Bill Clinton: Caucuses ‘Killing Us’

And this is the Top Story?!?! Come on ABC, this is another attempt to make the Clinton’s look bad!!
Hillary ’08

and for the people who dont have kids,dont work swing or graveyard,dont have any disabilities and can afford 3 to 6 hours for the process and then to be bullied,horsepuckey.you call that representing the people ,i call it disenfranchisement of a sizable number of people and all you have to do to see it is look at texas 1,100,000 less voters took part in the caucus than the primary and yet its fair,go join chavez in south america you will fit right in

Caucuses are tough for Hillary because:
She is not Likable;
Her support is broad but not DEEP; and
She has POOR organizational and management skills.

SO CHANGE THE PROCESS THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, THEY HAD CAUCUSES WHEN BILL RAN FOR PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT THEM NOW IS POINTLESS,UNLESS YOU ARE A CLINTON AND WANT TO CHANGE THE PROCESS IN THE MIDDLE OF PRIMARY SEASON, PLEASE!

Commander guy… I have taken statistics and studied validity in testing…the caucus process would have “control” problems; whereas, the primary is conducted in an organized, convenient, controlled fashion or much more “unbiased” fashion. I am not saying the primary is perfect, but it is much closer to perfect than the caucus and the primary is the same style of voting that will be in the general election. That is why the caucuses are always so skewed, they are not truly representative.

Obama will make history if he is chosen as the nominee without winning OH/PA/NJ/NY/FL/CA

BILL: PRAISING MCCAIN.
Bill go find something else to do.

annon say “the primary is conducted in an organized, convenient, controlled fashion or much more “unbiased” fashion.”
Well maybe but ….
There are no butterfly ballots, no troublesome touch screens, no disappearing electronic votes, no diabolical diebolds, no hanging chads, pregnant chads, swinging chads, etc and no kathleen harris.
The rules are the rules and the Clintons knew the rules…..they were just underprepared.

A lot of Clinton supporters may have had to work or were too old to drive great distances, etc to participate in a lengthy caucus process… their votes aren’t important? It is a legitimate argument, and one the news basically ignores. It may not seem that interesting but it is extremely relevant.

Caucuses have been around for almost 300 years….And were popularized by the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party pushed the caucus system west as the country was settled.
If you don’t like the system, change it for the next time around.

Bill Clinton had no problem with caucuses when he won them.

Actually Commander Guy, I think the disabled folks in caucus states should bring lawsuits against their political parties. I suspect many would be successful getting them eliminated as one could easily argue that caucuses violate the ADA.

Actually I find it amazing that we are even talking about this. A few months ago I thought that Hillary had this sewed up, had she, noone would have any problem with the process at all.
Oh well I guess we weren’t ready from day 1

Yep – Thinking.
Hillary was/is unprepared.
Just like she thought she could use the phony Bosnian Adventure tale to embellish her resume. She was not prepared for the internets exposing the b s.

What a MISLEADING HEADLINE, ABC!!!
I didn’t think you were in the tank for Obama like NBC is (the National Barack Channel)….
Bill Clinton was discussing his wife’s chances of winning the Texas caucuses, not lamenting about caucuses!!!
Obama/Rezko ’08: “Change without experience”

Suzanne
OK. A sad situation. Agreed. But ADA?
So you have a mission. Work from within the party to change the rules.

Those pesky little caucus things, that just happen to be one of the oldest and most pure forms of democracy in America. Yeah they are a problem for candidates who rely on modern mass media commercials, party connections, and TV sound bites.

And bill clinton needs to just go away. I am oh so sick of him!

There is also this nonsense notion that the AMERICAN PEOPLE decide who the Republican and Democratic nominee is.
Both of these parties are PRIVATE parties. There is no consitutional right to vote in a caucus or primary.
Caucus’s are designed to DRUMM up support from newcomers , and cut down on costs, in states with few voters.
If you havent noticed, sparsley populated and states admitted to the union later have causus’s. All the established older states have primaries.
They should have primaries , as there are primarires in the general election.
To drum up support, they should hold RALLIES on the day of the primary or the day before to sign up people to the party. They can then vote in private ballot on the spot to boot in the primary .
In other words. Caucus all day everywhere if you want. Just private vote and held all day so everyone can go.

55 states and territories make their own election rules — to suit themselves and their dominant political parties. You want to change the rules? You will have to do so state by state.
Fair? Politics isn’t into fair; it’s about winning power politically, which historically has been done through two major political parties. And caucuses are indeed about whose got the stomach to stand up, wear down the other side, and win on the long march. That’s why they are so valuable — they produce the hard core political light cavalry base. So if you’re working the night shift, and if you can’t take off four hours, then you ain’t prime for the political trenches of door belling and phoning and like that.
The Clinton’s and their cadre have consistently tried –and often succeeded — to tailor perspectives to suit their ends. And that’s fine. But in the end this process makes only one kind of sausage, a count-one delegate. Some are locked up (by state and Party rules) and some can do whatever they want whenever they want to. There is a single number the winner has to beat in the total final count. It doesn’t look like the primaries and caucuses can produce the necessary number. So it falls to the Party leaders who have voted with their lives to decide what’s their best shot for November and for the Post-Reagan era ahead. “Fair,” as Mr. Bill can tell is for whiners. It’s bare knuckles and hard ball now, which is historically how the Democratic Party has handled its affairs before Gov. Bill yupped them up with his Leadership Group. I personally don’t think the Clinton’s are going to do too well when the doors of the now smoke-free rooms close. Outa sight with the party elders where Sen. Clinton’s anger and Pres. Clinton’s swagger will be ineffective tools, the Supers are going to see Obama perform as the kind of end-game political master we need as President and they need as the leader of their Party.
The Clinton’s made one big mistake which they are incapable of seeing: They think nobody is better at this game than they are. But Obama really is, and has built his own grassroots, coast-to-coast political machine in this process. The Clinton’s and the press think he’s a nice guy chump. But he’s going to do them the Chicago way, love ‘em to death.

If you don’t like the caucuses work to change the system for the next time.
Otherwise, it’s like an old Mark Twain quote:
Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does a darn thing about it.

valenti “They also seem to only occur in states that are reliably republican.”
These things ain’t new. They were pushed west by the Democratic Party…. you know old time populism. What about the Washington State? It is about as liberal as they go. It was know a the soviet of Washington in the Old days.
You don’t like the caucus? Or is it that you don’t like the fact that Hillary got the thumpin?

annon say: “my husband has a particularly important case representing the little guy against “the man” ….I still think caucuses are unfair….”
This is exactly why the caucus system spread. Populism and the little guy getting screwed.

Unlike the posters here, I actually participated in the Texas caucus. There were thousands and thousands of working poor, parents, disabled and elderly who cared enough to participate. Both campaigns went to great lengths to make sure their supporters got to the precinct conventions (that’s what we call them here). Just about the only people who didn’t show up were the republican rushbots voting for “chaos” (and they’ve gotten it, haven’t they?). The only difference, Obama supporters were urged to cooperate, Clinton supporters were instructed to “challenge every step of the process”. Believe me, Hillary supporters were there, en mass & meaner than hell. They wrung out every single vote they could. They had the same opportunity – there just weren’t as many REAL hillary supporters. What should be questioned is the the primary results. If you don’t believe me, just call up the Texas Democratic Party or the Dallas Morning News (or any of the other major newspapers down here) & they’ll tell you the same thing I’m telling you.

Dismissing the needs of the disabled is un-American.

Hillary is just not likable.
People are not gonna caucus for her in big numbers. Sad. True. Life goes on.

You can’t change the rules after you have played your cards and lost.
Clinton is right about one thing, they are losing. They have to stop whining and go away.

Caucases aren’t killing us. Bill, Hillary, and CNN are. OBAMA ’08

Kelly
I’d be better if everyone got free ice cream, too.
Hillary was not ready one day one.
She got beat.

I am a democrat and support Hillary, in fact, I could support almost any reasonable democratic candidate. What I do not understand though is why do so many Obama supporters have such a fanatic attitude. Honestly, it scares me. I get scared of any type of extremists…y’all seem to get so angry when anyone criticizes Barack or does not agree with you. Reasonable minds can and will disagree, some of us people who are a little older, might have some wisdom to convey…Clinton’s years were excellent overall for the country…I suspect Hillary Clinton could be an excellent president as well.

