The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

I certainly am interested. I want the results of this caucus - and of Texas as a whole - FIRMLY in the news BEFORE the Pennsylvania vote. A good bit before the Pennsylvania vote. It is not fair for her to keep claiming Texas when anyone who was checking has kown for a good while she does not have it at all. She even filed suit weeks ago to stop the caucus from counting. NOT FAIR.

The point many are missing is if Sen. Clinton does fight this to the last minute, as she has the right to, the party will implode. If she fights to the end and wins she will more hated than George Bush and that is mind blowing. If Sen. Obama wins she has done more damage than any Republican and will have forever tarnished the reputation of both she and President Clinton. A lose, lose situation......for anyone but McCain!

67 delegates-- the 1/3 allocated by the caucuses, will be awarded at the state convention in June.... based on Saturdays conventions. Delegates going to the state convention are allocated based on the overall results, so Obama will be awarded 60% of that final third, which will likely given him the lead overall for the state.

Hello, the Obama people, in and out of journalism, probably don't want to hear this but the 67 delegates up in the Texas caucuses will not be awarded on the basis of the Saturday, March 29 caucuses. We elected delegates to the State convention, not to the National Convention. When we sign in at the State Convention in June and go through a similar routine as last Saturday the results will determine how many delegates each candidate receives. We, you and the world will not know for sure until then...

The process is not that complicated if you pay attention!!! It surely doesn't deserve the insults everyone is tossing around. Get over it.

I have stayed at home today because of illness. Unfortunately, I seemed to have exacerbated my condition by reading too much of the reams of moronic drivel posted here. Apparently passion trumps reason, and sloganeering matters more than rational discourse. For those partisans on BOTH sides of the Obama-Clinton divide, remember that your puerile (look it up, dipstick) rantings serve John McCain more than they serve either HRC or BHO, whomever you prefer. You people are eating your own young, and I fear you will be precisely the ones responsible for Bush's third term. Can't bring yourself to vote for the Democratic nominee if it turns out to be the one you don't support??? EITHER is better than McCain/Bush. NEITHER is ideal (politicians never are). BOTH have problems, and BOTH have promise (most notably, they AREN'T Republicans!). Do you really want to be duped ONCE AGAIN by the Bush/Rove political disinformation machine?

Please, people! Engage your few remaining neurons before you type another ill-informed character into your computers or spew another syllable of partisan hatred. And read _Attention Deficit Democracy_ by James Bovard. Although he's a cranky libertarian somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, he's right about the American public falling asleep at the political switch. Tone it down, and save your greater passion for the general election fight, because your going to need it unless you think four (or eight!) more years of the Republicans will serve us well.

Would you guys in the Post PLEASE explain to the Clintonistas that Texas has a two-step process.
Can't they understand the rules?. They were told that the Florida and Michigan Primaries will Not Count. Now they don't seem to understand the Texas Process. One Third of the Delegates are awarded by the Caucaus process.
that was made quite clear on the days leading up to the March 4th Primary.Clinton won the Primary that's is only 2/3 's of the race.
The Press made a big deal out of her winning Texas on MArch 4 when they knew fully well that the race was not Finished.
Now let me see them making a big deal out of Obama winning the Caucaus with over 60%.. thus getting more Delegates out of Texas than Clinton and yes-- WINNING Texas
The delegate gap widens .C'on Washington Post PLEASE tell it like it is.

For the misguided and misinformed. Hillary will win the election, and will become the president of our America in January. McCain doesn't have a chance of getting into the Whitehouse without an invitation from Hillary. He has no finacial experience and probably can't even balance his own check book. Obama should be impeached as Senator of Illinois for his support of a minister that preaches and teaches treason. People seem to of forgotten that our fore-fathers would have never stood for such outragious and vile accusations from a minister, he would have been hanged. Obama used his salary (paid by the people of Illinois) to support these teachings of treason and he is a bold face liar if he denies sitting in the pews for only 1 or 2 of Wrights rampages. He supported Wright for 20 years, he knew exactly what was being taught. So Hillary exaggerated her Bosnia story, that is not uncommon- eveyone has exaggerated stories in their life, she has not finacially supported tyrants like Rev. Wright.

Reading these comments it is quite clear that republicans are "swiftboating" early in the campaign, this time "blogging" as Democrats. rove taught them well, but he also taught us to recognize the tactics and to know that when they lie to help their candidates they believe it is akin holy words. They associate themselves with being the chosen few. In November they will be the fewer.

So let's see, since I worked as a land surveyor for 33 years then my kids are qualified to map parcels, write legal descriptions and take the infrequent solar observation?? OH PULEEESSSE

Of course it still matters and people still care. I mean, the delegates still do count, right? And basically, the news here is that Obama won Texas. Clinton won Ohio. She did NOT win "Texas and Ohio" as she and everyone else have been reporting all this time.

Consort: I appreciate your advice BASED ON FACTS, being that you are a credible source speaking with EXPERIENCE because YOU WERE THERE. It seems some of us have hard times dealing with good news on either side. This is good news. I appreciate your statement =)

YESSSSSSSSSSS People!!!! YESSSSSSS!!!!

I was actually present at the precinct and senatorial district caucuses and feel obligated to comment. The caucus process has been in place for decades, and so this idea that one can challenge the process because you didn't know about it is just silly. Yes, it is a very complicated system, but it's the system, so deal with it. Isn't that what HRC is saying about super delegates...but not about Michigan and Florida. Everyone there on Saturday had some kind of hardship. Most of the HRC people in my delegation were older women, and at least 2 (of 16) had disabilities...included in the 17 Obama delegates were a few people over 65, two disable persons, and one with a wheelchair bound husband. It's a pretty fair system. In fact, the probelm is it's so fair, it takes forever to get through. My expreience yesterday was that HRC's people were trying to subvert the process by challenging voters that were valid, without even notifying the actual voter. I'm sure they have their own stories. Let's just get through the process, try to be fair, and move on.

Look, jacksmith is back!

Still have that post on your clipboad, eh?;~)

Quick, cut-n-paste it again somewhere. It has become empirically clear via the Clinton negatives in the polls that this sort of "insult assertion" tactic is weakening your candidate.

Unless, of course, you are in fact an anti-Democrat lurker trying to gin the whole election by posing as a Clinton supporter and posting ridiculous insulting cr@p...

hmmmm

That could explain a lot of the "Clinton Supporter" trash talking. Jacksmith, I think you and yours are a branch of the Rush Limbaugh Democrats. No-one in their right mind could expect shouting insults to actually increase respect in themselves and who they support.

-chris blask

Being a Texas Precinct Chair, Precinct Delegate and a delegate to the state convention, I can tell you that I saw no Obama troublemaking during my county convention. Quite the contrary. The Obama campaign here was organized and active while the Clinton camp was silent except for their call to delay and challenge credentials for what ever reasons that could be fabricated. That's why Obama will win the delegate count in June at state.

Not only the massive turnout but a patent unfamiliarity with the rules. The El Paso County chair simply ignored section 11(b), along with countless other "irregularities". In substance, not much has changed since the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson and "Box 13"...and I expect in another 50 years we will still be doing this convoluted Texas two-step.

