Hill should have thought about all this when she was busy supporting Bush and his invasion/occupation. With her we don't have a chance of getting out of Iraq.

The Junkie putting out junk. Obama made sure to buy lots of advertising in the border counties in South Georgia and Mobile, Al's TV market.

Yeah, this is a retro to Florida 2000. We have a close election...razor close and there's the conflict between Electoral Votes(delegates) and the popular vote. This time the entire conflict is within the Democratic Party. Different voting methods...how to interpret the voters intent. Yeah...its Florida 2000 all over again. Who's going to do the selecting now...SCOTUS(super delegates) again. A very democratic process?

Be interesting to see how this comes out. The arguments are so familar to Florida 2000.

Then we had just the opposite argument in 2004 coming from Ohio. Some wanted Kerry to challenge the popular vote there to change the Electoral Vote in Ohio. That argument works against the argument from 2000 that the popular vote should be the determining factor.

Two sided Democrats, wanting it both ways. Come on folks talk Clinton into quiting this futile jesture. Let us face off with the second coming of Jimmy Carter, ala 1980.

CA Pol,

Simpler: Clinton's "popular vote" argument, and her lead in it, is contingent on not counting several of the caucus states and adding in Florida and Michigan without giving Obama any Michigan votes.

It is a sham and it is a shame and it is not about selling to the Supers. It is about creating a perception that this is a close race.

It has not been a close race since the Potomac Primaries. Obama had it wrapped up after those 11 straight wins.

Anyone else [see: Edwards] would have dropped out, for the good of the Party (and the Country) after the Potomac Primaries, given Obama the deserved momentum and not then jumped into irreversable negative campaigning - but she did.

It is extremely unfortunate. The Country will suffer greatly as a result of her "determination."

Cake and eat it too?

So you can't claim the popular vote because caucuses are a cumbersome voting system and result in a fraction of the turnout of primaries. Yet you can claim the delegate count from caucuses in claiming the delegate lead. Hmmm.

Caucuses are simply a bad idea. Period. Spend your energy convincing the DNC to create a fair system (that includes states like Florida and Michigan).

Why are you in such a hurry to push Clinton out of the race? Isn't counting every vote, and allowing democracy to work a very important issue Democrats have championed (except in Florida and Michigan).

PS. Why is it that Obama supporters are talking about party unity while Clinton supports talk about her being the better person to lead this country?

Yes, "how convenient" for Clinton that all of those people voted for her. And she dares to call that democracy. What a nerve!
Obama has shown us that true democracy is bullying your way through caucus states where only a small percentage of people vote. I mean it's so obvious that this is democracy at its finest.

primaries and caucus' are delegate oriented in the Democratic party. Their purpose is to elect delegates who will then vote for a particular candidate at the party convention. A popular vote accrual is a natural side effect of the primaries, but winning the popular vote tally does not necessarily coincide with winning the most delegates. It's the delegates, stupid. I'm sure Hillary Clinton knows this as her husband used to be president. If you do not win enough delegates, you lose. Regardless of the popular vote. If a candidate does not wish to abide by the Party rules of his/her party, she/he needs to either join the Republican party or get another job.
By the way, the newest Reuters/Zogby is out: Obama 59%, Clinton 33% among Democrats.

add this: or work to change the rules.

You get no sympathy from me on caucuses. Obama got more delegates out of Texas even though Hillary got 100,000 more votes because of caucuses. He claimed a crushing defeat of her in the Washington caucus and gladly took the delegates even though the primary, which had multiple times more participants, was within 5 pts. Same thing for Nebraska, lopsided caucus results, closer primary with more participants. Obama got more pledged delegates out of Nevada where he lost caucuses, than Hillary who won.

In fact, it should be concerning to you and all democrats that most of Obama's big wins came in caucus states because they over-inflate the level of support by suppressing turnout. I should be a concern to all democrats that states which have primaries - like TX, WA, and NE - nevertheless keep caucuses so that party elites and activists can maintain power over delegate selection. Heck, in Washington voters by referendum created the primary, which the democrats then chose to ignore in favor of their little caucus.

The popular vote system is not perfect, but the pledged delegate system as will of the people is a joke.

Oh please, you embarrass yourself with this argument. The entity disgracing itself right now is the Democratic Party with its choice to disenfranchise MI/FLA and with them all the states that voted for Hillary. In doing so, the Party elevates a caucus filled with party insiders above the will of rank and file members who vote in primaries.

(Look to both Washington, Nebraska, and Texas for an actual comparison of primary to caucus results.)

But no one cares anymore what the Democratic Party leadership or Obama supporting pundits think. The voters don't, as shown by massive turnouts for Hillary in the overwhelming majority of the states since March 5, 2008. (That includes stats we not only need to but actually can carry in the Fall.) Nor does the public at large, which wants the contest to continue as shown by multiple polls.

But for anyone whose memory banks go past 1990 this is not a surprise. Democrats generally specialize in committing electoral suicide. Why? The faction within that is most skilled about bringing it about is the most insulated from the fallout. That includes us California democrats.

