Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

benjamin67 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:00:45 GMT

Hillary's behavior can be compared to an NFL team losing the Championship Playoff game and saying, I know we lost but we are still the best team to play in the Super Bowl and win.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

childomine — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:03:04 GMT

Love your columns. This one's title really takes the cake. I have too many cigar jokes running thorugh my head to write them all down. Thanks for a good laugh on a rainy Monday.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:19:42 GMT

Sort of Rumsfeldian, having to go to the convention with the votes you've got. Having to go to the war with the intelligence you've got, too. You hire an "intelligence stretcher" to get her just right to "go to war with the army you've got". And, if the votes aren't quite enough, you borrow Rumsfeld's stretcher to make the votes fit your war in the primaries. Oh well, maybe its too tangled to work. Politics is full of flexibility. Especially in promises. We go to the ballots boxes with the candidates we've got. Let's vote.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

maninthewilderness — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:30:01 GMT

well.. I guess you cant blame her for being a politician.. its just that I do.. cuz Im sick and tired of politicians lies... why cant they just lay it on the line and tell it like it is.. but NOOOOOOO.. its all about anything that SPINS it THEIR way.. she is no different then the rest and Im sick of her too...

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

cnn357 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:36:51 GMT

As unreasonable as Clinton is being, the only good point she has is that Obama was not on the ballot in MI and technically should not get any votes or delegates.

However, Ickes is claiming that Obama taking his name off the ballot was strategic, but she is the only one who left her name on - so that holds no water

And to be fair, he would have gotten many votes, anyone who says otherwise is a fool

She will not let Obama win the general election, how can she stump for him anyway

we can see she is full of it now, just wait till later

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

akhajawall — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:38:12 GMT

Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".

2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" connectedness.

3. Vision and mission for our nation future rather than past.

4. American policies first USA centric than other countries centric.

In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall

Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

crat3 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:48:44 GMT

Newsweek is pro-Obama biased media. What Newsweek writes on Sen. Clinton cannot be believed and has no journalitic integrity. Newsweek, as pro-Obama biased media, has interfered in, undermined, and subverted the Democratic presidential nominating process. Newsweek, as pro-Obama biased media, continues to sabotage Sen. Clinton's campaign with impunity,. Newsweek, as pro-Obama media, is out of control. Newsweek's media tyranny is our democracy's worse enemy.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

kashabear — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:06:33 GMT

the Clinton team is truly sad - the only way she can claim the popular vote lead is if she does not count some of the votes and uses "estimates" for others. So much for "counting all the votes." That is total and complete hypocrisy.

The larger issue here though is that in this country, we do not select the candidate based on popular vote. The metric we use is the pledged delegate count. Every time the media prints a story allowing Clinton to claim to be still be in the race because she thinks she has a lead in the popular vote is to mislead the American people that somehow this is a valid metric. Just ask Al Gore if the popular vote matters in this country.

Now, if Hillary wants to try to change the rules GOING FORWARD for the NEXT election cycle - perhaps that is a legitimate issue for her to take up. But for this election cycle, it matters not if she has a lead in the popular vote (which she does not). Please Hillary, let us move on so we can beat McCain - that is the fight we need to be making now, in this all important election.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

SMS67 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:58:53 GMT

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.

Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:06:29 GMT

We are as close to participatory democracy as we have ever been. What a primary!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:07:36 GMT

I bet you were proud of yourself when you figured out a way to use the word "cigar" in a headline about Hillary Clinton. Fine. But you have used a form of sexism--subtle but real. You chose a cliche to use as a word play (and, yes, it's a word play) about the candidate's husband. It has nothing to do with the candidate or her candidacy. She's a politician in her own right. But thanks for managing to obscure that again -- and for linking her in a negative way to the most successful Democratic party president since FDR. Too bad this good/bad association isn't as easily handled as the nuances of a good/bad association with a church. Your choice to place a joke in a headline colors anything valid you may have to say in the content of your piece for about $17+ million voters/readers. Just so ya know....

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:07:57 GMT

The internet tool has literally given us, the common folk, a veritable soapbox at the fingertips and I love every minute of it.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:12:57 GMT

The republicans can hang their heads in shame with that puny excuse for a primary that they held. As if it were merely a necessary formal step to imprimatur.

The democratic primary has been a good old fashioned unrehearsed butt kicking knock down and drag out effort." When you see us comin', better step aside. Lotta republicans didn't and lotta republicans died". As Phil Harris used to sing in that old song "Fifteen Tons".

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:15:04 GMT

Hey, joywinnie, good thinking. I didn't catch the part about Bill and the cigar. Shame on him.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:18:20 GMT

The author, I meant. Shame on him. We put all that behind us and moved on. And if he'd said cigarette, I would have liked it better, too. "Close, but no cigarette". The ..."ette" is feminine and much more appropriate.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:20:31 GMT

Hillary wins, she'll be Presidentess. Obama wins, he'll be president.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:27:10 GMT

I want them to hit the tape at the same time. Everything equal. Popular vote and delegate number. Then, they have to flip a coin. No two headed nickels, now. We need to vote on whether the figure on the coin will be Thomas Jefferson or Susan B. Anthony. Quite important. We don't have any history on whether there is a coin with a bi-sexual person on a coin. That would be a good compromise if we can find one. It would be easy in Russia. They rewrite history quite often and they would just make one up for the occasion. There's got to be a way that we can keep this thing going longer. Someone will find a way, no doubt.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:27:52 GMT

Or should it be presidentette?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But No Cigar

Andrew Romano — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:30:36 GMT

Hi everyone,

Andrew Romano here. Believe it or not, I sincerely did not mean anything untoward with the use of cigar in the title--although I completely see why you would think that I did. It was a stupid choice of words and I'm changing it immediately.

Thanks for pointing this out,

Andrew

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

josemarti — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:37:11 GMT

Five reasons why Senator Obama will be the next President. 1. He graduated from Harvard Law School. Mccain from the Naval Academy. 2. Regular attendance at Trinity for 20 years (1040 sermons). 3. He has the support of educated white and they will be more likely to find the polling place on Election day. 4, Oprah's endorsement. 5. McCain's senior moments.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:43:08 GMT

It's a real tightrope. Hard to balance all the equities. Appreciate all the articles. Art. Art manifest in verbs and such.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

http://politicsnerd.blogspot.com/ — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:07:37 GMT

First of all, the "cigar" thing is ridiculous and shows how whiny and crybaby-ish the Clintonites have become. "Close but no cigar" is an expression that WAY predates the Clinton connection. Grow up!

But to my real point, Clinton is once again trying to rewrite the rules during the game to benefit herself. She is the most self-serving, cynical, and shameless candidate I have ever seen. She is an embarrassment to our party and to herself. What happened to losing with dignity and class? Dignity and class are foreign concepts to Hillary just as truthfulness and competence are to GW Bush.

I am no Obama partisan by any stretch of the imagination, but its time to face the facts and prepare for the huge battle looming for the November contest. Any Clinton partisan who says they wont vote for Obama are just bitter fools who would hand the election to McSame over their own bruised egos. There are HUGE issues at stake (100 years war, Roe V. Wade, anyone??) , and its time to grow up and be adults!

-Politics Nerd

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Emanuel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:08:33 GMT

I am going to print this article and frame it.

Why?

Because something tells me that we will need to refer to it again in the future.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:15:57 GMT

Andrew:

I'm impressed by your journalistic responsiveness. I still question why an editor wasn't more on the ball, helping you avoid such a misstep. I strongly dislike the fact that the word "cigar" has any connotation other than something to smoke. But, thanks to the former president, it does, doesn't it? This has been one of Clinton's problems as a candidate. Forging a new relationship with media that focuses attention on her attributes as a politician separate from his, and helping voters keep her positives and negatives separate from his. I believe the extent to which media has aided those distinctions is open to interpretation.

On a related note: It seems a dialogue -- media/society -- about racism is on the horizon. Perhaps a dialogue about subtle forms of sexism will emerge someday too. Maybe then people will learn that "president" already is a gender neutral term - just like "doctor" ... and even "cigarette." I still hope to see a female president someday to help further citizen understanding in an experiential way.

