With each passing primary (and/or caucas) the "momentum" argument becomes less and less plausible.

The "proof is in the puddin'".

Who has more delegates?

If David Plouffe thinks a TKO is going to be sufficient, he's either more stupid or more arrogant than I imagined him to be. Obama got swiftboated this week, and his campaign handled the whole thing like a bunch of amateurs. Fairly surprising, considering how well they've run their campaign up until now. Maybe Hillary's right: maybe Obama doesn't have what it takes to go up against the Republicans and win. If not, the Democrats are in a lot of trouble, because there's NO WAY Hillary can beat McCain if she's the nominee.

Obama should have come out harder against Hillary. She's got him playing defense. He needs to put her back on her heels, or he's going to lose. I know he doesn't want to fight dirty, but it's the only way. Hillary doesn't do "fair".

Follow her right over a cliff for all I care.

Today she said McCain was more experienced than Obama was. As Rachel Maddow said, that's what you say if you're running to be the Republican VP nominee, not the Democratic Presidential nominee. She simply doesn't care how much damage she does the party on the way to the bottom, does she??

Actually the supers should vote as their state went, not the accumulated total of other states.

Hillary should get all supers from every state she won, Barack likewise. That is not overriding the will of the people, that is abiding by the will of the people.

Now I understand supers won't do that, but those that are undecided should reflect their state voters' choice.

Winning every big state except Obama's IL and just splitting the pledged delegate count with him is idiotic. What's the point of having primaries, to have it determined by red state caucuses? Give me a break.

This primary mess needs to be totally rethought, includung keeping Republicans from mucking with determining who they want to face in the general)

I'm behind you all the way, Hillary!

Hillary '08

In addition:

WHO HAS THE MOST VOTES?

WHO HAS THE MOST DELEGATES?

Unswer those two simple questions and you have the winner.

The little people are going to decide this, not fire and brimstone bigshot insiders and their highly paid spinmeisters.

And like I said, if it doesn't line up with the pledged delegate numbers, it's political suicide for the Democratic Party. The supers will line up behind the pledged delegates to confirm the nominee, but whatever naive wishful thinking you require....

Deal with it? Sounds like if you lose tomorrow you will just stamp your feet and saAnd again, I'll give you Kerry and Kennedy, you give us Gov Baldacci, Sen. Mikulski, Gov. O'Malley, Sen. Mikulski, Gov. O'Malley, Sen Cantwell, Sen Murray, and Sen. Inouye, and then we'll talk.
You will give mean such and such delegates, inteersting they are not chest pieces you get to move around to fit your scenario. You are not the decider, let's just wait and see what happens rather than kicking up our heels and insisting that it MUST BE your way. Whoever wins 2025 delegates is the nominee, end of story.

So it's settled. Obama and McCain are the "math" candidates and Hillary and Huckabee are majoring in miracles.

I'll take Math for 100, Alex.

I told you already that I don't think each superdelegate should vote with their state. I'd be fine either way, ultimately, because it would be an honest representation of who has the most support. If Kennedy and Kerry went to Clinton with their vote, they would still have endorsed Obama, so the effect would ultimately be the same. I'll gladly trade a high-level endorsement for a superdelegate vote. Give Obama an Edwards, Gore and Richardson endorsement and Clinton can have their votes.

I do see some value in having a bloc of "superdelegates" voting with the national tide, not their state's tide, because it will indeed give momentum to the frontrunner if it's a very tight race. It happens to be a perfect race for superdelegates to flex their muscle - which was given to them to PREVENT a narrow victory from turning into a nasty convention. The SDs are supposed to give EXTRA momentum to a narrow victor, thus cementing their place as the nominee as early as possible so they can start their general election campaign. Right now it is very clear that Obama is the narrow victor, as again, I repeat for the 2048034th time, if you do the math, barring some insane scandal, there is no way that Clinton can overcome Obama in pledged delegates or popular votes.

DEAL WITH IT.

And again, I'll give you Kerry and Kennedy, you give us Gov Baldacci, Sen. Mikulski, Gov. O'Malley, Sen. Mikulski, Gov. O'Malley, Sen Cantwell, Sen Murray, and Sen. Inouye, and then we'll talk.

thecrisis: unfortunately for you, your side doesn't get to dictate how the superdelegates should vote. And B.O. has actually given more money bribes as you call it to superdelgates which i am sure you will firmly condemn.

No, they should vote the way the total pledged delegates are voting to affirm the nominee, after all the primaries have been finished. That's pretty much the way it's always worked in the past, and I think it's largely going to go that way this time around too.

"This is the way the gop works. Their leaders speak, and the "journalists" write it down. So are clinton supporters gop sabotuers? Are obama supporters fighting the battle on two fronts? where's the help? Wherever it is, those are the cats who should be given credibility and hits and money. When the sh*t hits the fan leaders show up and cowards run and hide. Many patriotic americans are fighting WITH him, not for him."

I stand corrected. :)

Still, how about some balance around here cc. What will you say in two days if hillary is out? After all the slaps across the face. I know if we don't like it go elsewhere. That is the problem. That is what got us in this mess. internet Insanity pockets who build their own worlds. Let's acknowledge reality a little. Let's stop trying to control the world through the media. How about the news reports the news. and asks for opinions from us. that's a winning ticket. Do that cc. Report the news, on both sides. Report the challenges and policies and uphill battles for all. LEt's stop stacking the deck. only then will we be free.

Thanks for the small amount of balance. Keep it up. "do not become the story. " Remember that motto? Let's work on building your credibility cc. :)

Goo dstart. Build off that when clinton is gone in two days. But I've been saying that for months now.

But, like I said before, I'm confident those Supers who are currently uncommitted will shift towards whoever is winning the pledged count (like Richardson indicated he would) and thus a majority of the supers will likely favor the pledged delegate winner anyways, making the whole conversation largely irrelevant.

then you agree that Senators Kerry and Kennedy need to vote exactly the way their Mass. constituents voted. Personally I don't and wouldn't ask them to, even though that would certainly be in my candidate's political interest.

I do have a HUGE problem with that test.

It all sounds nice and rosy, until you realize that these people throw the weight of THOUSANDS of "regular" voters with a single delegate vote. There were 20,000 Democratic caucus-goers in my state and we had only 18 pledged delegates. That's more than 1,000 voters per pledged delegate. In other states, each pledged delegate is worth even more voters.

So yes, I have a problem with some man/woman who was appointed at the DNC "voting with their heart" when their heart has been injected with bribes and flattery from the Clinton campaign. Or for any campaign, for that matter. The fact is that for a "Democratic" party to have a bloc of 20% of the delegates vote with whichever candidate offers them the best position after the election, it is completely undemocratic for those superdelegates to override the popular vote. I say unless Clinton can overtake Obama in BOTH the popular vote AND the pledged delegate count, the superdelegates should go with Obama.

And I really believe they will.

I do have a problem with, it's elitist and anti-Democratic, which is what our party is supposed to be about. The superdelegates wew implemented as a compromise to prevent a minority candidate that was opposed by a broad majority of the proportional nature of the primary system. That isn't the case now, we have a 2-way race, have pretty much since Iowa, and despite all the obstacles to opening up a delegate lead, Obama clearly has. For the party to ignore that because the Superdelegates know better that the voters who have worked so hard to this point would be political suicide, both individually and for the party.

no I want the superdelegates to look into their own hearts, weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and vote for the nominee they honestly feel will make the best President and will be the best President for our nation. That is my test, period and somehow what I sincerely thought this nomination process was all about. Do you have a problem with that test, I would hope not.