Oh wait, I de-registered. It's refreshing actually. It means never having to apologize for Nancy Pelosi again. More people should consider it.

Oooh, a Zogby poll. I'm scared.

Hear hear BDB.

I'm confused why this poster's ire is aimed at Clinton's "spin," versus the heavily flawed electoral system that enables both candidates to interpret it as they see fit.

Also, excellent use of "Clintonian" versus "Clinton's 'Popular Vote' Sham." Makes her sound extra-super-duper sinister! which is the real point here...

she "doesn't have a lot in her favor to argue"?
???
She has more than enough to argue. She's won most of the crucial D and swing states. Even after the press have repeated the meme that she's out, WV and KY voters have given her HUGE victories. It's OBAMA who has the problem. He can't close the deal and he's been sitting on her delegates from FL and MI for months in order to give voters the impression that he's leading.
He can't get the nomination without superdelegates same as Hillary. But given the way the primaries are ending, why shouldn't the SDs consider all of the states she's won and electability? Are you saying that all Obama has to do is get some theoretical number and everyone should just give in whether he can win or not?
It's a shame that it came down to SDs but there it is. Blame the stupid proportional delegate system. If it weren't for that, Clinton would have sewn it up months ago on super Tuesday.
By the way, you are delusional if you think this isn't going to be a knock down drag out fight to the bitter end. Obama ought to gird his loins, assuming he has any.

CAPJ, Thank you for this!(tm)

The only thing that this article proves is that CaPJ is an Obama supporter.

This close contest between Obama and Clinton will definitely spur some talk (and maybe some action) about changing the way the party nominates our candidate. It is a must since there are obviously some problems...it was changed before and it will change again. Democracy is not perfect, but we should always be looking for ways to bring it closer to perfection.

That being said, however, the thought that the popular vote should be the only factor in picking our nominee is a little unsettling. Why would the candidates come here to Colorado when it would be more beneficial to camp out in the biggest 10 states trying to rack up huge numbers of votes?

I feel for Clinton...this is basically her one argument left to convince the supers to support her. The only problem is that she knew, like all the other candidates, that it would be the delegates that decide the nominee. Obama played it smart and got out his vote in the caucuses to run up large delegate margins. The system may be far from perfect, but the time to change the rules is not in the middle of the contest when you start losing.

This post makes little sense. Your anger is directed foolishly.

The primary is to
a) determine the voters' will, and
b) help us learn who will be the strongest candidate in November.

Cutting the primary short and trashing half the party WEAKENS the party. Which part of this are you incapable of understanding? Isn't it LONG past time for you Obama folks to give up ridiculous demand for an undemocratic coronation? Clearly Americans are ignoring you and just keep insisting on voting. It is increasingly making you look bad.

Obama people really need to step back and see the bigger picture. You truly cannot see the forest for the trees.

Caucuses are simply a bad idea. Period. Spend your energy convincing the DNC to create a fair system (that includes states like Florida and Michigan). - SeaMBA

I agree. I would love for every state to have a primary, and for Iowa and New Hampshire to get back in line with everyone else. Let's fix it for next time, but run this primary under the rules set out before it started.

PS. Why is it that Obama supporters are talking about party unity while Clinton supports talk about her being the better person to lead this country? - SeaMBA

Because Obama has sewn up the nomination and we've moved on to the general election.

In fact, it should be concerning to you and all democrats that most of Obama's big wins came in caucus states because they over-inflate the level of support by suppressing turnout. - BDB

As I stated in my post, caucuses are a very cumbersome way to vote. The level of support in caucuses is very much a function of how well organized a candidate is in that state. Clinton showed she could compete in the Iowa and Nevada caucuses if she devoted the resources and started early with organization. Just as Obama paid an extra price in West Virginia and Kentucky with a half-hearted campaign, so too did the Clinton campaign by ignoring many caucus states.

Oh please, you embarrass yourself with this argument. The entity disgracing itself right now is the Democratic Party with its choice to disenfranchise MI/FLA and with them all the states that voted for Hillary. - cdalygo

The demographics of Michigan would not favor Clinton to win there in a fair fight. It would not enfranchise Michigan to accept the results of a thoroughly bogus primary. Florida isn't as severe a case, but again the results there are still deeply flawed because there was no campaigning.

Cutting the primary short and trashing half the party WEAKENS the party. Which part of this are you incapable of understanding? Isn't it LONG past time for you Obama folks to give up ridiculous demand for an undemocratic coronation? Clearly Americans are ignoring you and just keep insisting on voting. It is increasingly making you look bad.

I am not, and have never, called on Clinton to get out of the race. I have called on her to run a positive campaign for the remainder (which she appears to be doing) and now I call upon her to dump her "popular vote" argument which betrays democratic principles.

Pledged delegates are a reasonable measure of the will of the voters, because they are allocated proportionately based on Democratic voting for president and allocated proportionately between the candidates. It also protects voters from the differences in voting mechanisms in different states. It is far more democratic than Clinton's "popular vote".