I wonder if theplanner is on GOP paycheck or if it is in reality Chelsea pasting here nonsenses from FOX News book.

But, really, does anybody care anymore?

The answer to your question is "YES" anybody and somebody cares. And it's about time you reported the truth about Texas which has shown Obama winning for weeks. The delegates count that he won. And you should have reported it accurately rather than stayed in that lie for almost a month after people (I know that I and others inform you of this) over and over again quoted you the stats. Your refusal to state the facts proves your lack of integrity in reporting. You are a fake.

Who cares about who actually won Texas? Are you kidding? Just because it doesn't fit the current media storyline? And as a Texan, I'm offended by your comment, "no other state could make democracy look so impossibly difficult and protracted." This is the same process we have been using for a long time and it is just running it's course. Nothing is unusual except for the massive turnout. You smug little twit!

Might I humbly point out that the Texas primary/caucus system has been in effect and under similar rules since 1972? It is the same system under which Bill Clinton won the Texas delegates twice. I might also point out that a person need not be present at the election night caucus to be forwarded to the County convention (held on a Saturday).

While few could anticipate the order of magnitude jump in interest in attending caucuses, the Texas Democratic Party now has the names, phone numbers, and emails of 1,000,000 motivated people -- reason enough to engage in a "complicated and obfuscated" process.

The caucuses may also more accurately reflect the opinions of the Democratic base. Across 254 counties, hundreds of thousands of persons who will vote for neither Clinton nor Obama in the fall voted in the Democratic primary in order to vote in the contested local races (in many counties there is still no viable Republican primary). It can be argued that the caucuses are more representative of the persons who will vote Democratic in the fall than is the primary. The two -- primary and caucuses -- taken together provide a more accurate reflection of the will of the Democratic electorate. At least that's what the Clintons seemed to believe up until this year.

REV. WRIGHT'S THEOLOGY IS FUNDAMENTALLY RACIST:
The "theology" that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it. The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called "black liberation theology." Wright admits this and it is stated on the church's website. Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of "theology." Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." (6) "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." *** These teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive. Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years, and now because of exposure by the press, he tries to fool the American public once again.

You can't seriously expect me to believe that Hillary Clinton and her supporters and morons like Carville are lying to me again? With madam Hil, I assume she is lying if she is speaking.

SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON!!!

I do care very much, Eli. Really I do.

Just to remind you of the kind of coverage Texas was getting only...oh, 5 weeks ago(!) - here's a link to an ABC news article that quotes Bill Clinton's oft-repeated statement that, "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be."

Well, guess what, Bill? She lost Texas. And the math shows that there's really no way that she's gonna be the nominee. So, the only thing that's left for her is a very long, obnoxious, expensive temper tantrum.

How 'bout we put this to rest, huh? Time for Hillary to go back to New York and get back to the work she does in the Senate, before she does irreparable damage to that career, as well.

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. is not a racist. Instead of spewing hate, if you would listen to the sermons in context, instead of soundbytes you would see that FOX News edited one tape so you would never get a chance to hear Reverend Wright say he was about to quote something to the congregation that he heard Ambassador Peck, a white man, then the Ambassador to Iraq, say on Fox and Friends. He went on to quote, word-for-word what Ambassador Peck said about the U.S.'s role in bringing about 9/11 and at the end of the quote, after he had quoted Ambassador Peck's last sentence "America's chickens have come home to roost." He again clarified who he was quoting. But FOX News didn't allow you to hear that either. As for the other soundbyte ("God damn America") once intelligent people read Roland Martin's blog in Essence.com, where you can hear that sermon as a whole, and where it is put into context, these intelligent people wrote into Mr. Martin and apologized for their hasty judgement, and in fact, stated that Reverend Wright was an inspirational minister. Because of the reputation Reverend Wright has acquired over his 36 years of preaching, when Bill Clinton had his Monica meltdown, Reverend Wright was one of a dozen ministers summoned to the White House to pray with President Clinton.

Also, Obama did not bring race into this campaign, nor did he ever call Bill or Hillary Clinton a racist. Barack Obama is not a ventriloquist, and he did not put the words "Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina" into Bill Clinton's mouth. Nor did Barack Obama or anyone in his camp ever say that was a racist remark. That criticism came from the media, the wonderful MSM that fraudulently brought you soundbytes to diminish a man's character and reputation after 36 years of ministry and four years in the United States Marines.

And to the person who is still in the dark as to who phoned the Canadian Embassy in WAshington and told Michael Wilson, Canadian Ambassador and Clinton good friend (who helped craft NAFTA) to take what Hillary Clinton (not Barack Obama) said in the debate regarding NAFTA with a grain of salt, go back and do some research. It was reported in some publications that the original story correctly named the Clinton camp as the culprit, and once again the MSM fraudulently changed the facts, implying that Goolsbee's visit to the Canadian Consulate and a tour by Georges Rioux in Chicago was actually what was meant by the phone call to Michael Wilson. And to support the lie, some person named DeMara, supplied a memorandum of what Goolsbee allegedly said to Rioux, which both Goolsbee and Rioux said was not true, which the Canadian Consulate and the Canadian Embassy said was not true, for which the Canadian Embassy apologized to Senator Obama and although this story did not make any headlines thanks to the Hillary-loving media, it certainly can be found all over the web -- just google it.

Ha! Nice spin.

Virtually all of the mainstream media outlets trumpet Texas as a big win for Hillary and it turns out to be a premature call.

When it turns out that it is, in fact, a win for Obama, they play it as "does anybody really care?"

Why yes! In fact, we do!

The Post needs to give this outcome the coverage it deserves.

Shame on you, Washington Post.

The fact that Clinton bragged about the 'must win' status of Texas, and claimed a Texas win was posted all over front pages when it occurred - and the news media held back the news even then that Obama actually won.

Well, Obama won Texas last night...where's HIS front page headline?

People who do not believe Obama can win it all should just look at the Texas results. Who could have predicted that Obama actually would come out winning the state by getting more delegates (actually quite a few more)? Come November, the American people (except for the hardcore racists who can never get themselves to vote for a biracial/black candidate even when hell freezes over) will realize they just cannot AFFORD to have a Bush third term. I think America will be alright.

People who do not believe Obama can win it all should just look at the Texas results. Who could have predicted that Obama actually would come out winning the state by getting more delegates (actually quite a few more)? Come September, the American people (except for the hardcore racists who can never get themselves to vote for a biracial/black candidate even when hell freezes over) will realize they just cannot AFFORD to have a Bush third term. I think America will be alright.

response to venky1
I totally agree with you, any type of job demands to be professional, to have ethics, Mrs. Clinton has a distorted percepcion of reality.

By staying in the race with few chances of winning not only is leading the enterteining industry into stagnation and hurting the economy with her cheap politic

but worst She is robbing Senator Obama the opportunity to develop as a full democrat candidate against McSenile, Mcshame, Mcsame.

The Clinton's agenda is to destroy Senator Obama opportunity at any price. Is that evil or selfish or irrational or racist?

response to venky1
I totally agree with you, any type of job demands to be professional, to have ethics, Mrs. Clinton has a distorted percepcion of reality.