Again, I totally respect your responsiveness as a journalist, Mr. Romano. Very cool.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

coolkid.02 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:08:25 GMT

I am a Washington voter, Clinton want to disenfranchise the voters of Washington.

So much for "Count every vote!"... Liar!

Republican for Obama!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

chindognyc — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:10:03 GMT

Have you seen the women that are saying McCain is the next President, they are the ones that Hillary said are voting for her. The uneducated white working class. They all came from Ohio, Ken, and WV. They are the states that said they voted for Hillary because she is white. This is the kind of people who are our citizens. They show there true colors and show that they are not in favor of black people being a part of American history. The only thing they want blacks to remember is that they brought us over here on boats and working for slave masters. This is what they want blacks to remember. No wonder the EU said they are not surprised that whtie America is so against a black man becoming the next President of the United States. Michelle Obama said that for the first time, she is proud of her country. I thought she went a little over the top there. I now understand what she is talking about. I want to be proud of America and for what we have acheived. How can we tell other countries to treat there people equally and yet, we can't even get along right here in a country where we feel there is freedom. Who is the hypocrits now!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

the_shelton — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:16:52 GMT

The math, the logic, the entire arguement is so flawed that I am amazed all of the mathematicians in the US aren't up at arms. This is like the old golf joke. The way I shoot below 70 is to skip the last three holes.

Let's leave out the population of the caucus states. Let's use a vote count that didn't even run one of the candidates and was told wouldn't count. Wow, that's good math.

What I would like to see is Obama select Kathleen Sebilius, the governor of Kansas as a running mate. Then all the women of the US could see what a real lady is, and really qualified one that has accomplished much and does have 'experience'.

Come on ladies, lets see you get behind that.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

chindognyc — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:20:07 GMT

Wow, you have to see this crazy lady voting for Hillary. You have to hear her comments. This is who's supporting Hillary. Oh my god. She is on your world with Cavuto.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

chindognyc — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:21:59 GMT

This lady name Christian who was on youtube ranting and raving is now on FOX showing her racist comments.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

chindognyc — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:24:54 GMT

She said she would rather see McCain become President then Obama. She said blacks are voting for Obama and don't even know why they are voting for him. She is basically saying that blacks are dumb and don't know why they are voting for him. How dare this lady. She is just saying how many white people feel about Obama. They just don't want a black man in the White House.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:44:39 GMT

While Kathleen Sebilius is a good politician, she's no Hillary Clinton. There is no politician out there to rival the qualifications of Hillary Clinton -- male or female.

Contrary to popular belief, many of us "ladies" don't vote for someone just because of anatomy. So don't be surprised if Clinton supporters won't be easily appeased. Obama can't pick a female candidate and then say: "See, she's a girl like you. Get on board." How insulting. It'd be as bad as Hillary Clinton being the nominee and then not picking Obama, but choosing his friend (and rhetoric partner) Deval Patrick.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

http://politicsnerd.blogspot.com/ — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:58:45 GMT

I can't wait until Hillary finally, decisively FAILS and she and her supporters finally shut up and GO AWAY. Go, Hillary, Go ... AWAY!

http://politicsnerd.blogspot.com/

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:08:54 GMT

The ironic thing Mr. Politics Nerd. What happened to Hillary Clinton can be called a lot of things, but not an all out failure: Obama won't become president without her help. Just won't happen. Unless all her supporters do as you'd like them to and simply, "GO AWAY!"

So ... good luck with that. You can have Hillary's failure or Hillary's help. (And you probably don't want any help from Pres. Clinton either. Good luck with that too.)

If you are a Democrat, you might want to kiss and make up with your "hick" cousins.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

http://politicsnerd.blogspot.com/ — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:17:54 GMT

"While Kathleen Sebilius is a good politician, she's no Hillary Clinton. There is no politician out there to rival the qualifications of Hillary Clinton -- male or female."

What qualifications? Her law career? Blah. First lady of Arkansas? A joke. Eight years as a laughing stock first lady? If her self respect outweighed her avaricious power-hungry personality, she would have divorced Bill. Her failed health care disaster? Failure is a qualification? Voting for the Iraq war (and and Iran war) as senator? Yes, you must be joking!

-Politics Nerd

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:24:13 GMT

The Rorschach cigar.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

GregHere — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:24:37 GMT

............................Another political assault on Hillary Clinton, from the terrible picture of her at the start of the article to the negatively slanted wordage of the article itsself. This is a true sample of the uphill fight she had to wage in the last 6 months to get the delegate total she has...............I just feel this is not democracy, just deceipt and agressive politics

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

http://politicsnerd.blogspot.com/ — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:25:45 GMT

"You can have Hillary's failure or Hillary's help. (And you probably don't want any help from Pres. Clinton either. Good luck with that too.)"

Hillary is NOT helping now, what makes you think she'd help in the november race? All she has done is tear down the eventual democratic nominee, putting McSame's qualifications above Obama's. How is that helping? How is defining the demographics that McSame needs to target so perfectly, and handing them to McSame's strategists on a silver platter helping? How is showing herself as a liar and hypocrite going to help in the November contest? Making Obama spend against her, distracting from what should be the real fight, how does that help? I agree that we need the blue-collar types she appeals to (i mean "we" as in all Democrats--I am lukewarm on Obama specifically) in the general election, but she needs to shut up with the division and get on board for the win!

-Mr. Nerd

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:27:14 GMT

Like the Rorschach office. What do you think of when I say "office"? Answer. Office is the place where the "cigar" was used.

I believe that we need to refer to the "position" that the candidates are seeking with a more proper word than "office", the place where the "cigar" was used.

Please, quit referring to it as the office of the presidency.

It should be the "position" of the presidency.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

ChrisLPNM — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:27:15 GMT

Clinton ran a strong campaign, she just came up a little short. There is no shame in that and she certianly isn't a failure. She will remain a strong figure in American politics.

As far as her "Won the Popular Vote" argument - yes, you can poke a lot of holes in it. But come on, what else did she have to work with? You do the best you can with what you have. Advertisers do it all the time.

Personally, on an intellectual level, I think she has already come to the realization that she is not going to get the nomination. But emotionally, she needs a little more time. After such a long and hard fought campaign, that is perfectly understandable. And out of respect to someone who gave it her all, we should give her that time.

Over the next week to ten days, once enough Superdelegates declare for Obama and put him over the top, I think she will recognize him as the nominee and work with the rest of party to get him elected.

But whatever happens, you won't see the end of Hillary Clinton for quite some time. Her political future is alive and well.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:32:49 GMT

And Washington, D.C., is where the office was where the cigar was used. Let's move the capitol to the exact geographical center of the country. Who can afford to drive all the way from California to serve in office?

Next, we will examine the Pavlovian Dog aspects of political insults.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:37:49 GMT

The Pavlovian Dog influence is evidenced by bloggers frothing at the mouth at the mention of certain words. Race. A contest between two or more persons. Engender. Cause or give rise to (something). Party. A festive event. Cigar. A smoking device consisting of rolled tobacco. Office. A place where tobacco is no longer smoked.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:39:20 GMT

These are incendiary words, sir. Please clean up your vocabulary.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:47:24 GMT

Wow...politics isn't just a dirty business. It must also be a dirty-minded business. The vitriol against Sen. Clinton is very telling.

The most astute political nerds would be able to cite legislation credited to Sen. Clinton during her eight years in Congress (and you don't even have to use the "first lady years" that seem offensive to many).

And I agree with ChrisLPNM, but with one change: I think anyone who wondered if Sen. Clinton would ever be capable of getting on board with the eventual nominee didn't really know Sen. Clinton. Not only that, those who stressed about her fighting for her right to compete in every primary weren't connecting with the historic implications of this race. It's been a very good year for Democrats so far. I just wish the pundits didn't have to stir the dialogue so much.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:56:12 GMT

My computer was down and I missed something.

What is all the discussion about cigars.

