Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:16:31 GMT

The ratings for last week's evening newscasts are in — and it appears that the angry viewers claiming that they would no longer watch ABC after last week's poorly-received debate made good on their promise: NBC beat ABC by over 600,000 viewers last week — an unusually wide margin for the dueling newscasts.

One reason for that wider-than-usual gap — averaging out Friday's numbers: On Friday, NBC beat ABC by 1.1 million viewers — a practically unheard of margin for an otherwise random Friday night. But it wasn't so random — by Friday, the post-debate backlash was in full swing, with reviews castigating moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulous for their performance, and viewer complaints racking up over 17,600 and counting on ABC.com alone.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:17:07 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:18:39 GMT

Every American needs to understand one thing. It seems to me that the media will do and say anything that will keep Hillary Clinton in the race. The media will cow tow, step and fetch it to insure Hillary gets her say. I am so disgusted with the media on all the networks. The journalism in this country is horrible they are paid for and bought by the Clintons and the GOP. The media tells you how to vote and why you should vote a certain way. America needs to understand they can not trust television news they can not trust ABC, FOX NEWS, CNN and MSNBC. They never and I mean never do any substantive journalism or investigations any more. They get e-mails from the Clinton staff and give the media there talking points and just like puppets the media goes on the air and perform for her.

When John McCain or Hillary Clinton wins the White House and the country is still falling apart the media are the ones to blame. So when our country goes to war un-justifiably, or when PACS and lobbyist still have control of our country. Blame it on the media they are public enemy #1 as far as I am concerned. Instead of the war terror it should be the war on the media they are the real terrorist. They are the true enemies of America and can not be trusted.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:19:34 GMT

They never and I mean never do any substantive journalism or investigations any more. They get e-mails from the Clinton staff and give the media there talking points and just like puppets the media goes on the air and perform for her. Why won't hey ask her why voters should vote for her with her campaign over 10 million debt.

Obama is a master at raising money and runs his campaign with ruthless efficiency, I wonder if he will run the government the same way.

I wonder if the people who are supporting her, are still going to donate money. Even though she is going to blow it or misspent it on pastries, food and other frills. She and her husband have made over 109 million over the last six years from 2000 to 2006. They obviously do well handling their own personal income, why can’t they run their campaign with the same efficiency?

Some of her bills tell the story (one-time expenses)

Enterprise Rent-A-Car - $171,675

Hertz - $46,319

Bellagio hotel - $25,478

A-Plus valet parking - $918

Donuts - $1433

Subway - $2500

Hyvee supermarket - $96,079

Total over 8.7 million still in debt

HRC and the media have conducted themselves miserably over the past few weeks. It actually sickens me to see her smile after her disgusting performance. Sorry but that is how I feel. If she is such a good executive, why is her campaign out of money and and hurting so bad she has to play dirty rovian politics just to tread water? If she had been smart she would not have to lie or play dirty rovian politics and she would have had plenty of money. She is not presidential at all and not a good executive

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ankjack — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:23:05 GMT

In this case, Obama has clearly won the nomination. If there is absolutely no way the popular vote can accurately be counted, then Hillary has absolutely lost at this point. I think the media needs to make it clear that these are the rules that all candidates agreed with when deciding to run in this primary. It is too late to try to go back and change the rules now. We cannot afford to have the legitimacy of this contest questioned. I begin to think Hillary knows she won't win and is now trying to make sure Barak is so damaged that he will lose the general. This would give her one final bite at the apple in 4 years. Only the media has the power at this point to legitimize the final result.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

hardlens — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:26:45 GMT

NUTS! Most of the Obama votes are fiction because they were won in caucuses and mostly in REPUBLICAN states! Caucuses are totally undemocratic and do not count voters like myself who did not have the time to line up and spend hours being harranged by fanatics.Millions of democrats like myself were disenfranchised and you can bet we feel the nomination process has been hijacked by the MONEY CROWD and this stupid system. We will vote for MCCain if it comes to that. And Howard Dean and his crowd disallowed voters in two BIG STATES like Michigan and Florida not to be counted! Talking about nuts!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

cheesedad — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:28:00 GMT

It is like the football team that had possession of the ball for longer than the other team, and had more rushing and passing yards - but lost by 4 touchdowns. Who won? Of course the team with the most points. All the rest doesn't matter.

Same for the elections. The only thing that counts is the delegates, and Obama is ahead by more delegates than there are left to be won. Big states, popular votes, etc. mean nothing. The election is about having the most delegates. End of story.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

cheesedad — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:29:29 GMT

In addition, Hilary claims to have won Texas - but Obama got more delegates. It is unfortunate that the press continues to say she won Texas, because it is not true. Obama won Texas.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

kshortSD — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:32:28 GMT

I'm glad someone finally wrote this article. Let's not discuss the popular vote anymore! Doesn't anyone remember the presidential election of 2000?? If the popular vote counted back then, we wouldn't have been stuck with George for the last 8 years!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Lynn T. — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:38:37 GMT

Thank you for mentioning the states that held caucuses. The fact that the Clinton campaign conveniently tries to disenfranchise those voters with their "popular vote" argument aggravates me to no end! Other than Keith Olbermann, I haven't heard any cable news anchors bring this to their listeners' attention. One favor, though -- you might add my state of Idaho (which is sending 70% of its delegates to the convention for Obama) and the state of Texas (remember the two-step) to this list as well.

Thanks!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

valark — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:40:34 GMT

"Every American needs to understand one thing. It seems to me that the media will do and say anything that will keep Hillary Clinton in the race. The media will cow tow, step and fetch it to insure Hillary gets her say. I am so disgusted with the media on all the networks. The journalism in this country is horrible they are paid for and bought by the Clintons and the GOP."

this is merely insanity at its finest...and why the Democrats lose elections...

What is truly American is that everyone who is running for President gets to try and win and stay as long as they would like. I am not sure what America you live in, but the one I live in gives everyone equal rights.

What items exactly has the media uncovered for Clinton and not on their own? Could you support your statements with actual facts?

facts =/= average newsweek message board post, so I am not actually expecting you to answer this

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ajbb — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:40:58 GMT

The DNC rules state that the delegates can be reinstated at the convention and that the maximum penalty is to lose half the delegates. Clearly the rules are not being followed. To claim legitamacy for his nomination, Obama should have gone along with a new vote in Fla and MI but was willing to disenfranchise Fla and MI to keep his lead. You can't say that MI doesn't count when it was Obama that took his name off the ballot in an effort to curry favor with Iowa and the DNC chairs. He also knew that Clinton was leading there and wanted to invalidate that vote. He also waged a hard campaign to get voters to vote uncommitted. In Fla he ran $1.3 million of ads that went over Fla airways and had a news conference duing that time period. The popular vote counts because it indicates to the superdelegates what the will of the people is. To say that media is Clinton biased is laughable for everyone knows that Obama has been given a free ride untill lately. While Mr. Romano makes a good attempt to discredit the argument for the popular vote, no one is saying that the popular vote in itself is a perfect measurement for electing a candidate in this race, but neither is the exclusion of two important states. The rules allow the super delegates to decide in any fashion who they will vote for. If they are trying to determine the will of the people than popular vote is as good if not better than using pledged delegates in a contest that has excluded the vote of over 2 million people.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

josephjsalas — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:12:15 GMT

This is an easy one! The popular vote crosses grain with the super aristocra...er...delegate

voting device that the NAFTA duo obviously thrives amongst.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:14:42 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

oaksav4000 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:17:53 GMT

Hilary is moving the goal post like she always do when Obama won more states it was all about the Delagates now Barack has more Delegates it is all about the popular vote then she see that she has lost the popular vote it is all Florida and Michigan should be counted so Hilary is a Liar and all the people that support her should be ashamed of there self

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

David mulenex — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:42 GMT

we should ask ourselves, after Hillary has decided once more that only she can decide who is an angel and how many of her can dance on the head of a pin, if it matters that her party has rules which were known to here at the start of her campaignt? If the situation were reversed, as Hillary expected, would she buy Obama arguing that he should win becasue he had more votes overall, and that her caucus victories were undemocratic? Can you answer the question, "how low will Hilary go? Will she argue the ultimate elistist position, that the only acceptable outcome is for her to win, and the party to break rules so she can? Thousands, tens of thousands of her supporters are roaring already: "Yes, she will!" Stop the drama; pick Obama!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

oaksav4000 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:19:31 GMT

Delgates matter and that is the only thing that i care about and it looks like hillary can not come close to that remember Hlllar y what you said after super tuesday it is Delagates that matter!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:20:41 GMT

ATTENTION ALL DEMOCRATS: Everyone needs to realize the Democratic Party belongs to the Bill and Hillary Clinton. Stop fighting they can do and say what ever they want and when they want. They can change the rules when it’s necessary, they can lie, cheat, steal and commit election fraud as long as they are alive and in control. I repeat the Democratic Party belongs to them and know one I mean know one can stop them. Nobody has power or strength to stop them nobody. All other democrats have to do what they say when they say. The journalism in this country is horrible they are paid for and bought by the Clintons and the GOP. The media tells you how to vote and why you should vote a certain way. They get e-mails from the Clinton staff and give the media there talking points and just like puppets the media goes on the air and perform for her.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

brian.reach — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:21:21 GMT

"Thank you for mentioning the states that held caucuses. The fact that the Clinton campaign conveniently tries to disenfranchise those voters with their "popular vote" argument aggravates me to no end!"

look up disenfranchise.

Everyone should agree, at this point, that the caucuses disenfranchised people with JOBS, or OLD people, or anyone who isn't fit to sit around for three horus in a crowded auditorium and listen to dizzying arguments.

Meaning Clinton supporters. You know, people who actually worry about issues, and what the plan is - because they are financially affected and CARE.

HILLARY CLINTON 2008!!! She's the ONLY SMART CHOICE.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:23:08 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

janforhilary — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:27:08 GMT

the DNC does not have the right to tell a state when they can have their primary. Florida should count because both Hilary and Obama were on the ballot. Michigan should be split between Hilary and Obama. The DNC is the problem. Obama does not want Florida and Michigan to count because he would be losing. You can not disenfranchise the people of Florida and Michigan.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

masonwl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:33:26 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Not stupid in Alubama — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:46:28 GMT

I live in florida and I did not vote. I was told ahead of time that my vote would not count so I stayed home. BUT NOW THAT HILLARY NEEDS HELP SHE WANTS TO STEAL SOME VOTES!!! Get real Every one knew the rules ahead of time. Its to late to cry foul now.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

austria2 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:58:04 GMT

Hey, folks, remember the movie Gore vs Bush. Gore had 500,000 more votes than Bush. He was trying to get more votes from Florida recount, but then the Supermen rescued Bush. Five Supreme Court justices exercised their supreme power and decided who would be our president. Did we people complained? No, because they have the power in case of indecision.

So our remaining undecided super delegates will decide freely who will be our nominee in case of indecision. That is why Obama warned them not to overrule the popular votes. That is why he blocked the revote in Florida and Michigan. The man of hope and new politics is undemocratic after all.

So we will just wait and watch this movie until the screen shows 'The End.'

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Anaba — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:09:53 GMT

Blame the Michigan Democratic Party leadership for messing things up, not Obama, and not the DNC, Blame Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell for breaking the rules, then crying to the DNC to fix their problems. I know exactly ONE person that actually lives in Michigan that is truly upset about, "...our voice being heard at the convention."

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

VoteResponsibly08 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:11:33 GMT

HILLARY IS INCREDIBLE! her convition, passion and perserverance will certaily give us the best president in our history.

Obama is really not ready and his associations with anti-Americans is really questionable.

Florida should be counted in an dMichigan too..But the rules are the rules..However we can also say tht the rules are that the Super Delagates decide who would be the strongest, most capable and can win the democratic seast for the Presidency regardless of what..That is the rule and that is the responsablility of the super delagates...So Super Delagates...Support Hillary! she is the only one that has the capabilities...We can not afford to have a Republican again, unless its Obama the

Nominee!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

VoteResponsibly08 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:16:14 GMT

masonwl

Go away Paid..Troll

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

mysigrid — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:20:47 GMT

Why hasn't the DNC subtracted the number of delegates from Florida and Michigan (366) from the total number of delegates of 4,048 (down one due to Gov Spitzer's departure)? I understand why they may have waited, but now that it is clear that do-over votes in Fl and MI are not going to happen, then their delegates should be subtracted from the total leaving the new total as 3,682 (4,048 - 366). If the total delegate number is lowered, than so will the delegates needed to secure the nomination, which will go from 2,024 (again down one because of Gov Spitzer) to 1841. The DNC should adjust the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination, if for no other reason, than to avoid giving superdelegates too much influence over the nomination process.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kboogie — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:22:08 GMT

Hey guys!

austria2 - Just making sure I read this correctly....."he blocked the revote in Florida and Michigan."

Are you sure about that? To my recollection, when asked to comment on Florida and Michigan, Obama said he would agree w/ the DNC decision. I don't think he has the power to "block" such a decision, regardless of his protests, anyway. But, I could be wrong. Please elaborate.

In the meantime,,,,from the NY Post:

"Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.

Older voters are flocking to Clinton as fears mount of what Obama might do as president mount. But those under 45 - less focused, perhaps, on race - are moving toward Obama. Here, that split helped her.

Of the 50 states, only Florida has a higher over-65 proportion of its population. But there's a key difference: Florida's elderly moved there - Pennsylvania's are the folks that are left after the young people moved away.

Pennsylvania Democrats, in other words, suffer from future shock. They welcome old, established ways and embrace dynasties happily because they are so familiar. (Look at the Bob Caseys - dad was governor, the son is senator.)

But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).

Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more."

Based on the numbers, she has lost this race. Because of the vaguery of DNC rules, she is allowed to drag this thing out in hopes that the rules change in her favor. Numerically, she was finished a long time ago.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kboogie — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:29:49 GMT

Hey Oaksav4000- I totally forgot about that one!!

After super Tuesday, Hillary did say, "Its the delegates that matter!"

Let's see how long she honors that quote. Especially since her Superdelegate lead went from 100(just a few weeks ago) to 17.

She's finished!!! She is my second choice, though. We absolutely have to get out of this war. McCain is not an option!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

johnlouis — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:44:05 GMT

The clinton's are pathetic and fear mongering people. Period

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

lbrillante — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:46:47 GMT

Thanks for this article.... I hope it gets significantly read. I am tired of hearing this popular vote argument. Frankly I am also tired of how irresponsible the media has been in this nomination process. The media is recklessly affecting and tampering with the process... hype, spin, etc. give them stories and make them money... it doesn't seem to matter what this does to our country and what kind of citizenship it breeds... it's a money game... I wish CSpan did more news coverage. They at least set an example of trying to uplift what media is about. I appreciate some opinion here and there but it seems our news has become all about opinion and not just conveying facts.

It is as if the whole media world has become the national enquirer. I did not watch the OJ Simpson Trials or any of the sensationalist garbage perpetuated by the media. When I was in high school I had to take a course on mass media. It was designed to teach us about how marketing works and how the news is reported. It helped me see behind the curtian so I was less naive and better able to put the world in perspective. Too many americans are undereducated and are completely at the mercy of who gets to them first and tells them what to believe....

It is very sad. I would like to recommend that Senator Obama asks all americans to read for 20 to 30 minutes a day to give the development of our minds at least some if not equal time with television etc.

Now we want you to think this... now we want you to believe that... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... do as I say... I am the powerful wizard of oz....

Obama '08

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

lbrillante — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:48:37 GMT

I also need to comment that I am absolutely sick and tired of the Clintons and the media stating and restating, spinning, and whirling the idea that Senator Obama has prevented the voters from Michigan and Florida from having a say or that the primaries are blocked becauseof him... knock it off!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Cynthia of Naperville — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:51:02 GMT

Although Hillary doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, I wasn't one of those people begging her get out....initially! I felt she deserved the right to fight on as long as it was a contest about the issues.

Dems are going to have to face enough smear tactics once they're against the Republican nominee. But, Hillary and Bill have lost their minds. This negative campaigning is a nightmare for us. Thanks to the Clinton's, instead of Democratics looking fondly to November and rubbing our change message into the smug faces of demoralized Republicans, we aren't even sure if we'll be able to pull this thing off.

If Obama gets the nomination and looses, it'll be in large part due to Hillary Clinton destroying him the primary. If Clinton wrangles the nomination from him, she'll surely loose because she and Bill haven't figured out how badly they're despised by Republicans. She simply cannot overcome her negatives. She and Bill are so fixated on winning, they don't care about the cost to do it.

