Hillary’s Superdelegate Explanation

it’s just scary that lots of democrats don’t see that senator clinton doesn’t care about the party.
she is determined to steal this election, no matter the consequence. this is really frightening !

Not at all. If she gets the nomination that way, the more than 15 million obama supporters will tell her what they felt of her explanation by just voting for Mccain or staying home. Then she will understand(hopefully!) how grave a crime she committed.

She doesn’t need to sell anything to anyone. She didn’t create the rules, the democratic party did. The way this article is set up almost implies she is going to steal the nomination over a set of rules both her and Obama knew going into this race. I think the rules are too complicated and should be made simpler. Hillary and Obama supporters need to recognize when all is said and done, there are two types of democrats. The democrats who care about the party and will support either candidate who wins the nomination and the ones who only care about their candidate and will jump ship or stay home in November should their candidate not be the nominee. Super delegates are elected because they care about the party not just their candidate.
PRESIDENT HILLARY 08

I don’t understand how all the Obama supporters are accusing Hillary of Stealing this election. Mr.Obama is ahead, it is far from over, he has not “WON” anything for her to steal. May the best and strongest candidate win.

You make a lot of assumptions here Jake.
She can still catch up to him in so called pledged delegates. Most of the states Obama won, 14 of them, haven’t assigned ANY delegates yet as they are caucuses. That’s over 300 delegates still in play.
Even in the 5 states that dont have intermediary conventions, if someone doesn’t want to support a candidate anymore, they simply dont show up.
Second, she WILL WIN the popular vote, taking Penn, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.
Third the reules of the DNC have clearly stated unchallenged for decades that ex-officio delegates, are automatic delegates due to their ELECTED positions.
Fourth: ALL DELEGATES, that’s right all delegates can vote for whoever they want. If the delegate count is close, we will never know if it was super delegates who gave one candidate the win or “pledged” delegates.
Delegates are delegates. In a close race if someone spends too long in the bar or sleeps in it can change a convention vote and put one candidate ahead of another.
I was at a large political convention last year, about 5000 delegates, and the winner won the second round of voting by 2 votes. Several stories emerged about this person or that person checking in and then not showing up to vote.
It happens all the time.
If its close, within 100 or so, we will not ever know who it was at convention who didn’t show up, changed their mind slept in, went to the bar, got stuck in traffic, had to go home for an emergency etc, that swung the race.
That’s just the way conventions work.

Wakup “MarkyMark” and pull up your boxers,
We’re not talking about a controversial win. We’re talking about a win by following the rules.
Also, we’re talking about a win against a competitor who is increasingly being seen as lacking substance, or sufficient depth and experience.
If an Obama backer cannot support a Hillary Clinton nomination over a third Republican term then they really don’t support the Democratic party at all, and really aren’t looking for change.

I think Hillary’s saying that these are the rules, we all agreed to the rules before the contest started, so we should follow them, even if they may not always appear fair and may seem to disenfranchise some voters.
Basically, the precise opposite of her position over Florida and Michigan voters.
Her views truly are multifaceted.

In fact, all delegates, according to the RULES can vote for whomever they want.
So if someone changes their mind they vote for the other candidate.
If its within 100 delegates, its going to convention and we will never know who voted for whom, and it is secret.
The ballots at convention are secret for a reason. The delegates at convention will decide.
ALL the delegates. Thems the rules!

Hey “Jay”,
Well said concerning Obama backer claims that Hillary is stealing the election. First of all, Obama doesn’t OWN the election; Secondly, this shows that the Obama campaign knows that it is a not a settled issue, given the rules, and thirdly, I expect HILLARY CLINTON to win fair and square. What precisely is the “theft” aspect that all these paranoid OBAMA backers are referencing?

Hi JT. did you see this article in the Los Angeles Times……after all the drama about Ferraro and look at this….this makes me so mad!!!
Barack Obama and the thorny issue of race
Earlier this week, Geraldine Ferraro lost her spot as a Hillary Clinton fundraiser after offering her
take on the role race has played in Barack Obama’s political rise. The coverage led a reader to direct us to an assessment of race and Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate.
The source is what caught our eye. It’s a 2005 Chicago Tribune profile. Posted on his Senate website. A key passage:
“We have a certain script in our politics, and one of the scripts for black politicians is that for them to be authentically black they have to somehow offend white people,” Obama said in an interview. “And then if he puts a multiracial coalition together, he must somehow be compromising the efforts of the African-American community.
“To use a street term,” he added, “we flipped the script.”
In winning the Democratic Senate primary in Illinois, Obama drew as many as two white votes for every black one, showing nearly unprecedented crossover appeal for a black candidate in a statewide race.
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
– Scott Martelle

No I am not sold or surprised by any thing Hillary dose any more. Her character has well been proven this primary season,she has on numerous occasions showed Americans just how desperate she really is to get back in the white house.She is playing the spoiler now for Obama and probably enjoying every min of it,even at the risk of bringing Bill Clinton’s legacy down as well. I can feel sorry for her.

Just my opinion, but the superdelegates should take into account the will of the people. If the superdelegates vote very differently from the general base of the party, many will yell fraud and many will be disenfranchised. Personally, I don’t trust Clinton, and I don’t like McCain’s warmongering so Obama wouldn’t bother me to much if he can just reduce the spending proposed in his platform.

Hey “RonPaulSupporter”,
Does the will of the people include the popular vote. HILLARY CLINTON is currently behind in the popular vote but this can be expected to surge by several hundred thousand ahead before all is said and done. Is that willful enough for you? It shold be willful enough for the SuperDelegates.