And I would ask you to please stop slamming women or Boomers.

You're not Ira Leichtman, are you?

Does anyone besides 60 year old women still watch the evening news?

"is this some new rule that your campaign has dreamed up? And this is a comprmise?"

It would give her a significant victory in a state she would probably lose. She'd be dumb not to take it. Besides, it is the logical conclusion given that her name was the only one on the ballot, an "uncommitted" was an anti-Hillary vote.

"I didn't hear Dick Ghephart or Howard Dean try and make the arguments your side keeps spinning in 2004.winning convincingly?"

They didn't make it far enough for the supers to matter. The only time the supers have was in 1984, and they just rallied behind the delegate leader to confirm his nomination, exactly as they should this time. But fine, you want the Supers to overturn the elections, your call. I can almost guarantee a walkout and the end of the Democratic party if that happens. Talk about a pyrric victory. But then, anything to win, right?

the evening news tonight was absolutely devistating for the B.O. campaign. Sounds like the news media after 6 months have actually decided to do their job. Seems like they were starting to get a little uneasy about their kissing up to the B.O. campaign every night. Buyer's remourse will cost B.O. 5% tomorrow. Perhaps they need to slow down in their curtain measurements.

the evening news tonight was absolutely devistating for the B.O. campaign. Sounds like the news media after 6 months have actually decided to do their job. Seems like they were starting to get a little uneasy about their kissing up to the B.O. campaign every night. Buyer's remourse will cost B.O. 5% tomorrow. Perhaps they need to slow down in their curtain measurements.

Thoughts from a woman over 55 who remember the days of the Clintons': Hillary wanted to include Florida and Michigan votes, although thousands did not vote adhering to the rules; Hillary, overly states here resume, using her wife duties as experience to run the country; Hillary made millions on the failed Savings and Loan fall outs; they made millions in back door deals and refuse to turn over their Income Tax Returns; Hillary voted for a war that opened the door for Iran and refused to state it was a mistake along with her other co-senators; Hillary remained married to a husband who called attention to his sexual habits around the world while representing the people of the United States; Is there no moral or ethical shame to the conduct of the CLINTONS.

"someone who no longer exists"

If only.

I suppose I could spend my time instead arguing over exactly how many delegates Obama/clinton has and how one is going to brain the other in an upcoming primary.

this is so headed for the convention and a bloody fight with no holds barred.

clinton: I hope those superdelgates consider the photos we have of them in compromising positions

Obama: I hope the liberals can live with themselves after keeping the black man down...again. even after he won fair and square.

"The only way the current Michigan delegation will be allowed to be seated in a compromise is if nearly all uncommitteds got to Obama, "

is this some new rule that your campaign has dreamed up? And this is a comprmise?

unless we see people like Lewis who has changed his support 3 times come to your side, then we hear, see they do matter. The nomination rules are what they are no matter how you or your side choose to spin them. When I see B.O. approach or reach 2025 delgates I will concede he is the nominee and so should every fair minded Dem and Dem politician whoever they support, period. I didn't hear Dick Ghephart or Howard Dean try and make the arguments your side keeps spinning in 2004.winning convincingly? ask voters in Ca, New York, Mass, Ohio and Arizona if they agree with that comment

It's just Zouk, ignore it

Why are you guys so hooked on this drindl character? It seems you're freakishly obsessed with someone who no longer exists. Writing songs about her? That's very odd, to say the least.

Again, leichtman, a lead of 46 assumes Obama gets no delegates from Michigan. The only way the current Michigan delegation will be allowed to be seated in a compromise is if nearly all uncommitteds got to Obama, giving him a 111 vote lead. Yes, that is almost insurmountable at this point. A revote in Michigan would probably lead to an Obama win, or if they caucus (as is the precedent), an Obama blowout. Clinton would be lucky to get those current numbers even conceding all uncommitteds.

I am drindl hear me roar
twice as batty as I was before
and I know nothing that I don't cut and paste
cause I've recycled all of it before
I live down here on the floor
I prefer it since I can't climb from the waste

chorus
Oh yes I despise
but its ignorance born inane
yes I pay no price
but look how much I am a pain
If I have to make some dough
I can always be a ho
I am incorrigible
I am drindl

"1. Many of Obama's delegates were won in caucus states where he strategically built strong organizations."

Yup, the old Clinton line...We want to win every race, except caucuses, red states, purple states (except Ohio, but if we lose there it won't matter either), states with large African American populations, Connecticut, Vermont, Wisconsin. All these are irrelevant. As long as we win the states that would vote for a yellow dog with a (D) next to his name in the general, Clinton is the rightful nominee.

"Speaking in war terminology, many of Obama's supporters, at least the most vociferous bloggers, seem to view this campaign as a blood sport."

Funny, his campaign isn't the one implying your children may be the victim of a terrorist attack if you elect the other guy...

"If the Democrats want to have any credibility when this is done, the rules concerning BOTH the Michigan and Florida votes, AND the superdelegates should be followed. Otherwise, dissolve the party."

Sure. And if the Supers know what's good for them, they'll follow the lead of the electorate unless something truly damaging comes out about Obama, just as their intentded role was. Otherwise, I'm all for dissolving the party because it wouldn't stand for anything anymore.

"And last, but not least, the money for the primary campaign should be collected by the party and pooled and distributed equally to all the candidates. What's been happening is a travesty, a personality contest of who can raise more money rather than a serious consideration of who is the best qualified Democratic candidate for president."

Let's not make contradictory statements here. We all know the rules, and we know the importance of raising money to wage a campaign and what it in itself says about the effectiveness of an organization and it's level of support. I'm all for public financing in future races, but just because Clinton hasn't had as effective an organization either in terms of eletoral strategy or fundraising is no reason to change the rules now.

Leichtman - you aren't differentiating between pledged and superdelegates. Obama has a 155 PLEDGED lead, and he's behind by 42 superdelegates. But since Super Tuesday, Clinton has lost 5-6 superdelegates and Obama has gained 30+. It's only going to keep going this way, especially if Obama can take Texas tomorrow.

Actually I correct that delegate count. Obama is up by about 155 pledged delegates, though when the superdelegates are factored in, he's ahead by 100-110.

"The current Pledged delegate math is:

Obama - 1194
Clinton - 1037"

Actually the AP shows a 106 difference not the the 157 number you show, are you saying the AP doesn't know what they are talking about but you do.

And now agree that before Ohio and Pa vote that if you include Fla and Michigan the number shrinks to a 46 delegate difference and that 46 delegates is a blow out?

The nominee will be the next pres. that is why this is so difficult.

Leichtman - Since Obama is ahead by more than 1,000,000 in the popular vote (or more, depending on the undisclosed vote tally in ME, WA, IA and NV) I'm sure if every super delegate voted with their state in terms of the percent of the vote for each candidate, Obama would come out way in the lead. It would closely resemble his pledged delegate lead, which is anywhere from 100-120 or so. Except in states like CA, where Clinton got way more than her share of the superdelegates (she won by a small margin but has dozens more superdelegates' votes in CA), Obama would gain by even more than he is now.

Though I don't think they should vote with their state. That goes for Clinton's superdelegates as well, obviously. I think they should go for the candidate with the most support nationwide, to give that candidate an extra boost of momentum going into the general election. That was the point. The point was never to give party insiders a disproportionately large influence over the race, or to overthrow the popular vote "if need be."