And the sad part is....no one will be a winner if they're back in power. America has a chance to move in a different direction, I pray we don't let this moment pass us by due to our bigotry, small-mindness, and Washington politics as usual ways!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

lbrillante — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:51:22 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bella12 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:54:04 GMT

Why is Newsweek in such a panic that Hillary and Barack are still in the fight? What stake do they have in the outcome?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bella12 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:05:28 GMT

You can add up the vote using any method that you wish to use. It will still total an Obama win. If Hillary isn't offered first refusal for VP, and I doubt she will get that call, you can start subtracting votes from Obama in November. Read, understand, realize...The interviews with Hillary supporters tell us that way too many of them will vote for McCain. Hillary, ironically is Baracks only pathway to the White House. I love it, I love it, can't get enough of it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

joesnuffy — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:07:12 GMT

It has been made clear that the math doesn't add up in Hillary's favor with delagates or the popular vote. So why is she still in the race? She is hoping from another blunder from Obama. That's the only way she can win. She will step up the attacks and try to spin these too-little-too-late victories to convince people that she still has a chance. But, it's really pathetic on her part. It's unfortunate that her supporters and doners fall for all the nonsense. The only outcome from this going forward is making it more difficult for Obama to win in November, not to mention solidifying her reputation as a dirty player and hurting her future plotical career. The right thing to do would be for her to step aside and let Barack focus on McCain. But, she's too needy and greedy to let that happen.

I'm sick of this whole process. I think this primary process should be reworked such that all states hold their primaries on the same day. 100 years ago, when train travel was the only way to get around, and news didn't make it s way across the country very fast, it made sense to have this type of primary schedule. But, today, when information is available instantly, this process doesn't make much sense. It needs to be changed.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

raddave — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:11:59 GMT

"So our remaining undecided super delegates will decide freely who will be our nominee in case of indecision. That is why Obama warned them not to overrule the popular votes. That is why he blocked the revote in Florida and Michigan. The man of hope and new politics is undemocratic after all" Did you not read the article? It states there is no way to accuarately count the popular vote. Also, Obama did not "block" the revote in Florida and Michagin, the states and the DNC decided that there was no real way to redo these primaries. I think it was low for Clinton to keep her name on the ballot in Michagin and I knew then that she would try to use this "victory" to her advantage later.

I also think that Clinton has realized that she cannot win the nomination, but she is trying her best to make Obama so weak that he cannot win the General Election in Nov. Therefore, she will have a better chance to win four years from now. If not, then she is trying to "win at all costs" and this policy will probably end up deviding the Dems and during these times, we cannot afford to have a devided party. Mrs. Clinton should realize that there are things at stake that are more important than her goal to become President, get out and throw her support behind Obama.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kboogie — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:15:02 GMT

Well said, lbrillante!!

Actually, Obama (in one of his honorable ads) does ask parents to turn off the tv and read w/ their kids.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:33:29 GMT

raddave Sen. Obama did not "BLOCK" the revote in Florida & Michigan, he does not have that type of authority. What he said was that he would abide by whatever the DNC decided, which he did.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

raddave — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:37:25 GMT

sjpersonal, that is what I said.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Phong Nguyen — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:40:37 GMT

After June 3, 2008 the superdelegates will start with a new, clean slate to select a nominee for the Democratic Party if neither of the candidates can garner the required 2,025 delegates. The nominee who is thought to be the winner in November will be selected That is how the process works.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

johnboy21 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:50:42 GMT

Don't blame Hillary for Obama loosing the General Election. Obama is the reason Obama is loosing the General Election. Obama was winning. I voted for him in the Primary. Then his wife opened her mouth with this is the first time she was proud to be American. Then the tapes about Rev. Wright. More and More news came out about Obama and his close muslim associates and Anit America associates. AT that point in the primaries, Obama was already ahead and Hillary can not catch up. If Obama could win the General Election, he would have already won the nomination. Hillary has been holding her own every since the truth started coming out about Obama. SAVE AMERICA. Vote for someone that loves AMerica. Vote for Someone that will defend America and is Proud to be AMerican. Vote for Hillary

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

johnboy21 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:53:02 GMT

I would not vote for Obama now under any circumstances. If Obama is the nominee, a lot of democrates will vote for Repulican John McCain. The repulicans are already wanting to air tapes of Rev. Wright and John McCain asked them not to show those tapes.

Obama is out when you compare McCain's patriotism to Obama's patriotism.

Obama has none. That is all McCain does have is Patriotism.

Vote for Hillary. if not Hillary, Vote McCain.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

johnboy21 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:00:09 GMT

obama did stop the revote in Michigan and Florida. Go back and read the new articles.

Hillary supporters said they would pay for the reelection cost. But Michigan and Florida state reps said no. Both candidates had to agree to the revote. Hillary is agreeing and Obama did not agree. A candidate does have the power to stop a revote. Check out the rules. It is true.

It was predicted that Hillary would win Florida......however it was a toss up as to rather Hilllary or Obama would win Michigan. Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot because he asked to be removed from the ballot. Obama was planning on using this all a long in the race. I say let there be a revote. let the nominees have another primary. Why not? that is the only fair way to settle this. Let the people vote. The people of Florida and Michigan will vote in the fall. Why not let they speak now. GO HILLARY

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bngray60 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:09:18 GMT

When this presidential race began between Senators Obama and Clinton there was so much excitement about these two potential candiates. This was history in the making. It is now very disheartening to see how Senator Clinton, inspite of the delegate votes, refuse to concede. Senator Obama from the very beginning has been campaigning against the Clintons. I applaud him for his tenacity. He's still standing from all the negative campaign and the bias reporting among the news media, ABC, CNN, and Fox. I'm extremely thankful for the MSNBC journalists for their civility and unbias reporting. Although Sen. Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but is she given the right to destroy the democratic process and Democratic Party. Sen. Obama in his speech of last evening encourage to the voters to look beyond gender, race, ethnicity etc., but vote for the candidate who will make a CHANGE in Washington. Sen. Obama has earned the nomination because the voters have spoken. The only way Sen. Clinton believes she can win is by instilling fear in the voters, and the media perpetuates that fear. It's time for the leadership of the Democratic Party to put an end to his foolishness (and that's what it is). If she loves this country and desires the best for this country, then she should be woman enough to concede. I doubt it, but it would be nice if she did. If Hillary continues to pursue this race, we will see another four years of Bush policy. What we need in Washington is a candidate with integrity, character and honesty. Sen. Obama knows he's not perfect (as he has said -- none of us are), but he's the candidate to give the US an positive extreme makeover by restoring the greatest of this country domestically and internationally. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God. Obama '08 Barbara Gray

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

WindmillJouster — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:11:47 GMT

I see this thing playing out as follows:

1. Hillary stays in through June.

2. Obama ends the season with more pledged delegates and the popular vote lead.

3. The Clintons put the full court press on the superdelegates.

4. The superdelegates wring their hands, but begin to come over to Obama, slowly.

5. The party "elders" give an ultimatum to the superdelegates - make up your minds in 2 weeks!

6. The superdelegates do so, and move to support Obama.

7. Clinton concedes.

8. The party begins to unite behind Obama.

Any other scenario would be devastating.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

PatrynXX — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:13:48 GMT

Obama didn't stop the revote in Florida. The big problem was that every possible solution was extremely illegal. Florida refused to pay for a re vote. That quashed that. The other theories were to have a third party do it, but then they legally don't have access to voter reccords. So unless Hillary wanted to break the law, all the solutions on the table didn't work.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

shed-a-light — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:26:23 GMT

Wake up America! I mean those amongst us who look under the bed for reasons to not want to get Obama's message. Here's the deal.

- the Rev Wright excuse is a ruse. There's nothing said by Wright that's not been said openly in the black community for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years! Before Obama was born.

- so you won't stay in Wright's church if you heard him say those things. "Tthou shall not commit adultery". Right. So why are those whose husbands bring shame the shame of adultery home still staying put. Pardon, we won't judge. Forgiveness is golden.

- About about those "muslim friends"? We do business with muslims, don't we? We buy their oil. We sell them chevrolets. We send our children to die to promoting democracy in muslim countries, don't we? So then what's wrong with having friends of another religion?

Enough please. Do the right thing, the American thing. Be fair. Find rational reasons for wanting the man to be president, not "manufactures".

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

joecflee — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:35:12 GMT

I'm glad to hear that we seem to agree that whatever metrics are out there--pledged delegate count, popular vote, equivalent electoral votes, caucus votes, etc.-- none is perfect. The fact is that no one can win without the votes of the Super Delegates, and nothing is written in stone that these delegates must honor any metric. They simply must make their own decision.

So why are you, the media, making such a big fuss about Clinton trying to convince those delegates to vote for her? Isn't that what elections are all about--to convince people that you are the most qualified? What is so destructive and divisive about that? Chris Mathews invokes Jeffersonian principles as if he (Chris) is the final arbitrar of justice and democracy. Keith Oberman, also on MSNBC, is also as pro-Obama as he is anti-O'Reilly. Why even pretend to be objective journalists? They are simply now the anti-FOX.

If the Democratic National Party did not create the Florida and Michigan problem, perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in today. And if the tables were turned--if Obama were behind by the same margin and needed Michigan and Florida votes, the words "Disenfranchised Voters" and "Same Old Dirty Politics" by Clinton's Democratic machine would be on every nightly news (yes, you, Keith and Chris).

The problem with the "objective" observers is that no one is objective. Obama friendly media members ask stupid questions like "She has no chance of winning, but she is going on. Do you think she's dividing the Democrats?"

There is nothing wrong with winning at all costs, so long as there is nothing against the rules. So far, in spite of the constant attacks by the media and Obama, the Clinton campaign has done nothing of that sort.

And if she does find a way to prevail in Denver, whether it's through smoke filled backroom deals, or by convincing Super Delegates, she becomes a winner, and in America, that's all that matters. Ask the New York Giants.

Ask George Bush and ask Al Gore.

Would Mr. Gore be happy to trade in his Nobel Peace Prize for the Presidency? Why do I have a feeling that he would take that offer in a heartbeat?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

pasbair — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:38:57 GMT

Hmmm. Do you just want to make a big banner, Andrew, that says "Newsweek Backs OBAMA!!" and you can carry it around to all his rallies?

What Newsweek is: staffed by people who write what the higher-ups want them to write in exchange for money - a/k/a journalistic prostitution.

What Newsweek is not: an ACTUAL "news" publication

Go back to J101 and see if they are still teaching something called "Unbiased Reporting".

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

twoterp — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:42:27 GMT

I feel that for a person that is bi-racial everyone just focuses on Barack Obamas' Afro heritage. And they approach that with a negative aspect, is it any wonder why minorities feel the way they do. Most Afro Americans have been dealing with this since Birth. All non Afro people look upon Afro Americans as Second Hand citizens, no matter what their Achievements are, Finnancial or Educational, and it is something that has been inbread since birth into White people. If you ask any Black person anywhere in the country, they will tell you that being Black is something you have to LIVE, and there is no way anyone that has not lived this experience can know what it is to be an Afro American.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

somnuk — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:50:13 GMT

I'd see John Mccain president before my vote ever went to Hillary Clinton. Another legacy is the last thing this country needs.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

UrsaM — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:50:50 GMT

What is this silliness about who's leading in "the popular vote"? Even when you can count the votes, that figure could not be more meaningless. Some states -- which, coincidentally enough largely went for Obama -- had only caucuses and so their voters' choices aren't reflected commensurately in the popular vote.

For example, Washington has a larger population than Tennessee and has more delegates -- 97 vs. 85 -- and presumably thus should carry more weight in any mythical "popular vote" contest. And, Obama had three times the margin of victory in Washington (68-31 vs. 54-41) than Clinton had in Tennessee. But, because Washington chose to operate by caucus and Tennessee by primary, Clinton's 82,000 vote margin in such a "contest" carries seven times the weight of his 11,600 vote margin in Washington. This makes absolutely no sense, without even getting into the issue of counting the Florida and Michigan "votes".

The raw numbers:

Tennessee 85 total delegates

Clinton 332,599 = 54%

Obama 250,750 = 41%

Washington 97 total delegates

Obama 21,629 = 68%

Clinton 9,992 = 31%

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

steve02001 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:51:22 GMT

The facts are difficult things to ignore, but the Clintonistas and the Republicans keep on trying:

FACT 1: the math is simple, Clinton has to win by huge margins in ALL remaining primaries to pass Obama in the pledged delegates and popular vote, something she cannot do (example North Carolina and Oregon);

FACT 2: FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DO NOT COUNT!!! it's the ultimate in Clinton arrogance for her to claim she won those states when the rest of the Democratic field followed the rules and did not run;

FACT 3: the GOP wants Clinton to keep on fighting and eventually win. Why? because the bloodier the battle the more negative sound bites they can get against each Dem candidate for the fall. Also Clinton as the Dem candidate is the only thing that would energize the Republican base and get them out to vote (it certainly is not their candidate); that's why Rush Limbaugh is urging his listeners to switch and vote for Clinton in the primaries (those right-wing Conservatives just can't help using Nixonian tactics, it's in their genes);

FACT 4: The polls show that the Pastor Wright issue and "bitter" comments did not hurt Obama.

FACT 5: Clinton is running out of money; yes she got a good bump from her latest win, but that will not be enough for her to cover Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon, all which she has to win, and which she cannot cover because of not enough money; Obama has $40 million and counting, to cover all 3 comfortably (and yes the money did matter in Penn., it cut Clinton's lead from 20 points, to a final margin of 9.2, that is a significant gain);

FACT 6: The mismanaged wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, the bad Economy, Bush's 28% approval rate, the Republican governing incompetence of the last 8 years, McCain's age, continuing gaffes and uninspiring personality, NO WAY, NO HOW, ARE THE REPUBLICANS GOING TO WIN IN 2008, you can take that to the bank. Americans were suckered in the last 2 elections, they have had enough, they want HOPE, they want COMPETENCE, they want CHANGE, they want OBAMA!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

kamakiriad — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:54:38 GMT

Michigan and Florida can not count. There is no way to count them accurately or fairly. The voters were told they would not count, so many did not even vote. This completely unworkable fantasy that Hillary has in her head, that the Superdelegates should thwart the 2 year election process and give her the nomination over the guy who collected more votes and delegates fairly is preposterous. Any Superdelegate who buys this argument really needs to get out of public office for being so gullible. If any candidatte but HRC was in her position right now, they would have dropped out, doing what's best for the party and America. Stamping your foot like a 12-year old and asking that the rules of Chutes and Ladders be changed because you didn't win fairly is classic Clinton-think. The real world just doesn't work this way, and no matter how long her and her people hold their breath, the results remain the same. She will have fewer delegates, fewer states, and fewer votes on June 3rd. She lost...PERIOD.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

mjno — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:55:20 GMT

It has MERIT. Obama's votes came when America was ASLEEP, NOW that they are getting to know him better, they don't WANT HIM.

HILLARY IS THE BEST CHOICE so stand up.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ionFwC1UUUw

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ghallums — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:55:50 GMT

Okay....you guys are a bunch of Republican nut-jobs. You prove it with this story. You (like all of your super rich owned counterparts like Fox News, Gaylord Ent. etc.) are continuing to prove why you are paid well to continue your owner's agenda....push Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama so that he wins the nomination and then loses in the general election to the Republican candidate John McCain. That way, your super-rich owners can continue to line their pockets with the middle-classes' blood money. Way to go guys, hope your proud of yourselves.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

mjno — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:58:01 GMT

OBAMA the mature one???? The day after the debate in Philly, he waffled. In 2 venues in North Carolina, he gave the same speech. Note different people in the background. He used Rapper Jay-Z's stuff about twisting a knife and gave the finger to Senator Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhkq11UExcw

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

GregHere — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:11:30 GMT

...................More information should be told about the Obama Campaign as to how it started and how he is getting all of his money. Obama is not just a guy who popped up last year and impressed people with his smile, thin appearance in a conservative suit and talk of hope. I believe Obama "inherited" the remains of the defunct 2004 Howard Dean Campaign that morphed into Move On.Org after Dean uttered his Yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaa!!! comments after the Iowa primary and got blasted by the media as a flake and after his campaign took a nose dive. Obama has his own well oiled Political Machine as he accuses Hillary of having. Oprah Winfrey and many from the Hard Core Left promoted Obama because they felt he was a smooth politician who could speak well............Obamaism is driven by a big time Big Time Political Machine and it is not at all the David against Goliath thing that is being postured when Obama makes his appearances.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

jae931 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:13:47 GMT

What is wrong with you people? I guess issues do not matter and screw the good of the country, huh? Let's get another Bush in office. Yeah, that's just an outstanding idea. Do you really want someone in office who has stated she will "obliterate" Iran if they attack Isreal and then "hope" our NATO allies will back us up? This means that no matter what anyone says, she's going in. Ring a bell? Bush did the same thing and now we find ourselves in a fairly nasty scenario in the Middle East. Oh yeah, it's not doing a lot a good for the economy, either. Hillary has lost. Even by riding the coattails of Bill, she couldn't "close the deal." Rules have been set in the nomination process for how long now? It's delegates that decide the race, Florida and Michigan showed complete and utter ineptness (their rep's did), and you can not change regulations to simply tip the vote in your favor. We aren't three and you can't call "base!" and change the rules of the game when you don't want to get tagged. It's over, you blew it Hillary.