How can an Obama supporter, regardless of the delegate count, in good conscience, say they will vote for McCain if Obama does not win the nomination? How can they share his beliefs, his stance on the war, unity etc., and then do something so utterly contradictory? It simply doesn’t make sense. It’s wrongheaded. I find it very sad that people can react so violently, so negatively and spitefully to the idea. I only hope they are a minority, a vociferous one, because America could do better without that sort of thinking.

so, the number of states won, the higher deleage count after all constests and the higher popular vote totals do not count?? HRC are you actually advocating that in the end, it really is not up to the people to pick their candidate, but party insiders? Well hell, let’s hear it for democracy!
If the primaries do not matter and it is clear that HRC does not beleive that they do, why do we bother with them. They are an illusion, a sham. A chance to pick the nominee that will be decided on at the convention. HRC in your mind it is not that there are so many types of delegates, it si that there are the votes that count-delegates, and the votes that don’t-the people.

I am really getting tired of her baloney.

A must read on who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Written by Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

“Saying that Hillary Clinton has Executive Branch experience is like saying that Yoko Ono was a Beatle.”

Personally speaking I think superdelegates should be completely eliminated from the democratic party. Let these people vote just like everyone else in the one vote one person rule. Same with caucuses. Band them. Have winner take all like the republicans.

“RonPaulSupporter”
Before Mississippi Hillary led the popular vote by 5K. After Mississippi Obama leads the popular vote by 103K. Pennsylvania will push it back the other direction by 200,000 to 300,000. This race is going to come down to the Michigan re-vote, which I expect Hillary to win by 51-45%, and she retains the popular vote of approximately 350,000.

Sore loseritis is a malady unique to the democrat party. Even if Senator Obama folds like a house of cards in the next 10 and/or this goes to the convention, someone will feel cheated. I predict a summer of primary comedy and a fall season of screaming baby antics.
Riddle me this, what happens after the first vote at the convention? Does the Nobel laureate step forward? Edwards? Can either win the general with women, young people and black Americans in an uproar? Someone has to throw some serious mud soon to pull this one out from the abyss.
Her explanation makes some sense, based on the rules and what has happened thus far. With refinements and support she could possibly sell it. I predict an “elect me with the old rules and we will change the rules after the election for the better” argument.
Yes we can
yes we will
implode

I think for anyone asking how anyone could choose McCain over Sen. Clinton is because we are a group that is picking our President by the person and who they are… what is their character.
The first “threshold” and most important attribute for being President is, or at least should be, having character.
I read on a tea bag once that “Character is what you are when no one is in the room.”
I think after this election we think that when no one is in the room …we are not crazy about Sen. Clinton.

For any Democrat not to support the Democratic nominee, whomever it is, is idiocy. Forget everything else, remember two words: “Supreme Court.” Lifetime appointments. Bush’s appointees: Roberts, Alito. Need I say more?

Alright, I promise to play nice.
Two words: No way.
Look, this argument is pure sophistry. Clinton knew the rules going in, and is now trying to game them. She’s shooting herself in the foot with this kind of thing, when you combine it with her argument for counting the Soviet-style primary in Michigan.

Actually the Party RULES allow for revotes and to count the delegaates that have already been chosen with an appeal to the credentialling committee.
Hillary has NEVER advocated breaking any DNC rules.
A process exists to ask for a revote or to have the current delegates seated. There is no rule breaking.

Clinton will steal this nomination, wait and see…

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good explanation from Clinton as to why caucuses shouldn’t matter. Going into the race, the must have known how many states held caucuses. Why can’t they compete here? Obama’s been able to win more primaries than Clinton has won caucuses. She’s trying to weasel her way about.

“Jose”,
What are you calling a theft? Winning? For someone to say that CLINTON or OBAMA “stold” the election, what would that look like, exactly?

No she did not sell me. It is ridiculous for Hillary to try to rename all of the categories to make some kind of contorted argument that can turn the election her way. Now we have “caucus delegates”? And now she is trying to delegitimize the caucus process? This is all so transparent and if she tries to steal the nomination with creative math and succeeds I for one will not vote for her in November.

Why no one seems to be open for something neutral? Superdelegates should consider both people’s will and other factors, especially when both candidates are so close in competition. Bottom line (and it’s what dem party wanted), they should go with the candidate that more likely to win in general election. If you insist Obama has more on everything, think again – if dem rule were winner take all, Clinton would have already won; even now she’s behind, the number of popular vote can change with each every upcoming primary, how do you know who’s going to have more popular vote at the end? The way delegates are allocated in all states is not perfect or any way scientific, also caucuses in reality screw things up. Should Iowa or other states hold primaries Clinton probably won most of them. So it’s hard to argue now about people’s will based on these numbers alone. Many people’s wills have been hidden (particularly thru caucuses), in such case, superdelegates should look more into who is more electable. Obama maybe once considered more electable, but not anymore. More and more dark sides of him have been exposed.

How many nine months pregnant women did you see at caucuses??
How many people ditching work they need to feed their families??
How many little old ladies wiht broken hips using walkers to get through the snow in Feb were at caucuses?
How many sick people???
HOw many women who had just given birth?
Caucuses are undemocratic!!! They are a barrier to political participation.
IS that enough of an explanation for you???

California Independent: you’re funny. Have you been sleeping lately? Obama won 30/41 states, I’d suggest you to check the number again!

