Poll: Obama vs Clinton on remaining pledged delegates

[Von Tonner]

Clinton will close to within 50 on Obama lead


Clinton will overtake Obama lead


Obama will increase lead

[Von Tonner]

The present situation after Wyoming (8 March 2008)
Obama: 1368 pledged delegates
Clinton: 1226 pledged delegates
States still to vote and number of delegates up for grabs.
Mississippi (primary) 33
Pensylvania (primary) 158
Guam (caucus) 4
Indiana (primary) 72
North Carolina (primary) 115
West Virginia (primary) 28
Kentucky (primary) 51
Oregon (primary) 52
Montana (primary) 16
South Dakota (primary) 15
Puerto Rico (caucus) 55

A total of 599 pledged delegates still to contest for.

If Clinton had to win each remaining State with a margin of 60% to 40% she would still not take Obama’s lead. No political analyst I have read even comes close to this scenario for her.
On the sideline are super delegates, ( 204 Obama, 244 Clinton with 347 undeclared); Edwards with 12 delegates and Florida and Michigan. I feel that whoever wins the pledged delegates and by what margin will influence these three variables. As it is, even if one factors in Florida and Michigan as they now stand, Clinton still does not overtake Obama’s lead.
Source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

What then is Clinton playing at or hoping for? That is the million dollar question.
And does the answer lie here?

Go Already!
Hillary Clinton, fratricidal maniac.
Jonathan Chait, The New Republic Published: Thursday, March 06, 2008

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.
The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring--or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012-that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.
Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.
Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.
What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.
Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

[Platapus]

I think it will be a very close race.

I can live with either Clinton or Obama. I think either of them will make good presidents. I don't agree with everything either of them say, but I think they will start this country back onto a better path.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think that Clinton will be better at making the necessary deals in Congress and Obama will be better at International relations.

It will be a close race. Perhaps one good thing might happen: The Democratic Party may finally get rid of the stupid idea of Super Delegates. What were they thinkin? :doh:

As for McCain? Well being a life long Republican, coming from a family of Republicans, I can't in good judgement vote for McCain. I am a disaffected Republican and I am sure I am not the only one. The Republican Party has moved in a direction that no longer represents my values.

Religious fundamentalism does not equal conservative in my book. :nope:

Fiscally, I can not support this new concept of "credit card" conservatism where spending goes up, taxes go down, and debt goes up. :damn: At least with a Democrat you will be paying for the extra spending. Credit card conservatives want your kids/grandkids/great grand kids to pay while you enjoy the spurious benefit of lower taxes.

Any money spent by the government has to be paid for by the people.

So if the Republican party wants me back, they need to re-educate themselves on what being a true conservative means. It aint Bush thats fer sure!

Thanks for letting me ramble. I have to British shipping to sink :up:

[bookworm_020]

I think Itt's going to be close and will come down to the convention to decide the winner. But if it's a real nasty meeting, this could cause a backlash agaist the democrates and had a win the McCain.

[Von Tonner]

Hilarious skit by SNL on Hillary's 3am call.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/03/snl_has_hillarys_3am_call.html

[Jimbuna]

Now that was funny :rotfl: :up:

[bookworm_020]

I'm thinking the statements by the Clintons about Obama being Vice President could cause their downfall. If they were infront, it may have worked, but as they are behind it seems like an act of despration:hmm:

[sonar732]

I'm thinking the statements by the Clintons about Obama being Vice President could cause their downfall. If they were infront, it may have worked, but as they are behind it seems like an act of despration:hmm:

I agree.

Obama has been going for the jugular with this. His main point is that she was making commercials about him not ready for the presidency...but fine as a VP. Wouldn't he need to assume the same responsibilities eventually if something happened to her?

[Von Tonner]

Time Interview: 17 March 2008 pg 24. Question: Can you envision a point at which – if the race stays this close- Democratic Party elders would step in and say, “This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall?”


Clinton: “No, I really can’t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. :huh: My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June.”


What is she saying?! That there is a chance that some crazy will take out Obama – is this what this power hungry egocentric woman is secretly pinning her diminishing hopes on?

[sonar732]

Time Interview: 17 March 2008 pg 24. Question: Can you envision a point at which – if the race stays this close- Democratic Party elders would step in and say, “This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall?”


Clinton: “No, I really can’t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. :huh: My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June.”


What is she saying?! That there is a chance that some crazy will take out Obama – is this what this power hungry egocentric woman is secretly pinning her diminishing hopes on?

I heard about this and was shocked. What does the assassination of Bobby Kennedy have anything to do with the nomination process?

Also, she claims that her husband didn't wrap up his nomination until June? He swept the Super Tuesday Primaries for goodness sakes and basically secured it in early April, three months before the convention in July...almost two months prior to when the 1968 convention was held in late August (which coincidently is the same as this years).

[bookworm_020]

What is she saying?! That there is a chance that some crazy will take out Obama – is this what this power hungry egocentric woman is secretly pinning her diminishing hopes on?

Is the Secret Service getting Nervous about this statement. Is she getting that desperate???

I'm seeing the final sences involving Kirstie Alley in the movie Drop Dead Gorgeous play in my mind. Is this what will happen to Hillary if she looses the run off for nomination???:hmm:


http://imdb.com/title/tt0157503/

[sonar732]

Oh to add to the drama of the Democratic race.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/pl_nm/usa_politics_ferraro_dc

Will she be ousted for these comments like Obama's advisor over "monster" comments? I doubt it because in Hillary's view, it doesn't work both ways.

[Tchocky]

Does anyone agree with her?

I think she's dead wrong, but I've been wrong before.

[GlobalExplorer]

Clinton: “No, I really can’t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. :huh: My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June.”


How very stupid of her to let that slip. But certainly she regrets it.

However, strange, now that I read it, the thought was on the back of my mind: Some f_cker might try to kill Obama.

[Von Tonner]

Does anyone agree with her?

I think she's dead wrong, but I've been wrong before.
Look at this excellent piece of journalism by Keith Olbermann. Honestly, he cuts straight to the chase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

[Konovalov]

Does anyone agree with her?

I think she's dead wrong, but I've been wrong before.

Not me.

And yes I agree with you.