By the way, the accusation of "giving the finger" is so ignorant, it's humorous.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

TexasFemale — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:14:53 GMT

So, are we stupid? We said she needed a double digit win in PA to stay alive; final counts are in and it looks like it's under the inital 10% mark. (9%) Now, we are moving the goal post to yet another primary, making it necessary to continue spending millions of dollars on a race in which it is proven Clinton cannot win - in any way, shape, or form.

We are spending needless money, listening to back-stabbing, mean, vicious comments, tearing apart the Democratic party... why? Can ANYONE tell me why?

Hillary, you would be welcomed if you could run a respectful race. But, you are not. And your time is up. Would someone please take her by the hand and throw her out the door?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

joecflee — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:18:38 GMT

Fact and Fantasy

If people stop confusing the two, perhaps there will be some civility here.

FACT - Neither Clinton nor Obama can win without the Super Delegates.

FANTASY - The Super Delegates must 'honor' the votes of the delegate count.

If that were the case, Kennedy and Kerry would have to vote for Clinton who won their state rather handily.

FACT - Obama claims he is a unifier

FANTASY - Obama can be a unifier

Look at the Republicans already preparing for a nasty campaign. What makes anyone believe they will be any different after November? Besides, name one, even ONE, significant issue in which Mr. Obama reached across the aisle in a contentious issue where the parties were divided and his role made the difference... I'm waiting

FACT - Michigan and Florida Voters voted

FANTASY - Democrats can win the election without those two States

Why would a candidate that promotes change and 'doing the right thing' support disenfranchising millions of votes? He is the one saying that the politics of the old and the old rules shouldn't apply, unless of course, they favor him? With one word, he can make those votes count, but he won't.... perhaps Mr. Obama is just another politician... a pretty good one.

FACT - Obama's Associations with questionable characters will hurt him

FANTASY - Clinton's vote for the Iraq War will hurt her

The issue was judgment. It still is judgment. Clinton was the senator from the State of NY where 9/11 happened. People will cut her a break, especially since a significant majority of the Senate voted for the War authorization. Being associated with Reverend Wright--bad judgment. Claiming he did not recall if he was at some of the sermons --bad lie. Clinton's lie about Bosnia was stupid. Barack's lie about Reverend Wright was political.

Having said that, both will probably run a tight race against McCain. However, it is a fair argument to say that Clinton has a better chance in the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. Obama may be able to steal Colorado and Virginia. Her argument of being a better general election candidate does have merit. Since the black votes typically break 80-20 in favor of the Democrats to begin with, Obama's advantage in the general election comes down to whether he can win enough independents. Once the Republicans pin him into the liberal corner, it may be tough.

Clinton probably has a better chance of winning in November in a thin margin, but offering little in terms of coattails. Obama has the potential of making it a landslide Democratic win, but he may also lose because of the state-by-state matchups.

That, seems to be the dilemma.

I hope that was civil...

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:23:31 GMT

Ramano, of course, is correct that delegates is what counts and not popular vote. However since neither will get enough delegate count to win then the popular vote is a keystone. Just because DNC disqualified the delegates of two states, they are powerless to disqualify the voter and as of to date, Hillary is ahead in popular vote. It is ludicrous to say the Super delagates should simply follow the current delagates on a pro rata basis. What would be the point of their existence. Obama can win cacausas and Hillary can win primaries where political hacks do not call the shots. When we elect the President of the United States by a cacaus then I think Obama is the guy.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

RoaringMoose — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:24:45 GMT

I live in New Your State. Hillary Clinton is my state senator she promised 200,000 new jobs. I am still waiting for her to keep her promise. In fact we have lost jobs and spin tells us that some jobs lost have been replaced with two: One Manufacturing job paid $15.80/hr replaced with two at McDonalds $7.45/hr. I now compete with high school student my son and daughter for the same jod at McDonald and Burger King they got the job becauses "If something better comes along I will leave". Way to go Hillary. Hillary go away.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ronniewade — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:25:45 GMT

I agree with this article. However, according to Clinton, she believes that she is owed the White House and will try everything in her power to capture that. However, what really ticks me off is all the talk about if Obama is the candidate, people will vote for McCain or not vote at all. That's simply another way to say that this country still breeds hate and many of them are prejudice

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

OldWisconsinDemocrat — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:28:19 GMT

Wisconsin delegates should not feel obligated to support Obama, who won the popular vote in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has an open primary. This means voters don't declare their party affiliation, and are free to cross over to vote in the primary of the other party. McCain had no opponent by the time of the Wisconsin primary, so Republican voters probably moved over to vote in the Democratic primary race, where the action was more interesting. Obama won here. It is believed that cross-over voters pick the weakest candidate for their party to beat in the general election. I have crossed over a few times myself, I would prefer my party's candidate to be picked by members of my party, but Wisconsin does not use a closed primary. Wisconsin delegates will have to use their own judgment and I hope fix this at the Convention.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:29:32 GMT

So who was the BIG WINNER last night? I think McCain is smiling.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

HRC08 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:30:53 GMT

Excellent post--fact and fantasy. Fact: Obama artfully rubbed his middle finger on his cheek as he was talking about Mrs. Clinton. This behavior is appalling for a candidate running for the Presidency of the United States. .

Fantasy: Is this how Obama will deal with the Chinese when he tries to renegotiate NAFTA?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ApostasyUSA — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:31:22 GMT

I love seeing the Democrats all fired up!!

I heard Obama say that his campaign has almost 1.5 million donors. If thats true than America has NEVER witnessed such "GRASS-ROOTS" movement. Good for him and good for the Dems. That means like 1 in 300 Americans gave money to Obama? MAN!

There is a wave coming and it's not Republican.......... No wonder Hillary is so desperate for the DNC nomination and the GOP is hating on Obama so much. Looks like the Dems take the cake in 08.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

an obama girl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:33:18 GMT

Sound of reason

Obama also wins primaries. Hillary knows the rules of the democratic party. Caucaus states do not have popular votes. There for....delegates are rewarded to win...This my friend is why.....states won and deligates count NOT popular votes...

Spin ahain my friend!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:34:56 GMT

Apostasy what are you smoking. The Dems had the Office of the President handed to them on a Silver platter. They just gave it back to the Republicans. Get a reality check.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bobofmiami — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:36:06 GMT

Total needed to win the nomination 2025, As it looks now neither OB or HRC will reach that threshold.

Popular Vote and delegate count does not matter if that threshold is not met. That is the Democratic party rules. The delegates could look around and say maybe Al Gore is the one for the job. Nominate him without one vote being cast for him in a primary. Those are the rules. The super delegates job is to make sure the Democratic party has a candidate that can win in November. PS I hope it is HRC.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

John_Lai — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:37:55 GMT

I want to know what is the poll from Newsweek about which indicate OBAMA was pulling away. Now Clinton wins by double digit. Perhaps, it is time to say. 'FFFOOOUUUULLL'

It is a 10% win and she is outspent 11.2 million to 4.5 million. Here is a lady fighting a hard battle and makes no whining about anything but keeps on coming back against all odds. Is this a familiar scene to you. The American spirit despite all those jeers and sneers from the phony who prefer to sit in the cool and prefer to vote 'PRESENCE' and be held unaccountable, and prefer to say good things but deliver none.

OBAMA CANNOT win the support of the working class. The working class swings between Hillary and McCain and say no to OBAMA the snob, the skittish and the wimp who quit the NC debate because He knows that he is over the hill. He can't buy the election despite the LEFT WING LIBERALS send in their cash furiously.

This is no country for extremists, the REV Wright stuff, the BITTERGATE, Florida and Michigan, and all those OBAMA lies are catching up on him. He is doing everything that he said he wouldn't. LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.

Hillary, fights the party, fight a war that would clean up the double talking politician. You may exaggerate a little and people make a big deal but this OBAMA who have been telling lies. I have a stock of his lies in double digits. He is just a big liar.

This is a guy who beats himself showing his sign of running out of gas. He is an elite who can stand behind a podium making high sounding speech and appealing to the emotions of the weaklings. Fighting one-on-one, he is a deplorable loser. The first time he came across tough questions from the media about his connections, he quits and deny any more debates, and the rights of people to know about the candidates.

This stupid and scarecrow approach of wining an election is only his dreamware. A flash in a pan for the working class but fools none but himself. He is a plain loser with no guts for hardfighting election. He always backs down and denies, and make excuses, and pretends his loses are not important and he is winning.

In fact, he is losing. He lost over 90% of the counties to Hillary in Pa. Anyone who denies voters right to know his character and his past should never ask voters to rake a risk on him.

He is supported by people against the voice of their state:

Pelosi (California) Herb (Okalhoma), Richardson (New Mexico) Kerry (Mass.) Kennedy (Mass.)..

Florida and Michigan voters would never support him.

The working class detest him and his remarks which show little understanding and less sensitivity. His '37' gutterball symbolizes what his campaign is heading after Pennsylvania.

Obama who is running into hide, keep distance away from media and the questions.

A tragedy for a star fell from the sky behind his podium and shall fall to his knees pme-on-one in hard fought battles.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:38:24 GMT

Obama Girl.

Agreed but this is not the way we elect a President and Obama will not get enough delagates. The supers are not to follow the delagates or the popular but what they see as best. But at that point the popular probably carries more weight than delagates since it is closer to real life.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Cantabrigian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:41:14 GMT

Supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton will NEVER vote for Obama, an inexperienced man who lies about his abilities, who lies when he claims he never heard Pastor Wright say anything wrong during the twenty years he attended the anti-American, white-racist church, who lies and claims his fund raising $$$$$ has come from students and first time voters (for the real truth Google - The Washington Post Staff Story of 4/11/08. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots 'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign," By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 11, 2008; A01). Obama is trying to bring on the early dawn for Senator Clinton, with the same mendacious shenanigans he used to win his Illinois Senate seat. Obama will not bring people together because he has NOT done anything of the sort up until now. The same fellow who crafted Gov. Patrick's campaign in Massachusetts is the fellow working for Obama. Gov. Patrick a dismal failure in this state. We do not need another inexperienced President who wins with a campaign with $$$$$, empty words "hope" "change" "anti-establishment" and lies, lies and more lies.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:41:40 GMT

bobo

you are correct but at this point the bitterness runs so deep that OB and HRC are unelectable. Someone like Gore that HRC fans and KoolAid Obaminites can both support.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

btorched — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:46:30 GMT

i think that Hillary needs to come back to reality and realize the only way she can get the nomination is to steal via super delegates. I wish she would come out and tell us why she thinks that she is owed this but we'll never know. If she is elected we will have nothing but more of the same we saw in the second term of Bill. If Barrack is elected I think the Democratic Congress will leverage their power to make their agenda start flowing rendering him useless as a president. I hate most of the ideas coming from Republicans and Democrats, these past few years it has been a race to see who can get the most money for their lobbyists screwing the crap out of us.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

apell — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:46:50 GMT

The majority of posters to this forum seem content to sling mud at each other and proclaim their candidate the Second Coming and the other candidate Evil Incarnate. Maybe that makes you feel good, but that is entirely off the point. The point of this forum is to comment on Mr. Romano's article which seeks to discount the popular vote as a means for Superdelegates to decide how they will vote. Whether Mr. Romano is correct or not, the bigger issue facing Superdelegates is how to win the general election, not how to win the nomination. Slavish attention to delegate counts is a simple way to determine the nomination, but adds nothing to the analysis of who will win the general election. An important aspect of this discussion that appears to be missed entirely is the fact that the general election is winner-take-all, not proportional (or "democratic") voting, as occurs in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The Superdelegates should look to those states where each candidate earned the popular vote victory, and then award that candidate the entire amount of Electoral votes that state has to offer in November. That is how it will work in the general election; just ask Al ("I won the popular vote") Gore. Applying this analysis, though Hillary won only 15 states, those 15 states represent 244 Electoral votes. Obama won 27 states, but they represent only 202 Electoral votes. If you throw in Florida and Michigan (and polling shows that Hillary would have come out on top in both) her total increases to 288 Electoral votes. As only 270 Electoral votes are needed to win in November, this should give the Superdelegates some food for thought. Yes, Hillary will not win every state in November that she won in the primaries, and yes, Obama will win some states in November that he lost in the primaries, but the inherent advantage of being preferred in those state can only help Hillary in November. And if the important large states of Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida are considered, all states lost by the Democrats in 2004, a candidate with a popular advantage there should be given a second look (and spare me the "Obama won Texas" talk just because he picked up more delegates; the delegates he won from the caucus were from the votes of a tiny percentage of the total voting public that night; Hillary won the popular vote without doubt). If the goal is to beat up the candidate you don't support, then continue throwing mud. But if the goal is to win in November, then condsider some hard facts about how elections are won and look to the candidates from that perspective. It is nice to win the battle, but not if you lose the war.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Cantabrigian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:48:11 GMT

A Living Lie

By Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie.

That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk. However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

lee309 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:53:55 GMT

"A pox on both their houses." I'm disappointed in both candidates. Despite being a registered Democrat, I'll probably end up voting for McCain in November. Yikes!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Perflead — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:58:27 GMT

DNC will go by the rules agreed at the start.

Obama is still winning by 161 delegates, (1494-1333).

Obama is up by 501,138 in the Overall Popular Vote; 611,360 When Caucus State Estimates are Included.

She gained only 10 pledge delegates with the55% to 45 % lead in popular vote.

It is projected that Obama will get back the popular votes he lost in the next two primaries.

Less than 400 PD's are left to be contested.

None of the candidates will cause a difference of more than 10 percent (40 delegates) based on the average track record.

Does somebody know the total number of popular votes left in the remaining 9 primaries?

It is not likely for either of the candidates to gain popular votes in the remaining 9 by more than 10 percent, based on the most conservative polls & the track record.

Also, if at all MI & FL have to be included then it should be a total re vote at the end of the primaries.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:00:25 GMT

apell wants us to do an electoral vote tally to decide who should win this nomination, but there is a major flaw in this analysis. Right now, Senator Obama actually leads Senator Clinton against Senator McCain in polls in such large states as California and Texas so who gets that state's electoral vote total? Should we go by the polls today (which more accurately reflect current voter preferences) or the votes cast months previously? Obviously, a round-up of the polls before the convention TWO MONTHS before the general election is not a good idea. Maybe we should stick with the way the Democratic party measures success-- the parameter both candidates knew existed when this began.

Perhaps we should demand that both candidates conduct a positive campaign from here on out, but we are probably barking at the moon since the only way Senator Clinton gets 78% of the superdelegates to ignore the Democrat (Senator Obama) who will have obtained the most votes in the history of Democrats is to destroy his reputation -- is there anyone who doesn't know this now?

Senator Obama is running a three-way race against Senators Clinton and McCain and one of his opponents is supposedly a Democrat? Please!!

The obvious up-shot of all arguments put forward by Senator Clinton and her supporters is to twist, bend, alter and do whatever is necessary to the original rules to make certain that she ends up the nominee and we lose in November -- the alternative argument seems to be make certain as many people as possible cannot hear a word Senator Obama says so that HE (and the Democrats) lose in November. But guess what? It isn't going to work this year and I am a Catholic woman who is no longer young -- I am not part of Senator Clinton's defeatist strategy for the Democratic party, are you? I mean seriously after the last 7+ years, are you?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Danjak — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:00:31 GMT

As a lifelong Democrat, it pains me to say it, but I would never vote for Hillary Clinton if she got the nomination. Her sense of entitlement to the presidency makes me sick to my stomach. We are not a monarchy. Just because her husband was president doesn't mean she should be president. I had the same feelings about Bush I and Bush II. In our country of millions and millions of people, you're trying to tell me the best person for the job just HAPPENS to be an ex-president's wife?? Umm... no.

Go away Hillary. You lost. Americans don't want you, and we're tired of the "Clinton Political Machine." Go lie about your war experiences elsewhere.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sanityprevail — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:07:31 GMT

It just cracks me up all these people decrying the spin going on, then proceed to add their own spin, ten times more hysterical and ridiculous than anything either candidate has come up with! Anybody who is a big enough moron to have their vote swayed by another moron foaming at the mouth on a board like this won't be reading these rants or probably even voting in November.

ALL THREE candidates are politicians, even the Pied Piper, Mr. Obama, more so every day from the sound of thing. ALL politicians lie or stretch the truth, at least from time to time, NONE are immune from falling into this trap of what their opponents are fond of calling "say anything" politics.

In the perilous world we live in today, experience should trump swoons. The country has rarely been unified, and when we have it is short-lived (remember 9/11?). Realistically there are ALWAYS going to be hard-core right and left wing people with a certain number so close to the middle that they go back and forth, a number that I believe is seriously inflated by the media. This is why true unity is rare and short-lived, and that's not always a bad thing.

Bottom line: Americans need to be a little more objective and a little less emotional about their choice of a nominee and President, super delegates included!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

fe427so — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:10:10 GMT

Hokey smoke Bullwinkle......Hillary has come up with more reasons why she should be the Democratic nominee for president over Obama. So many reasons and so little time to decide, what are we supposed to do?