The AP includes current Superdelegate totals, who will mostly change once the eventual winner becomes clear. MSNBC tracks just the pledged delegates, which is what I clearly said I am counting. That's their numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

A few observations:

1. Many of Obama's delegates were won in caucus states where he strategically built strong organizations. Kudos for his campaign organizers. However, many of those states are Republican strongholds, so in a general election they would not produce a Democratic victory. In other words, Obama wins the battles but loses the war.

2. Speaking in war terminology, many of Obama's supporters, at least the most vociferous bloggers, seem to view this campaign as a blood sport. This seems extremely ironic given the expressed aim of Obama to bring a spirit of peace and reconciliation to the nation.

3. If the Democrats want to have any credibility when this is done, the rules concerning BOTH the Michigan and Florida votes, AND the superdelegates should be followed. Otherwise, dissolve the party.

4. And last, but not least, the money for the primary campaign should be collected by the party and pooled and distributed equally to all the candidates. What's been happening is a travesty, a personality contest of who can raise more money rather than a serious consideration of who is the best qualified Democratic candidate for president.

Rosalyn Chatt

"The current Pledged delegate math is:

Obama - 1194
Clinton - 1037"

Actually the AP shows a 106 difference not the the 157 number you show, are you saying the AP doesn't know what they are talking about but you do.

And now agree that before Ohio and Pa vote that if you include Fla and Michigan the number shrinks to a 46 delegate difference and that 46 delegates is a blow out?

"The current Pledged delegate math is:

Obama - 1194
Clinton - 1037"

Actually the AP shows a 106 difference not the the 157 number you show, are you saying the AP doesn't know what they are talking about but you do.

And now agree that before Ohio and Pa vote that if you include Fla and Michigan the number shrinks to a 46 delegate difference and that 46 delegates is a blow out?

Obama wants FL's vote in the general, so of course he wants their delegates seated. Again, one less thing for Hillary to whine to the superdelegates about. See, I believe that elections should be contested, not just beauty contests. Let them go there and compete, there's a reason the gap in TX and OH has closed from a 20 point Hillary lead to a dead heat...

certainly its strategically in your candidate's political interest to not seat the Fla or Michigan delegates and of course that is the overriding concern of this election, not god forbid the interest of the people of fla or the state that helped select the worst president in history. So if B.O. is offered a revote, with an overwhelming bank account his supporters want him to do what's is in his best interest. Interesting but please don't then act like your guy is not a politician doing the political thing which he rails against.

are people really bugging on claudia for bringing up the hideous decision of the outlook editors to feature 2 editorials that were degrading to women (one vaguely so and one directly so) in the context of the election. I remember being puzzled and then disgusted by it. The first article seemed to be 'why are educated women rejecting Hillary and not voting on the 'I have ovaries, she has ovaries principle' and betraying all women by voting for Obama' and the other was 'so women are fainting at Obama campaigns, maybe those old statements are about womens inferiority are true after all, we do watch Grey's Anatamy'. No, literally those were the two articles front and center on the weekly editorial sunday section. Claudia is right someone is going to get major hell for that.

"I just don't buy that she would only pick up 6 delegates in Fla and Michigan, sounds like B.O. spin to me."

The current Pledged delegate math is:

Obama - 1194
Clinton - 1037

Throw in FL (105 for Clinton, 67 for Obama, 14 for Edwards) and MI (73 for Clinton, 55 uncommitted)
Obama - 1261
Clinton - 1215
Uncommitted - 55

So, it's in the 40s, with 55 uncommitted, most of which would probably be allocated by the state party to Obama if the results were allowed to stand as part of a compromise, but like I say I don't see a compromise like that happening.

leichtman writes
"unless you sit on the DNC rules commitee the rules are the rules and all the complaining and threats in the world won't change that, period."

So.... The Clinton campaign should just stop their complaining and threats & recognize that the FL & MI votes don't count - because the DNC rules say exactly that. Right?

leichtman writes
"I didn't write the rules, neither did Hillary"

The rules you cite state that FL & MI don't count. Why should those rules be ignored and/or changed?

"I plead for someone to make the case for the superdelegates overthrowing the popular/pledged lead that Obama will always have through the end of the contests."

Fine then you should be calling Senators Kerry and Kennedy and insisting that they should not be overriding the massive votes of their voters in their superdelegate selection. I won't be doing that should we be expecting you to be doing that soon?

'stop ignoring posts and facts, leichtman. Even if Clinton's current wins in FL and MI stand, she's still down about 100 pledged delegates'

I just don't buy that she would only pick up 6 delegates in Fla and Michigan, sounds like B.O. spin to me. What is your evidence of that? Again I didn't write the rules, neither did Hillary and certainly not you. The rule is who ever wins 2025 delegates period from whatever mix of states is the nominee. She chose to go after Ca, Ohio, Pa,New York, Arizona, and New Mexico. Fine you like your numbers and mix of states better and insist that she play by your rules of the nomination. What would you be posting had Hillary lost Ca and likely Ohio, seriously? Sorry but unless you sit on the DNC rules commitee the rules are the rules and all the complaining and threats in the world won't change that, period.

thecrisis writes
"I plead for someone to make the case for the superdelegates overthrowing the popular/pledged lead that Obama will always have through the end of the contests."

There isn't one, other than the rules being what they are. The superdelegates aren't obliged to merely endorse the voters' choice, and were created specifically to allow for overruling the voters. I think they'd be stupid to do it, but wouldn't necessarily be surprised.

Obama wants a vote in Florida, the party wants a vote in Florida. The only people to this pointwho don't want it to stand are Clinton supporters who want the original vote to count because they know they have no hope of doing as well as last time, and it would give them one less thing to whine about.

cdlutz: I don't know if the kitchen sink strategy will work for McCain, though. For him to pull in independents (which he would need to win the election), he needs to keep looking like a nice guy.

Mark - are you leaning toward McCain at this point? I'm wondering what the extended Dem race means for folks who are on the fence.

cdlutz writes
"There seems to be a shift in the works where some voters are reconsidering Clinton."

Perhaps. I tend to think that, given her name recognition & long exposure in the public eye, if voters are still undecided, they're probably going for the challenger, so to speak. We'll find out soon enough.

Oh, and Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington State haven't released popular vote counts - three of the four which Obama won by 8 points or more. Especially in Washington State - where he won with 2/3 of the votes - probably another 700,000-800,000 votes or so.

There's simply no way Clinton can come back in either popular votes or pledged delegates. And again, I plead for someone to make the case for the superdelegates overthrowing the popular/pledged lead that Obama will always have through the end of the contests.

Clinton's people are clinging on to magical, desperate math. They should hang out with Huckabee and maybe they can get more ideas about how to play magic games in their heads.

drindl - you promised to ignore me forever. Was that a "Pelosi promise'? Or is it that you can't control your hate, envy and spite?

I have always proudly signed my posts. It was the adolescents who like to post all insults, all the time with a good sprinkling of vulgarities that threatened to ruin the blog.

Take one wild guess who that was?

bushisacrook: you chose not to vote but millions of Fla chose otherwise. Since Christ has agreed to pay for a revote what seems to be the problem. Your guy didn't win Fla by a million votes. I don't thinks B.O. who can buy is way through Fla should have a second bit at Fla. but you are now saying that its in his strategic interest to ignore the voters who decided the 2000 election even if given a do over.What does that say about the confidence of your candidate to carry Fla?

Mark in Austin writes
"I note the irony of the Ds seeming near to dividing their ranks with two candidates so close on policy that a foreigner could not tell them apart, while the Rs, with candidates of very different persuasions, seem reconciled."