[sonar732]

Does anyone agree with her?

I think she's dead wrong, but I've been wrong before.
Look at this excellent piece of journalism by Keith Olbermann. Honestly, he cuts straight to the chase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

WOW! That was a good commentary!

[Tchocky]

Yup yup.
I'm often wary when watching Olbermann. He's a very forceful speaker, and sometimes he walks on unstable interpretative ground, which is not a problem for more soft-spoken commentators. In a way, he's taking risks that lots os commentators won't.

He's spot-on here.

[NEON DEON]

Has Obama fired his pastor?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America.""


:down: :down: :down:

[Tchocky]

I responded to this in the Sticky at the top :up:

[STEED]

Obama will increase lead but Obama and Clinton will be after those super votes the way things are going. One thing is for sure, the Democrats don't want this to go on much longer as the Republicans are first off the blocks after the vote for the big one.

[NEON DEON]

I responded to this in the Sticky at the top :up:

The post was not directed at you.

Besides I read your post and I dont see an answer to did Obama fire his Pastor?

His response should have been I Dont go to that church anymore and he is no longer my pastor.

Honestly. OBH Wants to take the oath of office to protect and defend the US while refusing to put proper distance between him and people who make remarks like this:

"God Damn America"



He is not Obama's eccentric Uncle. He is a leader. The Pastor of his church that he has been going to for the last 20 years.

[Konovalov]

Has Obama fired his pastor?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America.""


:down: :down: :down:

How on earth can you fire the pastor? :-? As far as I'm aware this pastor is not employed by Senator Obama.

[NEON DEON]

Has Obama fired his pastor?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America.""


:down: :down: :down:

How on earth can you fire the pastor? :-? As far as I'm aware this pastor is not employed by Senator Obama.

Oh that is easy you go to another church.;)

[NEON DEON]

Obama will lose 3 large states. PA, MI, and Fl. These will push Clinton past Obama in popular vote but not in total delegates. Puerto Rico votes almost last on June 1st with 55 delagates which will be winner take all and go to Clinton which will put her right up with Obama delegate-wise. The Super delegates seeing that there is no clear winner and that Clinton has taken the popular vote will now turn decidedly toward Hillary givng her the democratic nomination.

Anyways that is how my crytal ball sees it.:D

[Von Tonner]

March 14, 2008 On My Faith and My Church

Barack Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/alternate_template/barack_obama/)
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.



and:




With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Full statement here:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/on_my_faith_and_my_church.html

This is what I find puzzling about Obama. He always seems to hold back waiting for the bush fire to really catch before attempting to douse it. Not clever politics at all.

[Von Tonner]

Obama will lose 3 large states. PA, MI, and Fl. These will push Clinton past Obama in popular vote but not in total delegates. Puerto Rico votes almost last on June 1st with 55 delagates which will be winner take all and go to Clinton which will put her right up with Obama delegate-wise. The Super delegates seeing that there is no clear winner and that Clinton has taken the popular vote will now turn decidedly toward Hillary givng her the democratic nomination.

Anyways that is how my crytal ball sees it.:D

King, on CNN with his fancy dancy 'touch-me-screen" extrapolated a 65% to 35% win in favour of Clinton in the remainig states to illustrate the high improbability of her catching Obama, let alone overtaking him. If memory serves me correctly, Clinton has only beaten Obama by more than 20% in only 2 of the states she has won, while he has beaten her by 20% and more in something like 11 states.

These stats argue against her catching him up on the popular vote as well. She has to really blow him out the water in more than 3 or more states to be in the running and to date, she has not been able to achieve it. Even if Florida and Michigan are taken in as they now stand she still does not catch him in popular vote or delegates.

If winning delegates is the criteria on which winning a state or losing it is based, and this IS what is used by the Democratic Party, then Obama walked out of Texas with more pledged delegates to his name than she did i.e. He WON Texas given its "two-step" process.

[NEON DEON]

Obama will lose 3 large states. PA, MI, and Fl. These will push Clinton past Obama in popular vote but not in total delegates. Puerto Rico votes almost last on June 1st with 55 delagates which will be winner take all and go to Clinton which will put her right up with Obama delegate-wise. The Super delegates seeing that there is no clear winner and that Clinton has taken the popular vote will now turn decidedly toward Hillary givng her the democratic nomination.

Anyways that is how my crytal ball sees it.:D

King, on CNN with his fancy dancy 'touch-me-screen" extrapolated a 65% to 35% win in favour of Clinton in the remainig states to illustrate the high improbability of her catching Obama, let alone overtaking him. If memory serves me correctly, Clinton has only beaten Obama by more than 20% in only 2 of the states she has won, while he has beaten her by 20% and more in something like 11 states.

These stats argue against her catching him up on the popular vote as well. She has to really blow him out the water in more than 3 or more states to be in the running and to date, she has not been able to achieve it. Even if Florida and Michigan are taken in as they now stand she still does not catch him in popular vote or delegates.

If winning delegates is the criteria on which winning a state or losing it is based, and this IS what is used by the Democratic Party, then Obama walked out of Texas with more pledged delegates to his name than she did i.e. He WON Texas given its "two-step" process.

I believe you have the figures skewed.

Right now not counting michigan at all Obama leads the popular vote by about 60 thousand. PA will erase that lead. Poof its gone. Puerto Rico votes winner take all so 55 delegates in June will all go one way with no split. Clinton does not have to draw ahead in regular delegates she just has to keep obama from getting the required number of delegates to win the election. I believe this will happen and I would like to see the CNN fancy dancy report to verify if they had Puerto Rico voting winner take all.

So Super delegates will have to be called upon to deal with it. The Super Delagates are charged with putting things in perspective in regards as to how they as a party can defeat the Republicans. Since the President of the U S is elected via the Electoral College the super delegates will pretty much vote Clintons way because thestates are winner take all. So yes Obama can win Vermont, South Carolina and little states but lose almost every large state in the Union.

I think I will do my own fancy dancy winner take all electoral college review of Clinton vs Obama. :D

BTW: I also believe that momentum has swung Clinton's way due to the recent news stories in regards to Obamas relationship with his Pastor Reverend Wright.