Well how about following the rules of the Democratic Party instead of the horse crap the Hillary and Bill are spreading for all the little democrats to follow. After all Hillary and Bill own the party don't they? They paid for it, so they do what they want, right?

You have to give Hillary credit, she has a real talent for throwing up a lot in the air expecting the little democrats to be distracted by her nonsense. Hillary and Bill seem to live in a parallel universe.......kind of like some lost episode of Star Trek, where up is down, in is out, red is blue and Captain Kirk's and Mr. Spock's evil twins had goatees. Hillary are your whiskers itching?

No I'm wrong, its not like a Star Trek episode.......its the justification for the Iraq War that Hillary supported no matter how many different reasons King George the W and the Dark Lord of Cheney were able spit out without laughing.

Hillary just go home to Arkansas, no wait New York, no wait, now she's the home town Scranton girl. How much do you want to bet that she will suddenly discover she really in native of Indiana, North Carolina, West Virgina, Kentucky......oh what the heck and Puerto Rico too.

Hillary and Bill sniff your horse crap in the privacy of your own home, where ever you think you live, just choose one and go there. Let the rest of us enjoy some fresh air.

Obama, live large my friend, live large.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Lynn T. — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT

To Brian.Reach:

"look up disenfranchise."

I did -- it means to take away someone's right to vote. Which is what the Cliinton campaign is trying to do with mine, since I live in a state which uses the caucus process to decide on delegates to the national convention.

"Everyone should agree, at this point, that the caucuses disenfranchised people with JOBS, or OLD people, or anyone who isn't fit to sit around for three horus in a crowded auditorium and listen to dizzying arguments. "

I work full time -- in fact, I usually work at least 50 hours a week. So do a lot of my neighbors and co-workers. I also qualify as "old" at age 63. I still managed to get to our caucus because I thought it was important enough to give up a couple of hours of my time (in the evening, I might add). Unlike you, I didn't find the arguments particularly dizzying. In fact, I found the discussions around the issues and their remifications enlightening and interesting... as did most others there. Gee, I guess that means we actually do care about how our government affects our finances and all that stuff....

"Meaning Clinton supporters. You know, people who actually worry about issues, and what the plan is - because they are financially affected and CARE.

Guess this argument is also typical of Clinton supporters and their negativity -- when all else fails, cast aspersions on those who don't agree with you.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

eddee49 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:11:57 GMT

Hillary got behind in the delegates count because of complacency in the start of the primaries. Most of her supporters, if not all, assumed that it was going to be an easy win for her and get the nomination. Not only after Obama's consecutive wins in those small states, that Hillary's supporters panicked and started to really mobilize.

I take offense in the media's assessment that most of Hillary's supporter's are uneducated. Most people I know are college graduates and are all voting for Hillary. So where is the media getting their statistics. They are also reporting that Obama's supporters are college graduates and educated and then report that 90% of the blacks are voting for Obama. Did I miss a statistic somewhere stating that the majority of blacks are now going and graduating from college and not dropping out of high school. This is a good statistics if it were true.

The question of electability and closing the deal.

The sad fact is that Obama will never win in November without Hillary in the ticket, either as the President contender or Vice-President contender. And this is why. There are so much animosity in the two camps that I doubt very much if the two sides will totally reconcile. The sad fact is that a higher percentage of Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary should she get the nomination and a lower percentage of Hillary's supporter will vote for Obama.

As frequently reported in the media, Obama won more states than Hillary but they are comprised of small states. The question of electability comes to mind and its simple arithmitic. Add up all the electoral votes in those states that Obama have won and add up the electoral votes that Hillary have won, surprise...whose got the higher votes. Hillary. Now the assumption, according to the media, is that the majority of Hillary's supporter will not vote for Obama, then logic follows that Obama cannot win the presidency on his own because he cannot win the big states. The two of them will be a sure winner in November but absent Hillary in the ticket, it will be a toss-up. HILLARY CAN WIN ON HER OWN OR IN THE TICKET. If Hillary turns Independent she might win. GOOD LUCK TO US ALL

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

AngusAllen — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:15:22 GMT

This article really misrepresents McAuliffe's comments. Terry was talking about making the argument to the super-delegates, that Hillary is the strongest candidate to beat McCain this fall. Obama's slim margin of a delagate lead is due to largely to his successes in caucuses, which are simply not an accurate, or even fair at times, way of determining who our candidate should be. Hillary is the only one who can deliver Ohio and Florida, and is simply more prepared to lead and face the challenges we're facing. The super-delagates were created by the party precisely for a situation like this, when "an unelectable candidate" is in danger of getting the nomination. We cannot afford to let John McCain win, and an Obama nomination would be just that, gift-wrapped. How come MSNBC is so biased towards Obama, going as far to misrepresent the truth in his interest?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

apell — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:15:54 GMT

Dear Kim in Pasadena: apell (me!) does not want anybody to decide the Democratic nomination based on an Electoral vote count. What I want people to do is consider alternatives to the delegates vs. popular vote "debate" engendered by Mr. Romano's article. My point is that the general election will be decided under different rules than the Democratic nomination, and so if a victory in November is desired attention should be paid to those rules. If, as suggested by Kim in Pasadena, Obama has an actual advantage in the Electoral vote analysis, well, the Superdelegates should consider this. Just don't get locked into a death match to win the nomination without regard to understanding what it will take to win in Novembner. (And I hope you all noticed that I did not advocate for or against the character, policies, hopes, dreams, or visions of either Hillary or Obama -- none of that is conducive to clear debate here as none of that is provable. There is no way to know what either candidate will actually do if elected. Case in point: compare Bush's campaign rhetoric to his actual performance. *All* campaign rhetoric sounds good. Little is ever carried through. My post is solely oriented to the proposition of what will be necessary for the Democrats to win in November, and that is a decision that will be in the hands of the (unelected) Superdelegates.)

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Singing Lizard — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:18:29 GMT

Cantabrigian - You may write your lies as many times as you want. Telling a lie over and over again doesn't make it true. I think that was a lesson well taught to us by the Bush administration.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:18:55 GMT

Perflead

Check Clear Ploitics

Hillary is ahead in popular vote if you count all states and even estimates for the cacauses

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:23:41 GMT

SinginLizard:

Your thoughts are obviously not as well thought out as Cantbrigian. You speak with a forked tounge. Maybe SingingSnake is better.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sanramonca — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:25:27 GMT

To Cantabrigian:

I read the same WP article, but had the opposite take on it. If you use the numbers given in that article, it works out that $16 million was donated by a total 79 bundlers. But another $120 million (or 7 to 8 times as much!) came from at least 600,000 people who each gave $200 or less . Depends on how you look at it, but 600,000 is a lot of individual, small dollar donors.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:25:56 GMT

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

Everybody:Check it out

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

jacob444 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:28:01 GMT

To: Lynn T who says that she spent time at the caucus in her state and that she is 63 old Obama supporter.

Most people can't spend 3 hours at night because they work or have children. Others are ill or seniors. Others may be in school.

The Caucus has been phased out because it is undemocratic but used in some states still - note a caucus in a large state won't work either. Look at Texas it was a MESS. Indeed, Hillary won the Texas primary "popular vote" by 4% points but because the RULES forced Texas to vote TWICE, she lost that crazy caucus and therefore Obama won 25 more delegates than he should have. Move those 25 delegates from Obama to Hillary and Hillary would be only 60 delegates away from Obama - A VERY CLOSE NUMBER.

When all is said and done, Hillary will win the popular vote. The superdelegates MUST view the entire story. That Caucuses were unfair and that Hillary won the popular vote.

Finally, the democrat party must change there system. Superdelegates and caucus system is undemocratic. I prefer winner take all. And in the winner take all rules, Hillary would be winning by a landslide.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:32:39 GMT

jacob444

You are absolutely correct on two points:

1: I am here in Texas and the "vote twice" was a racket to undo the will of the people and

2: Winner takes all is the way it is in November so the Supers better get on board to figure out how they when the war.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Lynn T. — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:33:48 GMT

RE "A Living Lie" by Thomas Sowell.

Hey, Cantabrigian -- go back to England and take your right-wing philosophy with you. The above-referenced article appeared in the National Review and was written by a conservative think-tank fellow. Not the best credentials, if you ask me. Hey, the Hoover Institute is so far right it's even hired Donald Rumsfeld -- now there's a bright fellow! After reading the sop that Sowell puts out, it's apparent Rumsfeld has found an appropriate home.

Go post your dreck on some right wing blog where it will find like minded idiots to appreciate it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Perflead — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:34:48 GMT

Mrs. Clinton negative strategy is effective.

Obama lost due to the continuous negative attacks by Mrs. Clinton through out & in the debate and, the fact Obama was not aggressive in his response.

So far Mrs. Clinton has always been the first to level charges against him.

She will be the first to negatively attack in the future primaries too.

Obama needs to wake up & be the first to attack & put her on the defense.

Mrs. Clinton benefited a lot even with the unfair accusations like he belittled small town people & that he was responsible for the actions of his retired reverend.

Obama probably thinks that negative campaigning might back fire because then it would be against a lady.

Obama could not even take advantage of her lies about her heroic action in Bosnia, bad judgment on Iraq war & the consequences, misrepresentation of her experience in the whites house, failure to bring parties together to pass the health care plan.

There are so many negatives he can use against her with solid evidence.

Obama needs to wake up and not wait for the attack to come.

He should be the one attacking but not over do it & not lie or exaggerate like she does.

I think the effective strategy is to create a doubt in the minds of people& that what she does.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:36:56 GMT

Lynn T;

You work for Moveon.org?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Singing Lizard — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:40:10 GMT

I understand Sen. Clinton's hope to change the reality of rules she knew far in advance of these primaries. She wants to win. I hope that if she is our next president, which I doubt, she will keep her word that she will work to get our troops home from Iraq. Unfortunately, Clinton will do whatever it takes to win, including telling us that she will work for us. And will bend and twist rules she previously agreed to only because it suits her. It is interesting that Mitt Romney (!!) was more honorable about bowing out of the race when he saw the primaries were hurting the republican party. He could well have gone on and on and on and on. If she is the democratic candidate, I will vote for her. I hope and think that most people will be introduced to the real scary Sen. McCain by then and will understand that regardless of who our democratic candidate is, either one will be unimaginably better than a republican. That's what we need to focus on instead of what bending of what rules will get Sen. Clinton the nomination.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

TomSkilledWorker — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:40:57 GMT

Listen to you, Lynn! LOL

I just wish you left-wing fundamentalists could ever argue a point with more than sweeping generalizations and name-calling.

I guess it's because you lefties have no "reasonable" arguments. LOL

People are going to think with their heads this November and elect John McCain.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:46:24 GMT

For the record:

As an Independent I started by supporting Kool-Aid Obama but after Rezko, Wright, Farrakan, Kennedy, Moveon.org etc.....I do not need a freak in the White House. Hillary will say whatever people want. I do not agree with the Republicans but McCain is dislike by Rush (now that is an endorsement I like) and is more bi-partisian than anyone. At least what he says is something you can believe even if I do not like it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:48:33 GMT

SingingLizard:

My apoligies: That one was well thought out.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Lynn T. — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:48:39 GMT

Soundofreason and TomSkilledWorker:

Sweeping generalizations and name calling? Guess you right-wingers are pretty good at that yourselves, as your posts just demonstrated. Actually, I don't work for Moveon.org and I'm not a left-wing fundamentalist. I also rarely engage in a battle of wits with unarmed oponents such as yourselvews, but sometimes it's just too much fun to leave alone.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:52:20 GMT

Lynn T:

As usual no intelligent thought!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Myshkin57 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:54:14 GMT

soundofreason,

That real clear politics math is pretty silly. Clinton only has the lead if (a) you count Michigan and Florida. Well, for one, if you count any reasonable percentage of the "uncommitted"s Hillary is behind. Second, I live in Florida and people here were not interested in the primary. The only reason as many Democrats showed up as they did is that there was a property tax amendment on the ballot. And, the people who get most motivated to cut taxes that hurt public services and schools are retired folk (Clinton supporters).

The reason we are not going to have a re-vote is that, contrary to common belief, there was no way to fund it, in part because the state budget is a huge mess because of that property tax cut.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Singing Lizard — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:56:47 GMT

A lot of people are saying, name one bipartisan law Barack Obama has passed. Okay. Here's two: The reason anyone can go on the internet and find out who has donated how much money to what candidate for any federal office is because Obama got a bill passed that was co-authored by a republican that put that information out there for everyone to see. It was never accessible to so many people before. You may even have visited that site. He approached that senator and also Senator Lugar from Indiana to help pass another bill that allows anyone to go on the internet and see every bill that has passed and everything about it, including who voted how and also allows us to see who added any earmarks and all the information on them. Those two things are available to us now because of him. He worked with a committee that helped secure former USSR nuclear weapons, facilities and waste in the new republics. And about that subprime mortgage crisis? He wrote a letter to our Treasury Secretary the early part of last year, possibly 2006, saying that he was concerned about lending practices and how it might effect the economy. Will you please name one thing that Senator Clinton has done? I can't.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:57:28 GMT

Myshkin57:

Every state has their pecurilarities but it is what it is and Hillary is ahead.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

TomSkilledWorker — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:58:32 GMT

Thanks, Lynn T:

You just proved my point. LOL

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

WA Dem — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:02:13 GMT

KBoogie,

Do you really mean to imply that Clinton won Ohio because it is populated by senior citizens who have been abandoned by thier children? In your analysis are these the people who are consumed with bitterness that we've heard so much about of late? I get that you feel strongly about supporting your choice of candidate but must you malign an entire state to do it? Your comments actually support the notion that Obama and his supporters are elitists. I am a strong Hillary supporter but I don't presume to question the choice of voters who support Obama or ascribe to them negative qualities, questionable motives or flaws in character. If you can't do better then name calling you are certainly not a person whose actions or words are a credit to your candidate or the democratic party as a whole.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

captainnemo — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:03:29 GMT

I totally disagree. One can infer total vote from caucuses, of course the numbers can be manipulated but this is 1 case where superdelegates will fundamentally know who won the actual vote - or if its too close to call. Florida and Michigan could be polled to deternine sentiment - thats more accurate than an illegal election. Now that we have the Internet its only a matter of time before direct democracy starts interacting with representative democracy and this whole creaky system gradually gets upgraded. There is no other metric than popular vote in direct democracy ultimately - although I suppose low population states could succeed from the Union. They joined by gaming the system to get more reps per population - so they should be free to leave when we finally do deliver universal suffrage.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

solarpower — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:03:38 GMT

"People are going to think with their heads this November and elect John McCain."

Which part of the head? Brainstems vote McCain, no disgreement there. Frontal cortexes vote Obama.

Re: the RCP stats, note that Clinton is only ahead when FL and MI are included. As these totals are illegitimate, it's pointless to make the case based on these. Under no circumstances will these totals be honored as they are the result of the Democratic leaders of those states violating DNC rules--yes, even in FL, where they put up minimal resistance to the state GOP. There is no way to know how much support Obama really has in those states, but it is certain that it is much higher than indicated by their so-called votes.. This is a basic tactic for Terry McAuliffe to use in a campaign, but that doesn't make it mathematically sensible. Then again, the Clinton campaign has proven that math is not its strong suit.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Singing Lizard — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:08:42 GMT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/163723/303/468/501932

The above is an interesting diary about why Obama didn't do as well as people thought he should have. The answer is as easy as ABC.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:09:44 GMT

Solarpower:

Generally you are correct but there is nothing illegitimate about Florida, Michagan yes but Obama made his choice. The deligates do not count but the votes do.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

UKis1Jeff — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:11:21 GMT

Reading through the posts shows one glaring thing. If you're a Hillary supporter, you're generally trying to make logical thought out points without the use of bitter divisive comments. If you're an Obama supporter.....well lets see how many slurs we can throw at Hillary and her supporters.

Well as a Hillary supporter, let me sink to your level and speak in language you might understand. While the 80+% of blacks voting for Obama might be overlooked...by some. The rest of you are MORONS!!!!!!!

Bring it on.....I'm a white male, college graduate, gun owner with 3 kids who's voted Democrat in 8 Presidential elections. Yeah it's racial.......you MORONS aren't even supporting the best BLACK candidate, HAROLD FORD. Most of you morons don't even know who Harold Ford is and don't realize that Obama isn't half the speaker, doesn't have half the experience and should BEG to be Harold Ford's vice-President. Harold Ford should be in the Senate but he didn't fall into the right place at the right time like Obama did. He took on a white guy in Tennessee and almost beat him.

The average Democrat has no clue how the nomination process works. Here is the New York Times description of the Washington caucus process.........

