They are not. In a nutshell, it went like this:

In 2007 the Florida legislature voted to move their primary date up to January 29 for the 2008 primaries.

February 5 was set as the earliest date for primaries. With a few exceptions, any state holding a primary earlier would be penalized.

The Democratic National Committee decided to penalize non-compliant states by stripping them of all of their delegates. Some Democrats in Florida attempted to amend the legislation they had passed, but the Florida Republicans blocked these amendments.

Michigan also decided to go ahead with a primary in January, despite the Democratic National Comittee's declaration that it would not seat any of the delegates.

Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these states.

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan, Barack Obama removed his name from the ballot in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.

So, like I said, Michigan should be a 50/50 wash because his name was not on the ballot and she should be awarded Florida.

The only place Obama is going is to a head to head race with John McCain. It's the lying Hillary who needs to pull out. She won't though. Her hunger for power won't let her. This will probably go all the way to Denver where she will be forced out of the race.

Ahh. Obama in support of the DNC ruling removed himself from Michigan but showing no support of the DNC ballot chose to remain on Floridas ballot?

:hmm:

Sounds like Obama removed himself from the Michigan ballot because he wanted to distance himself from an early loss.

I would have advised him to remove his name from both States. That way, should there be a challenge at a later time, he could have asked that both States be a 50/50 wash as his name wasn't on either ballot. That would have negated Hillary's obvious delegate gain in Florida with the Hispanic vote.

Lucky for you I wasn't there, NEON. :D

Why are obamas lips purple?

I really cannot understand your logic Neon. To make any sense out of your on going posts that Hillary is going to win the DN one can only but assume that you are one of those voters who no matter what evidence is brought to the contrary you will support her.

For example. Mookiemookie posts a link to an article where the question could just as easily be put to you: " Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, youmust describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale."

You don't challenge a single statement in that article. Your only response is to post a link to an article by Bonnie Erbe who writes inter alia:

"Obama's first self-destructive act was his secretly recorded remarks before wealthy San Francisco donors describing working-class white voters as "bitter" and "clinging" to guns and religion. That remark cost him dearly in the Pennsylvania primary among Roman Catholics and working-class whites."

It appears lost on Bonnie Erbe that Obama never was going to win PA. What he did do, and set out to do, was cut her double digit advantage to a singledigit. 2 weeks out she was running a 23 point lead. She won by 9 points, contrary to what the MSM will have you believe that she won by 10.

She further writes.

"Obama's second act of self-immolation was his delay in denouncing a man who blames whites for creating the AIDS virus to wipe out people of color and calls America a terrorist nation. Obama's denunciation of Wright yesterday and the time it took him to sever ties to Wright may well end up costing Obama large portions of the rest of the white voting demographic.We may soon start to see the defection from his campaign of superdelegate support."

Well, well, well. Here is the lie to her statement. Not only did more SD's endorse OB after his denouncement but one who had originally endorsed Hillary anulled his endorsement of her and moved his endorsement to OB because he thought Obama had handled himself pretty well in distancing himself from Wright.

But this is the statement that Erbe writes in her article that really takes the cake.

"As soon as polls start to show the extent of alienation Obama has produced among white Democratic voters, superdelegates won't be far behind. If Obama does not carry North Carolina next week by double digits, he will be in serious trouble. Look for calls by party leaders for him to drop out if his victory in North Carolina is not convincing."

In the above, change 'Obama' for 'Hillary', 'white' for 'black', and 'NC' for 'PA' and you have the exact same argument that was levelled against Hillary prior to PA. The difference was that that argument COULD be made because he WAS ahead in pledged delegates, in popular vote, in states won AND his campaign was not bankrupt!

But to get back to your own arguments. You state that Hillary must get the vote because polls show her doing better against McCain than OB. For you to have any credibility in your own statement you must tell me that you were in support of OB when polls showed him as winning against McCain. As far as I can tell, you have been against OB regardless. But I stand corrected if you can show me otherwise.