Can someone bring me up to speed please?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:10:21 GMT

Yes, loriw, the original title of this article included the words, "Close, but no Cigar". A complaint was made by a blogger that the word cigar was a deliberate insult to the Clintons because of Bill's use of a cigar in an incident that you may remember, but is better forgotten by all of us.

Mr. Romano, to his credit, immediately apologized and withdrew the word and said that he never intended to offend. The saying comes from olden times when cigars were given on quiz shows as a prize. When an incorrect answer was given, sometimes the Master of Ceremonies would say, "Close, but no cigar". We're talking long ago, on radio, before TV even thought of appearing.

I take the blame for making fun of using forbidden words as being suggestive of things not intended, and apologize also for being a little vague about it. No harm intended. Same as the author of this article.

The Rorschach test is a set of ink blots which are presented to persons being psychologically examined. They are shapes which are not regular, but are suggestive of whatever the one being tested might think that they represent. The answers vary with each person and help the analyst in coming to a conclusion of the state of mind of the one being tested. This is not my field, so give me a break for any errors.

I called it the Rorschach cigar because it apparently means many different things to many different people.

Maybe I went too far. Scusi.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:31:05 GMT

And ... loriw... what olderwiser left out was that his use of the word "Rorschach" may very well have been intentional -- but I'll leave that for him to explain lest I am accused of having a Rorschach reaction to his use of the word "Rorschach."

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:35:59 GMT

Thanks Olderwiser!

If my memory serves me right Bill never apologized for the cigar incident yet the author of this article did .

The words he used accidentally offended some people but technically the author did nothing wrong.

See, here is the difference between people with a conscience and someone who doesn't.

Those with a conscience apologize when they recognize they may have offended. Those without a conscience know they have offended but do not apologize.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

northwesterner — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:46:15 GMT

I think this article is too gentle on her. Basically she is lying to those who buy into the argument that she has more votes. It is plain and simple lying. Why should she get a break because she is losing (i.e. has lost)? You cannot pick and chose which states, which caucases or which ballots you want to count arbitrarily.

It is ludicrous to think that if Edwards and Obama had campaigned hard in Fla and Mich that her own totla votes would not have diminished, let alone that she may have lost outright.

If the speech in New York is not a capitulation to Obama then we know she has no thoughts of what is best for the party.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:51:55 GMT

RE: the Rorschach effect...

remember the Butler University student that asked Chelsea a very wordy question regarding Bill's adultery and Hillary? The student was actually a Hillary supporter and intended for the question to be a spring board for Chelsea to speak to her mothers strength. Remember how Chelsea (missisng the intent of the question) responded something to the effect of "wow, in all the places I've visited no one has asked me that" then she went on to say it was none of his business. Then immediately after it played on the news people were cheering that someone so young had the guts to ask what a lot of us were wishing we could ask Hillary which was "why didn't you deal with your husbands disgraceful behavior while you were in the White House?". My point... the student held up an ink blot by way of his question. He wanted Chelsea to compliment her mom but Chelsea and many, many others saw something very, very different because that question was nagging our subconsciousness.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

redheaded blue girl — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:53:53 GMT

No less than Bill Clinton said, of primaries and the passion that voters have for their candidates: "Fall in love, then fall in line." In other words, be enthusiastic for your primary candidate, but when it's over, and your candidate doesn't win, get behind the winner 100%.

Senator Clinton, it is time to heed Bill Clinton's advice. You are a good Senator, and a good Democrat - remember those things. You need to do what's right for your party and therefore for your country instead of carrying on this pointless campaign. We need you - to fall in line, and give all you've got to defeating John McCain. Please be the person you have sold yourself to be - a fighter for what's right. What's right now is that you leave.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

WanderMan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:56:48 GMT

THANK YOU NEWSWEEK!!!!!! THANK YOUR FOR SOME ONE FINALLY SAYING THIS OUT LOUD!!!!!.

Not only did Hillary Clinton not win the popular vote, the popular vote does not count, so it wouldn't matter if she had. Luckily though, there is no need to argue whether the popular vote matters, because Obama won both the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote.

Clinton did not win the popular vote by any stretch of the imagination, I applaud Newsweek for finally pointing out that Clinton's calculation is based on throwing away all those caucus states which she lost.

The mainstream media has showed a bizarre bias and allowed Clinton to repeat a claim about the popular vote that was not true for weeks. It is as if the mainstream media is afraid of the Clintons.

Personally, I LIKE Hillary Clinton. If she had won the nomination, I would have supported her. But she did not win. At this late stage in the game, she cannot even invent ways to pretend that she won. I wish she had dropped out earlier and preserved her dignity. Now she is making herself look like a sore loser...

I have never been more impressed with Newsweek for printing this story to set the record straight.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

onepatriot — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:03:44 GMT

I always thought that She should of been penalized for keeping her name on the ballot when the DNC penalized MI.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

observer101 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:04:27 GMT

Buh-by Billary! Now for the real campaigning....p.s. Dont go crying all over the place, it makes us Americans look weak...

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

big bill — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:05:08 GMT

WHY DO WE GIVE THE CLINTONS SO MUCH OF OUR TIME? THE PRESS USE ALL OF HER TALKING POINTS AND DON'T WANT TO OFFEND HER.SHE HAS SAID EVERYTHING SHE WANTED TO SAY INCLUDING THE CODE WORDS ( NOT READY TO BE PRESIDENT)(MEANING HE'S BLACK) AND TRYING TO CHANGE ALL THE RULES ABOUT MOST VOTES TO SWING STATES. HOW CAN THE PERSON TRAILING BE THE MOST ELECTABLE PERSON.

IN FOOTBAL WHO SCORED THE MOST POINTS IN FOOTBAL HISTORY BUT CAME UP SHORT AGAINST THE IMPOSSIBLE GIANTS? (17 AND 0 NEW ENGLAND) HRC 8 YEARS WHITEHOUSE& 8 YEARS SENATE AGAINST OBAMA 2 YEARS SENATE) K O

SHE CAN'T BELIEVE SHE BLEW A SURE THING. SHE HAD THE MONEY THE NAME AND WAS THE FRONT RUNNER UNTIL THEY FORGOT ABOUT THE SMALL STATES AND SHE DOSEN'T BELIEVE THEY COUNT .WHAT A LIAR AND THIEF.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

big bill — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:12:46 GMT

WHAT WILL SHE DO WHEN THINGS GET RUFF IN THE WORLD CRY AND SY THEY ARE PICKING ON ME.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

herfan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:13:45 GMT

DON'T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!

IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn't it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children's suffering.

With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.

The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton's do very well.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party's back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don't let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.

And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

zzxno — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:15:09 GMT

I'm glad to see more people taking into account the fact that Hillary's popular vote math completely ignored the results in many caucus states. As a voter in Washington state (a state that followed every rule in conducting it's primary) I was quite upset to hear that apparently my vote didn't count to the Clinton campaign. To be crying out of one side of your mouth that it's critical to count the votes of people who participated in flawed primaries that broke the rules of the DNC after initially supporting stripping those states of their delegates while simultaneously completely ignoring the wishes of 4 states that dutify waited their turn and followed every rule is disengenous to say the least.

I only hope that she will finally abandon this highly devisive and untrue rhetoric, admit that she lost fair and square, and get behind the effort to beat John McCain in November. I hope that in the end Hillary will remember the ideals she has stood for all her life and let go of her ego before it destroys her and possibly the Democratic party.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

zmars — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:16:31 GMT

Male dominated Newsweek and other media succeeded in in destroying the best chance of the 1st womn president.

Congratulation on President McCain. As for BO, no pitty. After November, he will be nothing and probably worse than Bob dole who at least has won Viagra commercial.

Go McCain.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Footy Fan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:17:10 GMT

More Obamian b.s.