"At precinct caucuses Feb. 9, delegates representing presidential candidates are elected. They then attend legislative district caucuses, held April 5, and county conventions, held April 19. At the legislative district caucuses, delegates representing each candidate are elected and attend the congressional-district caucuses and the state convention. The county conventions address other party business. Congressional-district caucuses are held May 17, during which 51 delegates are allocated proportionally to candidates. Elected delegates then attend the state convention, held June 14-15. An additional 27 pledged delegates and two unpledged add-on delegates are selected at the state convention. In addition, 17 party leaders and elected officials automatically become unpledged delegates."

That's where Obama has won his lead in delegates. Does that seem to make sense to ANYONE?

In Washington state, 21,629 caucus votes got Obama 53 delegates.

In Tennessee, 332,599 PRIMARY votes got Hillary 40 delegates.

Again, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU MORONS???

49.whatever% of Democrats have voted for Hillary. You MORONS, along with 80+% of blacks are mad because Hillary won't disappear.

Well here are some more facts for you MORONS!! Stop me when you understand how stupid you are.

NY-Hillary 57% Obama 40%

NJ-Hillary 54% Obama 44%

CA-Hillary 51% Obama 43%

TX-Hillary 51% Obama 47%

Oh-Hillary 54% Obama 44%

PA-Hillary 55% Obama 45%

In 2000 Ralph Nader supporters gave us Bush. Look up Ralph Nader supporter in the dictionaryI and you'll find a picture of a MORON. 2008 Obama supporters are going to give us McCain. THANKS in advance MORONS and I hope you like your picture.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:12:49 GMT

SingingLizard

Not a bad link but some conerns about Obamas patriotism is legit but if you spent 20 yrs in Wrights church I can understand it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

captainnemo — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:13:37 GMT

STOP IT! Stop the right left war ! Its all about style! If you rightists and leftists ran a business together you wouldn't be engaged in this banter. Focus on issues not people. Obama, Clinton and McCain should represent two things: 1) A set of approaches to problem solving resulting in policies and 2) Personal Integrity to actually have their approach and policies in public match what they actually do.

By this score we can get partisan - who do you trust ? But also what is to be done ? Until Obama shows he won't waste money on new federal programs attempting to jump start social mobility fiscal conservatives will be reluctant. I suppose Clinton occupies the center attempting to balance labor and business. McCain thinks the private sector needs to drive. Is that the right summary so talk to the issues.

I believe Obama wants to synthesize the fiscal conservative and nationalistic elements of the right with the JFK and Roosevelt New Deal Idealism on the left. If he can do it - we would have our cake and eat it too. As a former teacher of the Constitution at Harvard - he certainly has "street cred" and his Cooper Union speech - should have gotten Wall Streets attention as a very interesting approach "Trickle Up Economics"....

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

fryman12 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:18:09 GMT

To all of the people who keep bringing up how we need Hillary because she can deliver the big swing states for the Democratic party and thus win the race in November.. Look at the last two Presidential elections and see how effective that strategy was. Maybe the small states collectively are important.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:22:10 GMT

Captiannemo:

Well said but only two senators have no record of "pork" or tag ons. Neither Obama or Hillary can lay claim to that high moral ground. McCain can. Who do you really and I mean really trusts what they say...

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:23:59 GMT

Fryman12:

Bush won Texas, Florida and Ohio. No President has ever won the Presidency without Ohio. You made the point perfectly. Obama can not win.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:26:12 GMT

Actually, if you look at the swing states from 2004, Senator Obama has no problems. He won Iowa, Wisconsin and Colorado and he alone clearly can make Virginia a swing state. Also, currently Senator Obama is way ahead in polling against Senator McCain in New Hampshire while Senator Clinton trails (could it be NH doesn't like being called a rule-breaker when the state is not?) In fact, Senator Obama has won more of the Democratic states won by Senator Kerry in 2004. Yet, most of this analysis of who won what primary state is truly irrelevant since nothing matters other than the votes cast on November 4, 2008. In the end, unless the Democratic party stops being the party created by Thomas Jefferson, it is clear that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Senator Clinton is simply the gift the keeps on giving to the Republican nominee.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:29:42 GMT

Kim:

At this point they are both giving. Neither can be elected. Maybe Gore.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:29:46 GMT

Actually, no Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Democratic Presidents have certainly succeeded without an Ohio win -- democratic Presidents like former President Bill Clinton for example. Do try to get your facts correct before posting.

Senator Obama can claim a record without "pork" in it, he has released his earmark requests and no-one could call his requests "pork." Senator Clinton was among the top ten Senators in earmark requests, but we do not know for what she requested those funds because she has not released the information. Senator McCain may not request earmarks, but he has done some mighty big favors for big business and his friends in the lobbying world. Also, Senator McCain has done a lot of flip-flopping lately on torture and on taxes, I don't believe I can trust him. He is not the man he was in 2000.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Core Democrat in Texas — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:31:09 GMT

This article says "The fact is, the Democratic Party has only one mechanism in place for deciding the nomination: delegates." That is absolutely correct. And that one mechanism includes superdelegate, who are free to consider popular vote if they wish.

Obama supporters point out that the party rules state that delegate count alone decides the nomination, but they neglect to mention that the same rules include superdelegates in that count. They love to say that superdelegates should not "steal" the nomination from Obama, but conveniently forget that he does not have and cannot get the nomination except as a product of the "rule of 2025" which includes superdelegate votes.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Dazed and Confused — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:32:40 GMT

Nobody is saying a precise popular vote count should replace a delegate count. That is not what the rules provide. Nor, as you wrongly imply, do the rules require the pledged delegate leader to get the nomination if he or she falls short of 50% plus 1 delegate. Fact is, the Super Delegates are going to choose the nominee--no matter who it is. Under the rules, it is now impossible for either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton to amass enough elected pledged delegates to secure the nomination. So the question is, who should the Super Delegates choose and why? Under the rules, they can choose any candidate for any reason. They could certainly decide to give the nod to the candidate who amassed the most pledged delegates. But, as noted above, the rules do not require that they do so. They could also decide to nominate the candidate who got the most votes by whatever measure. Nothing in the rules prohibits this. But in either case, it would seem to be their responsibility to nominate the candidate they deem most likely to win the general election. Its at least arguable that the popular vote count is a more accurate barometer of this than the delegate count. Indeed, the delegate count is itself quite arbitrary, and can hardly be said to reflect the will of the people: in both Texas and Nevada, for example, Sen. Clinton received more votes than Sen. Obama, but Sen. Obama received more delegates. Given these inconvenient facts, why should any Super Delegate feel compelled to follow the pledged delegate count?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Core Democrat in Texas — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:33:27 GMT

Why shouldn't a superdelegate consider who won the popular vote in their state?

In fact, why should a superdelegate consider anything else?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:34:18 GMT

Somebody actually believes Senator Obama's supporters are seeking the Presidency. Obviously this is nonsensical. Somebody also believes Senator Obama's supporters are throwing mud -- really? Well, since Senator Clinton believes it is perfectly appropriate to insult millions of voters for the "crime" of failing to pick her with repeated ridicule, if this is not some cause for incivility, I would like to know exactly what is. Senator Obama has not insulted you; indeed, he seeks to unite the Democratic party around a common goal -- victory on November 4, 2008. Senator Clinton, on the otherhand, would obviously like to see all of the new Democrats Senator Obama has brought into the process go home and stay there. I thought Democrats wanted a controlling majority -- are you really fine and dandy with the idea of throwing that idea out the door?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:34:19 GMT

There should be no earmarks and Obama should be like Mccain and let the bills stand on their own and not hold a good bill hostage to passage.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:38:06 GMT

Kim,

You get your facts straight. Clinton won Ohio both times.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:38:29 GMT

Someone has asked why should any superdelegate be governed by the pledged delegate count. History lesson-- the Democratic party is the party of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson believed, practiced and got laws enacted that required the votes of all to be counted and the winning of the majority of votes to be the determinative factor. If the superdelegates ignore the pledged delegate count, the Democratic Party will no longer be the party of Thomas Jefferson. It will be the party of Alexander Hamilton, who preferred close door election deals where political elites selected and the rank and file accepted that choice. Personally, I prefer the party of Thomas Jefferson particularly because I remember the election of 2000.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:39:59 GMT

Senator Obama voted "aye" on the bill that would have banned earmarks. He has disclosed every earmark he ever requested. Senator Obama is like Senator McCain on this issue.

Senator Obama is different than Senator McCain in the fact that he, unlike Senator McCain, has not used his power as a Senator to request (and get) special treatment for his lobbyist friends or big business donors.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:41:12 GMT

Do check your conventional wisdom. The rule of thumb is no Republican can win the Presidency without winning Ohio. There is no such rule for a Democrat.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:45:29 GMT

Thomas Jefferson? What about Lincoln? Both have great histories and that is why I wish we were all independents so we can vote for who is true. I loved Reagan, Liked Bill. This time I think McCain (insert Teddy Roosevelt flavor) may be the one. Bully!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:47:32 GMT

Kim,

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Stop. You are embarrasing yourself

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:47:47 GMT

Soo Now show me the math how obama can win the presidency without the large states. I dout he can even carry all of the south in the real election. Lets get realistic, 171 Electorial votes... I am waiting.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:50:01 GMT

Bhamdude40s

Keep waiting.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

dmonmcd — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:52:14 GMT

Good article, shows just how delusional Clinton is and has just lost touch with reality. If all else fails you only need to look to who ran a better campaign Superdelegates! She has no boundaries and will say or do anything to get the votes, sad. Notice how Obama hasn't brought up Bill's infidelity? A person of character is the only way we can win this because even if you disagree with every policy McCain has he at least has some class and frankly I'm sick of her and the second-rate campaign she has run.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:55:02 GMT

dmonmcd

I generally agree but in all fairness Bill is not running and it would be a huge mistake for Obama to bring up Bill's infidelity when he is running against the victim.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

fryman12 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:05:01 GMT

sound of reason: Get your facts straight and look at your own link 1944 - Dewey won Ohio. I do not remember him being president

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Mitchell in NY — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:05:24 GMT

Thank you Andrew. The notion of "a collective popular vote" in the nomination process is a myth that simply hasn't been properly "vetted" by the Media. The very fact that we are talking about different "metrics" reflects the degree to which the Clinton campaign has managed to set the agenda. One has to ask why the Media hasn't done a better job. Democrats now find themselves in the position of having to slog through several more weeks of a contest that should be over.

Please check out: "The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)" http://msa4.wordpress.com/

"How Would Primaries Have Changed the Results in Caucus States?" by Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz . http://www.dcourage.com/Caucus%20Study.pdf

[The latter's conclusion, "We wish to make three broad points. First, because voter turnout is lower in caucuses, the popular vote dramatically devalues the popular will of citizens of caucus states. Second, the size of the devaluation is large, given that about one-third of states have used caucuses and caucus turnout is only one-fifth of primary turnout. Finally, both the actual caucus results and the results of our hypothetical primaries suggest that were every state to have held primaries, Obama would have a larger lead in the current tally of the popular vote."]

This, and other blogs/articles like them, should be circulated. The issue should be discussed in the MSM asap.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

vakosh — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:10:02 GMT

The supers don't care about Obama or Hillary at all. All they care about is winning in November, and HE CAN'T WIN A GENERAL. He cannot caucus, finance or demand his way out of this. You can look at it front, side, upside down, to turn nine states from red to blue ... it's just not gonna happen.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:13:14 GMT

Just for the record:

One would have to go back 48 years before Ohio voted for a losing candidate. 1960 John kennedy won without Ohio. Before then Roosevelt one once without Ohio. Conventional wisdom is you better win Ohio if you want to win. Hillary has a claim on that for the Democrats but it will still be tough against McCain.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

dejavu65 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:16:20 GMT

Once again, desperate Hillary, will lie to grown up adults to their face and these people who call themselves adults will actually follow and believe her!!!! Amazing. I guess i should tell my kids that its okay to LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL to get whatever you want, because i support Hillary!!........How could people try to raise their kids to do right and go out and vote for someone who LIES, CHEATS AND STEALS, AND TO THINK PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH VOTED FOR HER!!!!! Something is not right in this country!!!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:18:19 GMT

fryman12:

I am talking modern history. We can go back to before Ohio was a state and prove that point. Get in the game. We were talking Clinton remember!!!!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

orangedude — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:19:23 GMT

Whenever anyone mentions Ohio as a "Bellwether" state, I'll say it again: Ohio voted for Bush TWICE. Thanks a lot for the Iraq war, Ohio.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:23:21 GMT

Anyone interested in the reason why Senator Clinton really, really does not want to release her earmark requests, should click on the link below:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork/print

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Jim@bozeman — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:28:19 GMT

HRC is and always be a Diva. However when she played the neculear card she became the devil.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Chris Paris — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:28:57 GMT

Something is wrong, and it is not the fault of Hill or Bar. It is a fault of the voters. The candidates are in the position that they are in because the Democratic voters tolerate them. In a party that harbors genuinely good people, it is a shame that these two elitists have managed to get so many votes. Still, Democrats COULD use the write in option.

So now where are we? Howard Dean makes the deal? Are you kidding?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:30:08 GMT

Orangedude:

We are not talking about Ohio being right....just it is very hard to winn without it. Nevada and Wyoming is not going to cut it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kim in Pasadena — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:32:04 GMT

For those of you who believe Senator Obama can not win the general election, I would advise you to think more clearly -- Senator Obama has won more primaries than Senator Clinton despite her 100% name recogntion in addition to truly dominating the caucus processes. He has won 30 contests to Senator Clinton's 15. Also, Senator Clinton has this nasty habit of insulting the voters who prefer Senator Obama (she did it again last night with more ridicule) this truly does not make for a warm and fuzzy relationship. Indeed, I dare say that Senator Clinton's loss to Senator McCain would be large should she convince the 78% of the superdelegates she would need to overturn the will of the electorate. Doesn't anyone remember 2000? Also, before you judge who would win what, you might want to check the general election match-up polling. Senator Clinton (right now) is in a swing state position in New York (her most recent homestate -- no, wait that is Pennsylvania, her last homestate). O.k., I am done. You all debate how you can steal the nomination from the person who won it until the cows come home. This isn't going to occur. If it was, the superdelegates would already have done it. You may not realize this, but they do, it will take a lot more than 2 months to stitch the Democratic party back together again after a coup like the one you propose. It isn't going to occur. Perhaps you might want to ask yourselves if you care at all about the things the Democratic party stands for -- things like real heatlhcare reform -- because right now Senator Clinton is the gift that just keeps on giving to those who don't want to see any real reform and those who want us to remain in Iraq until the job is done (whatever that might mean).

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

UKis1Jeff — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:32:38 GMT

Kim In Pasadena

You're a great example of the typical Obama supporter....you know just enough to get yourself in trouble. Thomas Jefferson was not the founder of the Democratic party, Andrew Jackson was. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the Democratic-Republican party. That party split in 1820, ironically because Andrew Jackson felt Heny Clay had made a deal with John Qunicy Adams to steal the election from him. The portion of the party that followed Jackson became the modern Democratic party.

Thomas Jefferson was a great American and every American should visit Monticello at least once to see examples of his genius but please don't drag him into this mess.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:33:31 GMT

Good night all; Dicuss away but I still stand by the fact that if Obama or Hillary is the nominee (as opposed to maybe Gore) then get use to saying President McCain. If that is the case. It will be alright.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

soundofreason — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:36:52 GMT

Oh and Kim.....drink your Kool-aid and go to bed also.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:38:20 GMT

Media... Fair? McCain and Already said the two Big names in News are in bed with the republicans. What does the media have to gain by putting Obama on a pedistal and downing Hill as often as they can.... They know this election if tuff on the Republicans. Republicans Give Corporations BIG TAX BREAKS and News media now is not small stuff all og them are owned by big Corporations or one numb headed Austrialian that cants run for president so buys up the American media to pull strings. VIACOM. DISNEY.... Millions of Dollars in Tax Breaks If the next President is like this one. They know Obama is not electable and hardle even talk the electorial vote. It will be A McCain / Obama ticket and Guess what state oncew again will be the BIG BREAK. FLORIDA. Obama CAN NOT WIN FLORIDA, OHIO, PENN, TEXAS.... So folks Keep throwing money around... I think its over.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

leemortimer — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:40:16 GMT

It's clear the Clinton camp will ride the Florida/Michigan issue all the way to the convention, if they can. As an Obama supporter, my advice would be to take action now to diffuse the issue. One idea I heard several weeks ago on the Diane Rehm show is this: Seat the Florida and Michigan delegates according to the January vote--not as pledged delegates but as super delegates.

What's important to Obama is maintaining his lead in pledged delegates. Even if most of the Florida and Michigan delegates personally favored Clinton, the super delegates will most likely wait to take their cue from the pledged delegates and then cast their votes more or less as a block. And because the arrangement is confined to seating delegates, the question of the popular vote would be bypassed. Obama could still credibly argue that the popular vote in both states is invalid.