[sonar732]

BTW: I also believe that momentum has swung Clinton's way due to the recent news stories in regards to Obamas relationship with his Pastor Reverend Wright.

Each time that the pastor has became an issue, Obama has wisely distanced himself from the comments. Granted, when the religion has become a factor, he has talked highly of their relationship. :hmm::hmm:

[Von Tonner]

If the road to the nomination was narrow for Hillary Clinton, this weekend it just got a whole lot narrower. In fact, some would argue that they can now hear the fat lady warming up.


Obama has increased his delegate lead and Pelosi has sent a clear message to superdelegates to focus on pledged delegates only, discounting the popular vote altogether. And if that isn’t bad enough for Hillary, a number of delegates switched from Edwards to Obama in Iowa.


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."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/15/pelosi-superdelegates-may-do-damage/


Obama increases lead:
Counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498.
http://www.mlive.com/elections/

[Von Tonner]

I believe you have the figures skewed.
Right now not counting michigan at all Obama leads the popular vote by about 60 thousand.

According to Realclearpolitic Obama has 13,281,132 popular votes to Hillary's 12,577,409. That is a 703,723 vote lead. Bear in mind that these figures do not inlude Iowa (which he won), Nevada (she won), Washington (he won), Maine (he won). These states have not as yet disclosed the total of popular votes.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


So Super delegates will have to be called upon to deal with it. The Super Delagates are charged with putting things in perspective in regards as to how they as a party can defeat the Republicans. Since the President of the U S is elected via the Electoral College the super delegates will pretty much vote Clintons way because thestates are winner take all. So yes Obama can win Vermont, South Carolina and little states but lose almost every large state in the Union.

See what Pelosi has to say about the role of superdelegates. I think ABC has her on tonight with regard to this. Not good news for Hillary at all.

[Von Tonner]

Puerto Rico votes almost last on June 1st with 55 delagates which will be winner take all and go to Clinton which will put her right up with Obama delegate-wise. :D

Puerto Rico is NOT winner take all

See demconwatch:

The notion of Puerto Rico being a "winner-take-all" jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process. This time will be very different, according to several Puerto Rican Democratic leaders I contacted earlier today by phone. ... If the race is still competitive, participation is likely to be very high, and there is no way that one candidate will sweep all the delegates.
"Both the candidates have supporters on the island," said Eliseo Roques, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus, and a prominent Puerto Rican politician who is neutral in the race. "You will see a closely contested race."



Also of note is that the Governor of Puerto Rico has publically endorsed Obama.

[NEON DEON]

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/clinton-obama-popular-vote.html

As I said before I think Clinton will win the popular vote.

As far as Pelosi discounting the popular vote that is fine. As a democrat tho, I would have a hard time doing that. As a Democrat from Florida or Michigan, I would even have a harder time agreeing with that. As for Super delegates, It is part of the process and I dont understand how she is willing to bash her own party's rules at the same time discounting the popular vote since after all it is the ---------Democratic party.

How Pelosi discounts those things I dont know. She also fails to mention the other big party rule the one where you have to have 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. She is being selective with party rules. :yep:

Puerto Rico:

Puerto Rico is not winner take all. It could be close to that tho. I based my opinion on a blog written on US News. My bad. :oops:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html


It could go one way as outlined by the Puerto Rican delagate process. The process will throw out a candidate if that candidate does not get 15 % of the vote.

Of course that is a reach.

Amending the poll vote I made my fogged up crystal ball says she draws close.

2,025 delegates to gain the nomination.

No one will have that by the time the last primary is over.

The endorsment of Obama by Vila, the Governor of PR, will more than likely be a non event or worse for Obama because vila is under grand jury investigation.

The Fat Lady will have a frog in her throat when PA votes.:D

[TDK1044]

Obama currently has 1,618 delegates and Clinton has 1,479. Realistically, she can't catch him, even factoring in Florida, Michigan and PA. She would need a very significant number of the remaining super delegates to vote for her in order for her to win. In the end, Obama will win by about 70 delegates in my view.

[NEON DEON]

"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"


:oops:

[Von Tonner]

Obama currently has 1,618 delegates and Clinton has 1,479. Realistically, she can't catch him, even factoring in Florida, Michigan and PA. She would need a very significant number of the remaining super delegates to vote for her in order for her to win. In the end, Obama will win by about 70 delegates in my view.

I would agree with you. I get the feeling that there is now a growing idea that Hillary should fold up her tent. In fact, I would argue that it is only because she is who she is that senior Democratic Party members have not already done this - rather letting her have her last day in the sun in PA.
The task of firing the first telling shot accross Clinton's political bows was given to Pelosi, the highest ranked elected Democrat. First she poured cold water on the idea of a so called 'dream ticket'. Then she stated categorically that whoever wins the majority of state contested delagtes has to be the party's nominee. And, because it is Pelosi telling it like it is, this undercuts any suggestion coming out of the Clinton camp of male chauvinism rearing its ugly head within the party elites.
It is interesting to note that of the over 200 uncomitted super delegates so far, approx 110 are from states Obama has won and 80 odd from states Clinton has won.
Given that no matter how one views Clinton's position I find it disconcerting that the media in general have not questioned her on Pelosi's stance which clearly and openly contradicts Clinton's own assesment of her current position. And, even more importantly, Clinton's stock argument that nomination races aren't settled until June and, in support of her argument, she refers to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as one example. The fact that the media have not jumped all over this statement by her is downright shameful on their part.

[TDK1044]

Obama will lose 3 large states. PA, MI, and Fl. These will push Clinton past Obama in popular vote but not in total delegates. Puerto Rico votes almost last on June 1st with 55 delagates which will be winner take all and go to Clinton which will put her right up with Obama delegate-wise. The Super delegates seeing that there is no clear winner and that Clinton has taken the popular vote will now turn decidedly toward Hillary givng her the democratic nomination.

Anyways that is how my crytal ball sees it.:D


Actually...no. Because of the proportional nature of the vote, PA, MI and FL will allow Hillary to reduce his Delegate lead by maybe 30 Delegates. He currently leads by just under 140 delegates. Puerto Rico is not actually a winner take all situation, unless one delegate gets less than 15 percent of the vote. That won't happen. A recent poll shows that Hillary is currently tipped to win there by a 60 to 40 percent majority.

