Hope this poll works.....

Hillary Clinton has indicated she is staying in the race until all the votes are counted. The math doesn't work for her, and there just doesn't at this point seem to be a way for her to win. Been a lot of theories posed about why she's still there. Interested in hearing some from y'all here. So, the question for debate is....

Why is Hillary staying in the race for the Democrat nomination?


Aquilla

The poll is not a bad one- I had a hard time picking from the list though- I am not sure why she is staying in the race- I can't imagine that she thinks she can win, and that she is THAT blindly ambitious- I mean, she may be evil- but I have never picked her for stupid?

If Obama wins in 08- there is no way in hell she will have a chance in 2012- because he will either do a good enough job to get re-elected- or the country will elect a republican (go Ron Paul- hey, at least he is better than Fred Thompson- and went farther ) - but the best she could hop for is a 2016- long ways off now!

I can't imagine she would be given a post in the Obama administration, I think she has beat that horse to death-

so, only thing I can think of is blind ambition?

I personally think Hillary thinks she can still win and even though I support Obama I can't blame her. There is always the chance that he can somehow slip-up or say something foolish, but I refuse to believe that she is daft enough to think she can win with the lead in delegates. She also has put so much time and effort including her own money into this campaign so she might as well keep going until the well drys up.

The reason I put the 2012 option in is because of a theory currently being floated by I think Dick Morris. His theory is that Hillary is attempting to prevent Obama from winning the general election in 2008 by so damaging him as a candidate that he won't possibly be able to beat McCain. A lot of people, including Republicans and McCain supporters think that McCain might not run for re-election in 2012 and that would open the door for Hillary to try again, this time with a "I told you so. You should have picked me the last time" kind of a thing. Pretty Machiavellian to be sure, but then again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton.


Aquilla

That is pretty machiavellian - true- however- also beyond realistic with someone as much savvy in the political scene as Hillary. She is certainly politically sophisticated enough to know that if there is no candidate from the Dems elected in 08, and McCain does well- then her hopes go away- if McCain is really McSame, and performs as badly as GW, then I could see it- but she is also sophisticated enough- I am sure enough anyway- to know that "wildcards" like Obama can happen to either party. Too many variables, too many what ifs.

I am sure she has read 'the Prince" as well.

If anything, I am leaning more towards the answer of "if she can't do it now, she can never do it, and she is desperate enough to take anyone down the tubes with her"

Actually no we're not talking about hillary we're talking about Dick Morris who is hanging on to a thread about his prediction that Hillary would be President in '08.

I think the old broad really thinks she's going to win this thing.

Dick Morris has been running around crowing that the primary is over for weeks now - he does think that Hillary is staying in to damage BO, who'll lose, then she'd try again in four years.

I don't believe all that - I think she still thinks the SDs can come through, and that the next few primaries (except for OR) could give her momentum to do so.

Well we all know how democrats treat losers in their party, don't hear much from Kerry anymore do ya? But in either case I can't see her chances being too well with an, "I told ya so arguement. I also think that if McCain did somehow get elected over the democratic nominee and he did a decent job he'd be back for another 4 years. If Obama won the general election and made good on even a few of his promises then he'd be a shoe in for another 4 years.

I say she is in to win! She will win large in WV, KY and PR and do fair in the other remaining races. Her popular vote (50 state & territories) will exceed Obama's. It will be off to the convention and there she will either win or assure that as many of her supporters as possible walk away with her. She will win or the party and Obama will lose, simple as that.

Well its nice to see that her supporters are in the same mindset as her, which isn't a sane one. The facts are however, that you could give her 100% of those 3 states delegates and all Obama would have to do is beat her somewhat in the others and he would still win the most delegates. Your argument is the same as hers, fluff and and based upon the things dreams are made of. The question is who Obama surrounds himself with, neither he nor Clinton will run this country on their own. Now who would you prefer democrats running the country or another 4 years of good ol' GW, if your answer is McCain then your not a democrat but instead a person who is angry they didn't get thier way. Thats why more Obama supporters would vote for Hillary we think logical and not on feeling.