Like the Rs, the Dems will quickly coalesce around the remaining candidate, once one more drops out of the race. Most of the talk about not supporting the other candidate is just that - talk.

considering that your drivel comes straight out of your a*ss, zouk, you really have no room to criticize anyone.

Posted by: claudialong | March 3, 2008 05:36 PM

And now we see the way with words that has resulted in drindl's ability to blog all day every day. this winning formula has resulted in no paying work for a long time.

but the roadie gig will pay for the arugula tonight.

stop ignoring posts and facts, leichtman. Even if Clinton's current wins in FL and MI stand, she's still down about 100 pledged delegates. She'd need to win 60% of each state left to close the gap, which won't be easy considering Wyoming and Mississippi are the next two states to vote, both of which will go heavily to Obama. The only states left that favor her by a statistically significant margin are WV and PA, no way to close a 100 delegate gap. She blew off 75% of the country with her big state strategy, and now she claims that since she won the big states she should be the nominee. It's absurd and I for one won't stand for it. If she wins the pledged delegates, fine, but that's almost mathematically impossible.

bsimon,
I disagree. There seems to be a shift in the works where some voters are reconsidering Clinton. I doubt it will hand her the nomination, but I would not dismiss it as spin. Media attention on Obama has been markedly less favorable over the last week or two, which has a lot to do with it, I'm sure. But I think the "kitchen sink" approach is taking its toll. I expect McCain to use the same playbook.

'a few posters threatened, by sheer volume of ridiculous cut-and-pastes, to destroy this web log.'

no that would be you. and here you are again, using exactly the same words, the same cliches and same speeches you did then..

'beats independent thougth and reasoned opinion. '

you're a laughingstock here--the village idiot.

yes, what is it about rightwingers that they like oxycontin so much? funny how they pontificate about drug use, when they do so much of it themselves.

sort of like the way they pontificate about homosexuality, then you find out half the R men in congress are closeted gays... hmmm...

Posted by: claudialong | March 3, 2008 05:34 PM

Ignorant coward rides again. the trait of the adolescent is unmistakable. what a pitiful creature.

If Hillary does not win BOTH Ohio and Texas, and win BIG, it's over for her. Even if they count Florida, it no longer adds up for her. Even if she won half of the votes in all remaining states (which is MOST unlikely), she can't do it. Do the math! It is OVER, get it?

considering that your drivel comes straight out of your a*ss, zouk, you really have no room to criticize anyone.

'a few posters threatened, by sheer volume of ridiculous cut-and-pastes, to destroy this web log.'

that would be drindl and Loud and dumb.

Note the cut and pasting again returning from loony drindl. beats independent thougth and reasoned opinion. but if you aren't equipped, what can you do?

yes, what is it about rightwingers that they like oxycontin so much? funny how they pontificate about drug use, when they do so much of it themselves.

sort of like the way they pontificate about homosexuality, then you find out half the R men in congress are closeted gays... hmmm...

"Does your vote count more because you live in a state that 'counts,' per the Clinton campaign's definition? All votes count, Clinton clearly has yes."

Why would you think that. My vote counts just like yours and in reality Texas votes are probably worth less in a general election. I have not heard if the 1 million uncounted Ca votes, there are dozens of state conventions who have yet to determin their full split of delegates, have been finished yet and if we revote, fairly and Hillary wins those 2 state would you then agree that she should be the nominee. I am for a 2 week winner take all vote in Fla and Micigan b/c both sides understand that neither side has clearly won yet. Its exhausting and the system stinks but we need to follow the rules the dnc set up in 1984 until one party is clearly on the path to 2025 otherwise either sides' supporters fill leave totally alienated. incidentally please don't refer to Hillary supporters as those old ladies, that is wrong on so many levels. Sorry but numbers of states and winning the popular vote is not the requirement of the nomination, its 2,025.

In the distant past, the Fall of 2007, a few posters threatened, by sheer volume of ridiculous cut-and-pastes, to destroy this web log. Because posting was completely anonymous, some felt free to dominate each thread with junk. Some of us asked for an end to complete anonymity to allow the WaPo to filter repeat abusers. Some of us have kept our former IDs after the change from complete anonymity, but some of us have new IDs.

"Drindl" became someone else. I still refer to her as "drindl", as do some other
"old timers".
----------------------------
I note the irony of the Ds seeming near to dividing their ranks with two candidates so close on policy that a foreigner could not tell them apart, while the Rs, with candidates of very different persuasions, seem reconciled.

that's our drindl, straight from other websites through her keyboard and head (with nothing in the way to slow it down) to this blog for your reading enjoyment.

"Especially elitists with wives who are only proud of the US when the voters support their husband."

I'd take a wife whose words were twisted over a stepford wife who the candidate left the woman who stood by him while he was in a POW camp for to get his foot in the political door, who he covered up for her drug abuse, and who helped bring about the S&L crisis back in the '80s any day.

The Houston Chronicle:

What this dispute is really about is shielding telecoms from any responsibility for enabling surveillance of customers that might have violated their constitutional rights to privacy.

It's understandable that Bush would want to prevent court scrutiny of a potentially illegal spying program that operated outside the law for so long. But the administration is putting the protection of corporations and partisan posturing above the constitutional rights of the American people.

The San Jose Mercury News:

Congress is supposed to keep presidents from overreaching. Since the Senate has already caved, it's up to the House to defend both our privacy rights and the principle of accountability against the president's power grab.

Americans didn't buy it when Richard Nixon asserted, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

They shouldn't buy that argument now, either.

The Philadelphia Daily News:

"Telecom immunity" legislation could just as accurately be called "justice obstruction" legislation. If passed, it not only lets lawbreakers avoid detection, it provides a blank check for future spying. Just cry wolf - er, terror.

Right now, your rights to privacy are hanging by a thread in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Feb.16, 19 Democratic senators who should have known better got so weak in the knees at the thought of being labeled "soft on terror" that they voted to give the telecom companies the pass from prosecution that Bush demanded....

Contact members of the House and tell them to take these threats seriously - that is, the threats to our privacy rights, and the threat to the rule of law represented by "telecom immunity."

I live in Florida, but didn't bother to waste time voting since I knew it wasn't going to count. I'm sure a lot of other people did the same thing. Therefore, the FL election results are a joke.

Obama's name wasn't even on Michigan's ballot! Therefore, the results there are a joke too.

quick hitory of the fix:

'drindl' is the moonbat who promised to ignore me forever, until the next time, that is. you can tell her by her endless cutting and pasting from Kos, huff, moveon, the nation, etc. she is rumored to have native intelligence but no evidence of this has emerged yet.

there is also a moonbat who was previously known as 'Loud and dumb' but tried to change top spectator. these two stooges teamed up to be 'ignorant coward' but the bloggers raised such an objection, the site had to begin logging in to eliminate this menace.

drindl used to be someone's sig here, I'm not sure if it was claudia's old one or someone else's (I was otherwise engaged for a while and couldn't read this board, so I may have missed that ).

Actually drindl, I was referring to Obama's own dialogue on the campaign trail in Iowa:

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" the senator said. "I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff."

The Wonkette had a tart observation:

He might as well have said, "Anybody here getting their hedge fund portfolios screwed by excessive exposure to these Collateralized Debt Obligations since Moody's started rebranding Triple A's?"

Americans aren't fond of voting for elitists. Especially elitists with wives who are only proud of the US when the voters support their husband.

cdlutz writes
"This development should be very concerning to Obama's campaign. If a fear-based ad can be effective for Hillary, it will be devastating when used by McCain."