Supplysiders, creationists, global warming deniers and Clintonites all got something in common.
Facts s u x .
The numbers are what they are. You can’t change them after the fact to suit your needs.

Alison: Are you saying that Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich were on the ballot in Michigan?

Go Obama we are glad to know that you are still being tough. Let the Clintons continue to bew mean. God will take ccare of the one who wait upon him. BE OF GOOD COURAGE WAIT ON THE LORD. I pray daily for Obama and his campaign. I just feel that they need prayer. God is the impossible God.

Yep…
The Caucuses sure are Killing Bill and Hillary
Meanwhile, the idiotic war Hillary created with George Bush is KILLING 4000 americans, maiming tens of thousands, and KILLING over 100,000 Iraqis.
She can’t lead. She seemingly can’t even tell the truth. Maybe the PTSD from all that sniper fire is finally getting to her.

Kelly
How can you be so unconditionally supportive of Bill42′s Wife.

you could throw a dart in the 1990′s and hit a good stock I made A LOT OF MONEY in the 1990′s I think we can do it again. These people are probably ###### cause they didn’t get any of it….

Commanader Guy:
I am not unconditionally supportive of Hillary clinton. I know why I am voting for her. Do you know why you are not

That doesn’t answer my question.

All Barack Obama supporters, please focus on campaigning against John McCain. He is our opponent. And he is already defeated.
Please pass it on….

Kelly say: “I cannot beleive that so many people have their feeling hurt because a politician lied. ”
Finally a Hillary Fan admits that Hillary’s sole claim to fame is her familarity with the dark arts of politics.
She does not have policy experience (sinbad) but she knows all about how to kneecap an opponent and how to skillfully lie without missing a moment of sleep.
Apart from her lips moving, you can tell when she’s lying by the vapid expression on her face. She gotta work on that.
But this is her experience. And she got it.
All you Hillary Fans should be proud of how easily Hillary Lies.
This is why you support her, is it not?

Who are the people in here anyway? Some of you sound real with a real point and some just write these huge diatribes. I mean come on either you are overzealous or phony baloney. The truth is in Texas we had two different results, where Clinton won the primary and Obama the caucus–it does not add up. I am going to sleep, have fun with your ten page essays and calling people names.

Bill must be exhausted moving those goal posts every few days.
Let’s see…
Attack the messenger, change the rules, move the goal posts, lie, blackmail the Superdelegates, threaten the DNC, hide your records, delay your taxes, play the race card, rewrite history, cry, scare old people, bribe voters, manipulate war votes, nuts and sluts, and James Carville.
The definition of a con artist is someone who can perfectly imitate the actions of on honest person.
C’mon, Pennslyvania… wise up.

The Commander guy: Read up on caucuses. They are far from democratic. People stand in groups and if one group has a small amount of people, those people have a chance to change their vote, or their vote doesn’t count. Also people tend to vote by what they know the majority is voting, rather than being unaware of the popular vote. I think they are legitimate wins, but I would like to see more of a primary/caucus strategy.

Yes, caucuses are killing Clinton because only true Democrats will go thru the effort of attending a caucus. Rush Limbaugh Republicans will show up at the polls to vote in a Primary to keep Hillary in the race, but they will not go to a caucus.

Just another way to parse the numbers and look for an argument. It’s like having the most yards but losing on points. Too bad Bill. Ya shoulda thought of it before the caucuses.

The Clintons realize they have little chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2008. They also realize that if Obama is elected, the Clintons will never have another chance to be elected President. On the other hand, if McCain is elected, the Clintons will have another chance in 2012. Seen in this light, their actions in praising Republican John McCain while attacking Obama(McCain is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, and a patriot, Obama is not, etc.) makes perfect sense.
CLINTON 2012!

Anything that portrays the Clintons in a poor light is a top news story. The media has not done a fair job in giving the candidates equal time. This was very noticeable when Edwards was running and was left out of the media spotlight. Now it seems, the majority of negative stories are about Hillary. It is not as if she is doing anything that people should be that critical of. Both campaigns have said and done the wrong thing.
It is the DNC that Democrats should be pissed off at. A survey showed that among those who will vote for Clinton, 30% say they will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee. 19% say the same about Obama. Unfortunately, the DNC has a lot to do with all of this.
I cannot believe that people in the United States are not allowed to vote to decide who their presidential nominee will be. It just is not right that those we elect to represent us could not find a solution to give us one of our most valued rights in this country.
The Democratic Party = An Equal Opportunity Destroyer

Kelly you keep saying the Republicans are going to do what you are already doing. If you think that Clinton is far more electable, then why don’t you get her elected. It seems that there is one big flaw in your argument. She isn’t going to get the chance. You are basing your argument on your own perception of people’s bigotry but there is no proof that you are correct. You can use past examples which have similarities but until Obama gets the chance to run, your statements are mere conjecture and based on your own world view. So as it stands there is no proof that you are correct. And it is certainly not convincing to the supporters of Obama. It actually has done more damage to Clinton. Her negatives have gone down more that Obama. So if this is your last desperate effort to damage Obama, you are out of luck. It will not work.

I can personally attest to the undemocratic nature of caucuses. I wasn;t able to participate in the WA state caucuses because I had to travel for work. I am a huge Hiiillary supporter but had no opportunity to share my voice, I am still so angry b/c I have never been so passionate for a candidate in my lifetime. Thee general election doess not have caucuses – It has primaries. So I don;t even see why caucuses exist. They are not reflective of the will of the people.

Here’s another possibility.
Hillar Clinton won bigger states. These bigger states also have more superdelagates. If at the convention in August they determine that the superdelagates must vote along with the will of the people from their states the Hillary clinto will at that point have more superdelagtes.
Alsdo this would mean that endorsements like Richardson, Kerry and Kennedy would all go to Hillary Clinton.
Highly possible outcome. Obama has by no means won this election.

Hillary clinton has won states that have more superdelagates. She would in fact have more votes. In addition there would be florida and Michigan superdelagates that would be able to vote however they please. We all know Clinton would take more of those..

well if big mouth Pelosi wants it her way, then anyone that is supporting one candidate but their state voted for another then they would have to change to be in sync with the voters. that’s what kelly is saying. it doesn’t matter who they like to support but what matters is who their state voted for. OR keep it the way it is, superdelegates have the option to vote for the one they feel would win the election, and they can switch anytime and those are the rules not Pelosi.

The commander guy: Let me go on record that Obama wins the caucuses because he cannot win the big states like Hillary. He has won one big state, Illinois and the rest are mainly nickel and dime states. He couldn’t win the big states in a general election. Those states don’t want his as president that’s why they vote for him.

Bill Clinton didn’t cinch the nomination in 1992 until June. There are still 10 states left to vote. And a sesnsible compromise over how we are going to fix Florida and Michigan. It isn’t over for a while to come. And it may even go till the convention in August.

ABC, what happen to the Rezo case? There is still a wide gap on the adulthood of Obama. Let’s bring Obama’s supporters to the “Moment of Truth” ABC TV program.

I live in Texas….where most of the older people only got 2/3 of a vote because they couldn’t attend the caucus. And to top it off there were lots of Obama caucases that signed in people at the vote and submitted the signatures with causcaus attendees. It was outrageous but the Obama attorneys are hell bent on not allowing an investigation.
It’s a crazy system and you can bet that it will be changed after this fiasco. In the meantime, we had the most undemocratic vote in history down here…..at least the last 1/3 of it.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. If I wanted the Mccain campaign to win I would tell you to vote for Obama. He is an easy beat. do you remeber that game show the weakest link? Obama is the weakest link.

THE ARGUMENT OF WINNING THE BIG STATES
SEEMS A JOKE BECAUSE:
1) DEMOCRATS NEARLY ALWAYS WIN the bggest,NY and CALIFORNIA ANYWAY
2) And here comes the big joke : the CLINTON propose to DISENFRANCHISE the DEM voters in the usually RED STATES
3) And the fact that in the internal
promaries a certain candidate has more vote then another, who says that he has
more possibility to win over the GOP candidate ?? History does not support
this theory
4) And again, if the superdelegates in their wisdom are permitted to override
the primary pledged delegates will, WHY IN GODS NAME PRIMARIES ARE HOLD AT ALL ?