Either Hillary got more votes, or she didn't. It is more dishonesty from the Obama camp, typical of what to expect in this campaign. Obama didn't get any votes in Michigan, so forget this nonsense "if he had been on the ballot." If Gore had been on the ballot, he would have gotten votes too. If they played the Super Bowl over, the experts say the Patriots would be undefeated. So what? Why not run a number of the primaries over too, I'm sure Hillary could rack up more votes in those as well.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Carol L. — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:22:17 GMT

More women and more Democrats have voted than ever before in this primary election. Yet, many women’s voices and votes are being ignored and discounted, just as Hillary’s achievements in this campaign have been ignored and discounted by many in the media. It is the voters and not the media or pundits who have the right to decide who the candidate will be in this upcoming election.

I suspect that the media and the DNC is severely underestimating the passion, strength, determination and power of millions and millions of women and our shock at the way Clinton has been treated during this campaign.

I’m writing to add my voice to the millions of outraged women’s voices across the country. We’ve watched our male-dominated and male-driven media mercilessly attack Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman who dared to run for President. Clinton has been subjected to contemptible petty attacks, criticism and harassment that no male candidate has ever experienced or been put through.

We’ve watched in stunned disbelief as pundits used their influence to convince viewers and readers to support Obama, by presenting their own biased views as representative of everyone across the country, and through misrepresenting and misinterpreting events and facts in Obama’s favor, while castigating Hillary for anything and everything imaginable.

I’m very happy to finally see a black person successfully running for President; yet, what a sad, shameful irony that while we’ve been willing to finally accept and support a black man for President, this campaign has shown how prevalent woman-hating and discrimination against women still is in our own country!

Hillary Clinton has won the majority of votes and the majority of critical states needed to secure the Presidency in November, despite the outrageous harassment, discrimination and attacks to which she’s been subjected.

I have worked for and supported Democratic causes all my life. I’m angered that the voices of millions and millions of women are being completely ignored and discounted and by the way the DNC seems to be tacitly supporting and colluding in what’s been done, by saying and doing nothing to address it.

If you discount what millions of women have observed during this campaign, the attacks, the discrimination and harassment leveled at Hillary and the outrage of millions of women in response, if you discount all who voted for Hillary—the highest number of votes cast for a candidate in the history of presidential primaries in either party, you do so at the risk of losing millions of women’s votes across the country in November.

I assure you, if Hillary does not get the nomination for President, or if she is not offered the Vice-Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, I will not vote for Obama. I will write Hillary’s name in for President. There are millions of women across the country who feel exactly as I do, who will either not vote at all or will not vote for Obama. Make no mistake, if our votes and voices are ignored, it will be at the Democratic National Committee’s and our country’s peril.

If McCain takes the office of President as a result—as much as I don’t want to see that given the damage the Republicans have done to this country—then so be it. I’m bone-weary of living with sexism in the “land of the free”, of experiencing and watching women and children always come last, if at all, of being discounted, discriminated against, trivialized, patronized, etc., etc., etc. Enough is enough is enough is enough!

In the name of all the deserving, hard-working, intelligent, capable women across this country who have worked diligently for many years for equal rights and equal protections for women, and to see a female President elected, do what is right and put Hillary Clinton on the ballot as President, or at the very least, as Vice President.

Carol Lemieux

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

farzadkhalili — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:26:52 GMT

It is intersting how media is always negative toward Clinton. If all the undecided votes in Michigan go to Obama, Hillary Clinton will still lead by more than 65,000. We dont' know what the popular vote for the following states are IA, NV, ME, WA since they have not released them. On your assetion that Michigan primary is flaw, did any one force Senator Obama or anyone other candidate to take his name out of the ballot, so Clinton should pay for Obama's mistake, why didn't Obama take his name off Florida.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

It's Me — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:27:01 GMT

To be fair, Team Andrew Romano might not be lying in his calculation but the problem is that what he concludes is not be quite, you know, true.

Team Obama was HAPPY to accept delegates from Michigan just two days ago even though "he wasn't on the ballot".. Team Obama, therefore, was HAPPY to agree to include the great state of Michigan in this nomination process. Excuse me...they want delegats from Michigan to count for them even though "he wasn't even on the ballot" but they DON'T want the popular vote counted for anyone?

Funny thing is, I haven't seen any media outlet suggest Obama's total delegate count should SUBTRACT the delegates he was awarded from Michigan the other day even though "he wasn't even on the ballot"...but they ALL seem to feel the need to put an asterisk beside the popular vote total because poor Obma "wasn't even on the ballot".

And caucus state Estimates are "estimates", not COUNTS.

If Obama and his supporters don't want to count Michigan's popular vote then give back Michigan's delegates.

If Obama wanted to claim the lead in the popular vote, then he shouldn't have taken his name off any state ballot.

If Obama wanted to claim the lead in popular vote by counting "estimated" votes in caucuses as though they were democratic one-person/one-vote primaries then he should have spent his money running better in democratic one-person/one-vote primaries instead of spending it in caucuses where popular votes are only "estimated" for the fun of it and not counted for the record.

Hillary Clinton has the lead in the popular vote in every case where popular votes were counted. PERIOD.

She even has the lead in the popular vote if you give Obama all of the "Uncommitted" votes in Michigan (a state which Team Obama agreed would count just two days ago and from which it is HAPPY to take delegates) even though he was one of several candidates who were voted on with that option and even though he "wasn't even on the ballot".

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

zmars — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:28:24 GMT

Michigan primary lunacy:

You either count or don't count Michigan.

You don't count Michigan because they violated rule. That's fine with me. Just also count out Michigan in November.

If you count, you should give everyone in the coutry (300million Americans) a share of the uncommited vote. Not just Obama. If no mess happened, I would have voted Hillary, not replican in the primary. Hillary would have got more votes. It's ridiculous to give somebody votes who is not even on the ballot. You got the math. Andrew.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

happyNewsweekReader — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:29:02 GMT

What has surprised me that Clintons discuss all kinds of Math but the Count of Pledged Delegates - they could be winning in all ways, other than the count of Pledged Delegates, and according to me they have no business to talk about it! (Why a Caucus state be counted for very few votes and Primary State for very large number! - Does this make sense to Clinton?).

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Footy Fan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:31:37 GMT

The Obamians have treated the loyal Democratic women with such disdain and disregard, it is truly shocking.

What the Obamian kids don't realize is that a lot of these women are deeply loyal party activists that assist with every aspect of an election, most notably getting the vote out. While a lot of these women may not turn around and vote for McCain, they darn well aren't going to go drive Grandma and Grandpa to the polls to vote for Obama.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

mart7lin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:40:11 GMT

I am a woman who was committed to vote for either Clinton or Obama when the primary first started. Since then, I am apalled that Clinton is turning out to be such a sore loser. Her band of feminists do not speak for all American women.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

ChrisLPNM — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:42:50 GMT

TO HERFAN: I am impressed that you wrote such a long post, but I have to tell you, a lot of it just doesn't make sense. You say a large number of Repiblican's voted for Obama - that's not true. Many of the conservative radio hosts were telling their supporters to vote for Clinton. You say Bush and Rove don't want Hillary to fix the huge problems they created. That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, they would say there are no problems that need fixing. Then you say that about 30% of Obama's primary and cacus votes were Republican. That's just ridiculus. There are a lot of states that limit primary participation to members of the party. Then you say Obama outspent Clinton 4 or 5 to 1. That's not true either. The last numbers I saw, which were about a month ago, showed Obama had collected $280 Million to Clintons $220 Million. Then you add in the $20 Million to $30 Million Clinton has lent her campaign and you get a different of $30 Million to $40 Million. Definitely an advantage, but certianly not 4 or 5 to one - unless of course Obama raised over $600 Million in the last month. I think that would have made the papers. All of this wrong information makes your conclusion that Obama is going to get slaughtered in November and that it is crystal clear look silly.

My heart goes out to Hillary and her supporters - she fought a hard battle and came so close to getting the nomination. Considering the fact that everyone thought she was going to win by a landslide must make it even worse. I understand the need to vent.

Hopefully things will get more civil in the coming weeks,

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

nirak — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:44:53 GMT

Time to go home Hillary and bake some cookies!

From once adoring and respecting you, I can't wait to see you go.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

H.L.C. — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:47:48 GMT

Can you imagine Hillary applying the same type of “popular vote” math to our economy? Scary!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Johnny1967 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:48:00 GMT

Hillary will continue to the convention unlss Obama gives her the v.p. slot.