Why does she have to make the case at all? She didn’t make up the rules. There are no rules that the superdelegates have to follow the will of the people. Besides, should independents and republicans be considered a part of the will of the people in the consideration of the democratic nominee?
I don’t think that MI and FL should count as those were the rules, but there also exists a provision to allow them to request to the DNC to be seated. So, if they propose something to the DNC and it is accepted by all stakeholders, then it’s within the rules.
I find this notion of a “stolen” election laughable. The nomination has not belonged to anyone to this point. It is possible that the superdelegates will decide to cast their votes for Obama even if at the end Clinton has the won the popular vote. Those are the rules.
One thought though, if the position of the Obama camp is that the superdelegates should vote the will of the people, why are they aggressively seeking the support of them when there are states remaining in this contest?

I find it amusing that someone implies only Clinton is “using” the rules to her benefit. In fact, Obama “used” unrepresentive open caucuses to benefit him because he could not garner the majority of the democratic voters. It’s called politics folks. Each candidate presents their case and works the system in the hope of becoming the nominee. If Obama truly thought the will of the voters is what should elect him, why does he object to primaries that include all the voters and why has he spent $700K+ to gain the support of the first 34 superdelegates? LOL

WestCoast..
Exactly! When Obama first emerged, I thought “wow”, who is this dynamo? So I started to research what little was available online. The more I saw, the less I liked. From what I can tell, he’s a mirage. And not a pretty one.

Yes, she is convincing. Hillary is not cheating at all. These are all the Obama fans that are talking crap about Hillary. The rules are in order to be a nominee you have to have 2,025 pledge delegates. Neither Obama nor Hillary have that or will at the end. If you count Michigan and Florida, Hillary has the upper hand on popular votes. It now comes down to the super delegates on who they feel should be the nominee in there own discretion. No one is cheating and the Obama campaign is feeling real desperate which are using every punch against Hillary which is –ok- because she can take it. But as for you Obama lovers you continue to cry and playing the race card which it’s turning away the white along with the Hispanic voters away from Obama. You guys are digging your own grave. Obama who was married, had his daughters baptized and has been going to the Trinity Church needs to be questioned for his judgment on that Church. It’s a fact how racist his inspirational Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been in his life. It’s –ok- to call a Hispanic and White voter racist but Jeremiah Wright gets a free ride. I don’t think so people!

She has convinced me that the outcome would be within the rules. She has NOT convinced me that it would be ethical or fair.
In that hypothetical scenario she will win the nomination and loose the Obama voters. Where’s the sense in that?
Anyway, it’s a pipe dream. Superdelegates are not going to swing it in her favor.

9 months into W Bush’s administration, 9/11 happened. Has anyone considered the fact that the terrorist were plotting 9/11 during Clinton’s adminstration?

Its true. Clinto didn’t make up the rules its not up to her to defend them.
Exactly!!!
She doesn’t need to defend anything, especially rules that were put in place decades ago, she had nothing to do with.
Coerceing people, demanding, screaming, pouting, threatening in some instances is no way to run a political process.
Superdelegates get to vote however they want. Hillary doesnt need to defend this. Obama should be asked why his campaign is trying to coerce, guilt, threaten etc super delegates and buy them?
He should also be asked why Ted Kennedy and Joh Kerry haven’t been put in the Clinton superdelegate column.
You see he doesnt care about rules or politcal process. He wants to demand he wins and somehow convince people that super delegates are bound to vote for him regardless, even though they arent and for good reason.
Obama is the one with explaining to do, not Clinton.

Both Hillary and Obama really need to stop answering every single question in interviews/debates/stump speeches to the masses with “You know,..”
Hillary does it THREE times in this short interview alone.
And they’ve both been doing it for months and months in some kind of bizarre, creepy way of trying to be perceived as having a cozy conversation among long-time friends than political stumping.
At first I found it kind of endearing among both of them, and a nice idea, but now it just irks when it preceeds everything out of their mouths.
It’s old and annoying. Stop doing it, both of you and just talk like normal people do already.

Actually, you know…she said it FOUR times answering those TWO questions!
Stop the madness—both of you!
You know?

California Independent-
“9 months into W Bush’s administration, 9/11 happened. Has anyone considered the fact that the terrorist were plotting 9/11 during Clinton’s adminstration?”
My question to you….Have you considered that the first attack on the Towers happened in 93′, not long after Clinton took office from Bush Senior?
I don’t know what this has to do with the delegate process though :)

Can Sen. Clinton explain this? Hillary Clinton’s 35yrs.
Remember the Republican will talk about this. Can someone please find out why Sen. Clinton hasn’t released her tax records or record of activities in the White House as First Lady. If there’s something bad we need to know, she should inform us. We don’t want the Republican to get the White House because of some hidden facts.

The superdelegates had better do their job. They were selected for this very reason…..a close race. Contrary to what the press chooses to share with the public the RACE IS STILL CLOSE. Rewind the campaigning by five months and add unbiased press coverage and the recent information on Obama and it would be a landslide victory for HIllary.

Victim, thanks for your kind words about me and my “pathetic” fellow Obama supporters. You’re right, We don’t think. We are stupid. Too stupid to see how wonderful it would be to have more of the same old same old in the White House.
Actually, I voted for Obama because I looked at his record versus Clinton’s – in far more detail than I suspect you have – and read both their writings.
It may be easier for you to believe I am a dimwit than to accept that I don’t like your candidate but there it is.

People who say they would vote for McCain or Nader if their candidate doesn’t win the nomination really has no understanding of what is at stake. You’re willing to forego the core Democratic values that both of these candidates share almost across the board because you’re ticked off about your candidate not winning the nod?
There is so much more at stake than things not going the way you want them to–have you really thought that through before making statements of voting Republican? If you’re willing to put up with four more years like the last seven, then fine. But if you really want to steer our national agenda in a different direction, please think through your thought process.
I at first thought this very line of logic but realized that isn’t logic at all. My first gut reaction was because I passionately support Senator Clinton. However, a little more thought and I realize that we have to focus on what’s best for our country. No matter what happens, we absolutely need to be united on the democratic front. Both candidates would want it this way.