Hyperbole abounds.

No one here is trashing half the party.

No one is saying cut the primary short (anymore).

These arguments about the process being unfair and undemocratic appear pretty dead-enderish and sophist as we approach the tail end.

We don't have a national primary system, we have a diverse state by state system. That system seats delegates who are to vote a certain way based on the result of their state's particular contest. That's the system, that's how it's been for decades, that's what EVERY candidate agreed to way, way ahead of time.

Acting like some "anti-democratic!" outrage is now being committed by adhering to this long accepted system is on the order of Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi media clown. And just gives Repub more talking points about why popular vote doesn't matter and why Dems who care about voter rights are hypocrites. Many here are Repub-enabling at this point.

The silliness is really getting so extreme that one must despair. How can a party like this possibly win anything? Only because the alternative is so loathsome? Nor very confidence inspiring. Please try to check at least some intellectual dishonesty at the door, OK, Hillarian extremists? Thanks.

Washington is a prime example of why the popular vote argument is bogus. We had both a caucus--to choose delegates, and a state-mandated primary that the Democratic party does not use in choosing delegates. You may not like those rules, but those were the rules going into the contest. They need to be the rules coming out of the contest.

I didn't vote in the primary because I knew it didn't count. Clinton has no right to claim it counts after the fact.

on the Zogby, results similar came from Gallup a few days ago. When Obama is polling this big a lead among Dems, it indicates to me that Clinton is receiving lots of GOP crossover votes in the primaries (most of which she wouldn't get in the GE) and she's getting a % of sympathy votes from people who understand Obama is going to be the nominee but want to give Clinton some love.

capj -

you really don't have a very good sense of irony do you, capj?

The demographics of Michigan would not favor Clinton to win there in a fair fight.

Is that why Obama squashed our chances of a revote?

Here are the real facts:

1. Neither Clinton nor Obama have the required number of pledged delegates to claim victory.

2. Because of fact number 1, the Super Delegates are going to decide this primary.

3. Candidates are free to use whatever argument they choose to persuade the SD's to vote for them.

The above are indisputable facts, get over it.

Please watch the namecalling, euzoius, as you ironically try to claim the high road.

Hillarian extremists?

Shall we look at the tone of this post again, oh ye uniter of the driven snow:

--we should expect better from Senator Clinton
--aggravating
--not democratic.
--It's a shame for the voters in those states that they are irrelevant
--faux outrage
--Clinton and her supporters would look for any opportunity to win
--shredding both democratic and Democratic principles
--Clintonian
--embarrassing
--insults
--"popular vote" is pointless
--destructive
--attacks the belief in voting equality
--rejecting and denouncing

Is that why Obama squashed our chances of a revote? - Sharon

No matter how many Clinton supporters say this, it doesn't become true. State law and Republican legislators made a fair primary impossible; Clinton didn't agree to a caucus.

CA Pol Junkie. Excuse me, did I fall asleep? Has the convention already occurred?

I have a different view of why Obama supporters are in a hurry to unify the party -- they don't want people to keep looking critically at Obama. They are looking to the general election because then Obama can get back to lofty rhetoric rather than policy details. Obama supporters have steadfastly refused my requests to point me to detailed analysis of the candidates like eRiposte has done. Which leads me to believe that there isn't one. Which leads me to believe that Obama supporters aren't talking about who would be the better leader because he isn't the better leader and won't be able to get Clinton supporters like he claimed he would.

Or is it that they are afraid that further vetting of Obama will reveal him to be less than electable. Better to find that out before the general election than during it.

I for one am sick of having America lead by the person people would most like to have a beer with rather than the person with the best grasp on policy details. Let the people in the other 7 of the 57 states have a beer with Obama. Maybe he can convince the other two states he hasn't visited to join him as well.

As a Washington State resident I was appalled to hear that Obama didn't know about Hanford. Hasn't his team created briefing books on all 50 states? Admitting he doesn't know something is admirable when it is an esoteric topic. Hanford is not an esoteric topic in Washington State, nor nationally.

The more he talks about policy details the more he sounds like a Democratic version of George W. Bush. America doesn't need a sequal to My Pet Goat.

Clinton didn't agree to a caucus.

Obama didn't agree to a revote.

It IS aggravating when one's identified anointed nominee loses any election by 35 percent.

Ouch!

Cheers to CAPolJunkie! Best piece sane posting I've seen on TLC in weeks, if not months.

And wet willies to the lot of you whom can't see this crap for what it is: the use of deranged fans (on both sides) to jockey for position either on the VP slot or for the next electoral cycle.

They're using you!

Sharon, will you please try and do a little research before you throw out another line about Obama somehow being the culprit for blocking a Michigan re-vote?

Here, let me help you:

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of several small political parties, that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of other parties.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the ruling may have ended any chances of a new Democratic election to resolve the ongoing dispute over the state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. The state party, he said, needs the list to ensure that no one who voted in the Republican primary in January votes in any new Democratic contest, as required under the national party's rules.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

More can be read here:

http://blackhole.xerces.com/showthread.php?t=11036

That was a judge's decision, not Obamas. So please, knock off the bologna, will you?