By staying in the race with few chances of winning not only is leading the enterteining industry into stagnation and hurting the economy with her cheap politic

but worst She is robbing Senator Obama the opportunity to develop as a full democrat candidate against McSenile, Mcshame, Mcsame.

The Clinton's agenda is to destroy Senator Obama opportunity at any price. Is that evil or selfish or irrational or racist?

response to venky1
I totally agree with you, any type of job demands to be professional, to have ethics, Mrs. Clinton has a distorted percepcion of reality.

By staying in the race with few chances of winning not only is leading the enterteining industry into stagnation and hurting the economy with her cheap politic

but worst She is robbing Senator Obama the opportunity to develop as a full democrat candidate against McSenile, Mcshame, Mcsame.

The Clinton's agenda is to destroy Senator Obama opportunity at any price. Is that evil or selfish or irrational or racist?

mnteng-The Gerrymandering was done by the Dimocrats, and for what it is worth, YES, they are Amateurs!

Even the Professional Amateurs like Lloyd "Dogmeat" Doggett! ;~)

Hooray for Kay Bailey-Hutchison, John Cornyn, John Carter, Lamar Smith and the other "Pro's", that make TEXAS Proud!

Then, Ronnie Earle, remember the "Hammer", and take a very good long look at Elliot! ;~)

mnteng-The Gerrymandering was done by the Dimocrats, and for what it is worth, YES, they are Amateurs!

Even the Professional Amateurs like Lloyd "Dogmeat" Doggett! ;~)

Hooray for Kay Bailey-Hutchison, John Cornyn, John Carter, Lamar Smith and the other "Pro's", that make TEXAS Proud!

Then, Ronnie Earle, remember the "Hammer", and take a very good long look at Elliot! ;~)

mnteng-The Gerrymandering was done by the Dimocrats, and for what it is worth, YES, they are Amateurs!

Even the Professional Amateurs like Lloyd "Dogmeat" Doggett! ;~)

Hooray for Kay Bailey-Hutchison, John Cornyn, John Carter, Lamar Smith and the other "Pro's", that make TEXAS Proud!

Then, Ronnie Earle, remember the "Hammer", and take a very good long look at Elliot! ;~)

I take it for granted that most of the posters in these forums and blogs are old enough to have been through at least a few elections.

I also assume most are somewhat aware of the nature of politics.

We all know the nature of politics. It is complicated and not always transparent. That is simply the way it is.

In todays age, we have more resources at out disposal to educate ourselves to the issues and those running for office.

Sadly all of that info is not accurate, as many do not have the skills or knowledge to use the tools at their disposal at an optimal level.

I see so mush bad info being tossed around in these forums.

I see bad attitudes and hatred.

The candidates do not scare me nearly as much as the misrepresentation and ill will I see here.

I see a lack of education that frightens me. WE are the people who put people in office. And if we don't have the CORRECT info, how can we make the right decisions.

Stop with the insults and banter and realize what is at stake.

Otherwise, WE as a country are in for a world of hurt.

PLEASE PEOPLE!

Rif raff, all of you. I have seen about 3 accurate reports in these screeds. Can someone say something new besides the high-charged Hillary hysterics that only know how to spew out Obama slurs of the worst kind? It obviously does not occur to any of you hystericals that it isn't interesting culturally to live with this kind of high chaos followed by a brief honeymoon and promises to be good, Hold it down for the public, at least, please.

America has the nerve to say that you are not racist?????? Do you think that Bill Clinton, after all the unethical things he did in his presidency including the Lewinsky scandal would have got a 63% approval rating if he were black??
So let u sget this stupid gender and race this to a close ok?
This is about candidate who have the character to be President and Hillary Clinton does nto even come close to being my dishwasher!! She is unethical, unprincipled and obnoxious. If she were a black woman she would be out of this race a long time back. She is in this race because she is a Clinton and an ex-president's wife. She has no acoomlishment's to name in her so called 35 years of public service.

The only way Hillary can beat Obama for the nomination is to do what she does best. Lie and cheat.

A teacher in Elmira, New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.

Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different...Again.

Little Johnny says, 'Because I'm not an Obama fan.'

The teacher says, 'Why aren't you an Obama fan?'

Johnny says, 'Because I'm a Republican.'

The teacher asks why he's a Republican.

Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my mom's a Republican and my dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican'

The teacher asks, 'If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?'

With a big smile, Little Johnny replies, 'Oh, that's an easy answer, that would make me an Obama fan.

Omyobama,

How very democratic (small d) of you- it's all about the delegates- whether you win them in skewed caucuses and lose the popular primary vote (caucuses require you to be able to sacrifice 2+ hours of your time to get to and attend these ridiculous vestiges of another era; generally that luxury is available much more easily to upperclass professionals and students- and even there only about 5% of the voting public on average comes out for caucuses), whether you exclude 2 very large and important swing states- it is all about the delegates. But Obama is not a political animal-no- he's saintly and never plays politics (not to mention all the dirty politics that they do and then accuse the Clintons of)

Leon

I am proud to be a Texan, After all the woman with revolting political kamikase mentality lost in texas, even when she tried to ruin the reputation of Senator Obama by releasing a picture of him with kenia attire, implying he was a muslam, Texans are smart they cought you, I hope pennsylvania does the same thing!......

We care a great deal but evidently the media doesn't because I can't find it mentioned in any online news sources except Raw Story. Texas was supposed to be a make or break state and now that Obama won it why isn't that big news? It really irks me that Hillary made the caucuses so late so that she could appear to have won for awhile. She knew people would forget about Texas by the time the caucuses rolled around.

Yes, Obama gives lofty speeches about hope and unity. And, Obama can read a teleprompter better than anyone since Ronald Reagan, but his 20 year close relationship with his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser," speaks volumes about his character and judgment. Would you Obama supporters attend a racist church for 20 years and consider its racist minister your "mentor and spiritual adviser?" I know I wouldn't. If I stepped into a church, the first time the pastor made a derogatory statement about "black people" I would be out of there, never to return. But then again, I'm not a racist.

Bill Clinton has bought his share of votes.
Like when he told everyone that he paid down the National Debt and had a Surplus.
Having a surplus means you have more money coming in than tax expenditures.
Paying down the debt means you should owe less money after paying the debt down, from the surplus of cash received.

Look on Yahoo.com. Search, (Public Debt to the Penny). This is the United States Treasury Departments website. Look at the left hand side of the page for,(Historical Debt Outstanding)...Click on it.

This lists the United States Debt in 50 year increments. The last time the debt was paid down was 1957!!!!!

Bill Clinton never had a surplus......he never paid down the debt.

George Bush ran his campaign against Al Gore, promising a tax cut on Bill Clinton's lie.

Do we really need another 8 years of Clinton's surrogates lies as well? I think not. Boot the Clintons to the side of the fence where they belong.

We have plenty of financial thiefs in prison.......why put some more in the White House.

They'll manage your money though. You'll just never find out where they spent it.
They gave George Bush a checkbook to spend money on whatever he wanted, by lying about paying down the deficit, and telling everyone there was a surplus.

What a travesty. We definitely don't need any more Clintonian Financial advice in the White House.