If she wins look out America there will be race riots across this nation and Obama and his preacher and wife will be in the lead, as 2o some years of brain washing by his preacher and now his wife is finally proud of America, come on people wise up this race is a black and white race and no matter what you say, allege, wont change the facts, look at the slander the Clinton camp gets if any metion of race is uttered, but Obama he can play the race card and look out if you call him on it, Clinton all the way I am ready………….

The Super delegate Rules is quasi similar to the Vice-President Rules in the Senate using his tie-breaking vote.
For instance Tom Daschle was elected to Senate Majority leader the firs time (Jan 3, 2001 to Jan 20, 2001), when VP Al Gore acted in his capacity of ex officio President of the Senate used his tie-breaker among the evenly divide 50-50 Senate.
Super delegates include elected officials facing election this year or later, should be in the best position to make their own judgements on behalf of the party, if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will not reach 2025 among pledged delegates.
I live in Texas. Do I think that delegates who come out of Caucuses and delegates who come out of primaries are created equal? NO

@Will | Mar 14, 2008 5:57:35 PM:
Well stated.
I agree that the superdelegates should have come forward by now and throw their support to whomever. They are supposed to exercise their independent judgment which means that they don’t have to see how their state voted, etc. Some would argue that they should, but that is not how the system was set up (wrong, right or indifferent).
If they are true leaders, then one would think they could make a sensible conclusion by now as to whom they think is most electable come GE. What will they know in June that they don’t already know? They should show some courage and LEADERSHIP and help us unite this party once and for all.
If the democratic primary was really about the will of the people, you would think it would be set up such that every state would vote on the same day and in primary fashion. Iowa and New Hampshire have long had the “say” of the candidate.

California Independent.
We will have to agree to disagree. It’s up to the Supers on this one I’m afraid since neither candidate can reach the nominating number 2025…..without them.

Here are some Real Tough Questions you should get ready for Senator Clinton
• What type of Foreign Policy Experience has Senator Clinton had
• While President Clinton was in the White House was Hillary Clinton giving security clearance to read any national intelligent information in case a crisis came up
• What Foreign Leaders has she met with and what were the bases of the meetings.
• Why didn’t Senator Clinton read NIE Report before she voted to go to war?
• Do you think if Chelsea were in the military, she would have exercised more precaution before agreeing with President Bush War Strategy
• Why did it take Senator Clinton until now to regret her vote?
• What makes her a more qualified woman to be President over someone like Barbara Boxer who actually had the courage to vote against the War
• Why is your campaign taking money from a Firm being accused of Serial Sexual Harassment?
• Has one of Senator Clintons campaign chairman also taken money from Tony Rezko and if so
• Has Senator Clintons campaign chairman given the money back or donated to charity
• Don’t you think Courage is more important than being Politically Safe?

I’m telling you people be very careful of who you vote for. MSNBC & CNN have been bios. CNN especially has all these people that attack Hillary and not Obama. They should be fare like Fox News. Fox News attacks each candidate and they are putting out facts that neither CNN nor MSNBC want to touch because it’s looking bad for Obama. Did you all know that once again Michelle Obama said that “this nation is really mean” she escaped with a free ride on the statement of how “she is finally proud of America”. Her statements are very questionable on our nation, and have been brain washed from (racist) Rev. Jeremiah Wright who is her pastor of 20 years in her supposed Christian Trinity Church.

Mary, are Hispanic voters really the
“key votes” in November? Wow, good to know. Guess I’ll stay home on election day.

I once had great regard for both of the Clintons. Bill was a very effective president (who was looking better by the day in contrast with the current denizen of the White House) and Hillary was an obviously bright and thoughtful woman with stands on most issues that were pretty much in line with my own. But very early in the campaign, I began to become uneasy with her view that the primary process was little more than a preamble to her coronation. I began to become uncomfortable with the notion that our Great Democracy might end up being ruled for nearly three decades by the members of just two families. The more INEVITABLE Hillary tried to appear, the more I began to question the wisdom of “crowning” her on February 5th. Unfortunately, I live in Michigan, and my Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, a declared Hillary supporter for whom I also once had respect, ignored very clearly-stated DNC rules and invalidated my vote by moving the primary earlier on the calendar. Clinton, alone among major Democratic candidates, also ignored the DNC and left her name on the ballot. This opened my eyes. They have been opening more and more widely ever since.
I now see that Hillary Clinton wants to live in the White House again so badly that she will do or say anything to get a shot at it. This includes trampling over all prior DNC agreements and using all of Bill’s undisclosed connections (and previosly-negotiated quid pro quos… Who are these library donors?)
As for the arguments she now makes daily in the media, let me see if I’ve got them straight… The party activists who participate in caucuses cannot be relied upon to reach a valid verdict, but party activists known as “Superdelegates” can? The big states she has won (most of which have been won by every Democrat since FDR and would undoubtedly be carried by Obama as well) are more important than the southern states (where Obama would likely deliver the first Democratic victories in decades). Serving in the Illinois state legislature doesn’t constitute experience, but sitting next to Bill at a state dinner does? Bush and Cheney’s war-mongering rhetoric is a scare-tactic, but Clinton’s “It’s 3:00am in America” ad is perfectly acceptable?
I would ask all of you loyal Hillary supporters to remember just one thing before you castigate Obama loyalists who will stay home if Hillary is the nominee: Just how loudly did you cry foul when G. W. Bush used HIS family connections to steal the election from Gore in 2000?