The so-called 'development' is nothing more than campaign spin. There has not been enough time since the ad introduction to measure its effect on voters. It is equally possible the ad will actually backfire, rather than boost Sen Clinton. Her campaign is trying to get their preferred angle into the media - and its working. Frankly, a pretty good strategy for the last media cycle before the vote. It kindof reminds me of the frenzied spin before the NH primary. On Fri, Mr Penn released the infamous "where's the bounce" email, shortly after which newly-released polls showed a huge bounce for Obama. By Sunday and Monday the pundits presumed an Obama blowout for Tuesday - which we now know was a premature assessment.

Barack is ahead by about a million popular votes, including Florida/Michigan.

mo897 - check realclearpolitics.com for the popular vote count. Obama wasn't on the MI ballot, but even with all of the Florida votes counted AND all of Clinton's FREE Michigan votes, she's still behind by something like 450,000 popular votes. A redo in both states would only widen this margin because Obama would get hundreds of thousands of extra votes from MI, plus add to the 400,000+ votes he got in Florida.

Oh and by the way, what the hell does "drindl" mean? KOZ always uses this name but I'm yet to see anyone with it.

Maybe it's some secret neocon jargon from Karl Rove's diaries. Who knows?

'OMG - diplomacy with a neighbor and free demonstrations.'

then i guess you're all for the US negotiating with Abenijihad, too, zouk? did you forget he was hitler, or was it satan?

"The secrecy efforts are already beginning. In a press conference yesterday, President Bush admitted that his library would likely take foreign donations but said he would consider keeping the donors' names confidential:

Based on history, there may already be some specifics. Bush 41's presidential library received donations from a sheik from the UAE, who contributed at least $1 million, the "state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library."

When asked if the public has "right to know," Bush replied, "We're weighing, taking a look, taking consideration, giving it a serious consideration. Nice try, though."

mo897 writes
"Has anyone tallied the total popular vote for the candidates in ALL primaries? (and that includes Florida and Michigan). What if Hillary has won the most actual votes from individual voters?"

Yes. She hasn't.

This development should be very concerning to Obama's campaign. If a fear-based ad can be effective for Hillary, it will be devastating when used by McCain. I'd be shocked if he doesn't win the nomination, but Obama will face a withering fire from the RNC and 527s. If he doesn't come up with a better response, he's toast in the general.

Democratic Primary voters are, in general, anti-Iraq war. General election voters may be war weary, but the "I opposed it from the start" argument won't be as important as it is in the primary. Implicit in the argument is a rebuke of the majority of the poulation that did not oppose the war from the start.

Hey obama - speaking of change and original thoughts, not to point out drindl's utter foolishness and illogical partisanship but:

You've been campaigning on a theme of "change," yet your stated positions on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, taxes, education, income redistribution, affirmative action, tort reform, and reducing poverty aren't appreciably distinguishable from the positions Democrats have maintained over the last 40 years. What specifically would you change, beyond shifting nomenclature and tinkering around the edges?

That's weird, one sentence got jumbled there, it shoud have read:

All votes count, yes, and the math clearly shows Clinton losing the vote count with little to no chance of closing the gap with the remaining states. That was her flawed strategy for choosing to ignore 75% of the states, but she made her bed and needs to lie in it.

Has anyone tallied the total popular vote for the candidates in ALL primaries? (and that includes Florida and Michigan). What if Hillary has won the most actual votes from individual voters?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a bill today to extend the PAA for 30 days while negotiations between the House and Senate proceed:

Harry Reid hasn't heard of a deadline. He still can't pass the 2007 budget. that is Dem "leadership" for ya! What a worthless speck of a human dust mite.

Maybe by next November, the Dems will have passed their first budget - two years late.

Governor of Florida is offering to pay for a full primary as a re-do.

This could limp along all summer.

'drindl's just mad that Obama didn't think of it first. How wonderful that would be, an evening soiree with all the liberal elites, gnoshing on organic arugula and soy-glazed sea bass while the press corps eats up his phony rhetoric.'

do you ever have an original thought? this was a cliche/stereotype even in 2004. Does your party intend to run EXACTLY the same campaign they did then, verbatim?

well, i guess you might as well, since your candidate is a carbon copy of bush on every issue. he even gets all his money from the same [foreign] lobbyists.

His fundraising chief, in fact, is THE lobbyist for bushhie's best pals -- the Saudi Arabian government [the chief sponsor of Wahhibist terrorism in the world --to the tune of 1 million a year. nice to know MCain has such close ties with terrorists.

Did you know that Prince Bandar, when Tony blair threatened to prossecute Bandar for extortion in an arms deal, that Bandar threatened him with a terrorist incident? And Blair backed down.

I'm sure McCain will be happy to do our masters's the Saudis' bididng, just like Bush is.

"And let's show respect for the millions of voices in Fla and Michigan who deserve in a Fair way to have their voices heard as well."

Florida and Michigan both can now revote per party rules, so let's go for it. But again, even with her absurd totals from the uncontested races (Michigan would probably go for Obama in a rematch and Florida would be very close) she's still over 100 pledged delegates behind.

Does your vote count more because you live in a state that 'counts,' per the Clinton campaign's definition? All votes count, Clinton clearly has yes. That was her flawed strategy for choosing to ignore 75% of the states, but she made her bed and needs to lie in it. She no longer has a path to a pledged delegate win, and she probably won't even make it any closer given the math of the race left. If she somehow wins more pledged delegates, she should be the nominee. But if she loses the delegate race and gets supers to swing it, I'm out of the party, end of discussion.

Voting for McCain, assuming Barack is out, depends on how much Hillary pisses us off...and she's doing a hell of a job. Her disgraceful appearance on 60 Minutes has pretty much guaranteed the loss of my vote.

Bring on Florida and Michigan. Even keeping Florida's results as-is, but having a re-do in Michigan with Obama's name on the ballot - even without campaigning there - Obama will still be way ahead in pledged delegates.

Please, anyone tell me why superdelegates should override the popular vote in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nomination process. If anyone can explain to me why in a party called "DEMOCRATIC" Hillary should be given the nod only because party insiders overthrow the popular vote, I'd LOVE to hear it.

Seriously. ANYONE tell me. PLEASE. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME why if Obama leads in the delegate count/popular vote, Clinton should be given the nod by the superdelegates. Can anyone make that case? Because if they can't, then Clinton will not get the nomination.

leichtman writes
"Since all polls averaged only show Hillary up by 4 in Ohio and down 1 here in Texas sounds like some B.O. supporters here are either spinning or raising the bar. A win is a win even by 1 vote."

That's a pretty simpleminded way of looking at the race, particularly if that 1 vote refers to an aggregate popular vote, rather than delegates. As has been shown before, a candidate can 'win' the popular vote, while 'losing' the delegate race. The real race is for superdelegate support. Both candidates need to convince the supers he or she is the better candidate for the general election. The best way to do this is to demonstrate wide voter support. If, for instance, Sen Obama wins OH by getting 100% of the black voters in the state to participate & they all vote for him, but he loses the old lady vote, and the union vote and the hispanic vote and the youth vote, it'll be hard for him to make a compelling argument that he's the best candidate going forward. Likewise for Sen Clinton, if she gets 100% of the old ladies, but loses men, blue collars, minorities & youths, she won't look like a very compelling candidate to superdelegates. A win is not always a win.

'Two weeks ago, the hastily-passed Protect America Act (PAA) expired after the Bush administration and its supporters refused to approve a 21-day extension of the law. Since then, President Bush and his allies in Congress have engaged in a fear campaign to pressure the House into passing a Senate-approved update of the PAA that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms.