I think Kelly is right. Obama has a lot more inflammotory issues to which to answer. I have hear the media likes Obama but they also really like McCain. Sometimes I wonder if the media is just trying to get McCain elected. My nephew is in Iraq and supposed to go back in April of 2009, poor kid– he has already done one tour and such a nice, smart boy.

So before you make accusations that Obama stopped the primaries in FL and MI you might want to check the facts. I would not base my belief on what Clinton says. It is very likely that she is misspeaking. The FL revote is stopped because the FL legislature stopped it. And the MI revote is stopped because the MI court in conjunction with the MI Democratic rules stopped it. This is not Obama and if you repeat this distortion of the truth it is a big old misstatement.

Tom: The democrats always win the big states is true but Obama couldn’t win them because they don’t want his as president of this country. Yes, he won more states but he won the nickel and dime states. There will be a problem at the convention between Hillary and Obama and Obama will not win the presidency even if he wins the nomination. McCain would wipe him out. Especially if he can get Rice to be his VP because she is well liked. Obama is trying to get Bloomberg because he knows what the chances are against McCain and they are not good.

No actually Barack writes all of his speeches himself and by all accounts is brilliant. I will also say the Clinton is known to be extremely intelligent. Now the Republicans are a different story. Bush of course can’t even count as high as his IQ which is not because his IQ is high. And McCain, while a bit smarter than Bush graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. He prides himself about knowing nothing about the economy. So we can be assured that the intelligent candidates are the Democrats.

ok, how many ways are the Clintons going to cherry pick the results to make it look like they are either winning or that it is closer than it really is. This is the point where you have to seriously look at yourself and say, damn, I’m getting pathetic!

Geneva,
The issue many veterans, especially combat veterans have NOW with Hillary Clinton is she crossed a very important line with many of us.
The recent “flap” over her Bosnia remarks for many are not simply a fishing tale or a hallucination based upon sleep deprivation. They are the unabashed claim of commander in chief experience based upon being subjected to hostile fire. The video and direct reporting of the event has complete debunked her claims to the point Hillary had to actually say she “misspoke”.
having been in combat areas and having been visited there by VIP’s I can tell you with supreme confidence that a secret service protectee is not allowed to walk down a city street here in America without serious armed protection. these procedures are even more stringent in areas not controlled by American law enforcement. so ant attempt to say that Hillary was in dangerous surroundings when she visited a couple of outposts because snipers were deployed on the perimeter is as hollow as her Tuzla claims.
all of this is sop unfortunate because Bill Clinton had been doing such a fine job in VFW halls and the like questioning Obama’s patriotism.
All of that work is pretty much down the drain.
I understand how for many this whole thing seems a bit overblown. I and many of my combat experienced associates attribute this phenomenon on the basic fact so few in our society have actually volunteered to spend time defending our nation in uniform.
From my perspective this may well be a primary contributing factor in Hillary or her staff not picking up on her misstatements from December to this past week concerning this issue.
Perhaps to Hillary & her staff combat experience really is like going fishing.

Truth be told hee, the caucus process tends to shake out the misinformed and the lazy are clearly self-excluded but then periodic rebuilding of a democracy should not be done by the misinformed or the lazy.
There is plenty of evidence showing that losing in caucuses is why the Clintons claim the process is flawed when the sniper fire lie is they would like us to believe the process is flawed and that’s why they lost.

I think they should abolish this caucus nonsense, it does not reflect the will of all the voters. It leaves too many people out. Primaries, you have all day to go and vote not just a few hours.

I grew up in the clinton years. I know first hand how they worked to together to make this country all that it could be. What we have here, are a group of new democrats voting for a man that makes them feel good. They listen to the republican hate going on here, and take it to heart, just like they take Obama’s empty speeches to heart. They have absolutely no idea about Hillary Clinton and her husband. I don’t need a president to give me inspiration. I can inspire myself. What is truely sad is that 25% of the country is so morally void, that they feel they need a man in office that inspires them. That is a bad sign, not a good sign. Youre morality and inspiration won’t come from anyone other than yourself.

Caucus is not democratic process of voting; in American life, it is hard to dream to vote in caucus. who can manage to vote with disabilities, kids at home, after work, cold weather, etc. Caucus is to elect monarch long time ago and Barack Hussein Obama acting like that…go Caucus.
If Democratic party wants to be really a democratic it has to get rid of caucus in coming days.
Hillary ’08!

VS…stop blaming Obama for Mi and Fl…their delegates chose to dot this.

Yeah Alexis, that change is gonna be Hillary in the general election, not Obama. Nobody’s won yet.

Obama is gonna get pummeled in PA in a few weeks.

In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular vote by 4%.
In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won popular vote by 5%.
What does the number tell us? If we transfer all the caucuses to primaries based on TX and WA votes, then Obama was defeated by Clinton in popular vote with a rather large margin.
Conclusion? Obama has no chance winning general election unless his campaign change general election to caucus. Yes, you can????
Suggestion? Senator Obama, please quit right now before you hurt the democratic party too much.

LOL, Obama is not going to get pummeled in Penn. He just picked up the endorsement of the Penn Senator today. The latest polls had Clinton up 10 and with her lies and Obama picking up more endorsements the Penn race will tighten…. Clinton will probably still win but it won’t be a big win like she thought.
Clinton continues to show that she is a liar and will do ANYTHING to win this nomination. I do not trust Clinton at all.

Clinton doesn’t need any help looking bad. She does a fine job of that herself.

BK,
Obama is a liar as well…lol. Might I bring up Wright, Rezko, Nafta. Depends which poll you look at.

The approach Obama has taken, is the same approach Bush and other Republicans have taken against Democrats in the last two general elections.
Don’t put all your focus in the big states. If you win one or two, great, if not, the smaller states will add up. Winning all the big states means nothing. Ask AL Gore and John Kerry!
Stop using your heart to think!

I don’t think Bill Clinton had any objection to the caucus system when he was winning them during his campaigns!
Folks, this is just desperate spin. If you don’t like the system, then work to change it. But these are the rules and system we had going into this campaign, and Hillary lost fair and square.

If we had just primaries we wouldn’t be in this predicament, there would have been a clear winner and that wouldn’t have been Obama.

J- Your right about Obama lying, misspeaking, whatever you want to call it. But there’s a difference between he and Clinton; he has shown consistency in clarifying when she has not. Moreover, it’s hard to compare misspeaking about Rezko, Wright, Nafta(Nafta?), and being shot at.
Would you not agree?

Interesting how Bill uses the phrase “killing US”. Somehow I think he means far more than just empathy for his wife. But as to the article, as I understand it one main difference between caucuses and primaries is that the states run primaries and the parties hold caucuses. Maybe Clinton is being killed in the caucuses because people in the Democratic Party want Obama and she should take a hint.

Again J-
Casey’s endorsement is a big deal; he’s a SuperD. You continue to think with your heart. It’s not a wise move.

SirChalie,
He sidesteps any question he is asked on anything controversial. Stammering and stuttering. The only reason he gave that speech is because he knew his rear end was caught in lie and it would cost him votes.
This is pointless because even if he is the nominee, he won’t survive the general election. Some of you people hate the Clintons so much for whatever reasons that it is senseless responding to you.

If the caucus process is so unfair, why did Hillary spend so much time and money in Iowa? Participation was record making this time around. The caucus process in Iowa means that you must stand up in public and show your support for your candidate. It is not something we take lightly. As far as inclusion goes, most sites are accessible and rides and childcare are arranged for those who need them. I am glad I did not waste my support on Clinton since she would not consider it valid.

In other news, the Los Angles Lakers declared victory because they had a higher free throw shooting percentage despite losing in total points.
The logic of the Clinton campaign is ridiculous. Is it me, or did everyone agree at the start of the campaign that caucuses are part of the process?
TIME TO DROP OUT HILL YOU CAN”T WIN!

Attempt? Nobody has to attempt to make the Clinton’s look bad. They do that just fine all by themselves. :)

In the run-up to the Texas “Primacaucus” Hillary said: “I had no idea how complicated the process was.” If she wanted to be president so bad, she should have “been ready on Day One” of the campaign to anticipate there could possibly be significant opposition to her hopes and dreams of being elected. Is this the kind of “readiness” we really want to elect?

Bill, it’s over. Hillary is not going to win the nomination. She should drop out of the race now and endorse Obama. It’d unite the party; it’d help the country; and it’d boost Hillary herself.
BTW, I attended my local caucus in Washington state, and it was the most democratic affair I’ve ever experienced….