Why? Simple. Big donors have invested a lot of money in Clintons campaign. The donors konw the stakes and they are going to force Hillary and Bill to keep on as long as their is any chance of getting the nomination or vice presidency.

Hillary would like to drop out and keep her credibility. But her donors will not allow it. Its a risk v return thing. The risk of spending a few more million dollars and burning some of the Clintons goodwill, justifies the return from getting Hillary as President or Vice President. The possibility of presidency is less than 10 percent, but the possibility of vice presidency is about 50 percent. Its a business decision.

Bottom line. Hillarys big donors and the Clintons future income stream is pushing her.

There is no way Hillary believes her weak arguments and she feels uncomfortble doing it. But the problem is that many of her small supporters are buying it. They trust her. But they are being lied to. Some of them are ok because they know Hillarys argument is weak but do not care. But others actually believe her spin.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

callmehandy64 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:49:27 GMT

There was NO RULE that said anyone had to remove their name from the ballots. IF Obama wanted votes, then he should not have disenfranchised his own supporters (voters) in Michigan. Obama is a stickler for rules, just ask the candidates he had kicked off the ballot in Chicago so he could run unopposed!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

ChrisLPNM — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:51:22 GMT

TO ZMARS: That argument doesn't make sense to me. The DNC is not talking about awarding delegates that didn't vote - a.k.a. your analogy about 300 million Americans. These people voted, just not for Hillary. Who do you think they were for? Most of them were for Obama and the rest were for Edwards or Richardson - both of whom have endorsed Obama. Don't their votes count? These voters felt so strongly about their convictions that they got up and went to cast an uncommitted vote. One might argue that had Obama and the other candidates been on the ballot, the number of delegates being awarded to Clinton would have been less. But no one is saying that. They are just saying count the people who voted. The decision in Michigan was as fair as it could be.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

ChrisLPNM — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:56:40 GMT

And I am so tired of hearing there was no rule that said anyone had to remove their name from the ballot. That's just splitting hairs. Either you are a member of the Party or you aren't. And the party asked all candidates to remove their names from the ballot - and everyone did except Clinton. To say the others didn't have to remove their names is just ridiculus. If you are a member of the Party, then you play ball like everyone else. I am not saying Clinton cheated, or did anything unfair. All I am saying is the compromise over Michigan was as fair as it could be. And remember, the compromised passed 19 to 8 - even though 13 members on the committee had endorsed Clinton. That means over a third of her own supporters on the committee thought it was fair. And you know what, they were right.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

underdog — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:58:08 GMT

Anyway you spin it, when the super delegates vote Hillary will be out. Some people will be happy, some mad. Thats what happens in an election. Someones candidate makes it, someone elses candidate does not.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

cowbuoy — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:59:19 GMT

How the the nominee of the Democratic Party decided? - OK - all together now - "The person with 50% plus one wins"

If only one person voted in 49 states and they all voted for Obama and 999,999,999 people voted for Clinton in California, Obama would win the nomination. You may not like the rules but for this go around those are the rules. You change them next time if you want to.

That's why we have the boy idiot W in the oval office.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Interested! — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:19:00 GMT

It is a sad day when the democrat party is more interested in 'winning' the presidency than the ppls votes. The party for the 'ppl'....... is not the democrat party. Obama will not get my vote in November. I simply won't vote.... for the presidency. And I will vote the person the rest of the ticket. No more of this party loyalty when the party shows no loyalty to their supporters/members.

I have a question that I have never heard asked.... why did the DNC punish the voter instead of the state democrat party? What did the voter do that was wrong? Why not fine the states party or put them late in the next election.... something other than disenfranchising the voter?

I am going to be as loyal to the democrat party as they have been loyal to the democrat voters.

End of Story on that front.

Obama cannot win without the Hillary supporters. I don't believe in Obama. He has flip flopped all over the beach and he has been on the beach tooooooo long. You know what they say about fish....three days, etc.

I have worked every election cycle for twenty five years. That has ended also. Let the DNC pay someone to drive, collect, feed, phone bank, hand out flyers, walk door to door.

I worked hard, long hours, to help Claire McCaskill elected, as many other women did. She has lost my time, my money, and my loyalty. When she was asked about her loyalty, she stated that she didn't care what we thought. Well Claire, we don't care what you think either and we are no longer listening to you ..... it is obvious you went to DC on our backs to promote your own agenda, not the ones who put you there. Shame on you for being so greedy, self indulgent.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:46:23 GMT

Well, what will we talk about next week?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Interested! — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:50:52 GMT

The talking shows have finally decided to ask how the Obama camp can win over the Hillary supporters......actually, the time to 'win us over' is OVER. The smirks, smarmy attitude, condescending attitude, smug attitudes, demeaning attitudes, have already done the damage. I agree with the woman who is disenchanted with the democrat party, who has stated that she will write in Hillarys name or simply not vote for the presidency.

My thoughts are, that in 2000, the republicans went nuts over a man with little or no experience, named GWB. They acted like a herd of sheep, following the pied piper. Now, in 2008, the democrats are doing the same thing. They simply traded beer for wine. But they are making the very same mistakes. The democrats think they are going to have total control. As once a democrat, now an independent, I don't think the democrats are capable of leading this country any more than the republicans were. They both lack leadership. They both are going overboard in their support for the anointed one.

I want checks and balances in our government. I want debate in our government. I want our constitution to be adhered to in every way. So in feeling this way, IF McCain gains the presidency, I feel it may be in the best interest of both parties. All I want is control of congress, house and senate. The few senators and representatives that have been elected in special elections recently, have been conservative democrats. OR liberal republicans. It looks to me the main stream voter is selecting moderate candidates. Obama is NOT a conservative democrat. He is far too liberal. Obama won't make it He doesn't deserve to become president. He is not shown he is capable.

Go McCain........

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:51:27 GMT

We have paid our tuition on Michigan and Florida. It'll be a cold day in hell before a state tries that again. No one appreciates it when you jump in line ahead of them. Crude and rude, Michigan and Florida. See what you did to your voters? Too bad that so many voters got chiseled out of their votes, but there was no solution under the stars that wouldn't generate sore losers. Finally, you just have to pick a batch, bite the bullet, make a ruling and go on. The winners cried "justice at last", and the losers cried, "foul".

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

the_shelton — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:52:12 GMT

Actually, I am surprised at the miss-statements, the miss-understanding and the miss-interpretations that are displayed on this post.

That you don't like the way it's going, that's true.

That it could have been done differently, that's true.

If you were winning, would you have wanted it changed, that's false.

Did Hillary think that good old Billy was going to sweep her in, that's true.

Did everyone agree to the rules as they were layed out to begin with, that's true.

If someone wins, by only one delegate, do they still win, that's true.

Is the popular vote a valid measure for selection of a candidate, that's false.

If you vote in a caucus state do they count the popular vote, that's false.

If California could count all of their votes, along with New York and Texas and just use the popular vote, how many would that be? 75 million. 1/4 of the total population of the US. If we counted the popular vote, Add a few more like Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois, and you can throw the rest of the US away. Is that what you want.

You should at least look at the ramifications of what you are asking for.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:56:48 GMT

Get 'em, shelton. Facts are very unpopular just now, but they will soak in when we watch Mc Cain stumble around the platform and try to remember what he said a while ago. Sort of like Bush trying to pronounce the word nuclear. Couldn't get it right in eight years.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

orion12 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:12:55 GMT

Good day to you all.

I am so happy this whole mess is coming to an end. You know, the problem is not Hillary or Obama. The problem is us the people. Many of us are too dishonest and or uninformed. Some of us want our candidate to win so badly that we lose all logic. We behave dishonestly or just follow like sheep.

Just for a moment, take a look at Michigan. It is true that the voting was not legal. It is true that Obama and Hillary should not have bothered to put in their names. It is true that the illegal voting did not count. It is true that Obama was not part of it. It is true that the democratic committee declared the voting void and it did not count. So what are we talking about? Michigan and California should not have even entered the debate. Rules are rules. But some of Clinton’s supporters want her to win so badly that they have become consistently dishonest, giving all sorts of weird and foolish arguments, that hold no water.