Come the first week of June, Obama will have won more States than Clinton and will be about 80 Delegates ahead of her. The Super Delegates will go roughly 50/50 and Obama will be the candidate.

[Von Tonner]

Another nail hammered into Clinton's political coffin. Florida says "no" to do-over, and it looks like Michigan will say the same.

[TDK1044]

A deal will be done regarding Florida, giving Hillary a 60 to 40 percent Delegate victory. PA she will win easily by a margin similar to Ohio. Michigan will be very close. PR will go for her and then there are a few straggler States in Delegate terms.

The end result of all of this will be Obama well ahead in terms of States won, and with at least an 80 Delegate lead when it's all over. He won't need even 50 percent of the remaining Super Delegates, but he'll get at least 50 percent of them in my view.

The best thing for the Democratic party would be for Hillary to concede now, but that won't happen. :D

[NEON DEON]

I dont see 2 or 3 % as a huge difference.

The race will end at the end.

:D

[TheSatyr]

What people forget is that delegates CAN change their vote. Just because Obama leads in a delegate count doesn't mean those delegates have to vote for him at the convention.

I think there will be ALOT of pressure put on by the DNC on delegates and super delegates to switch their votes to Hillary.

Obama has now become a serious liability to the Democratic party which is going to make the Democratic Convention alot of fun to watch.

[bookworm_020]

I think there will be ALOT of pressure put on by the DNC on delegates and super delegates to switch their votes to Hillary.

But if they put Hillary in over Obama if he had a greater number of delegates going into the convention, it would split the party. That's if he had a big enough lead, and if Hillary was makeing ground on him.

Either way, The Democatic party is split at the moment, and whoever wins need to get every one on side ASAP

[NEON DEON]

How about this for a democratic nightmare.

Hillary wins the nomination and Obama splits and runs as an independent.

:huh:

[Von Tonner]

How about this for a democratic nightmare.

Hillary wins the nomination and Obama splits and runs as an independent.

:huh:

That is the loaded gun Obama walks into the convention with (assuming the nomination is still up in the air). Who is going to have the balls and clout to call his bluff (if it is) when the three top super delegates have already stated publically that a majority of primary delegates = nomination. The Clinton camp? I doubt it.

[Von Tonner]

Obama has now become a serious liability to the Democratic party which is going to make the Democratic Convention alot of fun to watch.

Please explain. After his speech on Tuesday he has the limp wristed liberals crying with joy in the aisles.

[TDK1044]

What people forget is that delegates CAN change their vote. Just because Obama leads in a delegate count doesn't mean those delegates have to vote for him at the convention.

I think there will be ALOT of pressure put on by the DNC on delegates and super delegates to switch their votes to Hillary.

Obama has now become a serious liability to the Democratic party which is going to make the Democratic Convention alot of fun to watch.

At the convention, a pledged delegate must vote for the person they are pledged to on the first ballot....ie the person they voted for at the primary. A super delegate can vote for whichever candidate they please. If neither one of the candidates gets enough votes in the first round, all delegates are then free to vote for whoever they want in the second round. This continues until someone wins.

Obama will probably only need about 40 percent of the super delegates on the first vote.

[Von Tonner]

Hold onto your seats guys, here we go!

The National Archives announces that more than 11,000 pages of the former first lady's schedules will be posted online today.

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/hillaryclinton.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[NEON DEON]

zzzzz.


That put me to sleep.

CLINTON TAKES 7 POINT LEAD IN GALLOP POLL:D

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105205/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Into-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx

Betcha Obama tries block to Michigan vote.

[TDK1044]

Not a great choice for the Democrats...an eloquent speaker with dubious associates, or a totally untrustworthy woman who'll turn a blind eye to anything in order to get elected. One of them gets to run against a grumpy old man. It should provide SNL with endless sketches! :D

[geetrue]

No Flordia delegates, no Michigan delegates (Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot) and the head of the party says that if it makes a
difference on who wins they will not be reinstated.

That's cut and dried.

Plus if they did count Flordia and Michigan the total delegates needed to win goes up even higher. Neither canidate can reach the some 2,020 delegates now.

Another plus is that the super delegates have the right to change their vote right up to the actual voting dead line at the convention.

How about this for an ending: Clinton closes within 50 votes and 50 super delegates change their mind making it a virtual tie.

They fight and fuss Obama loses gets disheartened ...

By that time the democrats only have September and October to run against McCain.

All the pro Obama people protest by not voting in the National election.

Cinton goes on to lose in November ...

Senator John McCain becomes the next president of the United States

I don't think Senator Obama has been honest with everyone on his relationship with Rev Wright.

Twenty years later is a long time to find out that his pastor and friend and spirit leader, who married Obama and his wife,
baptised both of their children, advisor to his running for president, contributer to the title of his book, plus he is pro Farrakan ...

That now all of a sudden Obama finds out that his pastor is anti-white America.

I'm not buying it ... I only have one vote, but I have two eyes and a brain that can comprehend.

Something is wrong with this election ... Yes, I am ready for a change you can believe in ...

God Bless America

[NEON DEON]

Nancy Pelosi is not head of the DNC

Speaker of the House. YES

Head of DNC............ NO


That much should be obvious since she doesnt have a clue why the super delegates were created in the first place.:p

[Von Tonner]

Ok, the Florida door has slamed shut, so has the Michigan one and now Bill Richardson has come out and endorsed Obama. This, after enormous pressure was put onto super delegates by the Clintons to hold back until the convention. Is the dam wall about to burst? Richardson is a staunch friend of the Clintons so this is a major coup for Obama.

[TDK1044]

Many twists and turns to come yet. The roller coaster will continue for both candidates until the Denver convention begins. The only real question for the super delegates is which candidate stands the better chance of defeating John McCain? The answer to that will determine the Democratic candidate for President.

[geetrue]

[quote=TheSatyr]What people forget is that delegates CAN change their vote. Just because Obama leads in a delegate count doesn't mean those delegates have to vote for him at the convention.

A super delegate can vote for whichever candidate they please. If neither one of the candidates gets enough votes in the first round, all delegates are then free to vote for whoever they want in the second round. This continues until someone wins.