But the MSM has been touting Texas as a "win" for Clinton (worse than that - "a comeback", though it's unclear how the candidate who's been leading in the opinion polls for a year can win by a much smaller margin than projected and still be beneficiary of a "comeback...). When will the lie about Clinton 'winning' the state stop?

Stef in Houston, I do not believe that McC will lose TX to either D. What makes you think otherwise, beside wish fulfillment?
Is there a poll that shows a D with as much as 46% of the vote for Prez? I am curious.

BrownShirt, I cannot find any evidence that La Raza Unida endorsed McC. Source, please.

TX has had the caucus system in place for Ds since I first voted in 1964. It is a sop to lure turnout to the Precinct Conventions where the business of the Party is done, from the ground up. The Rs also run Precinct Conventions for Party business, but because they do not caucus they do not get the same turnout.

That 1m voted in Precinct Conventions is amazing, by historical standards. The TDP finds it a great organizing tool, and as the minority party, I suspect they will not give it up.

theplanner wrote:

Since 2005, Obama's PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the same time.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.

****************************************

So what's your problem? If Hillary had given nothing to superdelegates, there would be a level of moral superiority to argue. But apparently, she's been "buying" them too?

All you are doing in effect is whining about the fact Obama is collecting far more in contributions.

The Clintons are calling in all sorts of political chits, and placing all the pressure they can. But that's OK because you support her, right?

Hillary "say anything, do anything" Clinton and her equally morally deficient supporters are willing to tear the Democratic party apart in the hopes of destroying Obama's chances, and getting Hillary the nomination in 2012.

If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. Clinton were ahead by as much as Obama), how much pressure do you think the Clinton's would exert to get Obama to drop out?

Those who are talking about Obama "buying" superdelegates -- You wanna talk finances? Fine, bring it on. Readers should consider a couple of things:

Which candidate has been "bought" by PACs and lobbyists?

Which candidate has bought lots of goods and services and hasn't been paying her bills?

And which candidate continues to play footsie with voters by not releasing her last few years of tax returns?

The Clintons thought they didn't have to contribute money to supers' election campaigns because they had the supers in the bag already. So it's not like their lower total demonstrates any virtuousness.

According to the census bureau, the total voter turnout in 2004 was 125 million. Of that number, 107 million (85 percent) were white - 50 million white men, 57 million white women. Bush won 62% of white males and 55% of white females. That was 49.5% of the popular vote. Bush won with 50.7% of the popular vote.

If Obama is the nominee do you think McCain would do as well as Bush did among whites ? I do. If Obama is nominated, I think whites will vote for McCain in at least the percentage they voted for Bush, probably more. And if that's the case, the popular vote is McCain's.

If Hillary gets the nod, she could get enough white women's votes to win the election. The black VOTE is immaterial, unless black PARTICIPATION becomes enormous. Kerry carried 89% of the black vote. Not enough to win.

The winner of this election will be the candidate who wins the majority of the white vote. I doubt that Obama is that candidate.

Jim2312:

Nice analysis. Meaningless, but nice nonetheless. Crab and cry all you'd like about the "unfairness" of caucuses, but like it or not, they are a part of the way these nominations are decided. The time to complain is not in the midst of the contest.

This nomination was Clinton's to lose. She came into this campaign season as the establishment candidate with lots of early backing and a big war chest. Unfortunately, she also paid a lot of money for bad advice, has mismanaged her campaign by not having a plan after Super Tuesday, has continuing money problems, infighting among her staff...need I go on?

So go ahead and analyze the hell out of the votes if you wish. The bottom line is that Clinton has a very tiny chance of winning the nomination, one that gets smaller everyday.

Most of Texas's liberal Democrats and illegal aliens have already committed to John McCain, whose promises of amnesty to the 20 million illegal alien scum infesting the country will guarantee McCain the Hispanic/Illegal alien vote. Neither Hillary or Obama speak fluent Spanish or other illegal alien dialects like McCain does. McCain with his sub-normal IQ of 73 is able to better connect with low IQ uneducated non-English speaking Hispanic criminals better Harvard and Yale Law School graduates like Obama and Hillary.

How could any Mexican illegal trust someone who talks like the lawyer who prosecuted them in their last DUI or rape case? In Texas, where there are hundreds of illegal aliens on death row for petty offenses like rape and murder and thousands more incarcerated for drug dealing, Mexicans want a candidate that will give them amnesty and allow them to bring their extended families to the US so they can collect social security disability benefits, food stamps etc. John McCain is the only real choice for Hispanics, that's why he has the endorsement of LaRaza and MALDEF.

Note for all you Obamamaniacs:
Obama is a Liar. You Obamamaniacs need to realize that he is in the business telling the people in front of him what they want to hear. His views on Race, Health Care, America, Iraq and everything else change according to the crowd in front of him. Any one that doesn't believe he is a liar must be to busy chanting his name to hear it like I recently heard some Collage students doing. I use to see some people in white robes at the airport doing something similar several years ago. Hears the deal, now stop chanting and listen. Obama and Clinton Lie. It is their business. They are politicians. If you listen to Obama as you say then you must vote for Clinton as even he agrees that she is the better liar.

And to know what is really going on check the candidates at:
Factcheck.org

Obama's win in Texas is impressive when you consider the strong assist Clinton received from Rush Limbaugh and his ditto-heads.

Yes, Obama gives lofty speeches about hope and unity. And, Obama can read a teleprompter better than anyone since Ronald Reagan, but his 20 year close relationship with his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser," speaks volumes about his character and judgment. Would you Obama supporters attend a racist church for 20 years and consider it's racist minister your "mentor and spiritual adviser?" I know I wouldn't. If I stepped into a church, the first time the pastor made a derogatory statement about "black people" I would be out of there, never to return. But then again, I'm not a racist.

You guys go ahead; bash Texas if you like. Come November, Texas will become a "blue state".

To address the many hate-filled messages from Clintonites, yes, the Senatorial caucauses were "very interesting" to say the least. I was a delegate in the largest senatorial precinct in the State, and over 7,000 delegates were in attendance. I arrived at 6:30 a.m. and departed at 5:00 p.m. Sadly, all of the challenges, were proposed by Clinton supporters, and needless to say, they were ALL resoundingly defeated.

It should be noted, through the entire process, even during our 'precinct delegate voting' the two (out of 28) Clinton delegates, tried every maneuver to stall so the time alloted would run out. Due to the Clintonistas past history; BO delegates were prepared for such antics.

By the way, I have one question to ask the Clinton supporters; when Bill ran for President in Texas on the two occasions, was not this process was in place THEN, too? It seems somewhat strange that this primary / caucus is NOW archaic!

But....I digress

I would like to state to the Congresswoman of the 18th Congressional District of Texas....

YOU'RE IN BIG TROUBLE!!!!

--Steff, Houston

Have to give Texas two thumbs up. With a state as big as the lone star state it had to be a huge task sorting everything out with the Clinton army of con artists getting in the way.

YES WE CAN!

