudiced people."

Is it now HRC's postion that the people of S.E. WA ST. are all bigots? Bold thing to say.

I am a Democrat from Florida. It is disingenuous to say that Florida had a Primary Vote. The Primary Vote which we Floridians all knew would not count was held the same day as a Property Tax Reduction amendment. This accounts for the high turnout, not people showing up for a primary. However, I almost did not vote in the Primary because it was not going to count, but I figured I was there anyway so why not. To count the vote when it was not supposed to count disenfranchises everyone who believed that their votes were not necessary and disregards the wishes of renters who did not vote because they had no stake in the tax reduction amendment being passed. Furthermore, there may have been a large number of potential voters who decided not to vote because they believed that their vote did not count. If you check the tallies, the Republicans had a larger turnout. How many states did that occur? For me, it is a redo or nothing.... a 50/50 split is ok too.

Regarding her being out-campaigned and out-raised, I think it is important to put that in perspective.

Some Obama supporters are rich dems who are typically very liberal. I havent seen any stats on the Independents but I do know most are considered liberal latte so same thing there. Other supporters include the college students who have been traditionally apathetic and unreliable. But only 30% of his funds are from grass roots voters... so he sort of misleads people as any politican would do unfortunately. Clinton on the other hand has support from moderate democrats, moderate independents, some republican women, most democrat or Independent women, and blue collar workers. Should it be any surprise she raises less money? Not really, most of her supporters make less money. Obama's money is what gave him the money to do the ground operations he has done. People are paid versus Clinton's mostly volunteer ground troops. So in that sense she was outcampaigned for most caucus states because of his rich backers. But most of those will not vote dem in Nov so many of his wins are hollow, ie. most of his caucus state wins had less than 3% VEP turnout because there are hardly any dem voters in those states. Even the experts are saying electability is in her favor because she has proven she can win states that can win the 270 vote electoral college. His argument on that was simple - he claims dems will back whoever gets the nom. The polls are clearly indicating that is not true so her argument is valid.

CG - i didnt say that.. i will clarify... we all know there are certain areas that are anti-Clinton because of Bill or her statement in 1992 telling a reporter her work would never have been under scrutiny if she had stayed home and baked cookies. Homemakers (typically republican, rural, or evangelical) were offended. She was quoted out of context by the Republican incumbent camp when Bill was running against them... no big surprise but it has had a lasting effect. Unfortunately, conservative women are worse than men about keeping women from succeeding. They tend to think it is not a woman's place to be in charge and these end up being anti-Hillary voters. Why is it prejudicial? Because it is gender bias from both male and female voters. Over the national picture, the majority of women are voting for Clinton so that is helping her. My point is... if there were no gender bias she would get a fair shake. But that is not realistic because we are all human and the facts support the gender bias in our society and its effect on the election. Is there a racial bias too? Certainly, and I am sure there are areas that