Not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan is untenable. In a close election, Florida probably leans to McCain, but Michigan is absolutely essential to a Democratic victory. This arrangement would mollify Florida and Michigan voters in a way that Obama gives up little but looks magnanimous, while Clinton gains little of what she's really angling to get.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sueadams — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:47:55 GMT

Hillary as the "victim" of Bill's infidelity rings quite hollow to me. That she stayed with some one who repeatedly publicly humiliated her speaks volumes about her lack of good judgement and respect for herself. Some one needs to bring it up to her face, it is just as serious an offense as anything she has thrown at Obama. This is a woman who sold her soul for money and power and she'll sell all of us down the river just as easily.

As a 50 something white female, I'd love to see a deserving woman elected president on her own merits. That woman is not Hillary Clinton.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

herfan — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:49:04 GMT

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

elizabethpaige — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:05:33 GMT

Democrats aren't rushing to nominate Hillary Clinton so why say she'd be the stronger candidate against John McCain? If Americans want to go broke fighting a winless war in Iraq (ala McCain) or nuke Iran and hear further from China and Russia (ala Clinton) - well, name your poison.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:14:13 GMT

elizabethpaige I woulld say against McCain Even Hillary would have a Florida issue. I think Hillary is more electable in the General than Obama and You Wanna Give the Republicans a Stroke like herfan said put Hillary and Obama on the same ticket it wouldnt only be a Victory it would be a Democtatic Mandate in all houses. But Since the Democratic party is so diversse getting that together would be a long shot from what i see right now.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

dave_t_hines — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:21:06 GMT

UKis1Jeff,

Wow, you've split a mighty fine hair just to insult an Obama supporter. The Democratic Party itself refers to Jefferson as one of its "founding fathers". But Kim of Pasadena never even claimed that he founded it.

I support Obama, but will gladly vote for Clinton if she does become the nominee, because John Paul Stevens is 88, and I think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are more than enough, thank you.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:32:15 GMT

Well Andrew this went well until MSNBC "Microsoft" Droped the link from its news page... guess the topic got a little touchy.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

stevelley — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:49:12 GMT

In 1992, I knew Bill Clinton to be a womanizer. He was in every way the anti-thesis of my religious and moral beliefs. But I also knew he was brilliant, so I voted for him. He has proven to be extremely capable in terms of managing our economy, paying down the debt, reforming welfare to the envy of Republicans, and keeping us from stupid wars. In 2000, I shared the sentiments of a lot of voters that George Bush was the more likable person, somebody whom you could have a few beers with in a bar just barely after 2 minutes of knowing him. I disliked Al Gore's cold, professor-style talks. But I voted for him because I knew he had more brain than George Bush. How many of us now wish we had only invited Bush to a drink rather than voted him into office? This year, I like Obama much more than the other two candidates. For quite a few times, his words echoed in me and almost drove me to tears. He is truly our audacity of hope. He is a good professor who can wake you up to so many good ideas that you feel you must follow him. Perhaps, that is why the more educated people feel so attracted to him. Professor Woodrow Wilson, our president who demonstrated dismal performance during World War I, also proved to be a great innovative thinker and was extremely knowledgeable about national issues. I have no doubt that Obama, Harvard-trained, can make the greatest professor in this country or a good senator, but not a US president.

This year, the monster-like Hillary Clinton is my choice for president. Her speeches are a lot less attractive than Obama. She lies, just like many of us. She is so dawn cold and serious that you hate watching her facial expression when she deliberates or speaks. But she would be feared by tyrants and dictators. She is the kind of person who can lead the rest of the Free World and command the respect of even our enemies. Remember, you do not have to like him/her before this person can rescue this nation from the current rock bottom. In January 2003, barely a year after thousands perished in the twin towers that got leveled by terrorists, if you were a Senator given a presidential intelligence report that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction, would you have rather risked a few million American lives in the belief that your lone judgment was better than an army of foreign service, CIA, and military intelligence officers whom you did not command? Only a person, such as Obama, who had not read those reports could afford to oppose invading Iraq in early 2003. We should base our voting choice on what is best for the national interest, not some narrow personal sentiments.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ICYEYES800 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:56:30 GMT

This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment!! Below are a few lines from Obama's books in his own words:

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams of My Father : "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race."

From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

From Dreams of My Father: ; "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams of My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Obama has done an extremely GOOD job of burying himself, no help needed. And when we are forced to look at the FLORIDA vote, we can clearly see that Hillary does indeed have the popular vote and SHOULD be the nominee in NOVEMBER, and if she chooses to be benovelent, offer the VP position to poor Obama..Hillary '08

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bill4truth — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:00:36 GMT

stevelley: I apreciate your cander and I imagine alot of Hillary Clinton supporters feel the same way you do. However, I've got to wonder about the rationale of picking the most despicable person to lead our country. Why not vote for an Adolph Hitler, a Stalin, or maybe recruit North Korea's Kim Jong Il? For that matter, why not vote for George W. Bush again.

It is truly a sad day in America when our fear of tyrants would drive us to vote for a tyrant, wouldn't you say? After all, our great Founding Fathers imagined this country to be a beacon for the brighter instincts of mankind and a reaction to the tyranny of King George of England.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

SKVAM — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:08:14 GMT

Any amount of cheating, lying, sleaziness, racist insinuations, throwing the kitchen sink trap, changing goal posts, won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton and her husband, twins doing the dirty work of the Republican party, are damaging the Democratic party. Bill won the presidency, but under his watch, he lost both houses of Congress. Failure by any measure. And now he and she intend to win at all costs, even if it turns off everyone to that inconvenient winner, Obama.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:09:08 GMT

Well andrew It is back.

What would it hurt McCain to go ahead and anounce a VP Running mate? Well since obama is voted the senates most liberal McCain would choose a more conservative VP to be safe. BUT if it was a McCain Hillary ticket? McCain and Hillary have run pretty moderate central campaigns I would say McCain would choose a more moderate running mate and let the Neo-Conservatives distroy another Ross Paroe Third Party ...

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

NewsShouldBeFacts — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:11:52 GMT

Senator Clinton is behind in the popular vote, delegates and is trying to argue that she has won the big states. Unfortunately, as an Ohio poll worker who shared the same experience many other Ohio poll workers shared....Hillary won Ohio because of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. For many days before the primary, Rush encouraged Ohio and Texas Republican's to switch parties and vote for Hillary (for one day) to keep her in the race and cause chaos within the Democratic Party. And as Republicans switched, at the polls, they admitted to us they were doing it because of Rush. Ohio and Texas was not a legit win for her and those Republican voters do not support her....her winning was due to Rush's game play and something super delegates need to keep in mind. In Texas the Republicans switched during the primary to get her that win...but when it came time to publicly stand in a caucus and admit support for her they wouldn't do it. Obama won the Texas caucus...she needs to quit claiming it as her win. Michigan she claims and Obama wasn't even on the ticket. Florida…both candidates agreed not to go to Florida and campaign, and as video shows Clinton stated "we know those votes won't count." Obama obliged....however the week before the election Hillary had five "fundraisers" that she attended in Florida, fundraisers or campaigning, whatever you call it, she got her message out. Obama is not only competing against Hillary he is still competing against the Republicans, John McCain and the right wing controlled media that is afraid that McCain will have to go against Obama in the fall....hence ABC's one-sided debate. Notice NC Republicans are now running an ad against Obama and McCain keeps bringing up Obama's LA comments in his speeches...yet they are not attacking Clinton. Why? Because they know the Republicans won her Ohio and the Texas primary and they fear the real threat to beating McCain is Barack Obama. No one can say he's not tough enough because he's young, new and fresh, yet has stood strong and proud against the old 90's style politics of Clinton and McCain, the Republicans and the right wing controlled media. He never fought back against Hillary until she had him backed up so far against the wall he had to fight back "her way" just to get out. This is what the super delegates need to look at...these are facts, not just the talking points the Clinton's are spinning.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

stevelley — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:18:15 GMT

bill4truth: Hillary is not the most despicable person in this race. All 3 candidates have competed fiercely for this status - in fact, all politicians. It is plain naive to believe that Obama is NOT a politician in the traditional sense. All 3 are liars and lie at different times under different circumstances to save themselves. Our Founding Fathers never envisaged a 21st century world where the choice of leader is not as simple as picking somebody who does not lie and who gives inspirational speeches to make you feel he has more morals. In addition, all of us lie and are hypocrites at some point. Why use an impossible standard to judge our presidential candidates?

We cannot vote George Bush again because he has no brain, too stubborn, maybe too idealistic, not because he lies. We cannot vote another honest man like Jimmy Carter into office because this type of person is simply naive and incompetent. In this dangerous world, realpolitik counts a lot more than naive idealism, which is the main reason for the growth of neo-conservatism, the center piece of Bush stupidity.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:20:37 GMT

So NewsShouldBeFacts i fthat was the case and Ohio has gone red the last few times what else is new ohio will go McCain. The Media loves that. Obama wouldnt have had a chance in the gereral. Like here in Alabama Obama won but even he says he will lose Alabama and Ga in November. I have the electorial map and have given Ohio to MCain in both Hillary and Obama and Hillary still gets more electorial votes. I am not saying in November Obama couldnt get teh POPULAR " GORE " vote... But that will not make him president.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

LogicallyCorrect — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:21:36 GMT

The Democratic nominee will be the candidate who has the most delegates, including those elected by the people along with the superdelegates. I am pretty sure most of you understand that fact but there does appear to be some that do not. The only usefulness of the popular vote is that it may be something that a superdelegate considers,a nd something that Clinton can point to legitamize her as the nominee. However, gvien the apple and orange nature of the voting process, the article is very much correct in asserting that you cannot establish a meaningful and accurate popular vote count. And as far as Michigan and Florida goes, who cares about whether the popular vote is "officially" recgonized. The superdelegates can do the math and derive their own popular vote approximation and use that information as they see fit. The popular vote is a Clinton driven issue to legitamize her as the nominee as she knows she will not get the most pledged delegates nor will she win a majority of states. Her only other argument involves electability, which is a justifiable argument to at least make. The problem with that argument is that it is not based on a solid metric but rather based on a view that is simply speculative, i.e. it is basically just her opinion. Additionally, even if she were to succesfully make that argument such that superdelegates overrule the people, her legitamacy would be questionable, especially amongst Obama supporters, and that would be a real problem for Clinton and the Democratic party. This a harsh reality if you are a Clinton supporter, although I am not so certain that some Clinton supporters have a grip on reality.

It is clear that many people share differing opinions on who is most electable. At this point I see both Clinton and Obama as having a diffult time beating McCain. I think Clinton has virtually no chance because she has no way of imrpoving her support. Clinton started her campaign with more name regconition but also more negatives than probably any candidate who has ever run for office. The result is she basically started her campaign with her max support, and the only thing time can do is make the negavity go higher. I would say this is more likely then ever given the way she has run her campaign. She also would be a great tool for unifying the conservative base of the republican party.

Obama's electability is much less predictable. He could bomb really bad or he could win bigger than most poeple think. Unlike Clinton he has room to grow. The real question is what will the losing candidates supporters do. I have hard time seeing any of the three Obama groups (young, black, upscale and/or liberal white) voting in any significance for Clinton, On the other side, I do not see alot of older Reagan type democrats voting for Obama.

Unless Clinton can basically win all the remaining states, especially North Carolina, Obama needs to be the nominee because he will be the only legitamate candidate and there is no overwhelming evidence that Clinton is clearly more electable. Additionally, the democratic party cannot afford to lose the many newcomers, including young as well as former republicans, that have come into the democratic party.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Chapalody — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:31:13 GMT

If memory serves us right. That has been Hillary's argument all during her campaign. How many times has Hillary said, I'm the best candidate to be President. Hillary has all along wanted the Super Delegates to switch and award her the nomination because regardless what Hillary says, she truly thinks the President is an entitlement because she is a Clinton. Hillary has no care in the world about voters, voters rights, seated delegates, popular votes or the nomination process. All of this mess has done nothing but get in Hillary's way to take her rightful place at the White House. The Clinton's will attempt to change the rules of the game in any way they deem necessary to influence the Super Delegates that she's the one best qualified to face John McCain. Hillary seems to think being a survivor in her marriage to Bill is all the experience she needs to be President. Terry McAuliffe threw in the count for Michigan and Florida for a very good reason. If Obama gets the nomination, The Clinton's along with McAuliffe can always claim the voters were disenfranchised in both states regardless of what they already know.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

idonttrusthillary — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:50:00 GMT

I can't believe the DNC will stand by and let the Clintons rip the party apart! In order for Hillary to win she would have to have Florida and Michigan... Oh that’s right she signed an agreement with the DNC and all of the others, stating to NOT use those votes. As for Obama... everyone is saying this is good for the party that they will all unite in the end... Ok DO IT she can't win without cheating and if you want to beat McCain you will need unified votes soon and lots of them.

Can Hillary beat McCain NO WAY. She is SO VULNERABLE.. think about it. Yet united behind Obama with lots of the young vote you would have a chance.

I voted for Bush I'm sorry, I am an independent, look what YOU put up against Bush in the last 2 elections... you too should be sorry.... any way McCain can't be as bad as Bush and my first choice was to jump over to Obama provided she doesn't have him killed and you haven't killed by blood letting.

With Obama I am with you, with Hillary not a chance she nuclear

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:57:16 GMT

HOW I Would Be President.

(1) Osama sho you face within 24 hours of my Presiency or Half of Afganastan and all of Pakistan will be fried.

(2) Anyone in thsi country without permission has 24 hours to get home or will be arrested and taken home. All returning troops from Iraq will see to it that Mexico and the US are safe from Illegal imigrants,

(3) Any Corporation with over 50@ of its manufacturing outside the USA will lose ALL rights to operate in the USA.

(4) CHINA - SHOVE IT.

(5) Venezuela will become the 51st State by whatever means and Americans will control the US price of gas.

(6) Perscription Drugs will be sold at the averge price they are sold internationally.

(7) Doctors will not have tp pay for Mal Practice Insurance. They will lose their license to practice after the first goof up and learn to take fewer patience and less multitasking human lives for personal gain.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Graham Jeffries — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:08:37 GMT

There's another big problem with trying to count the popular vote. Caucus states have radically smaller turnout of eligible voters than primary states. Imagine two states of identical population, identical numbers of registered Democrats, and identical numbers of votes cast for John Kerry in the 2004 election, let's say 1,000,000 Democratic votes. But one state is a caucus state and the other a primary state. The primary state has a turnout of 600,000 voters and the caucus state has a turnout of half that--300,000. Clinton wins the primary state by a 10 percent margin--that means 60,000 votes more than Obama. Obama wins the caucus state by a 10 percent margin--that means 30,000 votes more than Obama. Does it really make sense to say that Clinton is "ahead" in these two states by a popular vote margin of 30,000 votes? Not really. The primary process and the caucus process are essentially two different ways to sample the Democrats in a particular state. To get a sense of who is more popular you have to adjust the sample to reflect the whole population of Democratic voters. Doing that means that Clinton and Obama are dead even in the two states in "popularity." But of course that would be a distortion, too, because there is no guarantee that the caucus state would show the same sort of results if it were to have a primary. Caucuses give an edge to activists, primaries not so much. So, however you do these calculations, you end up comparing apples and oranges. Trying to add up the "popular vote" and declare one or the other candidate ahead when it is this close makes no sense at all. If that were the criteria, the process would be designed in a completely different way. That's why the right count is to count the number the process is designed to count--and that's delegates.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Graham Jeffries — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:15:03 GMT

Once you set the rules of a game, you can't change the object of the game in midstream. Nor does it make sense to try to undermine the legitimacy of the game being played by suggesting "what if" exercises of how it would turn out if the rules were different. If the rules were different, everyone would play the game differently, and there's no way to know how that other game would turn out. Who knows how well players trying to play the game at hand would play some hypothetical "other" game?

In 1961, the New York Yankees played the Pittsburgh Pirates in the World Series. In the seven game series, the Yankees scored 55 runs; the Pirates only scored 27. The Yankees won the "runs" competition. Unfortunately for the Yankees, the number of runs scored in a series does not determine the winner. The score that counts is the number of games won. The Yankees won several big blowouts and lost a bunch of close games and lost the series 4-3. Would anyone have done anything but laugh if the Yankees had complained that they should be the winner because they scored twice as many runs?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Banafrit — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:17:38 GMT

Okay, let me see if I get this right. Hillary's campaign is over 10 million in debt, only has 9 million in the bank, which leaves her 1 million in the red. This has been going on since January, when she had to lend her campaign 5 million dollars. Can someone please explain to me why we would want someone who can't even handle her own campaign funds handling our money? Now we have Obama, who has never had any financial crunch, and who always seems to have in access of 30 million dollars in the bank. Hillary is now copying and trying to raise money through small donors on the internet as Obama has done from the beginning. So tell me again, why anyone would want Hillary in office when our economy is in the toilet? I don't want her anywhere near my wallet.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Bhamdude40s — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:21:48 GMT

and then there is always the race card just posted on MSNBC.... but notice no mention that most black voters are voting Obama that says racism to me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24284188/

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Achilles22 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:18:37 GMT

You could be retarded if you believe Hillary is winning the popular vote (all respect to the mentally challenged).