To make things worse, the wishy-washy attitude of the democratic committee makes me sick. Hillary has blackmailed them with her silly ranting about democracy and basically inciting others to undermine the party. It has been done through clever suggestions that there is no democracy. That in my view was just a ploy by Hillary to get attention. And the committee fell for it. That is sad. You do not apply a rule and then you try to calm down Hillary by changing it. This is what makes politics a dishonest affair. So I think the committee made a real mistake to even entertain Hillary on this Michigan and Florida issue.

I think Hillary has had enough attention. What counts is the delegates. She does not have enough to win. The whole affair was not to count the number of people who voted. And even if that is the case she has not got the most votes. But again with Hillary, she can give wrong information with confidence. This is something that has steered me away from her. She misleads, and does not stop. She just keeps saying it like a mantra until people believe it. Unfortunately people follow for personal reasons. They want to see a woman. They do not want Obama. They want to believe in her. But the truth is this; she is losing and making herself look silly because she is not behaving strategically and honorably.

You know, it may be a good thing Hillary is not going to be president. Look at the way she has managed her campaign. She has thrown away her husband's money, just to win a hopeless competition. She has managed her staff poorly. Now what would she do if she were president? How much would she waste just to satisfy her ambitions, or pride or whatever it is that drives her. Let us compare her, with all the "experience" that she has, to Obama using the campaign as a yardstick. She has been beaten by an underdog. That does not say much for her ability to manage.

And for all of those out there who keep hammering on the experience she has; please, this has been another mantra. She has shown little of substance, based on the documents available. This is again a fact. Hillaryism is a word I have developed from this campaign: It is the art of making people believe what you say is true by repeating it often enough. That is what we have been seeing throughout this campaign. And unfortunately, so many people have believed what they are hearing, without quietly trying to figure it out for themselves. This is why she has come so far.

What is important at this point is to have a president who can make America perform better. I am not criticizing Bush. He has done what he had to do and how he thought it should be done. It is not easy to be president. However, there seems to be a need for a different approach. What attracts many people to Obama is that he appears to be willing to use the resources around him, and he is smart. That is a very important characteristic of a presidential material. Hillary is a bulldozer and I am afraid will use the present approach as Bush. In fact she may end up being too headstrong, and worse; look at her now. McCain may be a good president; who knows. We can only pray for good leadership.

Bottom line: It is good to see this Clinton/Obama race over, we hope in a few days. Then let them try to rectify the mess that has been created so that the real presidential race can start. I think Hillary has made her history.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:25:05 GMT

Don't worry Olderwiser because Ickes and McAuliffe have pretty much assured us that they will drag this fight all the way to the convention. It's going to be a very long summer......

and to think, after the DNC decision I thought it would all be over. Silly me.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

orion12 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:26:28 GMT

The_Shelton,

The points you made are so true. I wish there was more objectivity as yours on this post. Indeed we all have our points of view, but as you said we must look at the hard facts. It appears that what is uttered and often enough ends up being the facts. How sad.

Thank you for your contribution.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

It's Me — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:26:49 GMT

The DNC NEVER asked candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. They never asked it, never demanded it, never suggested it.

It was purely a political decision made by Barack Obama and the other candidates who voluntarily chose, for their own political reasons, to take their names off the Michigan ballot. And they did so with no reason to believe the Michigan popular vote count was going to fall into question as were the Michigan delegates.

Obama confirmed that Michigan's delegate AND popular vote was going to be included in the nomination process when he graciously accepted delegates from Michigan last Saturday despite the fact that "he wasn't even on the ballot."

If Obama had wanted a legitimate claim as the leader in the popular vote in order to gain superdelegate votes, he should have worked harder to win in primaries where popular votes are counted for the record instead of caucus states where popular votes are only "estimated" for the fun of it.

And he shouldh't have taken his name off of any state ballot.

But he did.

You O-bots need to stop whining and crying about having to obey the rules, stop trying to move the goal post all the time and start behaving like adults.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:33:38 GMT

Less than an hour ago I watched CNN (Clinton News Network) white wash the Vanity Fair article and Bill's response to it by dissing the author of the article claiming the sources were anonymous. SSSSOOO???? It's not like we didn't know what Bill did with his affairs in the White House because it's been in every media source for years. So do we really doubt after all these years that the cigar and Monica stuff didn't happen just because Todd didn't name is sources by name tho he did give their positions in relation to Bill. oops said that wrong- meant professional relationships to Bill.

So, the commentators side stepped a question that all of us wonder about.....Do we really want Bill back in the White House with Bill as First Hubby or Second Hubby? Did any body really think he'd change his ways after leaving the White House?

Larry King is discussing it now.....

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:39:13 GMT

Maybe so, loriW, but I swear, I was watching Ickes closely when he said that and there was just the slightest hint that he might not really have had specifically the authority he said that he had. Just a little tentative, it seemed. Further, today would be the day for Hillary to back him up in an effort to intimidate super delegates, and none of that happened. I can't say that you are wrong. But that was the impression that I got watching the TV.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

josemarti — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:40:31 GMT

We Democrats can unite behind Senator Obama. The party of Thomas Jefferson, John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and Richard Daley is big enough to include Father Pflegel, Reverand Wright, and Donna Brazille

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

josemarti — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:40:33 GMT

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:43:31 GMT

Hilllary would be wise to hire an all male secretarial staff. Problem solved.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:46:08 GMT

Bring 'em all in josemarti. They will do a lot better than the crew we had in the white house the past eight years.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:47:28 GMT

Who is Donna Brazille? Does she go to that church, too?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:50:35 GMT

Check out CNN. Seems that Bill lashed out at a reporter who asked him about the Vanity Fair article.

Bill embarrassed himself again. And Hillary still can't figure out why she's losing.....

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

It's Me — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:50:57 GMT

--If someone wins, by only one delegate, do they still win, that's true.--

Well...someone wins the nomination when all of the delegates, including the superdelegates, cast enough votes in the final roll call at the convention for one candidate to reach a pre-determined number of total delegates. Until then, superdelegates can change their vote back and forth from one candidate to another for any reason as often as they want.

--Is the popular vote a valid measure for selection of a candidate, that's false.--

Well...popular vote is a valid and important measure for earning a superdelegate's vote, enough of which will help a candidate reach the pre-determined total delegate number mentioned above.

A lot of people in this country seem to be really confused about the very, very important reason popular votes are counted and recorded in these primaries despite the fact that it is a pre-determined number of total delegates earned at the convention that clinches the nomination.

Popular vote leads are an argument to make to a superdelegate in order to win his vote and then gather enough to reach that pre-determined number of total delegates at the convention.

It really isn't that complicated. Why, if I didn't know better I might be inclined to suspect some people simply don't WANT to understand something so UNcomplicated. For their own reasons.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

deep_eye — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:57:45 GMT

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Billy's got "female troubles" agin. And to think that there are people out there who wanted these two clowns back in the White House...sad, desperately sad.....

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:49:46 GMT

Brazile=Hillary's pal on the committee

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

joywinnie — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:55:26 GMT

Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton. What does it mean if a person is unable to tell the difference?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Alessandro Machi — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:56:15 GMT

lol, I have no idea what I just read. You so overcomplicated it it makes no sense. First off, NOBODY said Obama would have won Michigan, only a few Obama people say that. Secondly, the Obama side cheated in the caucus state voting.

How about you just count all votes and delegates from the primaries and see how they add up? Primaries allow the voter all day to vote, and they get to vote in the privacy of the booth, just the way it's done in the fall during the actual presidential election.

I think you'll find that Hillary leads in that contest.

As for Michigan, BARACK OBAMA MADE A MISTAKE BY TAKING HIS NAME OFF OF THE BALLOT! If Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan ballot and Barack Obama had not, the media would have ridiculed Hillary Clinton for making such a misguided mistake, calling it arrogant and self deluded.