Let's all remember this post when the convention starts ...

People do change their minds ... President Bush won the last national election by the largest margin ever, some three million votes.

The American people, right or wrong, changed their minds about three years ago ... :yep:

[Von Tonner]

The only real question for the super delegates is which candidate stands the better chance of defeating John McCain? The answer to that will determine the Democratic candidate for President.

Question: Has there ever been a nominee who has won a majority of primary delegates and not carried the super delegates? Anyone out there know? I cannot get an answer through Google.

[NEON DEON]

The only real question for the super delegates is which candidate stands the better chance of defeating John McCain? The answer to that will determine the Democratic candidate for President.

Question: Has there ever been a nominee who has won a majority of primary delegates and not carried the super delegates? Anyone out there know? I cannot get an answer through Google.

An earlier story on super delegates from April of 2007.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/



"In next year's contest, could a candidate amass a stockpile of super-delegates, survive disappointing showings in early primaries, and go on to win the nomination? That seems unlikely.
“Do the super-delegates have the capacity to resist the choice of the overwhelming majority of primary voters and caucus participants? The answer, I think, is a clear ‘No,’” said Mayer.
Nevertheless, there’s a romantic streak in some political junkies who fantasize about a scenario in which the nomination could still be in doubt at the end of the primary season.
That hasn't happened in either party in 30 years.
In that scenario, perhaps party heavyweights would line up votes at the convention to swing the nomination to one of the contenders, or to a dark horse."


This has never happened before.

[Von Tonner]

The only real question for the super delegates is which candidate stands the better chance of defeating John McCain? The answer to that will determine the Democratic candidate for President.
Question: Has there ever been a nominee who has won a majority of primary delegates and not carried the super delegates? Anyone out there know? I cannot get an answer through Google.
An earlier story on super delegates from April of 2007.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/



"In next year's contest, could a candidate amass a stockpile of super-delegates, survive disappointing showings in early primaries, and go on to win the nomination? That seems unlikely.
“Do the super-delegates have the capacity to resist the choice of the overwhelming majority of primary voters and caucus participants? The answer, I think, is a clear ‘No,’” said Mayer.
Nevertheless, there’s a romantic streak in some political junkies who fantasize about a scenario in which the nomination could still be in doubt at the end of the primary season.
That hasn't happened in either party in 30 years.
In that scenario, perhaps party heavyweights would line up votes at the convention to swing the nomination to one of the contenders, or to a dark horse."


This has never happened before.
Thanks for the link Neon Deon, in reading through it I now see why she is punting the "more experience" theme. I see in your link above that it is one of two permisable reasons for superdelegates to overturn the choice of a majority of pledged delegates.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the release of her White House papers, while not containing anything earth shattering (yet), does give the lie to her readiness at "3am" . This now brings into question her claim to being more experienced for the job of commander in chief. The papers also show quite clearly her expediency with the truth.
Take her trip to Bosnia. This is what she said while campaining in Iowa: "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
She would have had us believe that she was putting her life at risk in carrying out a mission to get the borders opened (for the record, they were opened the day before she arrived without any imput from her). Her companions on that flight to Bosnia were Sinbad and Sheryl Crow.
Sinbad had this to say about the trip and her comment above:
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
Not surprisingly the Obama campaign are all over this. The Washington Post reports
"Obama's campaign followed its announcement yesterday with an e-mail to reporters drawing attention to claims Clinton made that she came under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia in 1996. News footage of the event shows her calmly walking from her aircraft to a cluster of dignitaries, and no news accounts of the trip mention any sniper fire."

And on her "foreign policy" claims:


Almost exactly nine years later to the day, Clinton's trip to Egypt offers a case study of her foreign policy role during her husband's presidency. While traveling across North Africa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/North+Africa?tid=informline), she devoted little time to heads of state and negotiated no agreements, but instead met community leaders, explored local issues and culture, hit major tourist sites and gave speeches on women's rights and other topics important to her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003771.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

In fact, nothing more than any other First Lady has done or was expected of them.
Is it been too hopeful that at last more and more people will now wake up to the fact of how deceitful, manipulative and dishonest this woman really is.

[NEON DEON]

The washington post on Kosovo and Hillary Clinton:

"The Washington Post: "First Lady Brings Publicity, Aid to Macedonia:" First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first high-ranking American to visit here since the Kosovo crisis began, brought two messages to Macedonia today. Touring a refugee camp of 18,000 people, Clinton urged Americans not to become "immune" to the plight of more than 740,000 Kosovo Albanians expelled from their homeland since NATO began its air war against Yugoslavia on March 24. "We are trying to do everything possible to make these lives and stories real, not to let them fade into the background," she said… And she soothed the irritated government of Macedonia, which has taken in the refugees only reluctantly and at the price of more foreign aid. Clinton today added another $ 2 million to the pot -- the first installment of a $ 21 million reallocation of funds for Macedonia… Even as Clinton toured the camp, a few refugees were entering Macedonia from Kosovo. For 10 days, almost no one has crossed the frontier -- initially because Macedonian border guards were blocking refugees, then because Serbian authorities were not allowing them to leave… After her camp tour, Clinton met with Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski, parliamentary president Savo Klimovski and local aid officials, and her message could not have been more straightforward: "I want to clearly express our appreciation to the government of Macedonia for the efforts they have made. It has been an incredible burden on Macedonia." [Washington Post, 5/15/99]"


Egypt:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990323/1999032364.html

"Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak received Clinton yesterday at the presidency's headquarters, where they discussed means of enhancing Egyptian - US ties through cooperating on several projects, such as raising the standard of living for low-income citizens and the health care of citizens."

Northern Ireland:

From the horses mouth: Ahearn the Prime Minsiter of Ireland himself saying Hillary played a big part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj2P3e_kHi8&feature=related

Africa:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/africa/farley/

"The groundwork for Clinton's trip has already been accomplished by the recent highly successful visits of Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Mrs. Clinton was received last spring with acclamation at all her stops, and her public support of increased U.S. involvement in Africa since that trip has been welcomed."