ObamaforUSPresident.com

Renoir888: Please, give it up. Next you'll be telling us that Bill Clinton was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Many Obama supporters are comporting themselves exactly like the right wing nut jobs who attacked Clinton for over 8 years. I've heard that Obama is bringing new people into the party. If these nut jobs are among them, then we're in a lot of trouble.

dhecht9346: You're correct. And the really disturbing aspect of this is that our fellow Democrats (Obama supporters) are willing to go along with this farce, and anything else that benefits their candidate. I guess for them, it's not how you play the game, it's all about winning.

CLINTON HELPS ELECT GEORGE BUSH. Clinton was essential to Bush's win. Most of America was incredulous about his lies in the Lewinsky caper. It went on and
on. Middle America was disgusted with the
Dem. party because of this scandal. The racewas close. The Clinton/Lewinsky caper produced a backlash in the hearts of many religious Americans. Many voters who voted "for" Bush were voting "against" a party that produced a lying president who was almost impeached. The Electoral College vote was close. I believe this religious backlash made the difference.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE????? She wins the popular vote by 100,000 and comes away with fewer delegates? Don't try to complain about superdelegates overturning the will of the people. Pledged delegates are a joke and the whole process is corrupt. No wonder the DNC isn't worried about disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters, they disenfranchised Texas too.

Jim2312: Very incisive post. Unfortunately, Obama supporters have somehow lost that part of their brain which assimilates facts which are not consistent with their views, so I doubt it will make much difference to them.

The internet is a wonderful thing. Without it, think of what all the people who spend their days posting lies and creepy distortions of the candidates would be doing... out in public...

Yecch.

It is best they stay inside and keep posting their embarrassing drivel.

Some observations regarding caucuses and primaries, the remaining contests, and why it is silly to assume Obama has already "won"

1. Caucuses are not democratic because they exclude rather than include and they force people to declare themselves publicly. Basic to any democratic election are two things -- a secret ballot and the chance for all eligible voters to cast one. The average number of votes needed to 'win' a delegate in a caucus has been around 1,200, but it has taken closer to 10,000 to win one in a primary. Why? Because more people voted in primaries.

2. Obama has dominated in the caucus states, and 400,000 of his 700,000-vote margin over Clinton came in caucus states. That margin would all but evaporate if the delegates for Florida and Michigan were seated -- Clinton won 857,208 votes in Florida to Obama's 569,041, a margin of victory of 288,167; she won 328,151 in Michigan, while Obama would get only a share of the 237,389 uncommitted which were cast for Edwards and Dodd as well. So Clinton would pick up 1,185,354 popular (primary, not caucus) votes, while Obama would get 569,041 plus no more than two thirds of the 237,762 'uncommitted' votes, around 725,000 total, or 460,000 fewer than Clinton, cutting his lead to a few hundred thousand, which could evaporate in Pennsylvania.

3. If the Democratic Party had a winner-take-all system like the GOP, Clinton would be the nominee - she would already have something like 1,800 "pledged" delegates. But the system used by the DP is insanely Byzantine and punitive - why did the DNC punish Florida and Michigan again? Because they moved their primaries forward? You have to be kidding. Is this a high school election with the principal and the teachers deciding the outcome and changing the rules as it pleases them?

3. In the Texas primaries, Clinton took 55 percent of the white vote, 63 percent of the Latino vote, and 18 percent of the black vote; Obama took 85 percent of the black vote, 44 percent of the white, and 35 percent of the Latino vote. This is worth noting, because Obama's 'edge' has come in large part from the African-American community, even though the media has done its best not to discuss this peculiarity of the primary season. For example, in Georgia, Obama won 88 percent of the black vote but only 43 percent of the white vote - but that was enough because 51 percent of the voters in the DP primary were black. However, in Ohio, while Obama again dominated among blacks (89 to 11 percent for Clinton), he managed only 38 percent of the white vote, but in Ohio 75 percent of the voters were white and only 19 percent black. In Texas, Obama again took the black vote (85 percent to Clinton's 15 percent), but he lost the Latino vote (35 to Clinton's 63 percent) and the white vote (44 to Clinton's 55 percent). Since blacks were only 19 percent of the voters, Obama lost the Texas primary, even though he did attract wealthier whites, students, and younger voters. Clinton won 51 percent of the vote from those with family incomes under $100,000, Obama got 56 percent from those with family incomes over $100,000. So Obama appeals to blacks, to people who are well heeled, and to the young -- he won the 18-49 vote in Texas; Clinton took the 50 and older vote.

Those who noted that the caucuses discriminated against Clinton's base appear to be correct.

4. There are ten contests to go and Clinton is currently leading (if the polls are correct) in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Oregon. So the contest is far from over.

5. It is not clear why Obama's supporters insist that his lead in the primaries and caucuses entitles him to the nomination. The rules say that he needs 2024 (down from 2025) delegates, and he does not have them, nor can he possibly get that many through a popular vote unless he wins all of the remaining primaries (yes, primaries, not caucuses) by an average of 58 percent in each state. That is highly unlikely given that he and Clinton have split the primaries to date.

6. So while Clinton cannot win, neither can Obama, and his supporters need to stop pretending that he can, unless of course, they mean that they can lure away Clinton's super delegates before the convention.

If they cannot do so, the convention should be interesting, just like the ones in JFK's day. . . .and something worth paying attention to - a real, honest-to-goodness political convention, not a coronation disguised as a convention.

7. If super delegates and delegates to the convention (assuming the contest ends up being decided there) are thinking seriously about which candidate stands a better chance of beating McCain, it is worth bearing in mind some observations regarding the 2004 elections.
- More women than men voted in 2004--67,281,000 to 58,455,000, a difference of 8,826,000, more than ten times the lead Obama has over Clinton if Florida and Michigan are not counted. More women than men registered to vote (73.6 to 70.5 percent) and a higher proportion voted (65.4 to 62.1 percent). Women have tended to vote for Clinton.
- More whites registered to vote than blacks in 2004 and more whites than blacks voted--99,567 to 14,016. The percentage of whites who registered was 75.1 percent, of blacks 68.7 percent. Of those registered, 67.2 percent of whites voted, 60.0 percent of blacks. Blacks tend to vote for Obama at rates of 8:2 or 9:1, but there are fewer blacks than whites and fewer blacks than women.
- Hispanics had the lowest participation--57.9 registered to vote, but only 47.2 percent voted.
This was still higher that 18 to 24 year-olds--57.6 percent registered but only 46.7 percent voted.
- Some 29,924,000 people between 18 and 34 voted, compared to 44,438,000 old folks, a difference of 14,514--roughly the number of blacks who voted. Some 51,373,000 people between the ages of 35 and 54 voted, about 6,935,000 more than those who were over 55.
Clinton's supporters tend to be older, Obama's to be younger.
- Less educated people voted in relatively smaller numbers than more educated people compared to their share of the general population. Only 39.5 percent of registered voters without a high school diploma voted, compared to 56.4 percent with a GED or high school diploma--10,132 as opposed to 35,894. Some 68.9 percent of registered voters with some sort of post-high school degree voted, while 77.5 percent of those with a BA or equivalent did so, and 84.2 percent of those with an advanced degree did so. But while the total number of people with advanced degrees is only 14,210,000--roughly equivalent to the number of blacks who voted and 20,000,000 fewer than the 35,894 high school graduates who voted. The total number of those with high school or no high school was 46,026,000; the total number of those with an advanced degree or BA/equivalent was 40,789,000. Those with some college totaled 38,922,000. If Clinton attracts "down-scale" voters, she taps the 46,026,000 number, while Obama with his "up-scale" base can claim the 40,789,000 university graduates. The junior college and associates are thus the "swing" vote, with 38,922,000.
- Poor people and those in families with incomes under $20,000 tended to vote in relatively small numbers compared to those in families with incomes over $30,000--48.3 percent for families with an income less than $20,000 and 58.4 percent for those with an income between $20,000 and $30,000. The highest participation was among those with the highest incomes, and they also tended to vote in the highest numbers. The total number of voters with a family income under $40,000 was 24,576,000. The total number of voters with a family income over $75,000 was 32,171,000, about a third more than those with incomes under $40,000. This makes the 28,835,000 voters with family incomes between $40,000 and $75,000 crucial. Clinton will probably attract most voters making incomes under $100,000, Obama those making over $100,000. How they split the middle is the key.