President Bush continued the fear-mongering in his press conference yesterday, bellowing that "no renewal of...the Protect America Act is dangerous for the security of the country, just dangerous."

Challenging Bush and the GOP to hold true to their rhetoric, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a bill today to extend the PAA for 30 days while negotiations between the House and Senate proceed:

As we move forward, there is no reason not to extend the Protect America Act to ensure that there are no gaps in our intelligence gathering capabilities. Even Admiral McConnell, the Director of national Intelligence, has testified that such an extension would be valuable. But the President threatens to veto an extension, and our Republican colleagues continue, inexplicably, to oppose it.

Predictably, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) objected to Reid's unanimous consent motion, effectively rejecting the extension.

Despite their claims that "America is at risk" without the Protect America Act, the White House and congressional conservatives have been unwilling to take actions that would lead to its extension. As Reid noted today, the House and Senate have been working since the passage of the Senate bill to reconcile difference between the two chambers, but "Republicans have instructed their staff not to participate in these negotiations."

If Bush and his congressional cronies truly believed that America is "open to attack" without the PAA, they'd support a temporary extension and engage in good faith negotiations. Since they haven't, it's clear they're more interested in playing political games than working to protect Americans.'

kruetz: I vote, my wife votes and my 92 year old mom in Texas. I presume that your vote is the only one that counts. All of us worked our tails off for a new Senate and to end the war. It will happen with either candidate, so lets just take a deep breath on Wednesday, respect one another's heart filled positions and let things work out, that is the democratic way. And let's show respect for the millions of voices in Fla and Michigan who deserve in a Fair way to have their voices heard as well.

Interesting point on Tweety show:

The early vote now favors Obama, so a sudden turn doesn't help Hillary as much...just the reversal of California.

Gets curiouser and curiouser.

drindl's just mad

drindl's always mad, in the traditional sense of the word as well. Her day consists of finding the best reason to stay loony on that day. today, an outdoor BBQ elicits outrage.

these are the adolescents I am talking about. the Dem base. the ones who still don't get it that bush won in 2000. and the newest one doesn't think there are enemies in Iraq.
don't expect it to make sense, thay can't even nominate a candidate in a reasonable fashion. Watch the meltdown.

"Those delegate counters at CNN etc do not reflect the rather convoluted delegate apportioning process in both Ohio and Texas. Hillary could win the popular vote in both states and still not win more delegates...and probably actually win less than Barack."

They're not based on popular vote, they're just based on whatever you put in. I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt to make a point, but I do believe Obama will probably win the Texas delegate race no matter what the popular vote (Unless some massive boom with Clinton winning by 15 or more occurs).

'Wasn't that meant to be irony? '

supposedly, but it was still really really stupid.

And here's the WSJ licking McCain's boots:

WASHINGTON -- Imagining how John McCain, the Navy war hero, would play the role of commander in chief has been easy. Imagining how John McCain, the policy maverick, would lead as chief executive of the U.S. economy has been tougher.

In a wide-ranging interview last week, Sen. McCain offered the most-detailed account to date of his thinking on economic issues.

The all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee cast himself as a defender of the Bush tax cuts he voted against, but added caveats to a "no new taxes" vow he made on a Sunday television talk show two weeks ago.

On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.'

those of you who consider yourself 'independents' who are voting for McCain -- I ask you--can you tell me ONE THING that John McCain will do differently than George Bush? Just one thing.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and immediately became the focus of demonstrations that underscored Iraq's sectarian split.'

OMG - diplomacy with a neighbor and free demonstrations. I guess we don't need Barack any more.

I must guess that Libs prefer 8 year wars and killing of children along with shooting any demonstrators - the situation before.

Just what is it you Libs stand for any more - blind partisan ignorance of all things good in the world?

this is more of the Obama cognitive dissonance foreign policy. bomb your allies, surrender to your enemies, talk to anyone, hope for the best. too busy to think about it.

Ira, I once did a courtesy for Gov. Smith and he proceeded to appoint me to every thankless unpaid Commission in TX, as a return favor.

He meant well.

"Some even boasted of McCain's cooking skills"

Oooooh those sneaky Republicans! Cooking food and eating it too. The nerve!

drindl's just mad that Obama didn't think of it first. How wonderful that would be, an evening soiree with all the liberal elites, gnoshing on organic arugula and soy-glazed sea bass while the press corps eats up his phony rhetoric.

Those delegate counters at CNN etc do not reflect the rather convoluted delegate apportioning process in both Ohio and Texas. Hillary could win the popular vote in both states and still not win more delegates...and probably actually win less than Barack.

All hell may break loose tomorrow in Texas.

Washington - The Pelosi congress still has not fulfilled its 10 point promise it made to the voters. to date is has not filfilled more than one. and it still can't pass a budget nor end the war, nor lower gas prices.

this accomplishment has resulted in a record low approval rating below 20%, about half of Bush.

One could compare this to the Iraqi parliament, but the Libs don't like anything that makes the Iraqis look good.

"Sounds like the same old argument its my ball and if you don't do it my way I am taking it home."

I stood by while the Supreme COurt overturned the will of the voters in 2000 and Dems did little more than whine about it to raise funds but never agains substantively raised it. I stood by after they enabled Bush to get us into an ill advised war in Iraq, I've stood by while they can't grab a pair and stand up to this failed policy and repeated failed initiatives because they were a bunch of spineless cowards. I helped raise funds and GOTV in 2006 because they said with a majority, real change would happen. Since then, I've been repeatedly told that we now need a Democratic president to get anything done, because control of COngress simply isn't enough, they still need to cave to Bush's every demand because they are still spineless cowards. I am not going to stand by while they overturn my vote becuase those enlightened Democratic officials know better. Baloney.

BAGHDAD -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and immediately became the focus of demonstrations that underscored Iraq's sectarian split.

In Fallujah, Sunni Muslim protesters demonstrated against his visit. Iraq's Sunni vice president showed up late for a reception for Ahmadinejad hosted by Iraq's Kurdish president.

Meanwhile, Iraq's Shiite ruling elite, many of whom had been taken refuge during Saddam Hussein's time in Shiite Iran, listened to Ahmadinejad without need of translation into Arabic, clearly comfortable hearing his Farsi.

Ahmadinejad's trip was a visible sign of what have been growing economic and cultural ties between the two countries since American-led forces toppled Saddam. Iranian economic investment is growing, especially in southern Iraq, millions of Iranians visit Iraq's holy cities of Najaf and Karbala on religious pilgrimages, and Iraqi officials frequently travel to Tehran and other Iranian cities. Iraq's most influential political party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, was founded in Iran.

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's three-man presidency council Wednesday announced that it's vetoed legislation that U.S. officials two weeks ago hailed as significant political progress.

The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach.

Anyone who says that HRC has the "momentum" or has regained the "momentum", is guilty of residing in fantasyland. If you look at the polls in Ohio and Texas, her double digit leads have evaporated since Feb. 5. U cannot argue that she has the "momentum" when Obama now has a slight lead in Texas and is statistically tied in Ohio with HRC.

Obama '08

If you want to experiment with the delegate counts, check out this map CNN just posted:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

It lets you move around the remaining contests to see what Clinton would need to win.

Give Clinton big wins in TX, OH and PA and she's still not close to winning, considering which states Obama still will win with almost no contest (SD, MS, OR, NC). It would take a huge pile of superdelegates to override the popular vote to put Clinton ahead.

And yet, us "dumb" gals aren't placated. Posted by: claudialong | March 3, 2008 04:44 PM

what else is new - you never are. but at least you are honest enough to admit your relative level of intelligence accurately.