Nafta:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/repeat_after_me_hillary_clinto.html



"For example, one of the NAFTA meetings she attended was run by David Gergen who has clearly stated that Hillary Clinton was opposed to NAFTA. According to Gergen, Hillary “was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly.” He said: “If I could just add one other post script, Anderson, on NAFTA, I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]"

A little background on David Gergen


David Richmond Gergen (born May 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_9), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942) in Durham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham), North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina)) was a political consultant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consulting) and presidential advisor during the Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party) administrations of Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon), Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford), and Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan). He was also a campaign staffer for George H.W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush)'s 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980) presidential campaign. Gergen also served as an adviser to Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party) President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), first as a Counselor on both foreign policy and domestic affairs and then as Special International Advisor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_International_Advisor&action=edit&redlink=1) to then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Christopher).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen#_note-0) While usually identified as a Republican, on his appointment in 1993, Gergen stated that he was actually an independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28politician%29).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen#_note-1)
David Gergen is a political contributor to CNN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN) and frequently appears on Anderson Cooper 360 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Cooper_360). He also appears on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. He moderated PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS)'s World@Large (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%40Large&action=edit&redlink=1) discussion program for two seasons.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen#_note-2)


:D

[Tchocky]

Regarding the Northern Ireland issue, she's really inflating her involvement. Not as much as she does with other issues, but her characterisation of the peace process is almost an outright lie. I remember seeing the Clintons in Dublin, 1995 I think it was. Later in 2000, Bill came to my hometown and gave a speech. She wasn't there, and I can't remember her speaking in 1995. She helped out in the peace process, but it was nothing you can put in a CV

Her status on NAFTA, however, is an outright lie.

[NEON DEON]

Regarding the Northern Ireland issue, she's really inflating her involvement. Not as much as she does with other issues, but her characterisation of the peace process is almost an outright lie. I remember seeing the Clintons in Dublin, 1995 I think it was. Later in 2000, Bill came to my hometown and gave a speech. She wasn't there, and I can't remember her speaking in 1995. She helped out in the peace process, but it was nothing you can put in a CV

Her status on NAFTA, however, is an outright lie.

So what exctly did Ahearn the Prime Minister of Ireland do in the process and why would anyone doubt the news story?

Is it a plot by the Irish to get a Clinton elected?

I am sorry Tchocky but calling Hillary's stance on NAFTA a lie is rediculous. I have to go with Gergen since he was there and Ahearn the Prime Minister of Ireland since he was there too.

Did you actually watch the video I provided about Ahearn?

He did remember.

[Von Tonner]

Even as Clinton toured the camp, a few refugees were entering Macedonia from Kosovo. For 10 days, almost no one has crossed the frontier -- initially because Macedonian border guards were blocking refugees,

Nowhere in your references do I read that she got the border opened. Nor has any other commentator, analyst or researcher been able to substantiate fully her statement on CNN: "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kusov" It is a known FACT the borders were opened 10 days before she even arrived. She facillitated in allowing more people to get accross, not by some skillfull negotiation but by dropping 2 million US dollars on their table in aid.
From her own site:


"After talks between Hillary Clinton and the Macedonian leadership, which included the announcement of two million dollars in aid, the government opened the borders much wider"
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6431

Note, the borders WERE ALREADY OPEN

And from PolitiFact.com

Our reading of the record shows a good deal to suggest Clinton was concerned about the plight of the people of Kosovo, but almost nothing to indicate she was a major player in border negotiations. We'll give her the benifit of the doubt for travelling to Macedonia and meeting with officials, but the way her statement is phrased, it makes her sound primarily responsible for the United States' efforts in the region. We don't find evidence to support that aside from her less-than-12-hour visit, and so we find her statement to be Barely True.

[Von Tonner]

Northern Ireland:

From the horses mouth: Ahearn the Prime Minsiter of Ireland himself saying Hillary played a big part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj2P3e_kHi8&feature=related




All I see after watching that is a Prime Minister caught in an uncomfortable position between two political adverseries and and been quite successfull at been diplomatically polite.

Even Hillary, now that the White House papers have been released has had to back peddal on her original claim in the peace deal in Ireland.

From the New York Times:

Earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton pointed to her work behind the scenes in Northern Ireland, which she visited five times as first lady, as instrumental in helping Mr. Clinton forge a peace treaty there. Her campaign has argued that her lobbying efforts “at the grass roots and behind-the-scenes helped cultivate the conditions necessary for the peace to take hold and last,” according to a memo from her press office.
On her first trip, on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 1995, Mrs. Clinton attended a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, a rededication of a World War II stone and a reception. On two occasions, her calendar indicates that Mr. Clinton was holding private talks after Mrs. Clinton departed and returned to a local hotel.
Two weeks ago, on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that she was not directly involved in peace negotiations, but she emphasized the importance of her behind-the-scenes role."



This is what she claimed in March on the stump.

“I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland,” she told CNN in early March.



Look, no matter from what perspective you look at her claims, one cannot deny that she is very flippant with the truth.

[nikimcbee]

http://texasholdemblogger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/20070921rz1ap-moveon.jpg

[bradclark1]

Look, no matter from what perspective you look at her claims, one cannot deny that she is very flippant with the truth.
You can't graduate from Politician school without getting at least an A- in manipulating the truth.
I don't know anything about Hillary and these things she's supposedly had a hand in but what I've heard more then a few times is that in politics the work is done out of the conference room over dinners and parties. Going into the conference room just finalizes and makes it official. It sounds logical to me as a way to work out the kinks without being official. So in that regards she very well might have had a hand in making agreements. Even in the army it's you and your spouse that make a complete team. A good means of back door information and influence.

[Tchocky]

Most of what you've described was done by George Mitchell, rather than Hillary or even Bill Clinton.

[NEON DEON]

Most of what you've described was done by George Mitchell, rather than Hillary or even Bill Clinton.


Ahearn, Mitchell, and Holbrook all said that Hillary helped.

Hillary said she helped.

What Hillary did not say was I alone did it.

Obama:

Ribbon cutting in Chicago.

Ok you are qualified.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Tchocky]

Of course she helped. But it's not the kind of helping that should be argued as competence for the Presidency. See what David Trimble has to say on the matter.