Sen. Clinton’s remarks were a fine explanation of how the delegates and their loyalties are established, but, alas, she did not answer the question posed — most likely because any such response would be both hypocritical and subject her to ridicule.
Her contention, for example, that the delegates from Florida and Michigan must be seated (either based on the extant primary results from January or as determined via re-vote) is predicated upon the notion that voters in these states must not be disenfranchised. But, doesn’t this stance wholly contradict the assertion that these “pledged delegates” may vote however they like at the convention (via sifting)? Moreso, in asking the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, doesn’t she inherently subject those Democrats to a backlash from the constituencies they represent and again usurp the will of the electorate?
If these contentions are made, is not an appropriate response the very one given by Sen. Obama? That if these contests are truly meaningless, why waste hundreds of millions of dollars running them? Shouldn’t anyone question the legitimacy of such antics at a time when the candidates beseech the public for contributions to finance their runs for office at a time when the economy is in the sewer only to have that determination overruled by an oligarchy?
On that note: if a compromise is made to seat Florida and Michigan, shouldn’t the DNC strip the superdelegates from both states of their right to vote at the convention? In doing so, the DNC would hold these legislators responsible and send a clear message that it will not reward political vanity. After all, they, more than anyone are responsible for allowing this mess to happen. If the voters from these states will be held accountable in some form, then certainly their representatives should more severly bear the burden of failed responsibility.

A few things for you Clintonians to ponder:
Obama is projected to obtain more electoral votes than Hillary would.
Hillary has a 50% negativity rating across the U.S!!
Obama has been steadily gaining superdelegates while Hillary has added almost none in recent weeks. Some are starting to switch from Hillary to Barack.
Most “popular vote” tallies you see include caucus results as raw popular vote. When causus state’s “popular vote” is weighted by a state’s population, Obama’s popular vote goes way up. Hillary will not be close on the popular vote, which is a meaningless statistic anyway.
Most supers are elected officials and are not expected to risk their political careers by voting contrary to the primary/caucus wishes of their consituencies. Most supers are following the choice of their state or district.
There is NO PRECEDENT for supers taking the nomination from someone with almost half the popular vote and a significant lead in pledged delegates (’68 was a 3-way split, with the top two at 25% and 26%).
Polls repeatedly show Obama to be the stronger national candidate.
The big-state argument is a total loser. Kerry and Gore won those states and lost the election. Any number of swing states where Obama is strong would have won the ’00 or ’04 elections.
The big-state argument is also bogus because the traditional big blues will go for Obama even if he did not win them in the nomination process. Even Rendell concedes that Obama would likely win PA in Nov.
Do you really think that the supers are going to pick the candidate preferred by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter???

An analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center dramatically tells the story that using exit polling data, it shows that not only have Latinos favored Clinton over Obama by a ratio of 2-to-1 but that Latinos have also become a much more important segment of the Democratic primary electorate than they were four years ago. Were it not for the Latino vote, Clinton would have lost California and Texas. In both states, the Latino share of the electorate increased dramatically from four years ago, rising by a third in Texas (from 24 percent to 32 percent) and almost doubling in California (from 16 percent to 30 percent).
The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president.
Starting with the basics of the nomination process here are the rules:
1. The candidate who receives a majority of available delegates will win the nomination. Not a plurality, but a majority.
2. The pool of available delegates come from two places. Most are selected by the voters, through the primaries and caucuses; these delegates are theoretically committed to support particular candidates, at least on the first convention ballot.
3. The rest of the available delegates are these superdelegates–party leaders, elected officials, and so on. They are free to back whomever they want.
So contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, the rules say Superdelegate votes can determine the outcome if no candidate has a majority (which will likely be the case). And the rules don’t offer any guidance on how Superdelegates should vote.
So in a strictly technical sense, there’s nothing illegitimate about Clinton seeking the support of the Superdelegates–and, no less important, there’s nothing illegitimate about them backing her if that’s their decision.

I ain’t buying! Yes, the rules allow the supers to step in and reverse the popular will. But if they do, say hello to 4 years of McCain, because it will tear the party apart. Hillary Clinton reminds me of a lunatic heckler at a rally–she’ll have to be pulled out of the room kicking and screaming.

Guess what Texas Voter? Your wrong!
ABC & NBC reporting that Hillary’s received thousands more votes than Sen. Obama in this year’s contests
Hillary Clinton has received more votes than anyone else running for President this year, Democrat or Republican, according to new estimates from ABC and NBC News. The new numbers — bolstered by decisive wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Following are the latest estimates from the networks:
ABC: Hillary has received 13,568,891 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Obama has received 13,565,339.
NBC/MSNBC: Hillary has received 13,521,832 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Obama has received 13,497,175.
In addition to the overall lead in votes, Hillary holds a significant lead in votes among Democrats. Hillary has received nearly 10.3 million votes among Democrats so far while Sen. Obama has received 9.2 million.
These are the results from right now and not the past like most of you have been writing down.

By the Numbers: In the last two weeks, Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents, Republicans, and voters making up their minds in the last three days before the elections of Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.