It IS aggravating when one's identified anointed nominee loses any election by 35 percent.

Or by ~80%, as McCain did this year in Utah.

This thread -- and all the threads on this topic -- are sad to read because I see Democrats behaving like Republicans did 2000 Florida. Whichever candidate you prefer you can pick data to make an argument that he/she is the preferred choice of the populace, or is the one most likely to win the general election. But just because you can make the argument doesn't mean that your argument is right.

The reality is that the system is too flawed for anyone to know who the hypothetical "people's choice" is. Too many different rules for who can vote -- for how they vote -- too many different ways of counting votes and delegates -- different sets of candidates (lots of choices early in the primaries, only two late in the primaries) -- and the different timing of the primaries in terms of the current issues and topics. If the campaign is as close as this one, there can be no objective winner.

In the end, the superdelegates decide, either by choosing to overturn the elected delegate count, or by choosing to honor the elected delegate count.

Like Florida 2000, election rules were established in advance, but they weren't well thought out. Unlike Florida, we aren't seeing rules being consistently bent or broken on behalf of one party -- yet. But the problems of Florida and (especially) Michigan stand out with no clear, fair answer. Those primaries were held with voters understanding that they were meaningless. New primaries are a good idea, but the question of *who* would be allowed to vote in a new primary can't be answered in a completely fair way -- do you restrict the primary to only those who voted in the previous democratic primary, possibly excluding a lot of valid voters, or do you open it to all and allow possible Republican sabotage? There is no good answer.

In the end, we're stuck. A statistical tie, with both participants having strong arguments for their candidacy. Neither is objectively more likely to win the general election -- we just don't have complete data on that.

At this point Obama is leading in delegates according to the rules established at the outset. If you are an objective viewer with a super-delegate vote, is it reasonable to favor Obama on that basis?

SeaMBA, the nominee has been chosen. The Clinton campaign has had ample time to "vet" Obama, now it's time to stop the attacks. Clinton herself has stopped attacking Obama. I fully understand your frustration with the "beer" test for the nominee. If you want a president chosen strictly on policy, though, you live in the wrong country. I firmly believe the winner of the general election will always be the candidate who would win a race to be Prom King. Too many voters more or less choose the candidate they want to see on their TV the next four years. It is possible, however, to both pass the beer test and be a very intelligent and well-informed candidate. Bill Clinton famously was able to bond with Bubba while being a Rhodes Scholar. Barack Obama is very intelligent and has his proposals spelled out on his website. His policies are generally very similar to Clinton's.

Very Confused here....
Back in Feb. 2008 when Obama had the popular vote lead... everyone said Sen. Hillary should get out because she does not have the popular vote, even though she has a slight lead in delegates. Now the positions are changed and Obama has the lead in delegates and Hillary in Popular vote .... and the charge has become "get out cause you have fewer delegates" .... Anyone else have a problem with this changing stance?

Sorry forgot to include the quote....
Thursday, February 14, 2008

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to make sure that whoever wins the most votes......

Sharon continues:

Obama didn't agree to a revote.

As was pointed out to you, the judge who ruled on the 26th of March made any disagreements Obama or Clinton had a moot point. If the DNC and the Michigan state Democratic party had come to an agreement that was Constitutional, Obama had mentioned in the past that he was willing to abide by that. But that simply wasn't the case, and the Michigan Democratic Party on April 4th put the nail in the coffin on any hopes for a re-vote:

The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus. We will continue to work with the Working Group, the DNC and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary.

http://www.michigandems.com/040408prs.html

So to summarize, it wasn't Obama's fault that Michigan decided to break the rules and move up their primaries. It wasn't Obama's fault that a judge ruled the Michigan primary unconstitutional. And it wasn't Obama's fault that the Michigan Democratic Party decided not to hold another primary or caucus. So could you please cease with the bullshit now?

The only thing that's left is the DNC meeting on the 31st, which they will likely split the delegates from both states.

Hi KJS,

How exactly does Hillary have the popular vote? Did you not read CA Pol Junkie's post? You seemingly want to count 2 states that broke the rules, including one state that didn't even have Obama's name on the ballot, not to mention wiping out 4 states who held caucuses. What the hell kind of country do you think this should be to include the votes of a state without a candidate's name on it? That's patently absurd.

The Democratic primary season of 2008 equals Forida 2000. Razor close, who choses the winner...another SCOTUS type group called super delegates. A bunch of appointed folks...priviledged folks....the elite of the Democratic Party. Way to go Democrats!

KJS, Obama has never used popular vote as a measure of the voters' will, just pledged delegates. Because the latter removes the massive error caused by lumping caucus vs primary states, it is a much better measure of the will of the voters. After Wisconsin voted, it because clear that Clinton would not be able to match Obama in pledged delegates.

heh, seamba;

"So you can't claim the popular vote because caucuses are a cumbersome voting system and result in a fraction of the turnout of primaries. Yet you can claim the delegate count from caucuses in claiming the delegate lead. Hmmm."

exactly.