I agree with you on Obama. I mean, what's the point in having a Senate if all they do is cut ribbons and bake cookies?

[TDK1044]

We live in a society where most people can name the contestants on American Idiol, but they don't know who their State Representatives are. Barack Obama will flourish in such an environment.

Currently he has 1,622 pledged delegates and Hillary has 1,485, giving him a 137 delegate advantage. Michigan and Florida are now almost certainly out of the picture. Looking at what's left, Hillary will win PA comfortably. Some people mistakenly belevie that Puerto Rico is a winner take all deal. It is only that if one candidate polls less than 15 percent of the total vote. That's not going to happen and Hillary will win by something like a 60 to 40 percent margin. The remaining States are either Obama States or too close to call.

The end result of all this will be Obama having a delegate lead of over 100 at the point where the super Delegates get involved. Regarding the SDs, bear in mind that whatever they say for public consumption, these men and women are elected officials and politicians whose primary goal is to get re-elected. Most of them will therefore vote the same way as the pledged delegates in their State. A classic example of that was Representative John Lewis from Georgia. He publicly endosed Hillary at the start of the campaign, and then announced that he would vote for Obama once the Georgia Democrats voted heavily for Obama in their primary.

A handful of brave souls will vote against their pledged Delegates because of genuine concerns regarding a candidate, but in the end, Obama will win and either he or John McCain will be the next President.

[geetrue]

I always thought this bickering would end in Senator John McCain's favor ...

Democrats voting for McCain (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080323/democrat_battle_080323/20080323?hub=World)


Republicans -- for the first time, polls are showing that John McCain leads Clinton and Obama in a presidential match-up.

[TDK1044]

You'll hear a lot of Democrats proclaiming that they either won't vote at all or will vote Republican if 'their guy' doesn't win the Democratic nomination, and you'll hear some conservative Republicans saying that they won't vote at all rather than vote for McCain.

The reality is that such comments are usually a lot of hot air. The Presidential election will be a hard fought contest between McCain and Obama in my view.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Another interesting factor will be those voting who never voted before ( sorry if this has been said already ), I am speaking more about the younger population, I would think youth would identify with Obama much more than McCain, for obvious reasons.

Edit:Oops, wrong thread :oops::oops::damn:


RDP

[geetrue]

Obama isn't on the ticket yet, but John McCain is ... if Hillary a contoversial candidate as she is can run a close race against Obama what can McCain do?

More from the link above: Democrats voting for McCain (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080323/democrat_battle_080323/20080323?hub=World)

And what has to be alarming for Democratic Party leaders, some supporters of Obama and Clinton appear to be so angry with the other contender that they say they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't make the 2008 presidential ballet.

"I think I'd have to vote for McCain. I'm just not a Barack Obama fan," one Clinton supporter said to CTV News.

"I'd have a hard time voting for Hillary Clinton," says an Obama supporter.

Obama has the edge -in delegates, money and big-name support -- but that doesn't seem to dissuade Clinton. It's unlikely she will walk away from this fight and this is one battle that might not be decided until June.

From now until then McCain won't need to spend much time tearing down his potential opponents - they'll be doing that for him.

[ReallyDedPoet]

From now until then McCain won't need to spend much time tearing down his potential opponents - they'll be doing that for him.


This probably will happen, however McCain will have his own issues to deal with, things that may not directly be his, however he now inherits them, the economy, IRAQ, etc.....in other words the Bush baggage.


RDP

[Von Tonner]

And now we have Tuzla-gate.

Hillary Clinton explains:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I made a -- I took her stuff and then I left, Now that's my memory of it."

Misspoke, misspeak is defined as pronouncing a word or phrase incorrectly. Not creating an imaginery scene or situation. Watching the rerun of her standing at the podium telling her story I listened carefully to hear if any word or phrase fitted that definition. No, "sniper fire" was pronounced correctly, so was "running with our heads down" an acceptable phrase. She even affirmed her account of the event not once but twice at the end.

Not even her most ardent supporter can defend the claim that her original speech at the podium was a calculated and deliberate lie to support her inflated claim at been the most qualified to be commander in chief from day one.

This is an insult not only to the intelligence of every American but a slight on McCain and all who have served their country in conflict. McCain is a man who has been in an ACTUAL war zone, had his arms brocken repeatedly in interrogation while holding onto his sanity and silence in defence of his country and this woman, in her greed for power, tries to lie her way into that sacred sanctity of brave men and women who have and still do, live under hostile fire in defence of their country. I wonder how all those war vets who recently supported her feel now. Cheated I would think.

And what does this say about those senior superdelegates such as Dean, Edwards, Al Gore et al. They could come out in mass and put an end to this tomorrow. Their silence is becoming deafining.

In the exit polls in Missisisippi on the question: Is Clinton honest and trustworthy 52% said yes and 48% said no. On the 18th March in a gallup poll the same question was put. 44% yes and 56% said no. After this lie this figure will drop even further which begs these two questions.

1) Can the Democratic Party continue to sit on the side lines while this woman loses credibility among the American people?
2) Can they argue that the perception of honesty and trustworthyness do not count for squat in electing a candidate, be it a nominee or president?

If not, then for the love of God dump this woman now before this contest becomes more farcial than it already is.

[TDK1044]

Both Clintons seem to have a problem defining simple words in the English language. I find it amusing that one denies having had a sexual relationship with a Whitehouse intern, and struggles to define the word 'alone', while the other one is busy dodging imaginary sniper fire.

They should write a joint memoirs book called 'Incoming'.

[Von Tonner]

Both Clintons seem to have a problem defining simple words in the English language. I find it amusing that one denies having had a sexual relationship with a Whitehouse intern, and struggles to define the word 'alone', while the other one is busy dodging imaginary sniper fire. Ain't that the truth.

They should write a joint memoirs book called 'Incoming'.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: That is hilarious if I read that you are referring to Monica and her BJ

[sonar732]

A good interview on Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9217.html)!


Democrats are increasingly nervous about their party’s protracted nomination fight, and some prominent figures are publicly warning that the party needs to act fast to avoid disaster.