On your argument that Florida and Michigan have been dealt a bum deal and voters will stay away in their droves if OB gets the nomination. Does your argument then not also apply should Hillary get the nomination and all OB supporters in Florida and Michigan feel they got shafted?

And, much as you might want to think that the African American support base within the Democratic party is a given, believe me, as TDK104 has pointed out, shaft them and you might just as well go and get a set of keys cut for the front door of the White House for McCain to carry around in his pocket till January.

I would also add that if you want to blame someone for the Florida and Michigan fiasco then look no futher that Howad Dean. It was Dean and the DNC who set the rules here, and it's funny how Hillary had no problem with it at all until she strated losing. Then her true colors showed and she wanted the DNC position ammended.

Tuesday is crucial. Sadly, if she wins Indiana, it will be all her ego needs for her to continue a futile race. For me, the best possible outcome to Tueday's votes would be for the SDs to stand up and be counted. Whoever wins those two races, I wish the remaining SDs would cast their votes and let the chips fall where they may.

*Apparently* there's a rake of House and Senate SD's who have already decided to support Obama, but are holding off on an announcement until the primaries are over.
I keep reading this, but it's hard to tell if it's campaign posturing or actual news.

Hillary could get some momentum going if she was to do particularly well in the Tuesday primaries, but even if some of the SDs were swayed her way, it would never be the 70 percent swing that she needs. This farce would just stumble on to Denver where she would then be voted out of the race, having destroyed any chance for a Democratic victory in November.

I find it a bit odd people claiming Obama closed the gap in PA when behind in the polls by more than 20 points

I get various accounts when this took place

2 weeks before and 8 weeks before seem to be the preference among the two people who supplied that info

According to RCP:

In the 8th week before the PA election the polls showed 9 point avg difference.

2 weeks before the elections the poll average was 7 points

And the last recorded Pa avg was 6.1 %

So Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and went nowhere in the process.

Clinton won by 9.28 %

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-240.html

I also find curious that people claim objectivity when supplying this info.

Clinton was always going to win PA. Her own people were predicting a healthy double digit win right up to the primary. Obama was hoping to cut her lead to single digits...well, he just about did that. She'll do the same to him in NC. I think he'll win there...but only by about 4 points.

But, anyone can do the math here. Look at the remaining primaries and allocate the most probable outcome, but favor Hillary. Then add a healthy win for Clinton in Florida and either make Michigan a wash or give her a 5 point victory. The best case scenario for her still has him about 120 delegates ahead when it's all over. Now factor in the remaining SDs....she'll need about 70 percent of them to win.

Unless there is a new scandal even bigger than the 'Wright' scandal, Hillary simply can't win.

If Obama won against John McCain, Hillary would probably still be campaigning!

You could be right about NC being a four point swing.

I have noticed that after edwards dropped the polls have been about 2 points off the average in favor of Clinton.

So mombo jumbo crystal ball wise it could be obama +5 in NC and Clinton +8 in Indiana.

Of course NC has a lot of African American voters and the pollsters were way off in South Carolina. This might be offset because Edwards is not on the ballot this time tho.

What could end it this week would be if Obama crushes Clinton in NC and wins Indiana.

Zogby's latest poll shows Obama by 2 in Indiana and 9 in NC.

Zogby's numbers have an ally. Momentum and Gallop.

Gallop daily shows Obama has reversed Clintons lead with democrats today and now leads by four.

As I said earlier, NEON, I just wish the SDs would end this nonsense. Everything about these candidates is known. With every day that passes, McCain's chances in November improve.

On Tuesday, Obama will narrowly win in NC and I believe that Hillary will win in Indiana. This nip/tuck process goes nowhere. What are rhe SDs waiting for? If they honestly believe that Hillary should be the nominee, then step up to the plate and vote for her. If they think that they should respect the popular vote, then vote for Obama.

As a SD, what is to be gained by waiting to cast your vote?

A poll conducted 11th through to the 13th April by the American Research Group showed Hillary leading Obama by 20 points in PA.