She has the popular vote after everyone has voted. As far as state delegates are concerned Obama may claim state delegate gains in states where Clinton won the state in popular vote due to the caucus states, TX for example. The folks like to see the popular vote to be followed verses caucuses. Looks pretty gloomy right now but next week and the week following Obama may look really bad with the losses in WV and KY. Obama has played the game with the two missing states and now when it is apparent that Hillary ends up with the popular vote and all he has is an empty suit and arm twisted caucus delegates to raise him up to her level the folks will say, hey I can have a V-8.

hey- um, what happened to those other predictions you made about NC and Indiana there Zack-a-roo?

You must be a victim of new, new, fuzzy, fuzzy math Zack.

Obama currently leads Clinton in pledged delegates 1591 to 1426. He is now within two super delegates of overtaking Clinton’s once substantial lead 270 to 272.

Democratic Delegate Count

In popular vote, Obama will still lead Clinton by about 200,000 votes, even if Florida and Michigan break Clinton’s way.

Democratic Popular Vote

The African America community let me down, I thought more would feel hurt by Obama's outing of his reverend. I thought the Afro American vote would split 80-20 but it went 91-09. But the Afro American community cannot let me down in WV, KY and PR because regardless of how they swing it won't make a difference. I'll remind you of the article of the minister in Philly that was displeased with Obama in the other thread, I guess we were both let down.

Ahh so this week with the Hillary campaign its the popular vote that counts. We all know thats not going to happen and that what you are describing is a big stretch. The supers are going to decide the nomination and from this weeks results its easy to predict which way that will swing. WV isn't a surprise to anyone and neither is KY they all know he is gonna lose those states and they still proclaim Obama the nominee, even edwards knows the math. No superdelegate is going to go with the formula that you've provided because its a bogus way of thinking. No insult to you I just can't believe that you think that you somehow have come up with the possibility that she is going to win this way and THEY are the ones who can't see it. If your theory was in some way important I am sure she wouldn't be in the position that she is in. When she loses the nomination Obama won't need a V-8...The taste of victory will be so much sweeter...

You need to get rid of that crystal ball, Zack. I can't think of one prediction you've made since coming here that's actually been true.

Dick Morris's observation is far fetched to say the least, the Clintons although competitive (possibly to a fault), are not so reckless with the country's future that they would risk it on proving an abstract point. He might should put his jaded and exaggerated legends about them aside when making his predictions.

As for this topic, Zach her path is a difficult one. She is very likely to lose this campaign for a number of reasons including:

A: She cannot win WV and KY by a wide enough popular vote margin (150,000 as a blind estimate)
B: PR doesn't show like she needs it too (200,000 again as a blind estimate)
C: She seats the FL and MI delegates foolishly and causes Obama to reach his goal.
D: She cannot nullify SD and OR enough to make Reason "A" worthwhile.

therefore she must put everything she has in it by taking KY and WV with authority.



I disagree, I think she has a possible chance of sneaking out with a popular vote total or two. Taking the popular vote wouldn't matter if it were the Republican Party. They didn't have to face the notion of receiving the most votes yet not taking office in a systematic mathematical loophole. But thankfully for her, this is the Democratic party. The same party who complained endlessly about how the will of the people was subverted over a faceless systematic process. Fast forward eight years later and they might be in a similar paradoxical situation with one candidate with more indirectly processed votes but less actual people voting for them. Clinton's case (if she got this far) would be to remind them of the hypocrisy of being the Democratic Party while ignoring the will of the true democratic process, a popular vote. She could question how Howard Dean could deny the true will of the people for the sake of appeasing a demographic in the general election. Clinton could then could go on to bash the democratic primary process as undemocratic, serving as a spoils system for democrats who live in safe districts while ignoring the marginal ones who have the misfortune to live in a usually Republican state. If (assuming) she does come out with the popular vote intact never mind how you could take it away from Obama, how could you take it away from her?
Because at the end of the day, the process was created to better gauge the will of the people as they thought it would be more "democratic". Of course this only happens if Obama gets caught in a malaise of assuming he's the nominee while trusting incompetent pundits to bury Clinton for him. The worst mistake for Obama to make would be being blinded by a delegate count long enough for her to make another powerful arguement of the popular vote. He must stay on point and not concede an inch of WV/KY to her. He does well in places he campaigns, if he wants to end this now, why not end it now?


That was a very odd statement from an Obama supporter...

Hillary will win Puerto Rico by nearly a million votes, don't they kind of wipe out the fuzzy math? Even with caucus states, FL & MI removed Obama is ahead 700,000. She will take positive votes in WV & KY that will more than overtake the gains Obama will get in the remaining states, so if you consider FL and MI, as Hillary supporters will she will have won by a landslide on popular vote.