Lets ask Obama about his foreign policy experience, top Obama Advisor cites his work on ethics reform
3/11/2008
Today on MSNBC, top Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice was asked “The question is Barack Obama, what experience does Barack Obama have? To answer that 3:00 a.m. call.” In response, Rice said “he has passed legislation on ethics reform which is crucial.” Earlier this campaign, when Sen. Obama was asked about his foreign policy experience, he replied “You know, I majored in international relations.” ["Good Morning America," 1/24/07]
Rice also claimed “Barack Obama has served in the Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee for four years now.” But Sen. Obama has only been in the Senate for a little more than three years.
In a prior appearance on MSNBC, Rice acknowledged that Sen. Obama was not prepared to answer a 3AM phone call.
???????????????????????????????OBAMA

“So contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, the rules say Superdelegate votes can determine the outcome if no candidate has a majority (which will likely be the case). And the rules don’t offer any guidance on how Superdelegates should vote.
So in a strictly technical sense, there’s nothing illegitimate about Clinton seeking the support of the Superdelegates–and, no less important, there’s nothing illegitimate about them backing her if that’s their decision.”
Totally agree with you on this.
“An analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center dramatically tells the story that using exit polling data, it shows that not only have Latinos favored Clinton over Obama by a ratio of 2-to-1 but that Latinos have also become a much more important segment of the Democratic primary electorate than they were four years ago. Were it not for the Latino vote, Clinton would have lost California and Texas. In both states, the Latino share of the electorate increased dramatically from four years ago, rising by a third in Texas (from 24 percent to 32 percent) and almost doubling in California (from 16 percent to 30 percent).”
This does not explain why the Hispanic vote would trump the loss of the African American vote. It only proves that their vote would be significant in terms of a loss for Obama. However, a loss of the African American votes would be significant for Hillary.

SB,
Good comments.
may I add something?
How many people in US are diabetic and those people have to wait in the line and they have to take insulin every several hours also.
That just doesn’t make sense.
Thanks.

You know…I am so sick of her and you know…the only thing I know is that if her husband had not been President no one would know…who in the heck she is!!! I always respect the woman behind the man but when his pants are down half the time how could she put up with him if she didnt have to and come on she did not have to only for the chance to run for first female president. As far as I am concerned the “Clintounges” just wag it which ever way the wind is blowing. They both are evil power hungry mongrels!!!

No. If a candidate ends the primary season with the lead in the popular vote and the lead among elected delegates, and is defeated for the nomination by the votes of “superdelegates,” all hell will break loose for the Democratic Party. It won’t matter that it’s permitted under the rules. The appearance of unfairness will be indelible.

Well, everyone is making such a big deal that both Obama & Clinton need to follow the rules. So, if that is the case then lets at least be consistant & allow the superdelegates to vote for whom ever the want. PERIOD!

If one claims that the caucuses are not representative of the electorate, then how can one suggest the superdelegates are?
You can’t have it both ways.

“You know, caucuses are small not particularly representative. … Superdelegates, so called, are in the process because …”
So, caucuses are not OK because they are not representive, but the superdelegates are OK. Yes, Clinton sold me the Brooklyn Bridge.

“But she has my sincere admiration in one respect: she never gives up.”
That’s right, Ernie of Bayside. She never gives up. Nor should she. Lets take this to the convention, and may the best man, or woman, win.

I fail to understand the female vote for Clinton. She was ready to trash Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky (but for the famous blue dress) in the Clintonian quest for political power. I was an original Hillary fan and supporter of the idea that she could have succeeded Bill in the office. Now,I am weary of the Clinton scandals and the double speak. I would love to able to vote for someone whose only scandals were his association with Rezko (who also raised money for the Clintons) and a minister whose words have already been disavowed by Obama. The inside joke of the Clinton campaign is that she is capable of returning more times than Freddie Kreuger.

A alley cat has more morals then the Clintons. Power and money are all they care about. I would vote for a member of the mafia before the Clintons.

In other words, Hillary, you’re willing to say or do anything to win. Like we’ve always known.
Hillary Clinton IS a monster. She’s possibly the most destructive force within the Democratic Party since Joe Lieberman.

oh..if it were only as easy as
“If you wanna vote for Hillary…raise your hand”
“If you want Obama ..raise your hand”
The super delagates are here for this very reason, so It baffles me that people get upset by the fact that the Super delagestes votes might count. This race is really too close to say THE VAST MAJORITY LOVE OBAMA.WE WONT VOTE IF THE SUPERS PICK HILLARY!!!
Thats just not the truth. Its about half and half. Let the delagates do their jobs.Frankly…they all scare the crap out of me.

She just keeps digging herself in deeper and deeper and deeper. Isn’t it obvious by now that she cares more about winning the Presidency for herself than the good of America? Other democratic politicians never did well around the Clintons. They are doing their best to shove Barack aside too. But despite all their chattering, he is tougher than both of them. The Clintons have finally met their match.

I used cnnpolitics.com figures and tallied ONLY the primary delegates.
Obama: 1098
Clinton: 1080

The Superdelegates are the experts of the party. They are there to pick the nominee who has the most votes and is most likely to win against the Republicans.
The reason why we have Superdelegates is because we got tired of losing to the Republicans.
Yes, too often – too many of the peoples did not pick the Democratic candidate strong enough to win against the Republican candidate.
Hillary is better positioned to beat McCain than Barack. The Republicans will portray him as an ‘inexperienced anti-war liberal,’ and even though he’s renounced them, his relations and association with Rezko and this pastor may just serve to seal his unelectability. The Republicans will use the pastors remarks, and Michelle’s remarks about the first time she’s been proud of being an American; they will use the images of Barack without his hand on his heart – this is they type of stuff that makes Republicans giddy and gleeful.
You have to be realistic about the rest of the country. How likely do you think it is that a country where the majority last voted for Bush, would vote for Barack after the Republicans get done with him?
He’s already started to go down in national numbers against McCain. Hillary’s the one most qualifed to help the economy. She is a good woman – not all the smears – paranoid people like to believe. The reality is much more ordinary. But she is extremely qualified and knowledgeable. I have watched her through her whole career.
The first Clinton administration was the most socio-economically successful we’ve ever had. Hillary’s the one who’s in the best position to beat McCain.