"I was appalled to hear that Obama didn't know about Hanford."SeaMBA

Senator Obama even cast an 'intelligent' vote in 2005 for the cleanup and yet he didn't know a thing about this place. He list it on his website too. What a dunce.

gee, I almost (ALMOST) feel sorry for pants pissing peter seeing his right-wing dreams end up on the garbage heap of history.

the great orange satan (kos) gets it right:

"If Clinton hadn't voted for Bush's war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she'd likely be the nominee. As it is, she almost overcame that disastrous decision in a fiercely anti-war party. That's testament to her talents as a politician and as a political symbol."

History's is still out...so what if he leaves office like Truman...not very well liked. Many view Truman very favorably today. Who would have thought it back in 1953?

About the same 28%

Hillary's delegates represent more people than Obama's delegates, becuase she won the more populous states. On that basis she should be the nominee. Besides, Obama has no viable general election strategy. He's hemmorhaging support by the hour.

Maybe his college student voters can start cloning themselves.

It's all about the Super-Delegates. Clinton makes her arguement, Obama makes his, the SD's choose. It's that simple.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

The college students know Hill was a Bush enabler. Some people don't know she is partly responsible for the mess we're in. She could have used her leadership position for good but she chose to play politics. How people can support her is beyond me.

JohnT, by your logic, Obama is also a Bush enabler, look at his voting record, it's dam near identical to Clinton's.

Hey CA Pol Junkie,
Why is it always go to Obama's website? Aren't there more independent sources to point me to, ones that provide a side by side comparison?

Who decided the nominee? Neither has the delegate votes to win yet. The superdelegates will be chosing. They are in place for just this reason. Reverend Wright was not a news item back in February. Bitter and clinging was not in the news back in February. Clinton Derrangement Syndrome was in the news (I admit I almost bought into it).

The vetting has nothing to do with Senator Clinton's campaign. I am guessing that her campaign knew all about Reverend Wright back when it could have really hurt Obama and said nothing. I am guessing that her campaign knew all about William Ayers and said nothing. The vetting has to do with what the American people know about the candidates.

What attacks? There have been no attacks on Obama like the Republicans will throw at him. If he can't handle the softballs that the Clinton campaign throws his way, God help him in the General Election.

He might be intelligent, but so is George W. Bush (as dumb as he acts). I would expect 57 states plus 2 more to go from Bush, I don't accept that from a Democratic candidate. Opps, I hit the wrong button on my vote machine. The man can't think on his feet, his debate performance is proof of that.

I don't mind a charismatic President (once I started watching Senator Clinton rather than just reading news reports or listening to talk about her "cackle" I found her very charismatic). I just want someone who can think on the fly. I don't want a Democratic George Bush. I certainly don't want him forced down my throat.

I have yet to meet or talk with an Obama supporter who thinks that Obama is really the right person to be President. It is usually some version of Clinton Derrangement Syndrome. No one is making an affirmative case for Obama. That is what is so frustrating.

"damn near identical to Clinton's"

Except there's no Obama vote authorizing Bush's Phony Invasion or sucking up to Lieberturd's Iran Sabre Rattlin'.

Other than those you've made a really, really good point, radix!

MrOpus says,

"So to summarize, it wasn't Obama's fault that Michigan decided to break the rules and move up their primaries. It wasn't Obama's fault that a judge ruled the Michigan primary unconstitutional. And it wasn't Obama's fault that the Michigan Democratic Party decided not to hold another primary or caucus. So could you please cease with the bullshit now?"

Oh, please. Who's bullshitting who?

The "Michigan Democratic Parrty decided not to hold another primary or cauus". Hmm. I wonder why that was?

Watch the CNN video and the reaction of the two Obama-supporting state senators who were more than willing to not have a "do-over" vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om3szT6Cv20

According to them, the Michigan Dem Party never even voted on having a revote. Because the two Obama chairmen said that "so many other senators agreed with them that it never even came to a vote".

You're playing Obama and his supporters as innocent benefactors from a bad system. Give me a break.

In this interview with CNN, Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press, says, "While there were some pretextual (sic?) reasons for objecting to a do-over election, the principal one was that they determined it wouldn't be advantageous to their candidate."

The ending of this video is really infuriating. Watch Obama supporter Buzz Thomas' smug comments about how he doesn't lose any sleep at night over disenfranchising voters and "it's good to be in the lead."

sorry pants pissing peter, but Truman didn't turn America into a country that tortures, that wages a war of aggression, and bankrupts America (fiscally and morally)

Bush is on the dungheap of history, and that is where he stays

SeaMBA: "No one is making an affirmative case for Obama. That is what is so frustrating."

what planet do you live on?

At first, I thought this post was a clever bit of satire. But sadly, no.