Chief among these voices is Phil Bredesen, the two-term governor of Tennessee who is uncommitted to either Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

In an interview this week with Politico, Bredesen said flatly that if the contentious slog continues until the Democrats’ late-August convention in Denver, the party would have a vastly diminished chance of recapturing the White House.

[geetrue]

Can the Democratic Party continue to sit on the side lines while this woman loses credibility among the American people?
2) Can they argue that the perception of honesty and trustworthyness do not count for squat in electing a candidate, be it a nominee or president?



I don't think so ... that was a very bad mistake. I wouldn't accept that behaviour from a Mayor, Govenor, Congressman or a Senator, much less a future president.

Her mind must be double to know that that story she told never happened.

I've told a few sea stories in my day, but it was always with a lite heart thinking what the heck I heard it from someone else maybe it's true.

That lady is a cucko cucko bird ... unless a miracle happens she is destined for defeat. :yep:

[bradclark1]

Clinton will go down fighting to the last second available. It's about her and not the party and she probably has a bunch of people combing Obama's life and trash trying to find something juicy.

[Sea Demon]

In an interview this week with Politico, Bredesen said flatly that if the contentious slog continues until the Democrats’ late-August convention in Denver, the party would have a vastly diminished chance of recapturing the White House.
And now, we have Joe Klein saying they should give the nomination to Al Gore. :lol: Think they're worried?

[sonar732]

Clinton will go down fighting to the last second available. It's about her and not the party and she probably has a bunch of people combing Obama's life and trash trying to find something juicy.

She's already proved that motive.

Granted, she'll always come back to her famous line given during the Lewinski trial...

"It's a Right Wing conspiracy"

[The WosMan]

Recent polling that I have been seeing on the news and hearing on radio shows is that if Clinton gets the nomination, roughly 20-30% of Obama voters will either stay at home in the general election or vote for McCain. They also said that if Obama gets the nomination there is a good percentage of Clinton supporters that would stay at home or vote for McCain. I also love the fact that Hillary's wealthy donors are now tearing into Nancy Pelosi. Funny how they want 800 superdelegates to decide against the popular vote of the members of their party. What was that the Dems were going on about in 2000 with Bush vs Gore?

This is what happens when you have a political party that makes race and/or gender the core components of why a person should get a job. This is actually what is wrong with most of our society. The Democrat party is nothing but a bunch of small little grievance groups skilled in group politics and social segregation but now the multi-cultural chickens have come home to roost.

Again, I think the Republicans could run Nixon's head on a robot body and still win.

[geetrue]

Clinton will go down fighting to the last second available. It's about her and not the party and she probably has a bunch of people combing Obama's life and trash trying to find something juicy.

She's already proved that motive.

Granted, she'll always come back to her famous line given during the Lewinski trial...

"It's a Right Wing conspiracy"

Do you know where Hillary was on the days reported to have been the days that her husband Bill, remember him,
the president of the United States was having an affair with the lady called Monica?

The latest release of her white house papers show that she was at home inside the White House.

This is one crazy election ... I hope it's a good baseball and football season leading up to the election in November ...

I'm tired of politics already

[Von Tonner]

In admitting she lied ( I will use that word even if the media won't) about her Bosnia trip she puts her foot in it further by claiming she was the first First Lady to fly into a war zone since WWII, completely ignoring Pat Nixon's far more risky visit to Saigon in a chopper for heavens sake!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602920.html?wpisrc=newsletter

[TDK1044]

For either Obama, Clinton or McCain to be the next President of the USA is a very sad indictment of the times.

[Von Tonner]

I was under the impression that 'pledged delegates' were exactly that - pledged. At least until the second round of votes if no winner was arrived at at the first call.

Not so according to Hillary.

Interview in Time:

Last question Senator. Some people look at the current state of the delegate counts and say the only way you can win the nomination is at the convention, with a convention where delegates move around perhaps, and you'll make your case side by side. Are you comfortable if that's the way you win the nomination, going all the way to Denver and winning it there? Is that a comfortable outcome for you?
You know it's the same thing for Senator Obama. Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment. And, you know, I'm just going to do the best I can in the next 10 contests to make my case to the voters in those elections and then we'll see where we are.





http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/hillary.jpg

[Von Tonner]

And he gets another. Sen Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) endorsed Obama. Let's see how the Hillary camp discounts/triviliases this endorsement.

[NEON DEON]

2025


Delegate math.:p

[Von Tonner]

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar Sunday night, giving him another superdelegate supporter. In a statement provided to The Associated Press, Klobuchar said Obama “has inspired an enthusiasm and idealism that we have not seen in this country in a long time.”

[TDK1044]

It's almost certain that Obama is the nominee. Clinton's ego won't let her do the right thing for the party though. :D

[Von Tonner]

He has bagged another. Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. This is the 65th superdelegate he has won since 'Super Tuesday'. Don't know exactly Hillary's count but it is in single digits.

He has closed down her lead to single digits in Pennsylvania with some polls even giving him a 2 point lead.

"Obama overtakes Clinton in PA
Raleigh, N.C. – Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton 45-43 in
Pennsylvania, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling."

She has 11 million in the kitty for the rest of her campaign - this is BEFORE she has settled the 8 million debt she has run up, excluding the 5 million she loaned. Her afluent supporters have maxed out on their contributions and she does not have a significant 'small donor' base to help her through. Another thing that has got to be at the back of her mind, is that she has to contest her senate seat in 1 or 2 years from now and will be neading a good deal of money for that.

He has 31 million in the kitty and no debt.
This has allowed him to spend over 2 million in ads not only in Pennsylvania but in North Carolina and Indiana as well. In contrast, she has only been able to spend 400,000 odd in Pennsylvania.

Whatever drives the stake through her, be it pledged delegates, popular vote, superdelagates or simply just running out of money - her race is over with Pennsylvania her swan song.

[TDK1044]

She can't win...legally. The Clintons are trying, without much success, to pressure super delegates into voting for Hillary, but the opposite is actually happening and more and more of them are either endorsing Obama, or simply saying nothing, which means in most cases they'll vote for Obama when the time comes.

Hillary knows that it's over, but there are two real issues for her. 1) Staying in the race long enough to get back the money she 'loaned' to her campaign. 2) She believes that Obama "can't win" against McCain because he's black.