Here's a tool for you, go here and see how big Hillary needs to win the rest of the way to win the nomination:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

Give Clinton a 2-1 victory in Ohio (93-48), Texas (127-66), and RI (14 - 7) and Obama a narrow win in Vermont (9-6) (the absolute worst case), and the race is then tied. Anyone reasonably think that's the case?

Let's use more realistic numbers, a tie in Texas (I'll give it to Clinton 100-93), a narrow Clinton win in Ohio (77-64), a 13-8 win in RI, and a 9-6 Obama win in RI; Do all that, the delegate count after tomorrow is 1552 - 1465 in favor of Obama, and that includes her narrowing superdelegate advantage. How does Hillary turn that gap around?

Hillary's problem going forward is money. Her announced $35 Million February take won't be officially reported until late March -- at which time it will likely be revealed that a significant portion of it was from maxed-out donors who could only give money for the General election. In other words, she will be completely out of money on Wednesday morning and her base financial supporters won't be able to help her (even their maids and gardeners have donated $2,300 for the primary already). So the sale she has to make isn't to the voters or to the Superdelegates, but to the people who haven't given her money but who can. Intuitively, that would seem like a rather small universe at this time.

kruez: actually 2025 delegates is a lock on the nomination not 1300 delegates. Don't understand why no one bothers to mention that many states including Ca still have state convention where hundreds of delegates are selected and there is an offer by Gov. Christ of Fla to pay for a revote.

kruetz: have you asked Senators Kerry and Kennedy how they feel about their state's voter's selection of Hillary and how they as superdelegates will be casting their votes. Sounds like the same old argument its my ball and if you don't do it my way I am taking it home.

I imagine that yesterday's Washington Post article about how dumb women are brought in some pretty pi*sed off letters to the editor - after all, there are over 600 comments already. So how does WaPo respond? They change the headline from overtly misogynist to questioningly sexist.

=======================

Wasn't that meant to be irony? or was it serious? Who is the author?

Rove is loving every minute.

how dare that press not attack the Republican at every turn. How will the Libs ever win an election without their help?

Certainly not on the issues? misrepreentation was the Libs last best hope.

I imagine that yesterday's Washington Post article about how dumb women are brought in some pretty pi*sed off letters to the editor - after all, there are over 600 comments already. So how does WaPo respond? They change the headline from overtly misogynist to questioningly sexist.

Yesterday:

Women Aren't Very Bright

Today:

Why do Women Act so Dumb?

And yet, us "dumb" gals aren't placated. Try again, as*holes.

more:

"Soon after the New York Times published an article exploring Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) unetheical relationships with lobbyists, McCain banished reporters covering his presidential bid -- who have been said to be his political "base" -- to the back of his campaign airplane.

But over the weekend, McCain reversed course, hosting a "thank you" cookout on Sunday for over 40 reporters from a wide variety of news outlets -- including the New York Times -- at his vacation home in Arizona.

McCain's latest "charm offensive" to "woo the reporters" and appease his "constituency" may have paid off. After McCain grilled for his guests, shared his secret recipes, and provided guided tours inside and around his "rustic Arizona home," reporters have taken the bait. McCain and the press are back together again. Some highlights from the press accounts of the McCain barbeque:

- "The idea...was to allow reporters to get to know him and his staff under less stressful circumstances. (The fact that the media spent the weekend at a resort called Enchantment probably contributed to that feeling.)"

- "There is something surprising -- perhaps even metaphysically provocative -- about the notion of Mr. Straight Talk in such close proximity to what may be the nation's highest proportion of crystal-wielding psychics."

- "McCain held court the way he does almost daily aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus."

- "McCain comes across as a what-you-see-is-what-you-get guy, not terribly given to brooding or introspective meditation."

- "As grillmaster, he looked like the all-American dad, with a story for every spot in the house."

Some even boasted of McCain's cooking skills:

- "McCain stood over not one, but two gas grills, cooking up ribs and chicken for his guests."

- "So how did they taste? Objectivity prohibits a good reporter from passing judgement, but let's put it this way: everyone wants to come back."

"4 The Superdelegate role is NOT simply to reflect the so-called popular vote, but to ensure that a deadlocked race can be broken in a calm and reasoned fashion."

The math is pretty clear that pretty much whatever happens from here on out, Obama will end the primary season with a 100+ delegate lead. That isn't a deadlock, that's a decisive win under the Democraic nominating process. If the superdelegates ignore my vote and my efforts, F--- THEM, I'm out.

Oh, and good to see KOZ back and acting as though he always supported Senator John McCain as the GOP candidate...

Posted by: anthonyrimell | March 3, 2008 04:32 PM

I always said I would support the candidate. Mccain has many flaws, as all pols who make it to this level do, but he also has the most important good qualities, which make him the best remaining candidate:

1. He wants to win the war, no questions about it
2. He wants to cut taxes and cut spending, no question about it
3. he will appoint better judges than the Lib will

that is enough for me, those are my issues. On most other things he will do no worse than the Lib and is likely to do substantially better. I am getting some satisfaction that he has tangled himself in the campaign finance reform he is famous for, but it looks like Obama is in the same web.

In the end, nominating an ultra-liberal (obama) will be the reason for the Dem defeat in the fall. clinton would have lost too. the voters don't like or trust Dem presidents.

"If Clinton does win Ohio by 10 points and Texas by 6, like some polls show, that would be a big momentum switch"

Since all polls averaged only show Hillary up by 4 in Ohio and down 1 here in Texas sounds like some B.O. supporters here are either spinning or raising the bar. A win is a win even by 1 vote. Isn't that what B.O. said when he won Missouri by less than 1% or does his campaign change the bar when it fits their frame?

And why did kruez dissemble with that 162 number, does that person think we just fell off the turnip truck.

mark I have heard that story since 1973 and always believed it was fiction and good laugh.

The fact is that Hillary would have to win an overwhelming majority of all of the rest of the delegates to reclaim the pledged delegate count, which in my opinion is the only one to look at. If Obama is even ahead by one pledged delegate and Clinton wins because of the superdelegates, there's going to be a hurricane of rage surrounding the months up to the election. It's going to reek, and badly, of Florida circa 2000.

Hillary would have to win by double digits in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, while limiting Obama wins to single-digit margins in NC, SD, WY, MT, VT and OR - all states where he's essentially guaranteed to win - PLUS win a majority of the remaining superdelegates to win the nomination. And my friends, that just isn't going to happen.

I love ribs, Mark. I just don't think it's proper for the ALLEGEDLY non-partisan press to accept invitations to eat them out of McCain's hand.

"If the party was truly ocncerned about November, the supers would have coalesced around one or the other long ago."

that is assuming that the players are not adolescents who can't plan past their next Friday night.

I remain fascinated by those Obama supporters who keep saying that if thre Superdelegates choose HRC over BHO they are bucking the will of the people.

1 A significant number of people have selected HRC as their preferred person. So at best you really mean 'a majority of thos who attended primary and caucus votes'

2 A number of BHO pledged Superdelegates are in states that voted for HRC. On the logic presented to date, Ted Kennedy should be voting for HRC - but he won't will he. In other words, those Superdelegates are making their own minds up. Which leads to ...

4 The Superdelegate role is NOT simply to reflect the so-called popular vote, but to ensure that a deadlocked race can be broken in a calm and reasoned fashion. (As an aside, hysterical calls to Black Superdelegates from Rev Jackson saying that not to vote for BHO is to betray 'their' people - as reported by WPO and other news media - is not by any stretch a calm and reasoned approach.)