Okay, who is the more viable candidate? It is a serious question, given that neither can win the "popular" vote and that Obama has not won the "popular" vote; he has won the caucus vote.

I care! Obama is what we've needed for President for the past 40 years, and Clinton must NOT be allowed in the White House. What in the world else do you think could make so many Texans spend 4 months of our lives at this kind of nonstop insanity?!

Who cares. Good grief! Which planet are you on, Mr. Saslow! You sure aren't coming across like you work for the Post - unlike traditional media, its writers usually have the capacity to care. May you work for the wrong paper?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas

this thread is NOT full of win.

Here's some irony for you - The Clinton Global Initiative, part of the Clinton Foundation, has secured partnerships for the following initiatives:
$271,000,000.00 over a 5-year period for educational opportunities for 7.5 million children in Africa and Asia.
$40,000,000.00 over 5 years for critical education needs for 3,000,000 girls in Africa.
$12,000,000.00 over 8 years to improve schooling and health outcomes for girls 10-14 in Southern Africa.
Maybe someone should tell Barack Obama that trying to label Bill Clinton a "racist" is contrary to everything he has ever done in his life, and is not only dishonest, it is disgusting.

OBAMA WINS TEXAS!!!!!!!

YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and by the way, remember when Clinton threatened to sue Texas if the results of caucus was released at same time as primary? This is why we had to wait so long for the results. The numbers came out just like the advanced phone system results that Texas had in place at the time. The only difference is that this way, Clinton got to claim a Texas win at the time. If this had been allowed to come out at the time, Clinton would have been out of the race because massive super delegate shift to Obama was planned. She does love her sneaky, twisty, dirty tricks! But we sure 'nough did win Texas. GO OBAMA!!!

OBAMA WINS TEXAS!!!!!!!

YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!

I live in Texas, and although I NEVER voted for either W or Exterminator Delay, I am embarrassed. I think the heat shrivels the brains here.

I live in Texas, and although I NEVER voted for either W or Exterminator Delay, I am embarrassed. I think the heat shrivels the brains here.

The American public have a short memory;Clinton(the President)tried to be a nice guy to everyone and gained nothing.Hillary,as First lady tagged along on tax payer sponsored trips with her husband.Her experience;opening schools,taking flowers from children;going to costly functions.Enough of these phoney Clinton's.Let us unite alongside Mr.Obama;he's a breath of fesh air and would well represent what is now a tarnished America.God Bless America and God support Mr.Obama.

The American public have a short memory;Clinton(the President)tried to be a nice guy to everyone and gained nothing.Hillary,as First lady tagged along on tax payer sponsored trips with her husband.Her experience;opening schools,taking flowers from children;going to costly functions.Enough of these phoney Clinton's.Let us unite alongside Mr.Obama;he's a breath of fesh air and would well represent what is now a tarnished America.God Bless America and God support Mr.Obama.

The American public have a short memory;Clinton(the President)tried to be a nice guy to everyone and gained nothing.Hillary,as First lady tagged along on tax payer sponsored trips with her husband.Her experience;opening schools,taking flowers from children;going to costly functions.Enough of these phoney Clinton's.Let us unite alongside Mr.Obama;he's a breath of fesh air and would well represent what is now a tarnished America.God Bless America and God support Mr.Obama.

I am a loyal democrat and I am wondering why our party is so ensconsed with self interest and not uniting around one candidate. We will go down in history as spoiling a sure thing. I cannot take 4 more years of Bush and that is what John McCain will give us. If that happens, I am out of here.
Rick Mead

I am a loyal democrat and I am wondering why our party is so ensconsed with self interest and not uniting around one candidate. We will go down in history as spoiling a sure thing. I cannot take 4 more years of Bush and that is what John McCain will give us. If that happens, I am out of here.
Rick Mead

Two Comments:
An Obama win (it is about the delegates--despite all the other factors the Clinton camp has added) is huge. Hillary has told us over and over that a win in Texas is pivotal!
Second, I am personally not so quick to criticize Texas. The increased turnout in caucuses in the caucus states has been difficult for other states too -- at least, it was in Kansas where I live. After I had waited two hours to get inside the caucus site, an overflow crowd caused us all to be moved outside where we stood in snow and sleet for another two hours. Two persons were actually taken away in ambulances. The only way we were saved is that the Obama delegates outnumbered the Clinton by a large percentage. The number was great enough to give all the delegates to Obama. If the result had been close, I am not sure the caucus would have ever ended. I doubt if my story is too unique. Many did not know how to handle the crowds that turned out. Texas was not alone in its confusion.

Yes, I care!!

If Obama gets 60% of the 67 caucus delegates, that's 40 delegates to Hillary's 27, a pickup of 13 net delegates. She got 4 net delegates from the primary.

Therefore, Obama wins Texas 101-92. Best projection in Obama's favor up to now is CNN at 99-94. If 101-92 prevails, that is 2 more for Obama and 2 less for Clinton, a net gain for Obama of 4 delegates over CNN's estimate. 4 more delegate votes closer to the nomination that is sure to come!

"LOONYBIN2000," your name says it all.

In case you missed it, it is 2008 and Barack Obama is a Christian. In fact, I would say, judging from his integrity, honesty, and concern for bringing power back to the grass roots, he's probably the truest Christian in this race (McSame's pandering to the two-issue Pharisee crowd notwithstanding). Please, educate yourself before you spew hate. Or, better yet, just don't spew hate in the same post that you claim to be the judge of which faith is superior. Can you comprehend the irony in doing so? Even if Obama was a Muslim, he would still make a great president, and if I was just looking at posts like yours, I might even convert to Islam rather than ascribe to whatever it is you tried to represent here. I see that you're passionate, so try to turn this passion into taking an objective look at the candidates. I will pray for you (to Mecca, if you like).

Didn't Bill say that Hill MUST win TX or get out of the race? Now that she lost TX in delegate count, what is she waiting for? Or was that just one of those finger-wagging Monica Lewinsky moment?

rat-the:

You may have some funny looking gerrymandered districts in TX, but if you want to see how to do it correctly, look at the district map of PA, particularly the 12th and 18th Congressional districts (near Pittsburgh). Looks like someone on LSD got ahold of an Etch-A-Sketch.