People in Florida and Michigan should please question Hillary why she did not fight for their votes from day 1! She broke party roles and want to make sense out of it. What makes Hillary think she may win if a revote is conducted? You do realise that Obama pressed for this votes to be shared equally amongst them in order to have their voices heard but Clintons refused. Obama is a reasonable man, he did not start the crisis in those states.
What amuses me the most is that Clintons did not see this race to go on this far! That is clueless which is typically appalling for those who believe something is signed and delivered to them as a right! Obama planned really well and don’t be fooled to think he did not know that the race will come down to this. Now he has placed America in a tight corner, if you give the nomination to Clintons who are behind in delegate count, the world will say that America cannot change from their old ways, if you destroy him, it will boil down to what happened to MLK AND JFK. Obama has ran a clean campaign and externalised lobbyist from his financial needs, raised more money than those who depend on lobbyist thus making them irrelevant and now they are threatening.
I am so thrilled and amused by day that every dirt thrown at him washes him cleaner and most of you are busy turning red instead of understanding that a Man is here with a sense of understanding on how things are done in the 21st century. Brand loyalty in marketing is no more; consumers are more spontaneous this days. Obama understands that.
Americans need change more than anything, right now and this year and Obama has created himself as an embodiment of change. You have to blame IOWA for creating this hope in America otherwise you may well thank Iowa in future for their choice. God bless America.

Hillary has given us the most elegant descriptions for lies that I have ever heard in my lifetime. Her actions have revealed her true character and allowed us to see her naked ambition to win at any cost, even if it means dumping principle for political advantage. The only believable statement possible to believe from either Hillary or Bill Clinton now is if one of them admits that they have genuinely forgotten how to tell the plain truth.

Clintons feel that they own the democratic party and thus will detect how things are done, The party has really tolerated them this far. If Obama was behind in delegate count, will Dean not have long encouraged Obama to step aside? Dissident voices should not be taken for granted you know, because the whole rash today is because Clintons are behind and the press has obviously been bought over to destroy Obama. I give it up to ABC news for sometimes managing to balance its report. Fox is terrible and so forth but should this media houses not represent your voice, my voice and not the voices of opponents? Clinton is a bad loser and that is why they are not fit for the white house, NY is regretting voting her way. Period.

A Caucus favors:
- A black horse type of candidate.
- The young
A Caucus would be bias against:
- The seniors
- Working wifes who are at home
with kids
- Those who work in the evening
I understand why Obama does better when a Caucus is held. In Washington State, Obama won the Caucus by a large margin but Obama just barely won the primary. In Texas Obama LOST the primary by 4% points but slightly won the Caucus.
IT IS **NOT** the “Will of the People” for Hillary to win 4% more of the popular vote in Texas bu Obama wins more delegates in Texas. THIS IS UNFAIR — AND — DOESN”T Represent the Will Of the People.
I suspect that Hillary would have won some of those small red states had their been primaries instead of caucus so that her older seniors and middle class working mothers could vote. Spending 2 hours at a caucus isn’t the way to run an election!!!!
NOTE: I do support Iowa as a Caucus state due to it being first and its tradition.

Jacob since when has caucus become a problem. Can you tell me if it was fair when Clinton won the nomination? Aside Caucus, are you suggesting that Clintons would have thus far be leading in delegates?

I like caucuses. It actually requires a commitment, thus keeping the uninformed riffraff from tilting the election too much. I’m sick of having our elected leaders chosen by people who know nothing more than a familiar name. Just look at Ohio. Obama won every city by a 10 to 20 point margin, but lost all the rural counties by 30 to 40. Have any of you ever driven through rural Ohio? A lot of those people shouldn’t be allowed to breed, let alone vote. Anyway, Hillary had every bit as much opportunity as Obama to mobilize her supporters. The problem was that she was so arrogant that she didn’t even bother campaigning in these primarily Western caucus states. Just like the Clintons to play victim due to their own incompetence and lack of foresight. Obama, the rookie, has run circles around Mrs.Day One in this campaign.

Hugo, Yes I am saying that if we based this only on Primaries that Hillary would have the delegate lead.
Without the Texas Caucus, Hillary would have received 20 to 30 more delegates than Obama. This would amount to moving 20-30 delegates from Obama’s conor and put them in Clinton’s conor.
Also, Hillary would have at the very least been closer in some of those caucus states if primaries were held. And in some cases, she would have won those states.
NOTE: Let us not forget about Florida and Michigan. Both would strongly go for Hillary. In the case of Florida, I suspect she would win that state by a bigger percentage on a revote given the anti-jewish statements made by Wright (still friend of Obama).

what a joke ‘J’,
I am just sick of the Obama supporters condemning Hillary for ever little thing and thinking this man is going to save the world. At least again in this election I will have a clear conscience that I didn’t vote for ‘another mistake’.
You people act like he doesn’t lie and is so squeaky clean. It’s getting old.
It doesn’t matter anyway, if he is the nominee, and I pray to God he isn’t then he won’t survive the Republican attacks on him. He whines like a baby now and Hillary really hasn’t unleashed on him.

So what? Caucuses are, and have been, part of the election process for decades. We can argue over the fairness of them all we want, but they are part of the process regardless. Hillary spent months in Iowa before the caucus and lost. Why is everything an excuse with them? Even with caucuses thrown out, she STILL is behind in delegates. This is such sour grapes. The implication with these guys is always that if it doesn’t benefit her, then it isn’t fair or relevant. Obama is beating her every way possible, and still gets no credit from them. Such poor sports. If this was reversed, and Hillary was ahead like Obama, we would laugh at him for suggesting that caucuses “aren’t fair”. I can’t wait until they just go away forever.

Re: J’s post above
The ditto heads are pushing for HRC because of serious mistrust of Mac and BO.
They are being legit. Old saying.. Devil you know is better then the one you dont know.

Anyone else notice the “us” and “we” in Bill’s comments. “We can still win…” I thought Hillary was running, not the both of them.

Caucuses favor people who can’t rig elections with Diebold machines! Go Obama!!

I voted in the Texas caucus system. I took my kids with me. It lasted for 4 hours and it was difficult, but it was important to me and my family. I took off work to do it and took my kids with me. This statement that former President Clinton makes an excuse after the fact and miminized the sacrifices I made to cast my vote. I was proud to caucus and I don’t like the Clinton’s telling me my sacrifices to do so are undemocratic. I’m sick of people complaining about the rules they agreed to. Their loses point to their lack of organization, leadership, and planning. Those reasons alone should cause us to question their abilities for a 3rd Clinton term.

workmonkey hit the nail on the head. If the Clinton’s were winning caucuses would be wonderful. This is not about the worthiness of caucuses, it is about the fact that they Clintons are losing.

Its not about the caucuses Bill. If you want to use that as an excuse for Hillary, fine.
But Obama is winning because he has run a better, cleaner campaign, and because he’s talented, smart, determined, and enthusiastic.

To Mark:
If that is true, then let us do away with caucuses in 2012. Fine. Send me a petition. But they are still valid in 2008, which happens to be the year of this election. Knocking Obama for winning according to the long-established traditions in the Democratic election process is sour grapes. They are both playing by the same rules: One happens to be doing better, so instead of complimenting your opponent, you attack the rules? You sound like a football fan complaining that the refs “stole” the game from you. Look, caucuses, for better or for worse, are part of the system. Hillary, with all her experience, had to have known this. So why are you making excuses for her?

Russell comments:
“If the Clinton’s were winning caucuses would be wonderful. This is not about the worthiness of caucuses, it is about the fact that they Clintons are losing.”
I must respond to this comment. That is simply the way that life works. When there are bugs in the process, those bugs only get identified and worked out when they effect someone negatively. This is the way all bugs and problems are identified and corrected. Some people initially benefit from the biases and others are adversely effected. In this case the biases in the caucuses favored Obama heavily and put Hillary at a disadvantage.
But regardless, Caucuses in general are NOT a democratic way to do business.
Only in the early state of Iowa does a caucus provide some fairness and that is because of all the early door-to-door campaigning there and because it is a very very small state.

Obama camp believes the super delegates need to vote with their constituents. Does this mean Obama will not accept the super delegate vote of Richardson or Kennedy? Just wondering….