The crap Obama supporters come up with is truly amazing. The absorption of GOP thought patterns and attack rationales seems to be complete.

euzoius, you're right, Obama didn't vote for the war, no one asked him at all. It's really convenient to point to the overwhelming majority in congress that did vote for it, in order to assign blame, but it's also wrong. The reality is, the majority of Americans, we're not talking 50+1 here either, supported that measure, if you want to blame someone blame them. The American people got suckered by the Bush administration and culpable MSM into doing something stupid. Laying the blame solely at the feet of congress does nothing more than absolve the people of their responsibility for this mes,. The majority, at that time, created it, now we all own it.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D - NY) introduced a new wrinkle into the math of the Democratic presidential contest today, urging the party's rules committee to
include the votes of her "imaginary friends" in her final tally.

At a campaign rally in Louisville today, Sen. Clinton said that she is now officially ahead of her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) in the popular vote "if you include the votes of my imaginary friends."

While Sen. Clinton refused to put an exact number on her legions of imaginary voters, she said that they were "in the zillions."

Party rules make no specific mention of the votes of imaginary friends, but Sen. Clinton appeared dismissive of that state of affairs, calling it "a glaring omission."

"My imaginary friends may be imaginary to the people who run the Democratic Party, but I can assure they are very real to me," she said. "And they are going to take me all the way to the White House!"

Sen. Clinton's latest strategy did not seem to rattle the party's presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama, who cancelled his campaign schedule today to spend time updating his iTunes library.

But a defiant Sen. Clinton seemed determined to stay in the race, vowing to take her case "over the heads of the superdelegates."

"I am going to appeal directly to my Fairy God-delegate," she said.

***

OK, quit hyperventilating, it's humor.

Gay Veteran,
I live on planet earth. Perhaps I overstated a little bit. Let me clarify. None of the Obama supporters I have talked to have made an affirmative case for him as President. Heck, half of them didn't even know some of the most basic things about him. These were people at the Washington State caucuses. Given that it is burdensome to vote at a caucus you would think these were high information, motivated voters. They were obviously highly motivated, but not informed.

No online Obama supporter has ever pointed me to any source other than Obama's website. I don't recall a pro-Obama article -- it is usually how Clinton is _______________ (fill in the blank with something negative).

And please don't give me the standard he didn't vote for the Iraq war line. He wasn't in a position to vote on it or at risk for making his speech. What has he done since he was in a position to do something? Nothing. When the tough votes came up he skipped them (Iran sense of the senate vote).

SeaMBA: "What has he done [about Iraq] since he was in a position to do something?"

oh I'm sorry, didn't realize that Hillary had single handedly ended the occupation

Gay Veteran, You are correct, no one Senator can end the war, right you are. Perhaps you can point to the resolution, introduced by Obama, calling for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq? You of course know that Obama could have done that as a Senator, did he?

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

radix, you and I likely agree on just about everything of a substantive political nature and I agree with much of your above post.

But the one thing I disagree with is this "majority of Congress" supporting the Bush Adventure. Over half the Dems in the House voted against the authorization, and just under half of the Dems in the senate voted against it, including my two Dem senators. On the other hand, virtually every Repub voted for it.

And so did Hillary (D-NY).

I "undertstand" her vote, I guess. It doesn't "mean" she's a Repub at all. But many, many Dems did not fall for Bush's lies and the political expediency of insane warmongering, so I must protest that aspect of your post.

SeaMBA, go over to a very pro Obama website like Booman Tribune and take a trip through the archives---you'll see hundreds of passionate, highly informed posts demonstrating the differences between Clinton and Obama and why Obamans can rationally prefer him, which seems to be your beef against his supporters.

I'm not writing a paen to Obama to (pointlessly) try to change your mind. The primary will be over soon and you'll have to decide to support the Dem, stew and sit it out, or "punish" Obamans by voting for McRube.

euzoius, I stand by my statement, about the majority of congress voting for the war, although I except your assessment when broken down by party. I wonder if you have voting info on how the Democrats from NY voted? I bring up NY for obvious reasons.

Here's the thing, Obama's campaign has blocked a revote at every turn. You cannot disenfranchise an entire state's votes, so in the absence of a revote the original results have to stand as is.

justin that's simply false, and you have no basis for asserting it.

But carry on, I don't think accuracy is a big concern for you.

Darrow replies:

Oh, please. Who's bullshitting who?

You are continuing to bullshit us.

The "Michigan Democratic Parrty decided not to hold another primary or cauus". Hmm. I wonder why that was?

Umm, because of the legality of doing so was a major issue, despite the Detroit Free Press journalist in your clip stating otherwise. Interestingly, we have not heard that from anyone else, and it changes nothing of the fact that a judge ruled the primary unconstitutional in the first place for numerous reasons that would have made it extraordinarily difficult, if not downright impossible for the state to have a re-vote.

Watch the CNN video and the reaction of the two Obama-supporting state senators who were more than willing to not have a "do-over" vote.

I did, twice, just to make sure.