Compared to us, y'all are amateurs.

The caucus process has some advantages over the primary. It selects out people with a strong commitment to their candidate. These are the people who will work for the candidate in the fall. I think that no thinking person should accept the analysis of the Clinton's since their remarks are purely self-serving and not truth based. The Texas system seems pretty good to me: better than just the caucus.

mp2007: Me as the subject of won't is incorrect. I would do just fine. I think you trivialize the voting process by judging any party by a single member, especially one who is rejected by the party. If you refuse to vote for one of the major parties you are not an independent. Anyway that is the way it appears to me.

The caucus process has some advantages over the primary. It selects out people with a strong commitment to their candidate. These are the people who will work for the candidate in the fall. I think that no thinking person should accept the analysis of the Clinton's since their remarks are purely self-serving and not truth based. The Texas system seems pretty good to me: better than just the caucus.

mp2007: Me as the subject of won't is incorrect. I would do just fine. I think you trivialize the voting process by judging any party by a single member, especially one who is rejected by the party. If you refuse to vote for one of the major parties you are not an independent. Anyway that is the way it appears to me.

Kutrk... You post popped up when I was about to post "JackSmith is an idiot". Beat me to the punch.

JackSmith, You ARE an idiot.

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

What does that tell you about caucuses. Caucuses are totally bogus.

Clinton wins 51% of the primary vote. But Obama wins 60% of the caucus vote fraud.

Jacksmith...

STORY BEHIND THE CLINTON MYTH

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic super delegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party's most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote -- which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle -- and use that achievement to pressure super delegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton's campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

Politico's top editors draw on their experience at the nation's largest news organizations to pull back the curtain on coverage decisions and the media mindset.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media -- including Politico -- have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race -- it's more fun and it's good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she's going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That's certainly possible -- and, to be clear, we'd love to see the race last that long -- but it's folly to write about this as if it is likely.

It's also hard to overstate the role the talented Clinton camp plays in shaping the campaign narrative, first by subtly lowering the bar for the performance necessary to remain in the race, and then by keeping the focus on Obama's relationships with a political fixer and a controversial pastor in Illinois.

But even some of Clinton's own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him.

Simple number-crunching has shown the long odds against Clinton for some time.

In the latest Associated Press delegate count, Obama leads with 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,249. Obama's lead is likely to grow, as it did with county conventions last weekend in Iowa, as later rounds of delegates are apportioned from caucuses he has already won.

The Democratic Party has 794 super delegates, the party insiders who get to vote on the nomination in addition to the delegates chosen by voters.
According to Politico's latest tally, Clinton has 250 and Obama has 212.
That means 261 are uncommitted, and 71 have yet to be named.

An analysis by Politico's Avi Zenilman shows that Clinton's lead in super delegates has shrunk by about 60 in the past month. And it found Clinton is roughly tied among House members, senators and governors -- the party's most powerful elite.

Clinton had not announced a new super delegate commitment since the March 4 primaries, until the drought was broken recently by Rep. John P. Murtha
(D-Pa.) and West Virginia committeeman Pat Maroney.

Clintonistas continue to talk tough. Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign's deputy communications director, told reporters on a conference call Friday that the Obama campaign "is in hot water" and is "seeing the ground shift away from them."

Mark Penn, the campaign's chief strategist, maintained that it's still "a hard-fought race between two potential nominees" and that other factors could come into play at the convention besides the latest delegate tally -- "the popular vote, who will have won more delegates from primaries [as opposed to caucuses], who will be the stronger candidate against McCain."

But let's assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far -- her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).

If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario -- and without revote in Michigan and Florida -- Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.

The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revote were held in Florida and Michigan -- which, again, would take a political miracle.
If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.

The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon.

Harold Ickes, an icon of the Democratic Party who is Clinton's chief delegate strategist, points out that every previous forecast about this race has been faulty.

Asked about the Obama campaign's contention that it's mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, Ickes replied: "They can't count. At the end of it, even by the Obama campaign's prediction, neither candidate will have enough delegates to be nominated."

This is true, as a matter of math. But even the Clinton campaign's own best-case scenario has her finishing behind Obama when all the nominating contests are over.

"She will be close to him but certainly not equal to him in pledged delegates," a Clinton adviser said. "When you add the super delegates on top of it, I'll think she'll still be behind him somewhat in total delegates -- but very, very close."

The total gap is likely to be 75 to 110, the adviser said.

That means Clinton would need either some of those pledged delegates to switch their support -- which technically they can do, though it would be unlikely -- or for the white-dominated group of super delegates to join forces with her to topple Obama.

To foster doubt about Obama, Clinton supporters are using a whisper and pressure campaign to make an 11th-hour argument to party insiders that he would be a weak candidate in November despite his superior standing at the moment.

"All she has left is the electability argument," a Democratic official said.
"It's all wrapped around: Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?"

But the audience for that argument, the super delegates, will not easily overturn the will of the party's voters. And in fact, a number of heavyweight Democrats are looking at the landscape and laying the groundwork to dissuade Clinton from trying to overturn the will of the party rank and file.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has not endorsed either candidate, appears to be among them. She told Bloomberg Television that super delegates should "respect for what has been said by the people." And she told ABC's "This Week" that it would be "harmful to the Democratic Party" if super delegates overturn the outcome of elections.

A Democratic strategist said that given the unlikelihood of prevailing any other way, Clinton now must "scare" super delegates "who basically just want to win."

The strategist said Clinton aides are now relying heavily on the controversy over Obama's retiring minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to sow new seeds of doubt.

"This issue is the first thing that's come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument," the strategist said.

"They're looking ahead and saying: Is it possible this thing is just going to drip, drip, drip, drip -- more video? Where does that leave us if he's our presumptive nominee and he's limping into the convention and the Republicans are just ready to go on him, double-barreled?"

The strategist also said Clinton's agents are making more subtle pitches.

"I've heard people start to say: Have you looked at the vote in Ohio really carefully? See how that breaks down for him. What does that portend?" said the strategist. "Then they point to Pennsylvania: In electoral important battleground states, if he is essentially only carrying heavy African-American turnout in high-performing African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?"

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

What has to irk Clintons' aides is that they felt she might finally have him on the ropes, bruised badly by the Wright fight and wobbly in polls. But the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters.

mp2007: Standard reply from someone who cannot or will not address the issues. And, by the way, since you're such the educated one -- "OK" is not a sentence unto itself; you would vote "for" someone, not "on" someone; United States is abbreviated "U.S.", not US; and it's "anyway", not "anyways." So, let me know how you do at night school.

I see that the "Limbaugh Democrats" are busy on this board. Limbaugh Democrats are, of course, the Republicans pretending to be Democrats and trying to weaken Obama or nominate Hillary under ultra-divisive circumstances. The anti-Islam rant above is a prime example. No real Hillary supporter would say anthing so stupid. Limbaugh Democrats provided the margin of victory for Hillary in the Texas popular vote to keep the divisiveness going in the Democratic Party (119,000 Limbaugh Democrat votes - Clinton margin of victory was 101,000 votes). Republicans, go ahead and have your fun...Democrats, see through their schemes.