Is there any reason you think that Clinton will be able to pull one million net votes out of Puerto Rico? The turnout for the 2004 general election proved to be nearly 2,000,000. By that estimate, she would have to win by 50 percentage points which stretches the limits of realism. I think a better Clinton friendly estimate would be:

PR Primary Vote:
Turnout 1,400,000
Clinton: 798,000 (57%)
Obama: 602,000 (43%)
Difference: 196,000 (Clinton)

Which is still a nice pickup to make late in the game.

Yes, there are 4.4 million registered voters and she has 60% support now by the polls. I think Obama is in the 30% level. Turnout in the last race was over 85% and this year will be in the 90%'s

Actually, http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml puts the number around 2 million. In addition, there were only 2,000,000 voters for the 2004 General election. (Source:http://www.ceepur.org/ [get babelfish ready]) The population is around 4,000,000.

Well if we wanted to go by some of the voters that Obama has picked up by the majority it would be college educated folks. I would hope and somewhat know from personal experience we think from a more logical perspective. But that is another debate in itself. His whole campaign of change is more then just a feeling people get, it comes from seeing where our current politics have gotten us and knowing they aren't a good place to be at the moment. Spending more money in foreign countries instead of our own homeland, being stuck in a war that there is no beneficial reason to be in(unless you're a pal of GW). If I think systematically what will get us the most change and get us out of this mess somewhat that leads me to a democratic president no matter who they happen to be. I personally think Obama supporters as is proven in polls see that and thats why we would still vote for Hillary. About every tidbit of info I have seen from Clinton supporters has been a wild rant about why if thier candidate doesn't get the nomination they would go for McCain. You can go by the slim chance shes gets the popular vote, but if she doesn't get it then she will make up some other reason that she is the best choice. I used to like Hillary but I think on common sense and watching her change the game week after week to make things seem like they are in her favor makes her seem power crazy. In either case I hope we can all come together for the common purpose. Dems Unite!

These predictions that I am hearing are ridiculous in either case, a million? Get real thats a fairy tale my friend.

But much of his support came from those who had an emotional response to his message of change. They believed that could change how Washington conducts business and that he truly cares about everyone that votes for him. Your post in itself could be constructed as your support of Obama based off how you feel about both candidates.

I believe that Zack is high on the "audacity of some good dope"

1 million votes in PR for Hillary? You got to be freakin' kiddin, or high. I am going with high, based on previous posts.

I think that Hillary's starting to feel it though- her tone was VERY conciliatory last night, not so much attack, attack, attack. She promised to stay to the end yadda yadda - but you could pretty much read it in her body language and speech yesterday.

I am betting we have a locked in candidate before June.

I think my crystal ball needs some of what Zack's crystal ball is smokin?

Under Clinton's rules, Obama still wins

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080510/...aOUv22.zF9h24cA

If Clinton managed a split in Oregon -- a state Obama is heavily favored to win -- he would still need only 35 percent of the delegates in Puerto Rico to clinch a lead in earned delegates.

Zack- you are as irrational in your predictions as a florida native claiming the Marlins are going to go all the way to the series based on thier past performance.

I agree man and I see from my response that it was somewhat passionate and based upon feeling. It would only be sensible to say I was wrong and acting alittle closed minded at the moment, lol.
Either way I just want a democrat in office.

I disagree with the central idea that either candidate is being elected on "logic" or "emotion"- ALL THREE candidates have a theme of "change"- they are all running against the status quo at this time.

If you want logic NO president in my adult life has EVER completed his agenda, or was able to get through even some of the most basic talking points of the campaign.

for instance- ronald reagan ran on less goverment and anti-abortion. He made no progress on either- and, in fact, GREW goverment- exponentially.

It would be irrational AND illogical to think that any candidate can really ram thier agenda through.

Obama nor Hillary would probably be able to get health care reform through in thier first cycle of the presidency- and McCain doesnt' even give a rat's fanny about it.

What we do have is a rejection of conservative ideology that failed that is driving BOTH of thier campaigns, and galvanizging voters- just as it was the logical end of the liberal agenda of Jimmy Carter that drove the neo-cons to the polls and changed the landscape of American politics- obviously for the worse- but there it was anyway.

So what you really have is "which candidate, ® or (D) is going to most fervrently reject GWs policies"

So- for Hillary- it is desperation I think- this is her one and only chance, and she knows it.