Chances are you aren't - and that would make you an incredibly dishonest person - which proves you are supporting the right candidate for you.

Facts for review for those who may be dizzy from the dreamland spin -

*They both SIGNED agreements not to count the votes or delegates and not to campaign in either state.

*Obama took his name off of the MI ballot - so the people supporting this argiment are really challenged.

*If you believe a non-contested primary should count - then look no further than PA where he moved a 23 point deficit into a 9 point loss - by campaigning. No brainer - Hmmm, Hillary can only hope we have no brains while she yaps about these big "wins".

Lying Idiots

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

thisEnds — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:29:22 GMT

I cannot believe this. In the 2000 elections, Florida African Americans were disenfranchised and abandoned by the dems when they called for serious investigation of corruption. Then in the 2004 elections, Ohio African Americans faced Jim Crow era republican fear mongering trying to keep them from the polls. And now, now after mentioning Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and staying silent about the new NC "he's too extreme" ad, Hillary is actually, actually conjuring the specter of Florida 2000, putting Obama in the Bush role - he's cheating, won't count every vote, etc. This is simply the most disgusting thing the Clinton campaign has done yet. I am just fuming right now. This is outrageous.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

lodmi — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:01:03 GMT

Simple question - Does Clinton have authority to change election rules?

With certain answer - NO it should be clear declared on each Media ,

DNC should make a clear statement and stop this manipulation.

All manipulations with information, facts, promises , statements make Clintons Extremely Dishonest and their presence in this election Extremely dangerous involvement the country to anarchy .

They will tell whatever.

They will do whatever.

That is Anarchy.

That is where it leads.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Kwaku Azar — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:12:25 GMT

The only sensible, usable, and legal metric is pledged delegates. Anything else will be changing the rules in the middle of teh game

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Pia1981 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:57:39 GMT

Terry, just like Hillary, you're delusional.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

paulte — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:02:05 GMT

It's a bit much for Hillary to include MI in her popular vote count tally. Excuse me my dear but your opponent's name was not on the ballot in MI! Shades of Bosnia here? To me, she is just a dishonest person like her husband. "That depends on how you define "is." Two peas in a pod!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

dcwblackhorse — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:10:57 GMT

To ICYEYES800 posted on 4/23 @11:56...Wow, talk about smearing a person with quotes out of context! Why don't you put all of those comments in context. You sound like someone who wouldn't vote for an African American regardless of who it was. Sad!

As for the popular vote...the fact that the media continues to give creadance to HRC claim of Michigan and Florida...pathetic! It boggles the mind that any rational person would think Michigan especially would count as Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket and as for Florida...well, HRC may not have "campaigned" there, but she had 5 fundraisers there during the election period. Now news is coming out that in Philly there were issues with not enough ballots available in areas that were extremely pro Obama, yet no media coverage. Clinton sounds more and more like she'd be the perfect running mate for McCain! White, female, middle aged, middle class and for Obama in '08 all the way!!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

miltongalfas — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:40:54 GMT

Another piad political announcement by Romano. When all of the votes are counted Clinton has more, plain and simple. Even if Obama got the Michigan no votes. The Democratic process never has counted votes. Just look at Texas where Clinton won and Obama got more delegates. The delagates have always been the deciding factor not popular votes. The Dems are an eleitist system.

And Obama doesn't even proscribe to the popular vote concept. Look at New Mexico and Richardson. New Mexico was won by Clinton but Richardson went against his voters and supports Obama in exchange for $500k to pay off his debts and the possible VP nod.

Corrupt Chicago politics at it's lying best brought to you by Barak Hussein Obama. Militant. Drug abuser. Attempting to buy the Presidency. He learned a lot from Bush.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

LOU4077 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:42:13 GMT

When will the American people see that the Clinton's run their campaign like a dictator runs his

country? These people do not play by the rules. The change the game. The lie on a daily basis. i.e. Bill on April 20th saying he never said that Obama played the race card, when he said it the day before on tape; for everyone to see. Hillary said yesterday in my home town, that she's won the popular vote. If Obama says people are bitter, he is crucified and villified by Hillary, Bill and the right wing, but when Bill and Hillary lie, the become folk heroes. I am sick of the Clintons. I see what is wrong with our country now. IT IS OK TO LIE AND BURY DEMOCRACY, SO LONG AS YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT. This is wrong and even the most ardent Hillary supporters know it.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

yesyoucan2008 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:45:07 GMT

The Colbert Report just posted that HRC picked up another state "The State of Denial" HRC's tactics are looking more and more like Bushisms. "Fuzzy Math" "Voter Propoganda". Its no wonder that in every legitimate poll Obama continues to get the votes of the better educated. It is easy for Clinton to seize on the stupidity of voters, with hints of race, fear mongering" and character assassination. Get smart, look at the issues, avoid the rhetoric and make an unbiased, unprejudiced decision on who will make the needed changes in Washington.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

LOU4077 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:48:10 GMT

MILTONGALFAS--- DONT JUST PULL OUT CRAP LIKE THAT STATEMENT ABOUT OBAMA PAYING RICHARDSON FOR HIS SUPPORT, WHEN YOU KNOW THAT'S I AN OUTRIGHT FABRICATION.

GIVE ME A WEB SITE OR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE WHERE YOU'VE READ tHAT DRIVEL. You know hillary lent her campaign 5 mil, does that mean she is buying the election? NO, It means she so hard up and unready to lead on day one, that she can't manage her own campaign, let alone a country. GIVE ME A BREAK miltongalfas, you are like Hillary --- A L I A R

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

jlb1234567 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:50:58 GMT

Say all you want, disgracefully biased Newsweek... Soon you will have to come to terms, that Mr. Obama is 100% unelectable. Sorry to burst the bubble, kids... Just give it some time...

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

ObamaChangeAgent — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:52:26 GMT

No one said it would be easy to break a 20 year quasie monarchy hold on the whitehouse by two families one of which is striving for another 8. Our campaign is not about win at any price, do what ever it takes to win, and if need be, destroy your opponent in the process. Make Promise’s you know you can not keep to win. Real change means just that. A new appraoch, a new fresh set of ideas, a new person, someone who can bring us all together not tear us apart. My top reasons why Obama is now unstoppable:

10. Obama has won more delegates, more states and more votes

9. Obama as well as the Clintons signed up and agreed on the rules up front.

8. The Clinton strategy appears to be "if you can't win change the rules" WRONG! The rules, the math, the calendar do not lie. She has a few more weeks and a few more contests left. Even though the math does not look good, she has the right, just as Huckaberry did to continue on until Obama has 2025 delegates. (Even though that would mean she would need to win over 80%)

7. Hillary Clinton claims experience is her key attribute, the camapign to date is not a very good reflection of her managent skills. In spite of a incredible lead on every level a year ago, with all the backing she is now trying to re position herself as the anti estblishment candidate!

6. She spent more on her top advisors that she has fired than Obama has on his whole staff

5. Destroying the oposition may have workd in the past its not either change or for that matter a solution for how we go forward

4. Hillary polorises she does not bring people together. if her negative rating goes much lower it will be lower than Bush's!

3. Sooner or later Hillary and Bill must decide is it all about them (win at any cost) or about the will of the party.

2. We live in a republic not a monachy. Do we want 28 years and two families in the whitehouse? Is that change?

1. Talking points will not change the reality. The rules, the math, the calandar does not lie and can not be changed. Obama will have won more pledged delegates, more states and more votess. He should expect the remaining superdelegates to vote for him accordingly. They will.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

yesyoucan2008 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:03:59 GMT

I find it very disturbing that 20-27 percent of Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the Dem nominee. The same 20 percent of Democratic voters say race is an issue. I am moderate conservative supporting Obama. I am not black, but to be fair 10-12 percent of Obama supporters say that they wont support HRC if she is the nominee. 10 percent is also the total of eligible black voters. I am seeing almost 37 percent of Democrats that are not being truthful when it comes to the issue of race. Nobody will talk about this in the media but racism is alive and well in this campaign. If you cancel the race vote (hypothetically), Obama will be holding about a 10 percent advantage in the popular vote.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

tired of yo shat — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:07:53 GMT

Get this through your thick skull.....

Obama will be the D.nominee! If you think for one minute that sane America will stand for "11th hour politics "from Clinton or McCain, think again! The "bitter citizen"will indeed need his damn "pickups and shotguns " . because the educated, the diverse and whomever will revolt.

Oh yeah, How do they say it,"{ (spit) Katie, barr the door, here they come!!!!"

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

jlb1234567 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:19:09 GMT

Why did the Dems decide to have super delegates?

So in the event a candidate crashes and burns over the course of a long

election, they can make sure the person who has the best chance of winning, wins the

nomination.

This system was put into place years ago.

Which candidate is crashing and burning, right now? (I don't need to tell you)

Sorry to burst your bubble.... again.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

yesyoucan2008 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:22:57 GMT

My greatest fear in this election is that HRC somehow swindles this election, but in the process destroys the Dems chance to beat MCain. While I believe either Dem candidate is far and away better for the nation than McCain, Hillary's "win at all cost" philosophy will sour voter turnout and keep Bush III in office. Keep the election fair, stick to the issues. The projections are done. The only person that can beat Obama is Obama. That is, unless the Clinton's resort to essentially stealing this nomination process.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

yesyoucan2008 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:23:00 GMT

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

cowen123456 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:30:01 GMT

Comment: This is the Hilalry story that has not been told:

With only a quarter in her pocket for every dollar Obama has, with only one local reporter supporting her to every 10 mainstream media personel that Obama has, with a history of the most publicized humiliation and hurt that a person can go through, with a gender that poses historical impossible odds, with only blue collar senior and poor supporters that has to crack open their piggy bank in order to donate 5 dollars to her campaign every other month........under this circumstances, all should expect that HIllary should be curling up in the fetal position in tatter clothing and rock back and forth in utter despair. Yet, shes not! she's standing tall with her boxing gloves on and fighting as though it is the first round in a championship fight for the ultimate prize. Tenacity is not a big enough word to descript the strenghth, courage and incredible will that this woman has. She is the most amazingly resilient and maraculous candidate this country has ever had and I am proud that my daughters can witness it as though it is a common occurence. Hillary, First Woman President of the United States- 2008!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Banafrit — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:31:54 GMT

Florida and Michigan, regardless of how the Clinton's want to spin it, should not be counted unless there is another primary. This is the only fair solution, even though she agreed last year their votes would not count. If there were a re-vote, she would win but certainly not by the votes cast the first time. As proven time and time again, when Obama was behind going in, and after he campaigns there, he cuts her lead in half. She would have a fraction of the popular vote the second time around, and at best, if she won both, she would gain maybe 20 additional delgates. I honestly wish they would re-vote, just to shut her up. I find it offensive that she insults voters in the states he has won because they aren't large states, and their votes just aren't important according to her. I keep hearing that Obama can't win the white vote. The only white vote he has a problem with is the uneducated, redneck, minimum wage voters, or the old, bitter, divorced white women who identify with her because of cheating husbands. It's all about his skin color with them, period. What the Superdelegates better take into account if Hillary somehow is able to steal the nomination from him, with their help, is that African Americans will not turn out to vote, and the Democrates cannot win without their vote. McCain and the Republicans are terrified of Obama, hence the attack ads and attacks by them on him. They would love Hillary to win the nomination because she can't win against them.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

jlb1234567 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:45:38 GMT

No Democrat can win in November without Michigan and Florida.

You can't have it both ways...

You are correct, there should be a re-vote.

Unfortunately, Obama has stalled this process, because he's scared.

As he is about having another Debate.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

yesyoucan2008 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:59:14 GMT

cowen, I beg to differ on your take of the Clinton tenacity. Remember, less than 2 years Obama was virtually unknown to millions of elegible Dems, while the Clinton Machine was a household name. Her pathetic attempt at running ( or sould I say reliance on others) a campaign that has managed to divide, manipulate, and may virtually destroy the Democratic Party. She thought it would be easy and hand delivered. She feels entitled by virtue of her status among the elite in Washington. Bottom line, it's Obama that is the story. From humble beginnings to a possible shot at being the leader of the greatest nation in the world. Now thats is a true American Dream.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:03:28 GMT

JUDGE TO FORMER CLINTON PASTOR "YOU LIED"

Comment: When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

???As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied,??? Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Dwyer said he believes Procanick was being honest when he told the girl's mother in a recorded phone call that he was wrong to caress the girl's body while she was trying to fall asleep.

However, Procanick instead testified in court that he did nothing wrong other than spend time alone with the girl, who was a friend of the family, Dwyer noted.

If Procanick had accepted responsibility from the beginning instead of straying from the truth, Dwyer said, Procanick would likely have faced a lesser punishment and possibly avoided jail time.

???The truth would have set you free,??? Dwyer said. ???You had a chance to be a man and say, 'I made a mistake.' But as always, the cover-up is much worse than the original crime.???

Procanick's defense attorney, George Aney, noted that Procanick still received a sentence less than the maximum, which was up to seven years in prison.

???It's considerably less than the maximum, but considerably more than he deserved,??? Aney said.

Aney also took issue with how Dwyer and the victim's mother used harsh language to attack Procanick's Christian values.

???You are just an evil man,??? the victim's mother said Friday in court. ???You lied, and you had your wife lie. And all these people who showed up in court to support you, did you lie to them, too????

The Observer-Dispatch does not identify sex-abuse victims and their families.

The victim's mother said her daughter is still waking up scared at night because of what happened, and she continues to see a therapist. The young girl also feels that everybody is mad at her, the mother said.

Assistant District Attorney Doug DeMarche Jr. then read a note written by the girl, who did not appear in court Friday.

???Bill made me sad and scared,??? DeMarche read. ???I thought I did something wrong, because I trusted him.???

Dwyer gave Procanick an opportunity to speak in court, but Procanick had nothing to say to the victim and her family.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

NewsWkDickG — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:09:06 GMT

Hillary's electability cries ring hollow. As we know GWBush has electability and look what that got us. It is obvious that Hillary is so very much like GWBush in another way, personality. They both clearly demonstrate an arrogant, self-focused, aggressive, dishonest, belligerent and unconscionable sociopathic personality that says it is all about them, that they deserve and they then try to sell all of that as strength. Well for eight years now we have seen what that kind of self-indulgent strength will get us. Hillary has consistently demonstrated that she will say/do anything to get what she wants, without conscience, without apology and without hesitation, as for Hillary that is what it is all about, what she wants. I don't want more GWBush, not in policies (McCain) and not in personality (Clinton).

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Banafrit — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:13:34 GMT

jlb1234567, you spin the BS like a true Hillary supporter. Florida and Michigan BOTH decided against a re-vote because they couldn't afford it, and because they could not guarantee it could be done in the time allowed without problems. Why should he agree to another debate? There has been enough, and he is ahead. She is just desperate, as usual, because she is behind in both Indiana and North Carolina. Maybe if she would stick to the issues at hand, instead of that ridiculous show she put on at the last debate, he would. Funny how after he turned the tables on her about her husband's pardoning those "terrorists" she shut up but good. The look on her face was priceless when he stuck it to her. Let her wallow in her disgusting smear campaign.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:23:29 GMT

THIS IS WHO THE CLINTONS ARE. DON'T BE FOOLED YOU CANNOT SEPERATE THE TWO OF THEM.

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

DemInMissoula — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:27:33 GMT

After all of the spin and twisting of the numbers, after all of the Clinton controversies that Obama hasn't even brought up in the primary cycle (watergate, Peter Paul trial, Lewinsky/Starr/impeachment trial etc.), Hillary needs to take a long hard gaze into the mirror, assess all of her potential negatives in a general election and ask herself "Am I electable? Is this how I want to win the Democratic nomination, by breaking the rules and overturning the delegate vote as agreed by the DNC?"

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:55:04 GMT

DemInMissoula. that is my point exactly, there is so very much dirt which Sen. Obama could easily use against Sen. Clinton including her ex pastor being convicted of child molestation. But he is entirely too classy of a man to do so. He refuses to stoop to her level.

But what really concerns me is that you never hear about this information from the media, yet they run soundbits of Rev. Wright's sermons over and over again, I mean which is worse saying words or molesting a child?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:03:59 GMT

My reason for posting those articles is to make a point. There is so very much dirt which Sen. Obama could easily use against Sen. Clinton including her ex pastor being convicted of child molestation, Peter Paul trial, President Clinton's disbarment, etc. But he is entirely too classy of a man to do so. He refuses to stoop to her level.

I will not be reposting the same long articles over and over agin like Not stupid in Alabama,

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:55:51 GMT

cecibell (April 23, 2008 at 8:55 PM)

Write Obama's Name on Ballot if Clinton Steals Nomination

This was posted by someone on the Stumper site. My question is this a posibility, can we do this in protest of Clinton and in support of Obama should the Superdelegates make the mistake of giving her the nomination? This is another option in lieu of staying home and not voting and definitely a better choice than voting for McCain.