To WorkMonkey:
Thanks for understanding about Caucus. And I agree with you for this election the Rules are the Rules – even though I am a Hillary supporter.
However, the reason that I suspect that Bill Clinton raised the issue of Caucus biases is NOT because he wants to change the rules mid-way. Bill Clinton is raising the issue so that the non-binding delegates (superdelegates) take into consideration that the Caucus provide an unfair bias toward Obama and that after all primaries have completed in June, that Hillary would have more pledged delgates and a larger popular vote in states that hold primaries versus caucuses.
So the RUles are the Rules as to caucuses but also the Rules allow the superdelegates to base their vote on many factors. Bill Clinton is just pointing out (fairly) the issue with the Caucus.

The title of this article minimizes the fact that Hillary may well win the popular vote in this primary contest. And Bill’s right, Hillary will likely win PA, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana. Of course the caucuses are biased and undemocratic, and the superdelegates know it. The will of the people IS Hillary Clinton, and that should be clear to the superdelegates at the convention.

One WAS a President, the other IS a Senator. So…with the Clinton’s power of persuasion, visionary foresight, and being in the right jobs at the right time to change this, why are they complaining now?

someone said:
Suzanne, the caucus is a democratic process which was used for many years. If Hilalry is not winning them that is not mean that they are antidemocratic. Let us avoid duminishing a win of the over side. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
==============================================
what’s anti-democratic about them is that by nature of how they are conducted they exclude so many people than can’t attend.

if the dems awarded the delegates like the repubs do, winner take all by state, like the electorial votes are allocated, hillery would now have 1961, and obama would have 1656. if you add in michigan and florida she’d have 2282, and she would already be the winner. even if you don’t add in fl and mi, once pa votes she would have won enough to be the nominee.
if the dems want to win more presidential elections, maybe they should consider awarding the delegates the way the presidential election awards them – maybe then they’ll get more winning candidates.

Hillary is getting more and more desprite as the days go on. Some of the things Hill and Bill are coming up with is getting scary. Seems that they are trying to change the whole election rules.

“A primary is the test of the ability to raise money for television advertising,” Democratic Party state Chairman Dwight Pelz said. “Caucuses are a test of your ability to organize a grass-roots campaign.”

The caucus results are unreliable and have not all been run per the proper rules. So their results are questionable. Hopefully next time the DNC will change to a total primary system so the voters decisions can be accurately reflected.

Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900′s. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend. At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state’s interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.
In the early twentieth century there was a movement to give more power to citizens in the selection of candidates for the party’s nomination. The primary election developed from this reform movement. In a primary election, registered voters may participate in choosing the candidate for the party’s nomination by voting through secret ballot, as in a general election.
In some states a combination of the primary and caucus systems are used. The primary serves as a measure of public opinion but is not necessarily binding in choosing delegates.

Caucus? Bill Clinton grabbed everyone of those that he could regaurdless of how small it was when he ran for President. Get the news media out of these elections and things would run a lot smother and less hassel.

Fred, it is Obama who lied and has poor judgement.
The problem is Obama “judgement” to seek out and choose this church with Wright as pastor and that Obama admits that he sat in the pews and heard some controversial comments.
Obama has made a central part of his campaign for the presidency that it is not so much experience that counts, but rather judgment. While experience is much more important than he would have the voters believe, he is right to focus on judgment as a critical factor in the determination as to whom should be our next president.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as he very well may be, then voters in November should ask themselves not how good his speech was, but rather what kind of judgment has he actually exhibited with respect to the deeply divisive views of the Rev. Wright.

I actually prefer caucuses because it keeps many of the people who are apathetic and uneducated about the candidates OUT of the election process.
The voters who are more educated about the issues and the candidates and have more passion about it WILL turn out to caucus.
As far as ADA, I’m sure most, if not all, of the caucus locations are accessible to the disabled. If not, that would definately be something to address.
But the problem lies not in the caucus system itself, but your way of thinking. If you believe like the founders of our nation, then you believe that the most educated people should naturally make the decisions, and the people who don’t know anything about any of the issues should not make decisions on those issues.

Doesn’t matter – caucuses or primaries. McCain is going to eat their lunch.

How is it a fair election when in a caucus it takes about 2200 votes to receive a pledged delegate and in a primary, it takes about 11,500 votes to receive a pledged delegate.
If the Democrats where using the same system as the Republicans, then Hillary would have about 1400 delegates and Obama would have about 1000.
Caucuses favor those who have the 4 hours to committ to the process, this is why they are attended by far fewer people than in a primary.

Caucuses are a poor method for selecting delegates as they disenfranchise too many voters but rules are rules and we can’t change them mid-stream. The Rules are the Rules. Maybe they’ll change for 2012, we’ll see.
Nevertheless, the democratic primaries and caucuses are not yielding a winner, just someone that is leading. The process now places the task on the super delegates to determine the winner. I have no problem with that as long as they are voting based on the primary objective being to win the White House.
The Rules are the Rules regarding caucuses. AND the Rules are the Rules regarding the freedom to allow the superdelegates to choose the candidate based on their own independent judgement and NOT solely on caucus results. Those are the Rules and Obama supporters have to live with ALL rules not just the ones that favor their candidate!

Early on in Iowa Edwards and then Hillary were favored because they had more supporters who had been to a caucus before.This year the Democratic turnout in Iowa was close to two and one half times what it was in 2004, Caucus turnout is also up in other states. Bill Clinton is just whining because Hillary lost to a candidate who was more inspiring and who was better organized on the ground and did not think that the nomination was an entitlement. Caucus turnout was up in other states as well and Hillary did win a couple of them, although narrowly (New Mexico and Nevada) although Obama got one more delegate in Nevada because of the District set up just as Hillary got more delegates than her percentage in Alabama and other primary states because of district allocation.

The Clinton tag-team are clearly in denial!
Sad losers don’t know when to quit!

I hate to break it to Clinton supporters, but the Maine Caucus is held on a Saturday. For those people who were scheduled to work or unable to attend for any other reason, they could have voted early with an absentee ballot. Guess what – Obama won big. Hmmm – what excuse can the Hillary camp come up with now?

Look people,
I am an Obama supporter in Texas. The reason I support him is no matter what the flaws are of both candidates(and trust me, BOTH of them do) he seems the more genuine to me. I admire Sen. Clinton but the reason I can’t get on board is because you can tell she has been brought up by the political machine that everyone here seems to be bitching about. Hell, I would vote for Pres. Clinton if he could run again. I’m sure he would destroy Bush and Rove and the rest of their cronies.
The one thing all of us have in common is that we hate Bush, the Republicans, and the unbelievable mess that they have created for us and this country. Yes, I believe Sen Obama can get us back on track, but if somehow he is not the nominee, I will take 3 days of venting and calling Sen Clinton all sorts of ungodly names(maybe 5 days) but come November I will cast my ballot for her because the issues is what is at stake and John McCain, as much as I admire him from one military aman to another, does not support these issues like health care and strenghtening our economy.
Please, for the sake of our party, tone down the animosity. We are playing into the hands of our opponents. It starts with us to take care of one another.

Right now, I’m so frustrated with everything I see happening, that there is really NO candidate that appeals to me. Hillary, Obama, quit tearing the democratic party apart!
At this point what both candidates need to make clear is that while they do want the nomination, they will support the other if they lose and urge their supporters to do so. If this doesn’t happen, as others have stated, there will be many who will either vote for McCain, or not vote. And a minimum of another four years of a Republican in the White House, I don’t want to imagine that…do you?

Let’s recognize that states have the right to choose how they elect a candidate, be it caucuses or primaries, or some combination of the two such as Texas. And let’s not dismiss the results of the States choices by suggesting certain results ‘don’t matter’.

As usual, Bill is right again. GO HILLARY! HANG IN THERE. The MEDIA is doing a good hatchet job but all AMERICANS are not STUPID.

“we can still win this thing”?
WHAT is he ON?

Bill didn’t complain when the caucuses put delegates in his camp. I’m sick of the Clintons.

Go Hillary Go, if not in 2008, we will win in 2016.
Or Chelsea Clinton will in 2016.
We need CLINTONS, they are superiors, they are American Emperors. Any Clinton will do:) , go CLINTONS go. By What ever means we need to win, by Money or by some others means, who cares about rules. We want win 

Whew, more spin from the Clintons. When does it end? My head is dizzy.