You guys are on a mission and it stinks to high heck to see it play out.

http://www.Hillary-Wins.com

http://www.Florida-Michigan.com

http://www.CaucusCheating.com

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

loriw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:05:56 GMT

The problem is since Hillary has not distanced herself from Bill they are a package deal...If she goes to the White House so will Bill. And then the intern chasing begins all over again...More Bill drama for all the world to laugh at all us Americans about.

Did anyone see the Republican Strategist on CNN 360 call Bill "BIG BAGGAGE"?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Concerned Canadian — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:12:02 GMT

Hussein Obama has misrepresented himself and lied to the American people long enough. Hussein Obama says he resigned from his “church” but what about his beliefs in the Black Liberation Theology taught in this place and he was there for 20 LONG YEARS!!

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.

Moderate Muslims can’t tolerate Obama. Michelle Obama says she’s not proud of her country. She’s waiting for Americans to elect her husband for President before she changes her claim that all Americans are racist. Hussein Obama is close friends with radical, racist disturbing people. This list includes William Ayers, Rev Wright, Rev Moss, Father Pfleger, Farrakhan and not to mention his shady deals with Rezko and Mayor Daley.

Hussein’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Hussein Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Hussein takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.

He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Hussein Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Hussein’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Hussein Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Hussein Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Hussein was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. The terrorists that crashed into the Twin Towers were once all enrolled in the study of Wahabism..just as Hussein Obama was!!

Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Hussein Obama claims to have found “Jesus Christ” in this Trinity United Church in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Be cautious concerning Obama's expected Presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office - he considered to use the Kuran, not the Holy Bible, ( Kuran is Muslim ‘Bible’ but very different beliefs) Hussein also refuses to pledge allegiance to the USA flag.

How can the DNC let this guy slip through the cracks? Hussein Obama is not electable.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Flash Drive — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:13:21 GMT

I am a Democrat who feels the best candidate to lead us to victory is Hillary. Forgetting all the negativity and media bias against Hillary, I was strongly inclined to vote Democratic in November regardless who is the nominee, but all this has changed. The more I learn about Obama, the more I realise that I don't know him.He( like Bush) wishes to project himself as a uniter but does the totally opposite. His character is very questionable and to make matter worst his supporters never fail to attack Hillary and her supporters.

Come November me and my entire family will be voting for McCain.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Concerned Canadian — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:14:48 GMT

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.

How can the DNC let this guy slip through the cracks? Hussein Obama is not electable.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

hannahsister — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:32:16 GMT

As long as we're assuming, we have to assume (my opinion, of course) that some of the Undecided's in MI were voting for Edwards, Biden, etc. Not just Obama. According to the rules, I understand that the delegates representing these votes (if they only knew how many were for which candidates), are supposed to be able to choose for themselves who they'll support once their candidates drop out of the race. Another assumption seems to have been made that all of those non-voters who didn't show up at the polls because they were told their votes wouldn't count, are Obama supporters. The frail elderly, people working two jobs, the disabled, many others--many of them Clinton supporters--may not have showed up at the polls where their votes wouldn't count. I believe the principles Sen. Clinton uses in calculating her lead in the popular vote are sound. Certainly as sound as the delegate count which included a good many 'preference delegates' awarded for urban votes. I forget how they put it--well, maybe it was something like, a 'reward for traditionally Democratic voters.' Anyway, it's not really a good, comparable test for getting the most electoral college votes in the General Election. The popular vote should be just as good a test, to say the least.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Alamerica — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:44:11 GMT

Clinton is dumb and evil; Obama is smart and evil. If Clinton and Obama are the only two cards on the table of the Democratic Party, the party shall soon be over.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

It's Me — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:23:36 GMT

As long as there was a "Not Yet Committed" option on the ballot instead of "None of the Above", it can also be assumed some of the people who choose that option were not quite yet committed to voting for Hillary Clinton either, but became more committed about it during the campaign process.

In fact,the very wording, "Not Yet Committed", indicates that those Michigan voters could reasonably assume they would have an opportunity to commit to a primary candidate at some future date.

Giving Barack Obama more than 20% of the available Michigan delegates was a travesty. Giving him ANY credit for Michigan's popular vote after voluntarily opting out of that count in order to pander for more votes in Iowa and New Hampshire was a disgrace.

Does Hillary get a few more delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire because she DIDN'T take her name off Michigan's ballot in order to pander for them?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Achilles22 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:42:24 GMT

The olive branch was extended to the Clinton campaign when Obama had the votes to secure a 50/50 split in Michigan but opted to offer a compromise in agreeing to 69-59. That should tell you a lot about a losing campaign's inability to recognize reality. The "event" in Michigan was not a primary by any stretch of the imagination and neither candidate should receive any delegates if you want to be technical according to DNC rules. So Ickes and the Clintonites have their heads up their asses to complain at all about Michigan. BTW - what they really want is zero delegates out of MI. Ridiculous.

Any true leader would recognize it was not a fair contest - I hold my eight year old to that standard so I am forced to hold a Presidential candidate to the same standard.

Get real folks.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

ChrisLPNM — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:54:04 GMT

I don't understand why why we are still talking about this. The compromise over Michigan was passed by the the rules committee by a margin of 19 to 8. There are 13 members on the committee who have endorsed Clinton. That means over a third of her own supporters on the committee thought the compromise was fair. And you know what, they were right.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

jrain — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:13:15 GMT

To all Clinton Supporters who are touting Clinton won the popular vote: The point of making this claim is to convince the superdelegates that Clinton will actually win in November regardless of the delegate count. Please remember, all of the states – INCLUDING the CAUCUS STATES - will be voting in November – as well as all the MI people who chose not to vote for Clinton in the primary and instead checked “uncommitted.” They will also be voting in November. These are the relevant numbers.

Therefore, in order to convince me that the popular vote from the primary has some sort of foretelling meaning for November, I would have to calculate the popular vote from all of the states – primary and caucus – and the uncommitted votes from MI. I am quite certain the superdelegates will follow the same logic, concluding that Obama leads in the RELEVANT popular vote as well as the delegates. Therefore, the popular vote argument from Clinton will not sway the superdelegates to change their tune to Clinton. I hope you all will try to understand this reasoning and come to terms with the fact that in a democracy, majority rules and in this case, although many had a tough time making the decision between two fantastic candidates, Obama just got more votes. Trust me, I spoke to many people who had a very hard time making their voting decision in the primaries. It was not out of hate for Clinton and it was not rooted in a lack of respect for women. Most people just concluded that Obama would make a better candidate on the merits. I would be as mad as all of you are if my candidate didn’t win and I might even be reaching as far as all of you are for evidence of a sham. But I hope that I would come to terms with my anger and have trust that a fair voting process had occurred and have trust that things will be ok.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

cbaker31222 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:34:08 GMT

Ah yes, Andrew Romano's latest cult offering for Obama. Worship Obama and destroy and excoriate anyone who stands in his way. I recall Romano's ten page article on how brilliant Obama's fonts and layouts are on his campaign signs. (Yes, I'm not making that up.) It was then that I knew he wasn't just drinking the Obama Kool Aid, but swimming around in it.

So Andrew and other cult members, you are likely not old enough to remember the blind worship of George McGovern too. But we all know how that turned out, no matter what our age. I just have one piece of advice: you can minimize, discount, insult, disparage us all you want, but there are 17 million plus Clinton voters out there, and it would be most unwise to continue pretending like we don't exist.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Crush — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:16:02 GMT

"If Hillary Clinton is so great, she'll do what's right and her followers will back the Democratic nominee. If not...we'll all know precisely why she lost and the immeasurable damage inflicted on the Democratic party.

We often learn more from defeat than victory. Bitter battles lost should never be allowed to outweigh the war.