Ok. Here is the deal. Me, my district, and all the other Independents I know won't vote Democrat anymore, even if Obama wins the nomination, because we cannot vote on anyone from a party that has people like the Clinton supporters, with all their lies, arrogance, edited videos and all other Karl Rove tactics.
So, as you Democrats, thanks to the Clintons, are going to lose the presidential, and proportional, election for the next 4 years, at least, could any of you 2 contenders just drop out of the race, so I don't have to keep reading those Clinton supporters violating the English grammar and spelling? IT IS NOT "FLIP-FLIPs", IT IS "FLIP-FLOPs!!! Please let's launch a campaign right here: "Night School for the Clinton Supporters! Save the English language!"
Anyways, my district decided to vote McCain and GOP forever, until there are no more Clintons and their supporters in US Politics, so as you cannot win any election anymore, JUST LEARN HOW TO WRITE PROPER ENGLISH!!!

Superdeligates are being bought and sold to the Obama Gang of theives who do not care what happens to our country. Money is the end game and Obama is playing it to the hilt. Islam , Farrakhan, and pastor Wright (who is WRONG) are backing Hussein with tons of greenbacks to buy Superdeligates. Women of America can seeto it that HILLARY, AN AMERICAN, WILL FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE USA. OBAMA WILL BRING US DOWN TO HIS LEVEL AND THAT IS A FRIGHTENING THOUGHT. HE AND HIS GROUP WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET THEIR DIRTY FILTHY RACIST VILE CLUTCHES WHERE ISLAM WILL BE THE MONSTER TO CONTEND WITH. AMERICA TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE COUNTRIES DOMINATED BY ISLAM ANDE ASK YOURSELVES IS THAT WHAT WE WNAT FOR AMERICA. THE ANSWER SHOULD AND WILL BE A SWIFT 'NOT ME BABY' !!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, seriously, who cares? Heck, it's only delegates, which will only determine the presidential nominee...

You are describing this correctly: MURKY to say the least. Texas like many other states have used the CAUCUS process whereby Obama won. This process is being unraveled as totally discriminatory,and one that disenfranchises too many of its voters. It is open to a great deal of COERCION, INTIMIDATION AND FRAUD. Obama trained his surrogates to go to these sites and use their tactics to cajole voters. Where is the privacy and will of the people to exercise their vote? The process focuses on those fanatics that will use any tactics to influence people. It is outdated, and it violates inclusion of all voters. So, the results need to be questionned because there are too many complains about its legitimacy and using such a process to elect a candidate. It could result in Litigation as it is open for a major challenge.

Once more, the DNC opens itself to major trouble for failing to understand this process. It needs to be eliminated and replaced by a democratic and Transparent process!!!

THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA!!! (enter hack journalism here)

THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY!!! (enter hack journalism here)

c'mon people.

Hillary Clinton has the right to stay in this race as long as it takes to cast her family legacy down the well. At this point she has turned this into a credibility/beauty contest for superdelegates because she knows she cannot win by any other stretch. She will go to any length to bend the rules her way and damage the party in Nov all the while denying her own supporters honesty and transparency.

KEVINLARMORON:
FOR LACK OF SPACE, JUST A FEW OF OBAMA'S LIES: 1. his continual reference to his "Christian" faith, which is actually "black liberation theology"; 2. his lies and omissions about his connection to his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser"; 3. his lie that the Kennedy family provided the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father; 4. his current false ad in Pennsylvania in which he lies about taking contributions from the oil companies; 5. his alleged continual opposition to the Iraq war; 6. his denial regarding playing the race card (for which he was busted by Tim Russert); 7. his denial that any meeting took place between his chief economic adviser and the Canadian official about NAFTA; 8. his changing testimony about his relationship with and monetary support from Rezko; 9. his lie about a pharmaceutical lobbyist's involvement in his campaign; 10. his statement that his parents met at the Selma march (when he was actually born 4 year before that); 11. his claim in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white, when both Life and Ebony say there was no such article. AND JUST A FEW OF OBAMA'S FLIP-FLIPS: 1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support. 2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter. 3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change." 4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation." 5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Re: "OBAMA BUYING THE DELEGATES"

More dodging bullets at Bosnia ???

....do some research before you print this garbage... yeah...both Obama & Clinton have pacs, but they gave money to other democrats (over the last 5 years),....and not just to "super-delegates"....in fact, very little went to "Super delegates"....... and what's your point anyway????

Since BOTH Obama & Clinton has Pacs that gave money to other Democrats.....

why your title? (even though your numbers are wrong...i.e. very little of this money went to super-delegates)
why isn't your title:

"CLINTON AND OBAMA BUYING THE DELEGATES"

In reporting about yesterday's Senate District caucuses in Texas, "No other state could make democracy look so impossibly difficult and protracted" is certainly over the top.

Can we acknowledge that no one has accurately predicted the details of this Democratic nomination battle nationally? Can we also step back from cynicism long enough to see that, with such high turnout in state after state, such labels are missing the story?

you got to love a state that allows those with the time and money to vote twice.
Those with families, those who work shift work or two jobs, single parents, those taking care of their parents , in other words, Clinton supporters,don't have the time to Caucus.

Obama, the candidate for the haves and blacks.

OBAMA BUYING THE DELEGATES:
These are the latest figures from an article in the Seattle Times:
Since 2005, Obama's PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the same time.
The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.

Texas needs to apologize to the America and the World for inflicting the likes of GW Bush and Tom Delay on humanity. Seriously!

Mmmm, who cares? That's a predictable question coming from a political reporter. Once they proclaimed Hillary's "big win" in Texas, despite the obvious returns showing that Obama would win the caucuses, our half-witted political press corps hasn't wanted to hear otherwise. (It took them a long time to notice that Judith Miller was wrong about those WMD's.) Nothing must be allowed that upsets the "narrative." Nothing, especially, that would make Hillary and Bill mad.

"UNIVERSITY PARK, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Shivering in blankets of Penn State's colors, more than 20,000 people filled a campus lawn Sunday to hear Barack Obama......"

more than 20,000 !

come-on Hillary, Chelsea & Bill......do your soft-shoe shuffle & waffle...

do your Bosnia gag-routine for laughs,
weep, if that suits you.

How many people you can get to attend your events?

Contrast your events with Obama rallies, compare the enthusiasm and energy that Obama generates

i.e. try to keep your remaining supporters awake!

Yes, we care! Texas got prematurely placed into Sen. Clinton's column, thereby keeping her in the race. It's all about the delegates, baby, and these are just adding to the growing gap between these 2 candidates. Go Obama!

Oh, and Mr. Saslow:

Talk trash about the Texas Dimocrats. This stupid routine is as unique to them as the screwed-up Gerrymanded Congressional Boundaries the Texas Republicans tried to fix!

It is NO wonder that Texas is a Red State! :-)

Ohhhh, I CARE!

Reeaally!

I DO! ;~)

Soooo, when DOES Big Al take over? ;-)