The Clintons and their backers want you to believe that rude and noisy Obama fans are bullying the polite and quiet caucus goers. The main reason Obama was so successful in caucuses is a lot simpler:
Many of young people who never voted before got excited about Obama a little too late to be able to vote in primaries since registration deadline was a month prior to election. By contrast, most caucuses have same day registration.
The notions that caucuses are less democratic or that Obama folks have more time on their hands are absurd.

As far as the Clintons are concerned, cacauses are not democratic because it is not favoring Ms. Hillary Clinton. I watched PA Ed Rendell declare cacauses undemocratic and I felt sorry for him. He is under the influence of the Clintons just like Mr. look-like-the-devil-himself Carvill who called Gov. Richardson judas for endorsing Senator Obama.
Small states are not part of America anymore because Ms. Hillary Clinton is not winning them. Texas has become a blue state just because Ms. Hillary Clinton won it in this primary election. She wants people to forget that even Bill himself won it during his own primary election, but lost it both times during general election.
AMERICANS MUST BE STUPID AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT VOTING FOR MS. HILLARY CLINTON.

Of course caucuses are unfair. They represent only 5% of the population on average because it such a lengthy process that people just don’t have the time or the energy to go sit in someone’s house or local gym and twiddle their thumbs all evening. They have kids, homework, dinner, chores, and other things that they have to do on a daily basis. Like getting ready to go to work the next day. They don’t represent the elderly who can’t get out, the poor with no transportation, or the average person. No, they are not representative of the will of the American people.

At least Caucuses delegates are chosen by voters,but ‘Super delegates’,which represent the only hope now left for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination, are not chosen by voters.

I think Bill Clinton has got it all wrong. I don’t know were he comes up with these crazy formulas that always show him winning. The best solution would be to take the results from the three states beginning with the letter I, Iowa, Illinois, and Idaho. Hillary averaged 27% in these states. If we use 27% for Hillary and 73% for Obama and apply it to Michigan and Florida, and pledge their delegates accordingly, then the problem is solved. Much better than crazy Bill’s idea.

Hillary was more damaged by the Bosnia sniper story this week then anything else Bill. In this day and age, millions have scene the slow, calm stroll across the tarmac to the little girl with the poem. Nothing like the story which she repeated several times.
To claim she was tired and mis-spoke puts the lie to the 3 am ad, we certainly have no idea what story a tired Hillary will make up.

I don’t get what this caucus chatter is all about. Was Hillary unaware of the rules 18 months ago. Can we just stop the all victim all the time Clinton mantra?
HELLO. This election is over. Obama has won. We are just waiting for the Clintons to arrive at their face saving withdrawl moment. Sheesh….

Darla,
You realize the contradiction, right? If caucuses are in the evening, how are everyday people still at work? Most jobs run 7-3, 8-4, or 9-5.
Caucuses work just fine for political parties. They aren’t interested in run of the mill voters–the states using the caucus system WANT to reward active party members and those willling to make more than a 3-second commitment on behalf of a candidate.
It’s awfully hard to fake a caucus’ results–regardless of the stories people ‘hear’. Don’t you think if ANY of them were true that it would’ve been revealed/reported somewhere ANYWHERE by now?

The Democratic Party has rules for nominating candidates. The Clinton camp argues that Clinton would be ahead if the rules were different — no caucuses. The Obama camp argues that they will win if the rules are ignored — force the superdelegates to follow the majority of pledged delegates. Why are the arguments of the Clinton camp worse than the arguments of the Obama camp?

Just to give a yardstick as to how unrepresentative the caucus system is, for example in Alaska, the population is 700000, less than 1000 people voted in the caucus. About one percent of the population is represented.
In Texas, most voters were surprising unaware of the purpose and logistics of the caucus. Many didn’t know they needed to attend, some were also given confusing information that they shouldn’t vote in the primary if they couldn’t go to the caucus.
If never seen such questionable tactics or bullying, gangster-like supporters as Obama’s. He’ll never have my support.

mlk — Could it actually be that Obama has next to no experience beyond being a two year senator? Could it be that he has shirked his responsibility on his senate committee on Afghanistan and has not held one meeting? Could it actually be because he’s hypocritical? Could it be because the legislation that he has passed has largely be written by other people and he has only signed off? Could it be that he has curiously gotten rid of his opponents in previous contests and run unopposed when their divorce papers were pulled up? Could it be that he is dismissive and arrogant when he is faced with real questions and real issues? You might try to realize that some of us do not base our choice on race, we choose Hillary because we have done our research — personally, I have followed the Clintons since 1990 and think that they are consistent and that they did a great job on real issues when they were in office. I don’t care about their personal lives, I care about our opportunities as Americans. So tired of the race card. The real problem is that many of us feel Obama is a lot of smoke and mirrors and it takes more than saying “HOPE” ten gazillion times for us to be sold.

The Obama campaign has ran a brilliant campaign in regard to being extemely well-organized in regards to caucuses and being able to mobilize his loyal supporters. There’s quite a discrepancy
in regards to representation at a caucus vs. a primary though. In Washington State in 2000 the caucuses attracted 60,000 voters and the primary
attracted 1.3 million voters. In Michigan if you did a primary it would attract something like 2.1 million voters while a caucus would attract about 106,000 voters. So the delegates won are more representative of ability of the the specific candidates ability to mobilize and organize then it has to do with the actual will of the people.
There have also been accusations of abuses at caucuses i.e. in Texas there were reports of Obama supporters at some caucuses telling people if they voted already in the primary then they didn’t need to attend the caucus, which clearly was a lie. Supposedly some people were told the caucus had already occurred so there was no need to attend.
Most of the States Obama won were caucus states so it will be interesting to see how he fares once he gets outside the Democratic party and into the general election. Personally, I think caucuses should go and let the people decide rather than just a small group of more activist individuals. If it weren’t for caucuses there would most likely be no need for superdelegates because part of the role of superdelegates is to look out for the better interests of the party in the case a more extreme activist faction were to get some control of the party (and Obama is clearly not the type of concern I’m referring to.)

Clinton trumpets her years of experience as why she is electable. She has the advantage of being married to an ex-president, high dollar donors, many political frinds and she’s very knowledgeable about the levers of political power.
A younger senator with a short resume puts together a very smart, very skillful and organized campaign, he motivates the public to register to vote in huge numbers and he gets them all fired up.
This upstart manages to be ahead of the heavily favored experienced ex-wife of a popular president.
Say what you want but he has obviously been able to beat the socks off the shoe-in candidate.
It comes of as pathetic for the experienced politicians to complain that long existing rules are unfair and undemocratic – sorry, it just sounds like sour grapes and grabbing at straws. Sounds like a dog in a manger.

People are demanding change. Hillary is part of the same problem thst created this mess yet they want to vote for more of the same? Paraphrasing Einstein insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Bill Clinton’s complaining about caucus. He knows that’s the system. Deal with it Bill.

Obama has no character and we can’t support him. McCain has good character and is a very honest man. I’ll campaign for McCain to keep what I see as a disgrace as a man out of the White House.

Caucuses remind of scenes from Nazi and Commie movies. What a unfair, biased and bizarre practice..

“The Hillary is winning the big states argument is so ridiculous.”
First of all, of course she was going to win NY – she is the senator from that state!! and nextdoor NJ is practically NY as well. Now, do you really think that the Democratic party nominee (be it Obam, Clinton or the Geico gecko) is going to lose NY, NJ, CA to the republican’s? yeah, right!!
—–Contrary to what the Clinton camp is saying, the more important states are the “swing / purple states” – based on the past 2 elections, these are IA, NH, MO, NM and OH. Others to be considered will be FL (although, it is now practically a red state), PA (most likely a blue state).
Now if Obama is the nominee, he can compete and have a chance of winning VA, CO and NC (Clinton will most likely not be able to do so).
If Clinton is the nominee she can win AR, but that’s it.
If you go and take a look at the electoral college map, you’ll see that Clinton would have very little margin of error (assuming the Dems lose FL, she will NEED to win OH to win in Nov). Obama can lose both FL and OH and still win the election.

Obamas ahead in Gallup and Ramsummen polls,leads Mcain,wheras hillary trails>stop crying Clintons,obama is the popular choice,get over it.