I agree but only partially though , it was kind of a bad idea to run a grassroots candidate with a message of change who happened to be a african-american against a woman running on experience. I do think that alot of these voters do vote on certain things whether they be voting the first woman into office or the first bi-racial candidate and to say that voters wouldn't vote off of emotion is wrong as I previously admitted before. These kind of candidates could only stir up emotion for alot of people as well as logical thinkers. I think my whole argument of logic wasn't explained as well as I intended. I mainly meant to say that as a democrat it would be beneficial to vote for the democratic nominee and not let emotion get in the way of what needs to be done.

My bad! OK, 2 million turned out at 2004 so let's say more will turn out this year, let's estimate 2.2 million and the vote goes 35-65% Clinton... Do the math.

If Hillary is pinning her hopes of obtaining the nomination based on a primary in Puerto Rico, that fat lady is singing right now. It's over.

Aquilla

Saying Hispanics don't count is like saying white working class don't count. I guess the drama will play out over the next three weeks and views from different voting blocks will be quite the opposite. If she doesn't throw in the towel after OR as many expect her to then it will go to the convention with the million plus PR votes in her pocket. If she loses she writes a book and gets her millions back that she invested in her campaign and she still has her day job. Obama won't win though, which is good for you since McCain will undoubtedly win on the issues alone against a fractured Democratic Party.

I didn't say "Hispanics don't count". I said the pinning one's hopes on the votes in a territorial primary is a real stretch. Hell, Obama won Guam! Are you saying the Pacific Islanders don't count?

But, hey. By all means keep the food fight going! I've got some left over Tri-Tip marinade to donate to the cause. Vinegar, grapeseed oil, water and some secret herbs and spices...


Aquilla

There are more Puerto Ricans living in the United States than live in Puerto Rico so if they are trashed in PR Obama will be trashed in the general election by the same tribe.

Well seeing how I am half puerto rican and my father as well as the majority of family is as well I am going to make a statement. Now this statement in no way can reflect other millions of hispanics but barely anyone in my family is supporting Hillary. Once again I know this doesn't reflect the whole race but I am sick of people saying she has all of the hispanic vote. Even if she does have the hispanic vote you have to think of the different hispanic races mexican, dominican, etc. There is no guarantee that she will win puerto rico by that large of a margin. He does have some hispanic support and probably even more after his Richardson endorsement. You are doing alot of guess work man but none of it seems very solid. I don't know if you are a democrat or not but if you are then you should vote for the democratic nominee no matter who wins, I can't see old McCain proving too strong with his weak arguments against Obama. Rev Wright has been played out if Obama picks a running mate with a good amount of experience then that argument will go out of the window again. Once again this is just an opinion based upon what I've seen.

I was wrong to say Puerto Ricans will punish Obama in the general election cycle if he were to trash the importance of the Puerto Rican primary, what I should have said is the Hispanic support could change if he did so. Puerto Ricans will always support the Democratic candidate regardless who it is. My point is that McCain is strong with Hispanics, especially Mexican origin Hispanics due to his stance on immigration and Obama is weak and to dismiss Hispanic vote in Puerto Rico could throw the Hispanic vote in FL (Cuban) and CA and other states toward McCain. I think Obama will take a beating in Puerto Rico and he better smile when Clinton points it out.

If Obama cannot win on the first ballot, which is still possible, then there is a chance of a brokered convention and she clearly feels that gives here a chance to become the nominee. We still have several states coming up, we have Mich/Fla, we have some SuperDel, and Edwards has still not endorsed someone and tried to steer his 19 delegates' votes....

Also, as she is older than Obama, she feels she only has so many chances left.

Hillary is expected to win big in West Virginia and Obama has pretty much conceded the state to her. She will use the victory to blunt a week's worth of negative buzz and further proclaim it lends credence to her claim she is the best candidate to win with blue-collar White voters.

It won't be enough to swing the momentum away from Obama and the general drift of the superdelegates from her to him. But it'll be the first good news the Clinton campaign has had in a week so they'll take it. For what it's worth though it's similar to when Obama won Wyoming after losing badly to Clinton in Ohio. It was a moral victory, but didn't change the dynamics of the race at all. The same thing will happen with West Virginia and Kentucky when they go Clinton's way.