According to them, the Michigan Dem Party never even voted on having a revote. Because the two Obama chairmen said that "so many other senators agreed with them that it never even came to a vote".

And yet, there it is on the Michigan Democratic Party website:

http://www.michigandems.com/040408prs.html

Regardless of who stated what, that changes nothing of the fact that the ENTIRE STATE PARTY decided not to hold a caucus or primary. So try and blame Obama for that 'till your hearts content, but that simply won't change the words on the Michigan Democratic Party's website on who decided not to have a re-vote. Sorry.

You're playing Obama and his supporters as innocent benefactors from a bad system. Give me a break.

I'm playing nothing with anyone here, rather, I'm merely following the events with verifiable evidence. Here's one just for kicks for you to munch on while we're at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myzpO_EsNA&feature=related

In this interview with CNN, Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press, says, "While there were some pretextual (sic?) reasons for objecting to a do-over election, the principal one was that they determined it wouldn't be advantageous to their candidate."

And his source was, uhhh, who again?

And does that change what's written and decided by the ENTIRE Michigan state Dem. Party?

The ending of this video is really infuriating.

Here's a tissue.

Watch Obama supporter Buzz Thomas' smug comments about how he doesn't lose any sleep at night over disenfranchising voters and "it's good to be in the lead."

Welp, that ONE Congressmen is certainly entitled to his opinion, but you're only infuriating yourself to hold on so tightly to a false argument. The smugness runs high in the Hillary camp at times too, coupled with a slight sense of ignorance, but I doubt you'd be willing to concede that at all, would you?

Candidates are free to use whatever argument they choose to persuade the SD's to vote for them.

That's true, and Clinton's arguments--that she's the best candidate and "ahead in the popular vote"--are not convincing them, or they wouldn't be declaring 4-1 in favor of Obama since the beginning of May. If they were going to declare for her, why would they declare for him at this late stage in the process?

It IS aggravating when one's identified anointed nominee loses any election by 35 percent.

Like when Clinton lost Georgia by 35%? Or the Virgin Islands by 82%? Or DC by 52%?

CA Pol Junkie, you've a clear gift for creating rhetorical straw men for yourself to subsequently dismantle. What on earth does election equipment used during Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004 have to do with the current nomination battle, except in your own head?

Mrs. Clinton's admittedly subjective argument about popular vote totals is obviously directed at those superdelegates who will decide this nomination in Denver. She's not talking to you or me. Further, there are no rules or criteria regarding how superdelegates are to render that personal decison. It will be purely a judgment call on their regarding electability in November.

croatan:

"That's true, and Clinton's arguments--that she's the best candidate and "ahead in the popular vote"--are not convincing them, or they wouldn't be declaring 4-1 in favor of Obama since the beginning of May. If they were going to declare for her, why would they declare for him at this late stage in the process?"

Answer to the first question, agreed. Answer to the second question, I haven't a clue. But that doesn't mean they can't or wont.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

CA Pol Junkie,

All of your arguments are invalid.

When they do seat the Michigan and Florida delegations (as Hillary Clinton has said last week on the NBC evening news) by May 31st, all of your gobbledygook calculations won't mean anything.

When the delegations are seated from those two states, all of the Obamabot arguments will dissipate like rain steaming on a hot road down in Georgia in the middle of high summer.

Then we'll see what type of gobbledygook Obama's supporters will come up with then.

Obama must agree to repeat election before bill is written

and Obama didn't agree to a revote

Some 'bullshit' from the Detroit News

It IS aggravating when one's identified anointed nominee loses any election by 35 percent.

Probably not as bad as losing 29 primaries by + 9 %!

This is easy: Total delegates win. Neither can do it. Superdelegates can toss a coin if they like. Popular vote is not such an absurd notion for them to consider. You write as though she is saying that the popular vote winner is the winner, take something for your CDS.

Some 'bullshit' from the Detroit News

The news isn't bullshit, but your point continues to remain as such, however. That article was written on March 17, which was BEFORE the judge decision that the primary was unconstitutional AND the decision of the Michigan State Democratic Party to avoid another caucus or primary. Obama had concerns about the legalities of a re-vote:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/obama_memo_shows_campaigns_con.html

to which those concerns were shared by the judge who decided the primary was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the bill that Obama would have needed to agree to would have likely gone nowhere thanks in large part to the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate:

Yet the legislation remained stalled late Wednesday in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate, where top Democrats indicated it lacked the two-thirds supermajority necessary to pass the bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080319/pl_cq_politics/politics2690785

So again your point is moot.

Finally, as a sidenote, Hillary's ridiculous claim of not counting the votes in Michigan is disingenuous at best and a flat-out stupid lie at worst:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myzpO_EsNA&feature=related

So my point stands - a failure to have a re-vote in Michigan was NOT in Obama's control, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Fine, if Obama's campaign and supporters are not to blame for the lack of a revote, and Michigan's legislature was, then we're still left with the fact that the primary that took place is the only legitimate, certified-by-law election that took place there.

Obama took his name off that ballot. That rests on no one's shoulders but his own. He should stop whining.