Some times putting others before self becomes the difference between victory and defeat." -- Steve Ford

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

olderwiser — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:31:53 GMT

I always wondered where the saying came from, "you can't beat a dead horse to death". It had to have been coined before we started riding motors. I think that it refers to hashing an issue long past its life. It seems so sad to me that people ever beat horses at all. They are probably the ones who abuse automobiles these days, a much more humane form of abuse, for a motor has no feelings. Sometimes I have no feeling any more about this issue. It has been dead now for some time. The buzzards are circling over it. They know that it is dead, also, and they are hungry. If you own a horse and if it is dead and if the buzzards are circling it, then you need a shovel, not a resuscitator. Or, at least you could burn it and call it cremation. Otherwise, when the buzzards finish the bleached bones in the sun will dishonor your faithful steed and remind you for many years of your endless grief, alive long past its reasonable duration. Politics move fast and you have to move fast to keep up. The republicans are rubbing their hands together and smirking at our disillusionment hoping to profit from our grief. Let's bury this horse, turn around and together knock the crap out of their ruinous policies.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

mev47 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:35:40 GMT

Posted By: cbaker31222 (June 3, 2008 at 7:34 AM)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, don't act like they're not 17 million plus Obama supporters also. Let's get together and make it 35Million democrats!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

tired and old — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:35:24 GMT

EVIL WITCHES NEVER DIE, THEY GO BACK TO WATCHING IF OPPONENT GETS ASSASSINATED.

HER WITCHES BREW HAS FAILED HER.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

HolyRoller — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:39:42 GMT

whitey alert!!!...whitey alert!!!...whitey alert!!!...whitey alert!!!...whitey alert!!!...

Is There a Shocking Michelle Obama Recording?

Monday, June 2, 2008 4:34 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

An untold story lies behind Hillary Clinton???s determination to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination ??? the possible revelation of a shocking recording of rival Barack Obama???s wife Michelle.

That???s the word from longtime political analyst Roger J. Stone Jr., who writes on his The StoneZONE Web site that the recording purportedly documents Michelle Obama making racist comments in a speech.

According to Stone, Hillary aides are in a race with Republicans to get their hands on the offensive recording.

???On the heels of Michelle Obama???s quote that she ???has never been proud of her country??? until now, the new controversy could turn the contest upside down, but it more likely??? to benefit ???John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination ??? if the alleged recording exists,??? Stone writes.

He also asserts that Mark Penn, Clinton???s former chief campaign strategist, has told sources that the bombshell ???could come this week.???

Looks like The Great Unifier and his Cruella DeVille(w/a tan) sweetie, are about to finish off his hopes of being POTUS. I told ya'll this over a week ago. Hold on to your burqua's. IT'S COMING!!!

NOBAMA!!!

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

JimF — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:16:38 GMT

I enjoy the inconsistency (hypocrisy?) of the Obama supporters in the media: We must interpret the rules absolutely strictly -- but then ignore the rules in Michigan because, well, it wouldn't be fair.

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan because he VOLUNTARILY removed his own name to curry favor with the powers in NH and Iowa. The DNC did not require it and the Michigan Democratic party did not require it. Obama wants it both ways; Obama got the full benefit of kissing up to the big wigs in NH and Iowa, yet wants to also get the benefit of having his name on the ballot in Michigan -- and more; he has the audacity to want all the votes he might have gotten, plus the votes Edwards would have gotten, plus delegtes that voters gave Clinton.

Moreover, the Newsweek totals appear to include un-reported votes in Democratic caucuses. We don't know what those votes were. We don't even know for sure that Obama got a majority of the votes in caucuses he won (hold on. I know that sounds bizarre) -- witness Nevada where Clinton won the majority of votes yet lost the delegate count to Obama.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Achilles22 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:34:47 GMT

Jim F -

The rules application disqualifies ALL delegates from MI for going early. The COMPROMISE was exactly that - a compromise. Did you know that Obama had the votes to get a 50/50 split for MI - he offered the olive branch and those morons still bitched about losing 4 deleagtes.

Please. You people kill me.

I would ground my eight year old for claiming he won something when there was NO contest for it.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

philosophus — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:53:17 GMT

As Aristotle observed rightly, man is a "logikon", "politikon" "zoon". The "logikon" matures when man alows TRUTH (not prejudice, not any unexamined alliance) to illumine and guide his mind in all things.

The "politikon" ordinarily refers to the dynamics of power and domination. But essentially, it refers to the fact that a human being lives in a society (polis) with others.

So, to be truly human one should be considerate, just, fair, and honest in all things.

"Zoon" refers to the biological in a human existent.

The "logikon" illumined by truth helps him/her to coordinate his biological and socio-political instincts. To allow instincts alone to determine ones life is to fall short of humanity and deep into existential chaos.

In a situation where "every option is on the table" this article stylishly invites one to examine a claim rationally that one may avoid being victim of a calculated manupulation.

Independent of one's political instinct, truth is supreme.

I salute Mr Romano.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

griffin1 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:00:16 GMT

Congrats to Obama 08'

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Johnsonium — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:16:24 GMT

If Hilary was the best chance for a female presidency, then I'm not sure if there will ever be a woman president. By whining about her loss, you simply reinforce the stereotype some men have about women and politics. By crying boo hoo and trying to take your ball home, you are turning everyone off and making it less likely that a woman will get a serious shot in the future.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Concerned Canadian — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:44:36 GMT

How can Hussein Obama reach the number tonight when 63 delegates he received for free from Michigan shouldn't count ?

The DNC rigged the whole thing for him to win. If I was Hillary Clinton...I'd be steamed..heck anyone in her shoes would be steamed. The DICTATORS NATIONAL CONGRESS in the dumb Dem party will fall like all dictatorships have before.

Enjoy your " empty" win Hussein Obama. Hide Michelle too....she'll be your doom.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

It's Me — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:10:27 GMT

Looks like about 350 superdelegates have decided to shirk their responsiblity to review the data collected during the nomination process and choose the strongest general election candidat vs John McCain.

I hope whatever magic he supposedly possesses, but which I have yet to see or hear, can overcome the fact that those 350 superdelegates have just nominated Barack McGovern Mondale to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Ganpat — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:18:09 GMT

Hillary should run as an Independent.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Concerned Canadian — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:20:35 GMT

Run as independent Hillary. Lou Dobbs will make your rivals look stupid.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

DrKnow — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:39:01 GMT

Mr.Romano simply reaffirms what we all know to be the truth. And consequently the cards didnt not land in Clintons favor. These claims of a popular vote majority are not rooted in the true primary results but in what she "thinks" should count and what shouldnt, all though it is creative, it simply just is not the truth. The system was built on strict principal intended to maintain the integrity of the election and it not your place or hers to try and bend the rules in your favor. Would you have the same complaints if the situation was reversed? This I doubt. Barack Obama is the nominee, he is a extraordinary individual and I am confident he will do us proud in November.

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Redboy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:36:50 GMT

Hillary Clinton's army of 18 million voters are not all Democrats. Potentially thousands of them are Republicans whom Hillary has allowed to be a voice through her camp. She needs to shut it down.

People in that group who are strong Democrats are going to vote Democrat and those in that same group, who came over to her for ulterior reasons, are Republicans who are going to vote Republican.

I believe for every true Democrat that decides to vote for John McCain, Barack will bring one Republican over to vote Democratic in November.

Hillary Clinton is sick. She is ruining a very historical event in her life. She's acting like a spoiled brat. (To be kind).

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

killik — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:28:56 GMT

If Hillary wanted her votes counted in Michigan and Florida she should have stated this throughout all her campaign. She didn't !

There was a previous discussion by the Dems in how to validate these votes by going through a second electoral process tp make these states voting legitimate. Hillary didn't say a word about this possibility.

When the statistics showed that Obam's had got an insurmountable lead, to her advantage he stopped campaigning against her, and this gave her a final boost.

Few days before the Primaries ended she claims victory by granting herself FL and MI votes.

If this is not cheating, I don't know what is !

Hill's fans are asking her to go Independent !

And to transform herself into a second Ralph Nader ?

This is how she wants to end her Political career and legacy ?

re: Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*

Concerned Canadian — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:10:27 GMT

The people in Florida and Michigan wanted to have their votes counted.....don't confuse this with your imaginary Hillary Clinton's plan to bypass the DNC committee. We all know how popular the DNC is in Florida and Michigan now.