This race again shows why both parties need to elect their preferred nominee in either a one-day nationwide ballot or a series of rotating regional primaries.

Oh, and good to see KOZ back and acting as though he always supported Senator John McCain as the GOP candidate...

I am a true Obama supporter. If Clinton does win Ohio by 10 points and Texas by 6, like some polls show, that would be a big momentum switch, and the battle will go on, and should.

Here is why such a result would shock me. With rare exception, since Super Tuesday Obama has gotten much more of the vote than the polls have shown. His turnout machine has been superior. His voters, for one reason or another, do not show up in the polls as much as they... show up at the polling places.

If Clinton turns the tide and wins by decent margins, her campaign staff deserves to crow all week long.

"who knows? It could be a very good year for the Rs after all."

Keep wishing. If the party was truly ocncerned about November, the supers would have coalesced around one or the other long ago. Looks like Richardson will declare for Obama on Wednesday, I wonder how many will follow suit?

Ralph Nader will likely get one vote -- his own.

For anyone interestered in how much this war has already cost:

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on Monday.

The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845 billion directly.

"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.

Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war, health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book details.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN02281702

Proud - I am particularly pleased that Hillary is running ads for McCain and paying for them and approving them.

The math, based on whatever system of mathematics the liberals are using this week, doesn't favor either candidate. I don't see either of them getting to the required number. they will continue to split the delegates.

Had to be Dean that thought this mess up. We love it. spend all your money fighting each other. and showing what a bunch of pathetic crybabies and angry adolescents you all are.

hillary will never, ever admit defeat or mistakes. she will steam ahead, taking what's left of liberalism down with her and BJ.

can you Libs now admit that we (the vrwc) were right about the clintons the whole time?

CNN's most recent estimate shows an overall difference of 109 delegates (including super delegates). Wins in Ohio and Texas by Clinton would definitely give the super delegates more latitude to support her. And, once Florida and Michigan are "accomodated" (and they will be, since those states are too important in the general election to be discounted by the DNC at convention) the math really gets fuzzy.

Mr. Plouffe you should please ask Senator John Kerry if agrees that losing Ohio is insignificant. I recall many of today's B.O. supporters yelling at myDD and dailykos at Senator Kerry in December 2004 when he refused to authorize a recount or challenge after losing Ohio and the Whitehouse by a mere 80,000 Ohio votes. So if Senator Kerry is willing to come before the media in Columbus on Wednesday (without being laughed at) and tell Democrats that losing Ohio means absolutely nothing I will then get fully behind B.O. So we look forward on Wednesday hearing B.O.'s strategy of winning the general election without being able to carry blue collar voters and the electorial votes in Ohio. We will be waiting with baited breath.

zouk, Long time no see! Isn't it wonderful how the libs are attacking each other now, so we don;t have to do it for them. Of course, it would help much more if Team Hillary could come up with a decent narrative and stick with it, instead of lurching from one talking point to the next. My fondest hope is to see their battle continue all the way to the D convention, and with Ralph Nader's help and the disenfranchisement ..... who knows? It could be a very good year for the Rs after all.

PS - Chris you got handled, and for a political junkie that is scary - if you are going to do the story DO THE STORY right and report it using all your information you have garnered the past few weeks. Sheeesh

What I do not understand in the reporting, if Obama went to TX and Ohio as a 20 point underdog in these states and eventually loses the states by less than 5-10 points, how is this a loss for him?

It would seem that the momentum is what closed teh gap, but necessarily took him over the top in two states where he was trailing sizably two weeks ago.

Chris,

You are so obviously pro-Hillary it makes me sick. Keep your bias to yourself...remember how your readers voted not too long ago (pretty sure Barack won HANDILY).

In the early seventies, a black activist named Lee Otis Johnson received a crushing sentence in TX for marijuana possession. The left properly assumed politics were involved, and when then Gov. Preston Smith spoke on the U. Houston campus he was met with cries of "Free Lee Otis!" Smith turned to his campaign manager, Dr. Baum, and said "Elmer, what do they have against frijoles?"
----------------------
Drindl, "What do you have against BBQ ribs?" [grin]

Zouk, I'll answer:

"You maintain that the surge is a "complete failure" and that it hasn't produced stability or political reconciliation. Yet for several months now, most objective accounts have shown that the surge has produced a dramatic reduction in violence, Iraq is becoming stable (albeit tentatively so), and significant political progress is occurring. Why do you refuse to acknowledge these facts, and why do you insist on pulling out of Iraq on the verge of what could be a significant and historic victory? Why shouldn't voters infer that winning the war may be less important to you than scoring political points?"

The Iraqis can't come together on oil (THE main issue), they can't come together on elections, the Sunnis are growing disenfranchized with our ongoing presence, the lull in violence is due as much to Sadr's cease-fire as anything else, which BTW is giving him time to finish his studies to become an Ayatollah, which will allow him to return as a stronger leader than before, and the ongoing Turkish-Kurd cross border ops threaten to destabilize the one area of Iraq that has really been a success story (nevermind that they've been independent for all intensive purposes for 15 years). The purpose of the surge was to give cover for the politicians to come together to stabilize the country to allow us to draw forces down to pre-surge levels. No one doubted that a temporary spike in troops would lead to a temporary spike in violence. The true metric of success always has been: has political reconciliation occurred sufficient to a point where we can begin to draw back forces. Not only are we not willing to end the surge, but Bush and McCain have already said that when we draw back, it will be to about 140,000 soldiers; 5,000-10,000 soldiers more than pre-surge levels. That's not a success in any way.

"You've stated that as president you'd transcend the sharp partisanship that pervades Washington, but you favor a rapid pullout from Iraq, plan significant tax increases, oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, and favor Supreme Court justices in the mold of Stephen Breyer -- positions strongly opposed by most Republicans. Accordingly, on which of these issues would you be willing to compromise, and to what extent?"

Well, there's a couple of strawmen, a little irrelevance, and something that is simply incorrect. The "rapid" drawdown, by Obama's own statements, would take 18 mos -2 years if completed, but he hasn't even committed to a complete withdrawal, much to the chagrin of those on the far left. Breyer is on the left side of the court, but he is the Dem's Kennedy/O'Connor, and most Republicans are perfectly happy with him compared to Ginsburg or Stevens. The same can't be said for Republicans who insist on pushing through right wing activists over the near unanimous opposition of Dems (which McCain, according to his most recent statements, would continue). And I don't see D&E being revisited (except maybe to broaden the health exemption), and I don't see any other abortion bills on the horizon, so this really is a non-issue (but if you want to run on it, feel free...).

"Stephen Moore calculates..."

Ahh, the President of the Club for Growth says so. Yes, let's use those numbers as a starting point (do you still beat your wife, btw?).

Why we won't be seeing any substantive coverage of McCain... he lets the press eat out of his hand. And they wag their little tails!

'It's going to be a long campaign. The Washington Post is so in love with St John of Sedona that it features two different stories in the paper today about a bar-b-que he gave for the boyz on the bus at his "cabin" this week-end. Feel the love:

PAGE SPRINGS, Ariz., March 2 -- If he loses the presidency, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will have a career as a barbecue chef to fall back on.

At his weekend cabin just outside Sedona on Sunday afternoon, McCain took a break from campaigning and grilled ribs and chicken for three dozen reporters, some staff members and a few Republican friends from the Senate.

Dressed in jeans, an L.L. Bean baseball cap, sunglasses and a sweat shirt featuring a picture of his family, McCain held court the way he does almost da