Yet the legislation remained stalled late Wednesday in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate, where top Democrats indicated it lacked the two-thirds supermajority necessary to pass the bill.

and it continues:

Matt Marsden, a spokesman for Republican state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, said discord among Democrats halted any progress on the bill. "Until we see some kind of unified front from the Democrats in terms of what direction they want to go and will the outcome be accepted by all parties, there's not going to be any action taken on the legislation," he told CQ Politics.

Darrow is right about the Mich. re-vote. Obamas' people controlled the outcome. Look at the video.
Opus must be delusional with Obama adulation!!
I wish the college grads who support obama would explain to this working white person, his great appeal. I do not feel that anyone can persuade me to ever vote for this empty suit.
How can one candidate with a majority of the popular vote in the primaries not be taken seriously???
Obama has caused much division in the Democratic party because of his blind ambition!!
Typical white working woman in New York

Well, Sharon, that once again points to the Michigan Legislature being the culprit of the problem, not Obama's camp itself. Furthermore, you're smoking banana peels if you honestly believe the Republican-controlled Congress would have approved of anything of this sort to help out the Democrats. And the point remains disingenuous on your part as well as Hillary's who agreed to abide by the rules and not have Michigan's votes and delegates count. Again, for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myzpO_EsNA&feature=related

Now why would she want to go back on her word like that? Hmmmm.....

Darrow is right about the Mich. re-vote. Obamas' people controlled the outcome. Look at the video.
Opus must be delusional with Obama adulation!!

I'll tell ya what, rosefred, suppose you can actually address the arguments I gave as opposed to silly ad hominems for a change?

And I no more "adore" Obama than I once did Edwards or Dodd, whom I both supported prior to Obama. I just want our party to start focusing on the true adversary over at the GOP, and the sooner the better IMO.

Oh Justin, your comments are unfortunately enlightening:

Obama took his name off that ballot. That rests on no one's shoulders but his own. He should stop whining.

Yes, as did 3 other candidates along with Obama. And Hillary chose to keep her name on the ballot but stated outright that it didn't matter whether her name was on the ballot or not because it wouldn't count:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myzpO_EsNA&feature=related

Surely you're not trying to be as disingenuous as her, are you?

And why are you faulting Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson for actually abiding by the rules of their party's national committee, yet seemingly handwaving away Hillary's refusal to do the same and keeping her name on the ballot, while she simultaneously stated that having her name on the ballot is irrelevant because it won't count anyway?

And since has it ever been appropriate in our country to count the votes in a state without a candidate's name on the ballot? What kind of Communist regime do you live in that supports such a thing?

"we're still left with the fact that the primary that took place [in Michigan] is the only legitimate, certified-by-law election that took place there."

well, yeah, if you like Soviet-style "elections"

"There are many fundamental reasons why the Clintonian primary "popular vote" is a sham. The first is the inequities of voting systems. This isn't just the couple percent error between punch cards and optical scanning with error checking. Caucuses have a fraction of the turnout of primaries because it is a very cumbersome voting method. For example, the population of New Hampshire is almost exactly the same as that of Maine, but the turnout for the New Hampshire primary was 6.5 times that of the Maine caucus. Is it reasonable to equate the two popular votes even though the effect of the voting system on the result is overwhelming? Hell no. That's why we have delegates in proportion to Democratic presidential voters"

your own words undermine your own argument...the caucus states, esp. the Feb ones, which Barack Obama won by enormous margins bare no relationship to the will of the people. He racked up large outsize percantage wins in caucus states where his entire delelgate lead comes from. However as you note primaries have more peoplevoting by large factors and therefore are much more representative of the will of the people.

In Washington he won the caucus by 32%, but he won the primary be only 5%. In Nebraska he won the caucus by the same over 30% margin, he just won the primary, last week when he's been the presumtive nominee, by only 2%, 2%!!!!

If in essence they split the votes of the caucus states down the middle they would have resulted in 73 fewer for him and 73 more for her.

That would mean that he would only be ahead in pledged delegates by 50 votes....but that assumes he would have done as well in the primary states as he did because he was leading....that wouldn't have been the case.

She would be winning and ahead becasue of her superdelegate lead...

His entire pledged delegate lead is fundamentally a mirage...and in no way reflects the will of the people.

His pledged delegate lead is no more valid than how you look at the popular vote. But votes are clearere and more direct....and all be counted

I quit the Democratic Party today. For the first time in months, I feel free. Argue all you want. I see through Mr. Obama & will not vote for him. The entire DNC leadership should resign.

yeah Denise, smart move, I'm sure Bush's third term will be great!

Well, Denise, I'm sure your Assrocket blogger over at Powerline will be proud. Now off you go you cute little concerned, GOP troll.

Yeah.

That old "electability sham" bothers me, too.

There is no rule allowing the DNC to strip the popular vote totals from either MI or Florida.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

When will you guys ever vote for change? Allowing Obama/Bush policies to continue for another four years. Clinton was a change and would be a change.