There are enough votes left that Hillary can win. At lot of people were and still are highly offended by Rev. Wrights speaches and Obamas tolerene for them. Many of us are in states that Obama won. If we could re-vote they would go for Hillary. I am hoping Hillary will win big in the remaining states and thus win the nomination. Also Florida and Michigan are going to do the same if they are cheated out of their votes. Something strange is going on because the media is obviously biased and certian members of the party are trying to force Obama on us. If this happens I am in favor ot forming a Hillary party. All of us Hillary democrats will get our vote.

This is just funny. Now caucus results shouldn’t matter and are less important than primaries?
Simply pathetic.

Methinks Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strident socialist and will stop at nothing to win. Not the Constitution, nor the damage done to the Democratic party and the country matter one whit. If she succeeds in destroying her opponent, likely the only statistical way she can win, then the party will be left in shambles, unable to reach a consensus before the November elections. Disenfranchised voters will find a way to express their discontent, again, to the detriment of party unity. This nomination process is going to become even more bizarre as time wears on. To the contrary of claim, Hillary is ignoring the will of the party. Could it be that this may be perceived as her last opportunity to be queen over her incredibly dumb and helpless subjects? – Subjects who need the government to do everything for its citizens, and do it on the backs of those who make our republic go, and do not try to trample on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the process, or cut and run after voting to support the war and the good men and women put in harm’s way.

Clever is an adjective you have to use for the Clintons. They have managed you to donate your money while they loaned their money to her campaign. If you are a Hillary supporter, look at the following facts and think about it. “The 35 years of experience” donot mean a squat! – The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance – Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* – Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation – Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify – Most number of witnesses to die suddenly – First president sued for sexual harassment. – First president accused of rape. – First first lady to come under criminal investigation- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case- First president to establish a legal defense fund.- First president to be held in contempt of court- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions – Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

The nomination process and the caucus system were set up by the DNC establishment (Bill Clinton and company). They were outsmarted by a guy who has far better organizational skills and who is clearly a better strategist.
Obama has been one step ahead of the Clintons from DAY ONE. He deserves all the credit for putting the ‘INEVITABLE CANDIDATE’ on her backside. She is on the way out and no matter how many heroic lies she tells, we don’t need another TOY SOLDIER in the White House. Barack Obama is clearly the best candidate.

This is a long conversation here! Many good points on both sides. One that stuck out for me: if the D’s used the winner-take-all system then HC would have won on Super Tuesday.
Although of course there are sour grapes in the mouths of the Clintons now criticising the caucus process, it does seem strange that you can net almost as many delegates from a solid lead in a small caucus with 50,000 participating statewide as a large primary with over a million voters. It is a very weird nomination process.
As someone no longer living Stateside the thing I have noticed the most and for some times is simply that the US election process is a) far too long, way way too long and b) involves far too much money spent on advertising which has to be paid out to commercial media corporations who have a great self interest in keeping the process long and as sensational as possible therein, further trivialising everything.
Three months is enough. Having primaries to elect candidates has some merit because it forces them to get out into the vast country that is America and meet the people. This is a good thing. But then actually governing involves dealing with the Washington beltway. There is much to be said for a Party internally choosing its leader and then running that leader in an election.
The whole thing should take three to six months from beginning to end instead of this ridiculous almost two year long process. That’s the real problem with all this. The current stalemate is bad for all candidates and guarantees the process will be further trivialised by the press who have almost nothing else to write about between primaries that are now many weeks apart. What a stupid system!

Bill can’t be that stupid, can’t he?
Caucuses is the way to let the candiate know whom the voter favor.

QUOTE: ” There are enough votes left that Hillary can win. At lot of people were and still are highly offended by Rev. Wrights speaches and Obamas tolerene for them.”
Are we really hanging our hopes on maligning the winner and nabbing the prize? Lets’ do something else like elect a candidate for their value to America, their ethical turpitude and cultural appeal to people. Rather than continue with the shop worn Bush/Clinton veiled threats, bullying their own party, half truths, obfuscations, answering their own questions on the issues, instead of ours, with busy fingers under the table, let’s just reclaim America and bring in someone whose special interest is the American People.
There is and has never been anything honest or trustworthy about the Clintons. T hey are a favor-based pyramid scheme who understand that once Washington is cleaned up they will have no place in it. This is their fighting moment – just say no.

AMAZING!!!
I don’t know why I’m continually surprised by Orwellian doublespeak…
We all know that primary votes are much easier to scew than caucus votes. Why???
Because in the caucus you must have real people ther to stand up & support you. Primarys can be hi-jacked by party insiders (just like General elections ie:Bush Ohio). We have eyes & can see the overwhelming support being energized by Obama. The fact that Clinton can only hi-jack big state primarys means she’s got party insiders sewn up in those States (not hard to do if your huby’s the ex- Pres.) Not this time People. This time the American People will have our voices heard & indeed we are. Our Time has Come, Our Movement is Real, & Change is Coming to America!!!

Wendy: Please spare US the scared old person BS.
My Mother in law is about to turn 87.
My Grandfather just celebrated his 90th Birthday. Both caucused for Obama in WA.
& both were so energized they said in all their years they’ve only been this excited by one other candidate & that was JFK (both expressed this sentiment in their own words). We are real People who will do whatever it takes (within our rules & our high principals) to ensure a fair process (even if that means Hillary wins). That’s why Obama has gone from 1 million donors (taking over a year to get there) to nearly 2 million donors in just over a month.
We are changing the politics is run in DC & Clinton will be the last major candidate running for President who will employ a top down strategy. The People have shown that we are up to the task of giving what we can for a principaled candidate & the establishment is going kicking & screaming, but they’re going just the same… Peace.

Stop knocking the caucuses in Texas. In Texas you have two weeks to vote in the primaries and if you vote in the primary you are eligble to vote in the caucus. The Texas Two Step was set up by the Democratic Party to help Jimmy Carter years ago, still stands, and is going to stand according to the Demo leaders. Yep, Obama won in Texas, get over it. In Texas polls show Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton in the general election.

I think the only people screaming one way or the other are the ones who aren’t getting it “their” way. If Hil was in the lead, nobody would bother complaining about the caucuses they pledged to follow. Nobody would be whining about florida or michigan where they stated they would not campaign. At the beginning of the cycle, nobody was whining about these issues. Now, all of a sudden she’s losing…and all of this is extremely unfair…grow up already!!!

I think what everyone forgets is the fact that we, as Americans, have the right to change whatever we don’t like with our system when the time is right (that is if the majority agrees on it). We can’t decide on something, then, when it doesn’t go our way, cry foul. If we want to make this country solid, we must be solid as a people in honoring and sustaining our rules, laws and regulations. We cannot hope for a better future if we teach our a double-standard.
I’m not only referring to politics, but in our daily lives as well, statements like “illegal imigration” should be deemed as just that ILLEGAL. Having them look at a speed limit sign and see that we’re going 7-8 over because we can “get away with it” or crying foul when the electoral process doesn’t favor our candidate in the end.
Come on already and wake up!! Let’s be a country of honor again by honoring the system we have in place. Then, when it’s run its course, if the majority thinks it’s not working…change it through the proper channels…

Listen to what you’re saying Shefali. On the one hand Obama is criticised for what his pastor said. On the other hand, Clinton is criticised for what came out of her own mouth. Criticise the canditate for what he/she does and not what his/her peers do! Why take the focus off of the candidate! Just as Kennedy was harped on for his religion and urged us to focus on him rather than a religious affiliation; Mitt Romney was derailed in large due to his religious affiliation while he himself was by and large the mose qualified republican candidate. Focus on the quality of the candidate, not the peers.

Bill, you said the caucuses are “killing us”. Wrong. You are killing yourself. Your personal self
serving baggage and her pathetic negative PR performance have become your suicide bomb. Give the party a break. Give the voters the credit for letting you a reality check. Thank God for Barack Obama and give them both your praise.

To the person who stated:
The BIG STATE primaries favor the MONEY. Does that make it the most democratic?
NOT in this election. Hillary has been out spent 2 to 1 on the dollar. Actually a bit more than 2 to 1 ( more like 2.5 to 1). BUT Hillary still won the big states and won BIG in Ohio and WILL win bin in PA. She also won most of the big states by double digits despite being outspent.
So this argument doesn’t hold.