I wonder what the reaction would be if Sen. Clinton was givin the nomination but in the election Sen. Obama received more votes (Written in) than she?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

TheBroker — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:14:11 GMT

What we need to do if Obama doesn't get the nomination is vote for Nader. The only way out of this 2 party mess is to heighten the profile of 3rd party's and vote in way that shows the "establishment" that we're sick of not having choices. People tend not to listen to what 3rd parties have to say because they don't think there's a chance in hell of them winning. I'll tell you what, if we end up with anyone oher than Obama as a choice for president, our country has no chance in hell of lasting.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

TheBroker — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:28:52 GMT

What disgusts me about Hillary Clinton is how all of this vile, negativity is leaked from her campaign, however, time and time again, she acts as though she didn't authorize, nor does she agree with what's being said/implied. So one can only asssume that she's a horrible leader (can't control her campaign staff) or a prolific liar (denying prior knowledge of leaks in her campaign, obviously ordered by her). I personally think it's both and don't want anyone with either of these traits running the country, let alone both of these traits. What I'm tired of, and I assume the majority of Americans agree, is that either her or her camp are constantly trying to spin things into a sort of virtual reality that just doesn't exist. She's a flip flop of epic proportions and cares nothing about anything other than winning. Don't fool yourselves, she's business as usual. If you like the state of our country, please vote Clinton. If you have even half a brain, and care about the future of your country, vote Obama.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

sjpersonal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:40:47 GMT

It actually amazes me when Clinton supporters act as though the Clintons do not have any scandals. PLEASE!!!

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

http://www.hillaryclintonrevealed.net/hillary_clinton_scandals.htm

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/2008/03/03/champion-of-woman-issues-sen-clinton-accepts-donations-from-troubled-firm/

Oh and lets not forget her former pastor being convicted of child molestation, While Clinton supporters keep bringing up Rev. Wright, riddle me this, which is better saying words or being CONVICTED of CHILD MOLESTATION???????????????????????????

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

obamamoron — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:48:57 GMT

Bill needs to take this girl home so that she can get some sleep. She has been up plenty of times at 3 am waiting for that phone call. Please, please Hilary, at your age you need some sleep! Will someone get her some Seroquel too?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

powin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:15:07 GMT

Brimming with unabashed arrogance and a numerical argument that is clearly flawed, Senator Clinton has been asked to withdraw regardless that it has been repeatedly said that neither candidate can accrue enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. That "Clinton and Obama remain statistically tied with John McCain in matchups" further repudiates Leahy''s rationale, Emmanuel's arguments-- rife with cynicism, Richardson's hubris, and Ms. Pelosi's posturing which is helping the GOP exponentially, it's sad. Silence can be a good thing, especially if it's Flordians who truly need to be silenced.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

joesnuffy — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:13:50 GMT

Why doesn't this outrage people? Why isn't the media loudly exposing Clinton's BS? Hillary and her staff are well aware that she is going to lose the nomination. There is just no way she can catch him. So she is acting out of desperation, like a cornered animal, trying to spin this thing any way she possibly can to make it appear that she still has a chance. The longer this goes on, the more desperate are her actions. She is now stating falsehoods that the tide has turned and that she is leading in the popular vote, hoping that people are stupid enough to buy it, and apparently some are. This only confirms what I already believed about Hillary - that she will do and say whatever it takes, fair or unfair, true or untrue, to get what she wants, regardless of the collateral damage it may cause. This is hypocritical of her, since she has made such a big issue about character in recent weeks. If she had any class, integrity ,or regard for the greater good, she would step aside and let Obama begin to focus on real contest in November.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

bobsegal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:01:49 GMT

I'd like to be optimistic but I'm not. Here we go with yet another red flag -- fully consistent -- par-for-the-Clintons -- she's playing political tricks straight out of the Republican playbook. This crap started in earnest with Reagan -- the idea that you can say anything you want, and no matter how obviously false and preposterous it is, it will still influence the American public. And it's true. These Republican strategists are no dummies. And the fact is that Hilary is smart to pull this kind of baloney, it will affect the electorate, and we can expect more to come. She gets more and more ridiculous as the race nears its close. And she will most likely figure out some way to get the superdelegates in her pocket. After all, no matter how much popular and financial support Obama has, she's the one with all the chits. Obama will lose for the same reason all the Democratic candidates have lost since the 80's -- because he's speaking truth to power, and the American public, on the whole, is not sophisticated enough to appreciate that. Sorry to say it, and you can call me elitist -- I'll own up to it even -- but it's true. Like Obama, let's call a spade a spade -- people actually get swayed by stuff like the Swift Boat ads. You mean to tell me that a draft-dodger like Bush can persuade people to question the patriotism and courage of a decorated war veteran like Kerry? You bet your bottom dollar. Clinton understands this game, and she will keep on playing it. Makes me absolutely sick. For a moment there, I thought America might have a leader that we can believe in. Instead, this business-as-usual faux-liberal has spoiled everything. Neither she nor Obama can win the presidency now, no matter what happens. If she actually cared about the Democratic party, she would have bowed out long ago. But she doesn't care about anything -- she's a fricking politician. Thought it was gonna be different this time -- I should have known...

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

powin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:32:17 GMT

Brimming with unabashed arrogance and a numerical argument that is clearly flawed, Senator Clinton has been asked to withdraw regardless that it has been repeatedly said that neither candidate can accrue enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. That "Clinton and Obama remain statistically tied with John McCain in matchups" further repudiates Leahy's rationale, Emmanuel's arguments-- rife with cynicism, Richardson's hubris, and Ms. Pelosi's posturing which is helping the GOP exponentially, it's sad. Silence can be a good thing, especially if it's Flordians who truly need to be silenced.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

powin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:52:35 GMT

Without an NIE report to read, Senator Obama, touts his sound decision-making (as a State Senator) for opposing the War in Iraq. With hindsight, unbeknownst to him, there were no weapons of mass destruction. His argument that he made the right choice is a fallacy: he didn't make any such decision as a U.S. Senator with the emotions of September 11th still riding high while maintaining strong national security. Albeit, none of these assertions are earth-moving or original arguments; what is important here is to remind voters that he does not command a bastion of foreign policy knowledge nor does his redundant, "I voted against the war" a viable argument to support his candidacy.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Alvy — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:31:27 GMT

Now as a Dem, I understand the race is all but over. I get the gamesmanship and the rhetoric.

I follow the games and set-ups and look forward to reading what happens daily. But damn, could you find a worse picture of Hills? Waving and looking like a man with a wig and all winkled. She looks better than that - not as old as McCain. That was just mean. She looks like she didn't brush her teeth, and you publish this pic?

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

benluclar — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:01:37 GMT

Comment: I am sick and tired of being PROFILED as a white grandma living in PA making under $100,000 with little or no college degree. Exactly where do I apply for my American citizenship with this ETHNIC BACKGROUND?

No, I do not like Obama. I do not like him because he is a motivational speaker who motivates people just like the infomercials on Saturday and Sunday mornings who want everyone to try their new money-making scheme without actual work and tell them how to lose weight without stopping the ice cream and candy.

I am old enough to KNOW when somebody is trying to SELL ME!#@$!

And, yes, I will stand behind Hillary, who at least does not do this PROFILING of my so-called "old-age mindset". And, no, I will NEVER vote for a motivational speaker because, guess what, folks, what you buy for $19.99 NEVER WORKS WHEN YOU GET IT!

And, above all, yes, I will vote for John McCain when the $19.99 guy is bought by the Democratic Party, led by Nancy Pelosi, the biggest GYP that ever was bought and paid for.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

kidjny — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:59:27 GMT

I understand Benluclar...I used to live in racist PA also at one time.....until I didnt want to get cross burned in my yard as was told to me.....I guess PA still is the same...but I hope not.

anyway...

I vote Obama: why -

Obama is the moral Choice for America. It is culturally, and theologically accountable that people should vote for Obama, at least from a conservative, cultural, critical, literal interpretation of the Bible. JWS

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

kidjny — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:00:44 GMT

ohh would someone tell Hillary t oSIT DOWN!!! She lost already

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

kidjny — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:06:04 GMT

Hi yall, I was burn’ with a silver spoon in my mouth. My Husband, the one that purged his self and was impeached, became president and both of us helped move all US jobs to other countries legally in the 90’s. We disgraced the white house and had lots or oral sex, and other stuff in the oval office while Bin Laden got away so that he could create a diabolical plan by flying plans into some buildings over cities. My husband and me pretend to like city people but really we don’t like country people either. Well, we make over 100 million last years so you’re just not like me. Sorry. I like black people so much that when a great bi-racial candidate came along and won the popular vote and more delegates, I still won’t back down. One day I found a tape of his former pastor saying 3 minutes of some angry stuff and I leaked it to the press. OMG, that was soooo fun! HAHAHAH, but the best part is nobody cares that it was the same pastor gave my husband and I marriage counseling, or that my personal pastor of choice is a convictive child molester, but don’t you go tell anyone about that, ya’ hear. I’m relying on people not to know any better so that I can have all that power to my self, but please, vote for me because I’m more qualified thanks! HRC

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

fog80 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:46:02 GMT

hillary is a joke. she cant make this argument with a straight face.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Jannett — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:36:38 GMT

I'm so grateful that I finally figured out that I had to register in order to add my comments!!!!!!! I've had so many things to say! I believe that Senator Clinton is the worst example that the female gender has to offer for the first female running for president. I'm a woman so I can say this without fear of prejudice, She's dishonest ,among other reasons too many to list. I wish she'd get out now!!!

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

mcleodmn — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:18:26 GMT

She must have hired the accounting department from Enron to come up with these numbers. Obama supporters must understand- There is nothing to worry about. It's done. If HRC wins the nomination, than we should prepare for Elvis to announce his next tour, because it's more likely.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

nyame624 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:33:40 GMT

The Clinton Legacy

The Progressive Review

This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration. It was last partially updated in 2000

Our Clinton Scandal Index

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14

- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5

- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4

- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47

- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33

- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61

- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15

- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6

- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million

- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION

- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.

- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.

-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19

- Number that have produced indictments: 7

- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1

- Median length of investigations that led to convictions: 44 months

- Length of Starr-Ray investigation: 69 months.

- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million

- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million

- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73 million

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116

Harold Ickes 148

Ricki Seidman 160

Bruce Lindsey 161

Bill Burton 191

Mark Gearan 221

Mack McLarty 233

Neil Egglseston 250

Hillary Clinton 250

John Podesta 264

Jennifer O'Connor 343

Dwight Holton 348

Patsy Thomasson 420

Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71

I don't know - 62

I'm not sure - 17

I have no idea - 10

I don't believe so - 9

I don't recall - 8

I don't think so - 8

I don't have any specific recollection - 6

I have no recollection - 4

Not to my knowledge - 4

I just don't remember - 4

I don't believe - 4

I have no specific recollection - 3

I might have - 3

I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2

I don't have any memory of that - 2

I just can't say - 2

I have no direct knowledge of that - 2

I don't have any idea - 2

Not that I recall - 2

I don't believe I did - 2

I can't remember - 2

I can't say - 2

I do not remember doing so - 2

Not that I remember - 2

I'm not aware - 1

I honestly don't know - 1

I don't believe that I did - 1

I'm fairly sure - 1

I have no other recollection - 1

I'm not positive - 1

I certainly don't think so - 1

I don't really remember - 1

I would have no way of remembering that - 1

That's what I believe happened - 1

To my knowledge, no - 1

To the best of my knowledge - 1

To the best of my memory - 1

I honestly don't recall - 1

I honestly don't remember - 1

That's all I know - 1

I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1

I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1

As far as I know - 1

I don't believe I ever did that - 1

That's all I know about that - 1

I'm just not sure - 1

Nothing that I remember - 1

I simply don't know - 1

I would have no idea - 1

I don't know anything about that - 1

I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1

I just don't know - 1

I really don't know - 1

I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME

- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9

- Number known to have been murdered: 12

- Number who died in plane crashes: 6

- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3

- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1

- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1

- Number of unexplained deaths: 4

- Total suspicious deaths: 46

- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30

- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156

It is important in considering these fatal incidents to bear in mind the following:

The fact that anomalies need to be investigated further carries no presumption of how a death actually occurred, only that there remain serious questions that require answers.

The possibility of foul play must be taken seriously in a major criminal conspiracy in which over two score individuals and firms have been convicted and over 100 witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment or fled the country.

If foul play did occur in any of these cases, that fact by itself does not carry the presumption that the the Clinton machine was involved. Given the footprints of organized crime, drug trade, foreign espionage, and intelligence agencies on the trail of the Clinton story, such a assumption would not be warranted. It is also well to keep in mind the classic prohibition era movie in which the corrupt poitician's job was not to engage in illegal acts but to avoid noticing them.

ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT

- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million

- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000

- Number of commercial banks: 570

- Number of bank regulators: 1

- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.

- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3

- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%

- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.

- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%

THE MEDIA

- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10

FRIENDS OF BILL

- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000

- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160

- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577

- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions in the Clinton administration. 18

- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37

- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261

- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce Department: 500

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA

- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900

- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000

- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5

- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40

- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45

- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000

- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6

- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10

THE HIDDEN ELECTION

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48

- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8

- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11

- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254

as of 1998

- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9

- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became

president: 439 as of 1998

- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

THE CLINTON LEGACY: LONELY VOICES

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters were fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise got into trouble because of their work on the scandals.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. In addition, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told Newsmax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives had looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke was his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that was largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.

OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list was subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.

JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth. The Review provided extensive coverage of the topic.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

NMartinez — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:41:08 GMT

"we thought it'd be a good time to remind you, dear reader, of a few incontrovertible truths" -

Between all the Obama media fan club and their poll spinners, only the Obama dreamers sleeping in the Matrix hear or want to hear your BIASed stories. Your credibility is on the same level as soap operas. We have to tune into the satellite radio to search into Euro Channels to get any unbiased and truthful news reporting. Actually, the Enquirer may have more FACTS and artiticles of interest than the obvious Obama butt cleansing crap that is the staggering 9 to 1 fiction written on these so-called MSNBC, CNN and most of Newsweek Political columns. You guys are in desperate need of NEW MANAGEMENT and everybody except for Morning Joe needs to take a long walk into outerspace.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Malthus — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:52:55 GMT

The Clinton logic is similar to that of my students who plead for a better grade on their failed exam:

"If you ignore the essay questions, I got a C on the multiple choice section. And out of class I've studied real hard."

If you ignore the caucuses, she did okay in the popular vote. And out of the DNC recognized states, she did real well.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

rpelley — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:07:09 GMT

This campaign has gotten so disheartening. Once buoyed, I am deflated and actually feel more disenfranchised than I did before I dared to hope in a presidential campaign and a candidate I could endorse enthusiastically. I had really hoped that Americans were woefully tired of politicians who twist the truth to suit their objectives. I personally must continue to believe that the truth is far more than just "what one can get away with". I wish that " I'll fight for you" didn't actually mean, " I will lie, cheat, steal and consistently deceive...to be elected and to do anything I want under the guise of leadership." Isn't THAT what got us into Iraq????????????

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Alvy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:47:43 GMT

NMartinez is kinda dumb. A bit hostile.

NMartinez thinks Hills is winning.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

powin — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:30:44 GMT

Romano's latest afterthought is akin to flatulence from a freshman writer. You're an edifice of transparency, Andrew; everyone can see see through you and Newsweek, that is, and one should consiider this:

"Public relations is a huge industry. . .something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its commitment is to control the public mind.... [For example], "Support our troops." Who can be against that? The issue is, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies...."

"Media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values....Voter attention is to be focused on style, personality (does this remind anyone of "Yes We Can") —anything but the issues that are of primary concern to the concentrated private power centers that largely finance campaigns and run the government" (Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Those who purport that the frontrunner will unite people have already demonstrated that the frontrunner will unite no one except perhaps the myopic misanthropists who, most likely, will be in a seething cauldron of woeful, broken promises teeming with scintillating rhetoric.

Share this with the superdelegates.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

powin — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:31:33 GMT

Share this with the superdelegates.

re: Flashback: The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

wiesci1 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:36:16 GMT

yES, WE MUST COUNT ALL VOTES INCL. MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA, AND THIS IS A "MUST". WE WILL LOSE TO REPUBLICAN IF WE DONT PUT HILLARY INTO WHITE HOUSE, WE WONT EVEN GET CLOSE IN NOVEMBER!!!

OBAMA WILL BE TRASH BY REPUBLICAN MACJINE, BUT HILLARY IS A TRUE FIGHTER, AND SHE WILL LEAD US THERE. OBAMA HAS NO CHANCES, WITH HIS DIRTY MASS-PASS, THEY WILL DESTROY HIM.

i BELIEVE, THAT HE HAS CONNECTIONS WITH MUSLEM WORLD, AND HAMMAS LOVES TO SEE OBAMA INT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO LET THIS HAPPEND!!!!!!