Gee, Karen -
I know a lot of people who say “Well, you know,” and then don’t lie. Myself included.
And nothing Hillary said in these statements was a lie.
You are just being prejudiced against Hillary.

Lauren, regarding Hillary’s “Well, you know…” statements:
It’s the way she says it. Even when I supported her, I was always unnerved and knew whatever she was about to say was compromised.
I’m not saying that everyone who says those words is lying.
But I am saying that honesty counts. It would be a breath of fresh air for her to go off script and tell the truth. It’s not like it isn’t obvious.
I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I know how it feels when my candidate is down or misunderstood. All the candidates are qualified and at the same time flawed.
Sometimes this feels like a battle of principalities.
Lauren, I wish you the best whichever way this contest goes. Whichever candidate wins the general, they will certainly face an invigorated and more participatory electorate. It’s a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.
Take care.

There are only two kinds of delegates, pledged delegates and superdelegates. Unless you want to break out the 76 add-on delegates that are included in the 796 superdelegates.
What Hillary is trying to do is separate out the caucus delegates from the primary delegates because she’s hoping that when all is said and done, she might have a lead in primary pledged delegates. Barack has won virtually all of the caucus states, so she wants to pull those delegates out of the pledged delegates total. That way she would be able to say, “Hey, look, I’m leading in this category.”
Hillary is beyond being a mere embarrassment to the Democratic Party. She has now become a national disgrace.

“The reason why we have Superdelegates is because we got tired of losing to the Republicans.”
Indeed. And if the superdelegates overturn the will of the rank-and-file, particularly under the suggestion that they are somehow “wiser” than them, this party will be devastated for a generation, maybe more. That’s an entire generation of Republican victories.
So if the superdelegates are tired of losing to Republicans, they better not capitulate to the Clinton arm-twisting — or else.

Jeanine,
You’re so right. Hillary thinks we are stupid. Lauren, a Hillary supporter, agrees. She just posted “the reason why we have superdelegates is that we got tired of losing to the Republicans”
I remember Bill saying – when there was a surplus – that he couldn’t give it back to the taxpayers because we wouldn’t know what to do with it. So…we were in effect overcharged but not deserving of the refund.
So Obama has some problems now but this arrogant attitude doesn’t seem to be one of them.

for a decade or more the right wingers have hated Hillary. One of the things they say it that this woman will do ANYTHING to get power. I always used to dismiss them as propogandists, but recently I have had the horrific realization that it appears they were right about this all along.
She is tearing the Democratic Party in 2, and if she steals the nomination it will be devastating to the party, and we will be looking at a republican president come 2009.
We already had one election stolen from us in 2000, let’s not let it happen again in the democratic primaries. We all need to rally around Obama, the rightful democratic candidate.

Uh no. Voting for Hillary would mean a slow death for the nation whereas McCain would destroy us fast and clean. I’ll go with fast and clean.
Hillary is a republican. A lying, pandering, power-mad, rule breaking, kleptocrat who doesn’t give a damn about anyone other than herself. If you don’t get that – you deserve the government and nation that will result.
A real feminist supports the best CANDIDATE for the job. Not the only WOMAN for the job. Seriously, the 1st and 2nd wave dinosaurs are just destroying any credibility they had with younger women by acting exactly like Evangelical Christian republicans – supporting their identity politics at the nation’s expense.

Fredrika,
I agree with what you say about being a real feminist. I have no intention of voting for Hillary – who I completely distrust – just because I’m a woman. That would be stupid and that is what Hillary is counting on. The way she treated the women her husband accosted was enough for me to see what she’s all about. The fact that she gets so much of the women’s vote is mind boggling and sadly in a way proves Hillary’s point – there are plenty of stupid voters.

Sooooooo, she criticized “party activists” who are regular voters and called them “unrepresentative of the electorate,” yet she considers the “party activist” superdelegates to be representative?
No, no sell. We’re tired of double-speak and attempts at political stunts.

The obvious thing is that she’d be spinning this thing about the superdelegates exactly the opposite way if that is what benefited her.

If hillary thinks caucuses are undemocratic and unrepresentative of the will of the voters — a bit of illogic that overlooks the fact that voters participate in them — then she shouldn’t have worked so hard to win the Iowa caucuses. Just goes to show that people are in favor of things when those things work for them, and against things when those things work against them.
Sounds like clintonism itself.

I’m curious.
Are Obama supporters so bitter that they are willing to give power to the republicans should Obama lose the eventual nomination? If this is the case… And you decide not to vote at all, or vote republican… Then shame on you! There is no evidence that Clinton supporters would do the same. You say Hillary is selfish? She has been democratic in answering the question of the ‘joint ticket’ and I agree that, due to how tight the race is, that she is perfectly qualified to say such a thing. That is democratic! Obama has flat out rejected the suggestion… Surely this makes Obama look even MORE selfish and secular than Clinton?
I’m not American, I’m actually from the UK, but if I did get the chance to vote in the election, I’d be sincerely worried about voting for Obama should he win… Based on the fact that the majority of his voters are quite willing to sell the party to the republicans should Obama not win. Shame on you, you are not democratic at all

To nico, from the U. K. Take Hillary with you to the U.K. I’m sure you two will be perfect together.Win at any cost. rules be dammed.