A Caucus favors:
- Those who don’t have 2-4 hours in the evening to vote
- The young
- Those who break under pressure
A Caucus would be bias against:
- The seniors
- Working wifes who are at home
with kids
- Those who work in the evening
I understand why Obama does better when a Caucus is held. In Washington State, Obama won the Caucus by a large margin but Obama just barely won the primary. In Texas Obama LOST the primary by 4% points but slightly won the Caucus.
IT IS **NOT** the “Will of the People” for Hillary to win 4% more of the popular vote in Texas bu Obama wins more delegates in Texas. THIS IS UNFAIR — AND — DOESN”T Represent the Will Of the People.
I suspect that Hillary would have won some of those small red states had their been primaries instead of caucus so that her older seniors and middle class working mothers could vote. Spending 2 hours at a caucus isn’t the way to run an election!!!!
NOTE: I do support Iowa as a Caucus state due to it being first and its tradition.

also keep in mind that Obama and his supporters are jumping the gun as he counts on the results of the caucus, texas has not yet officially announced the results.

To : superWayne of Wayne’s World:
Not I don’t see your point at all. The reason for Revotes in MI and FL is because the DNC and Obama refuse to count the original vote. So Hillary is for a revote or she wants the original counted.
Obama doesn’t want either.
How undemocratic is that…

Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900′s.
In the early twentieth century there was a movement to give more power to citizens in the selection of candidates for the party’s nomination. The primary election developed from this reform movement. In a primary election, registered voters may participate in choosing the candidate for the party’s nomination by voting through secret ballot, as in a general election.
Let’s move all states to the “reformed” primaries.

If she and Bill just weren’t so slimy I might be able to vote for her. I’ve seen and heard her–she’s so full of self-righteousness hipocracy and the belief that she is pre-ordained to be President. She just brushes aside her own lies as she attacks her opponents. Obama is no saint either, but regarding his FORMER pastor’s comments, some of the posts I read are just as hateful….in ALL THREE campaigns.

wallaWalla — would you like to be stripped of your opportunity to vote. the discrimination associated with disenfranchisement is not acceptable, whether it apply to african americans, women, or the elderly or the disabled.

I think if Hillary wants to win all she would have to do is start talking to ALL of the people around the country who have had or who are having problems with the friend of the court system or the secretary of state system……..and everyone who is making $35,000/yr or less!!!!! That’s how she’s going to win…go ahead, somebody tell her!

Wonder how many posting on here have actually participated in a caucus. I spent the day caucusing in Texas, all day 12+ hours. It’s not the candidates that have the problem, it’s the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There’s a chance delegates (most for Obama) won’t get counted, because they didn’t abide by the rules and order of business. I feel sorry for both sides in this one. It was no easy day. There were a hundred other things I would have rather done than sit in a convention with over three thousand people who didn’t have a clue what was going on, and no one qualified to tell them. Just imagine spending the entire day and unbeknownst to you what you were doing isn’t “legal” and what you went and did for your candidate may not be counted. The Party needs an overhaul. We won’t have a clear winner, and it won’t be either candidates fault. How it gets decided will be done by the Party. Katie bar the door!

Hillary’s big caucus problem is that too many people remember that the Clintons will do or say anything to win.
For example, for three months Hillary kept telling us about running from sniper fire on her Bosnia trip. In Iowa, she read from a prepared statement and smiled during the statement. In Texas, she used this story after the 3am ad. Last week, she repeated the story. Sinbad was on the same trip. When he said Hillary was lying, she belittled him.
When Hillary finally confessed to the lie, she said she was “SLEEP DEPRIVED” and forgot things. I’m amazed main stream media hasn’t questioned why she would lie when she’s tired, but still think she can handle a phone call at 3am.
She also belittled Mississippi (when talking in Iowa). No president should put down people in any state.
When people hear these things, they realize it’s time to stand up. A Bush or Clinton has been in the executive branch for 28 years, it’s time for change.

Maybe Hillary should try to change the rules on the cacauses also! The problem is she didn’t plan beyond super Tuesday. She’ll be ready on day one for sure! A really, really organized leader.

Yeah, I guess in a caucus, where people actually gather and discuss the candidates and their positions, Hillary WOULD be at a disadvantage.

I prefer caucuses to Primaries, because unlike primaries your caucus vote does not go into a black box and returns something else, like NH, NY, CA, OH, FL. People who cares enough for their vote to be counted shows up at caucuses. In the primary the machine (I mean the political machine) is at play. Most of you heard those terms the ability of some politician to turn the vote (meaning rig the vote, voter intimidations, vote suppression, lost ballots, insufficient ballots, confusion on the printed ballots and on and on ). Thus the ability of Clinton to win primaries. Until we develop a temper proof voting system, I would prefer caucuses

Caucuses have always been a tool for the activist segments of a political party to exhibit power beyond their numbers.
I believe caucuses need to be eliminated. How can a causcus be given equal weight to a primary, which by its very nature is innately fair because it allows each person, one vote?
The word Democrat is derived from the word democracy. It’s about time that the Democratic party follow democratic principles.

The Clintons want to count votes in unfair elections (with nobody campaigning or the other party not on the ballot) and they want to disenfranchise votes from fair elections? And then, as President, they will be seen by the world nations of the teachers of democracy?
There are valid objections to caucuses, but why during this 35 years Clinton never mentioned them before, if she cares for democrac?

I’m amazed at the hypocrisy and lack of knowledge of history shown by all who have written in. These rules for selecting a nominee have not changed much since Truman ran for President in 1948.
Now all of a sudden, because of the expanded media coverage (t.v. radio, and Internet) the undemocratic rules are being exposed. You don’t change them now, but before the next election.
Both candidates signed detailed agreements with the Democratic Party to abide by these rules. Neither candidate can morally or legally “cry foul” only when these rules work against them.
Also, please note, Florida and Michigan Democrats didn’t set their primaries: the Republican controlled legislatures of those states set the early primaries knowing that the Demo delegates from those states faced “not being seated.” Legal but unethical tactics. Howard Dean should have found a way to fix that. Or one or both candidates should have found a way to remedy that harsh outcome and thus shown real leadership!
And if you want to talk about fair: the Conventions are not democratic. The delegates who attend who are “pledged” to vote for Obama or Clinton are “released” from that pledge after 4 ballots, if no candidate wins the majority. So now your party’s delegates are now making the decision that may be violative of what you thought you had voted for in the primaries: but I bet none of you knew about that bit of “inside party politics”.
And if you want more examples of undemocratic rules in process, look at these:
a. the residents of D.C. do not get to vote for President. Their election votes do not elect a voting Congressperson to the House or to the Senate; neither party can get a 2/3 vote through to change the Constitution. So those 300,000 residents merely vote for a “Delegate” to Congress who sits on Committees and watches! That is undemocratic;
b. your vote for President this fall is not a vote for your candidate. It is a vote for an unknown person who when the Electoral College meets two weeks later, votes for the candidate to whom they are pledged. That’s why George Bush won last time: he had more electorcal college votes but less actual votes cast for him. Neither party has the guts to change that undemocratic process installed by Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton. The idea was that the “delegates” to the electoral college would be the leading citizens of the community and would decide for the rest of us. This was a concept adopted from the Roman Empire and the “slave owning” founding fathers, fearing the chaos from non-land owners having a vote, established this system that to this day, reeks of dictatorship, not democracry.

The Clintons remind one of the Great Gatsby….screaming that they still matter and if you don’t believe them? Your a judus.
How sad. Hillary disenfranchises FL and MI and now that she needs them, they count.
The small states did not matter and now that she is losing? They still don’t matter.
The caucus votes? They may be democractic but now they don’t want them to matter.
Talk about disenfranchising voters? Heck the only ones that seem to matter to the Clintons are the ones that voted for her which don’t include:
The majority of States
The popular vote
Elected delegates
The Clinton retoric is all about disenfranchisment if one listens close enouge.

“Do the Clintons lie? Only when their lips are moving. Bill Clinton’s lying has led to his conviction for lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice.”
Posted by: Randle Bate | Mar 27, 2008 10:32:27 PM
As a matter of RECORD, which you seem to have thrown out the window, as Republicans are wont to do, Bill Clinton was ACCQUITED, in the US Senate, of lying to Congress!!! Why lie to everyone, in order to cover up the fact, that you are backing a LOSER, in Barack Obama!!! Why else, would he be so popular, among Independents and Republicans???? Among REGISTERED Democrats, Hillary Clinton has a HUGE lead, in public support!!! Does that just stick in your craw, or something, and make it necessary to LIE????

Oh what a tangled web we weave.
hahahahahahahalolololololololol
She deserves what she gets