I’d be happy to take Hillary to the UK with me… Thankyou so much for offering. In the UK, we actually vote our leaders on experience… We vote our leaders because they tell us exactly what they will do and how they will do it. We used your logic once… When we voted for Tony Blair… Sure, he was bright, charismatic, and promised change and restructuring… What did we get instead? a war, amongst other things which slowly began to rise to the surface after we voted him. Believe me… We are more experienced to cast our judgement than most of you seem to be… You forget that we have been electing prime ministers for twice as long as you have.
Hillary would be a valid and welcome change for out country… And should be for yours too.

Not at all. It just shows that she is absolutely dedicated to a process which is top-down, as opposed to bottom up.
As usual, she is deadset AGAINST the will of the people.
Nothing new.
Matt

No, absolutely unconvincing. So, you mean 800 people can change the will of millions of voters? What a shame, this is not democracy, but theocracy. Why don’t we do that also at national level? People choose between Obama and Mac Cain, and then a Council of the Wise and Elderly (800 people) will decide if in fact people made the right choice. If Obama wins states, pledged delegates and popular vote, NO CHANCE that anybiody overturns this. This is the end of the Democratic Party.

1) Neither candidate should have to explain the rules; the DNC should do that, since they wrote them. If that causes one candidate problems, tough.
2) The DNC should either admit it was foolish in its decision to strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates and pay for new primaries – or it should stick to the decision and just live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
3) The Democrats should forget caucasus and open primaries and just have closed primaries in every state.

Hillary can’t even run a campaign. How could she run the country?

I know lots of comited democrats who will vote mccain instead of a cheating clinton.
Almost as many as the racists who would never vote for Obama.
Its a huge mess fer sure

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.
“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,” Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.
Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press’ count.
Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.
That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.
Pelosi’s comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.
In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.
“It’s a delegate race,” she said. “The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.”
****************************************
From the Speaker of the House! The most powerful female democrat.
Finally the Democratic party is waking up! Good night Hillary, goodnight.

As usual, Sen. Clinton’s answer makes NO sense!

Can Sen. Clinton explain this? Hillary Clinton’s 35yrs.
Remember the Republican will talk about this. Can someone please find out why Sen. Clinton hasn’t released her tax records or record of activities in the White House as First Lady. If there’s something bad we need to know, she should inform us. We don’t want the Republican to get the White House because of some hidden facts.
Posted by: Oretega M
———————
Hillary is running a campaign of deceit about her “experience”. First of all, she was DENIED a Security Clearance the entire time she was in the White House!!
So how could she be involved in Foreign POLICY issues? Also, I would like to know just how she “crossed the threshold to Commander and Chief”. She would have had to have a TOP SECRET SECURTY CLEARANCE. She had NO security clearance, Period! And those are just the tip of the iceberg to the extent she has deceived American voters. Her supporters do not bother to find facts, they just believe everything Hillary tells them and repeat after her. Just look at how, on these comments, they repeat/parrot everything she says as the TRUTH. Very sad, indeed.

Nina -
Just because you belittle someone else’s time or experience doesn’t make it true – at all.
Hillary spent 8 years working in Bill’s administration. Barack has spent 0 years in the White House.
There is nothing illegal in their papers or their tax returns. The government has seen all of them. Bill already released a lot of them earlier than most Presidents do.
Most importantly, I’m sure you are quite dreamy about it, but it is highly unlikely Barack would be able to beat McCain, after the Republicans get through with him, and they have plenty of ammo now. The Rezko and preacher relations will make it impossible in the general.
CBS did a pretty fair and balanced piece on Hillary and Barack, called “For the Record,” where they went over their records, and spoke with both their critics and supporters.
It does proves that indeed Hillary has 35 years experience. I have tried to post much of it here before, but Jake deleted half of it.
Peggy Noonan is a critic, writing a critical controversial book to make lots of money. If you only read books by opportunistic critics, you will only those critic’s views.
I have to go now.
I think Barack has potential in the future, but he needs more than 3 years national experience to prove himself and be able to beat Republicans in a general election. And Hillary is truly our most qualified candidate.
She has the best plans and policy, and is the one who will best help our economy most efficiently and effectively.
*Cheers*

After Fridays exposure to Obama’s spirtial advisor, mentor,inspiration for his book , and minister why would any delegate support Obama? And the caucus in Texas was a fraud. Obama people were running over Clinton”s elderly voters, giving them incorrect information and even locking the doors on them. The media knew of this but only Fox reported on it.Caucus’ are the most unjust way to hold an election and when the elderly are pushed around, which seems to have happened at alot of the caucus’, the voice of the people are not truly heard.What is Obama winning ? All caucus’, strange, huh? Super Delegates can vote for anyone they please to vote for and after Obama has finally been exposed to so many “boneheaded” relationships, Wright, Ayers, and Rezko, who represent anything other than what America stands for, if they did support Obama alot of true Americans would be very upset.

Again that is her way of bullying people. As for the previous comments of Barak Obama’s pastor. That have nothing to do with what Obama stands for. The people who agrees with Hillary and the comments they made just show you that we still live in a very racist society. White people can’t begin to understand the oppression that black people face even at the present moment. How would you feel if you were told that you can’t drink from a water fountain? how would you feel if your family or loved ones were taken away from you? How would you feel if you work hard and for years and at the end of the day told taht you weren’t qualified enough to be promoted and a white person with no college background was place ahead of you? how would you feel if you or your family was used for medical experiment? what Jerimiah Wright said is factual. I see and live it every single day. Walk a mile in my shoes. Don’t be afraid understand where we coming from, acknowledge the racism and oppression that blacks was subjected and still having to endure so that we could start a dialogue.
How is it that the Jews are allowed to not forget the Holocaust and blacks cannot speak about the expression. It’s time to acknowlege your deeds and atone.