If anything it may bolster the possibility of Obama having to consider her seriously for the number #2 spot on the ticket or making a deal to help settle her $20 million dollar campaign debt.

The DNC rules committee meets later this month, but it is unlikely they are going to change the present situation with the Michigan and Florida delegations in a way that favors Clinton. She will insist upon them being seated, but as Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, she's going to have a tough time pushing that through. Hillary doesn't have a lot of leverage unless she agrees to end her campaign in exchange for a favorable deal on Florida and possibly Michigan.

I have to say quick, that if John Edwards didn't endorse before the North Carolina primary when it could have done Clinton or Obama the most good, even with his 19 delegates, whether or not he throws them to one side or the other loses importance as every day passes. Whether or not he releases his delegates, eventually they may begin to break away from Edwards on their own.



Agreed. She may be hoping if Obama flames out in November, the party will come crawling back to her in 2012, but I have my doubts of the viability of that strategy.

Why is Hillary staying in the race? The poll on this topic indicates that a majority seem to think she wants to win and I must agree. I think there is a very good possibility for a momentum move starting this evening as the results come in from the WV primaries. Leading up to this race is a lot of talk about the Reagan democrats and how no Democrat has won the presidency without carrying WV. Most news outlets are talking about a win of 25% by Hillary but what if she takes this state by a 60-40 or even a 75-25%? Such a victory could result in an equal victory in KY next week. Oregon has voted weeks ago since they use mail in method and will undoubtedly go for Obama... Yet, SD could go 50-50 or much closer than the polls show today and MT could swing to Hillary with the momentum as she goes into Puerto Rico. Take a look at the polls for each state here with momentum in mind as you look at the undecided voters. What do you think, could such a disaster for Obama make him wear two flag pins and play pool day and night? How many of you that contributed votes on the poll want to change your vote on the poll? She's in it to win and MI and FL will be talked up after each Clinton super win!

Quick link to the poll source: http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php

Everyone knows Clinton will win big in WV. Superdelegates have still been flocking to Obama despite the fact that they know she will win big in WV. If she believes that a big win is going to convince the superdelegates of something other than what they already know, then she's got another think coming. There is no momentum that will be built because everyone knows that she can't pick up the necessary delegates to catch up.

Actually, the question in the poll asks if she thinks she can win. I think everyone here would agree that she wants to win. But why does she think she can win? Hillary Clinton is a smart politician, there is no question about that and being a smart politician it would seem she would be able to read the hand-writing on the wall against her winning the nomination. So, the question becomes for those who have voted in the poll that she thinks she can win (and I must admit I'm surprised by the numbers that voted that way), why? What does she know that nobody else knows? She must see a path somewhere to the nomination that nobody else sees. I'll tell you one thing. If I were on the Obama team I'd be losing sleep right about now, wondering just what the Hell Hillary is up to. Since I'm not on the Obama team, I sleep rather well at night dreaming of what piece of food the Clinton campaign is going to toss next.

Aquilla

Many of the delegates Obama has were earned not by votes but by caucuses and everyone knows that, the MI and FL "real votes" for Hillary are "real votes" and everyone knows that. Obama has been between "everyone knows" and the "real votes" Hillary has won and everyone knows that. Everyone knows that Obama was chosen by "the party" and not the people. My point is that his caucus votes are not equal to votes actually earned by a candidate from voters.

Super delegates will decide the nomination along with the press but Hillary will absolutely look cheated from her supporters point of view. She will have more popular votes by the end of the races, and she will have more actual voter votes than Obama. I see her arguing these points in the convention regardless what the super delegates do, and if they try to kick her in the crotch on the 20th she will take her support with her.

Are they? They're "real votes" when the other candidate wasn't even on the ballot? You might be able to make the case for Florida, but not Michigan.



Even with Florida and Michigan counted, Obama is ahead in the popular vote, so that notion is a bit absurd.



Really? And where does it say that in the rulebook?



It is highly unlikely that she will have the majority popular vote by the end of the races. Actual voter votes? But what about the actual non-voter voters who didn't vote but would've liked to have voted? Why aren't they represented in your Alice in Wonderland view of the Democratic race?



Ah, and what brand of looking glass do you see that in?



She sees getting Michigan and Florida counted. This is why she will not drop out until after the Rules & Bylaws Committee meets. She will continue until she can't possibly continue any further. Once her insincere plea to have the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida heard is rejected, she will wait until the last primary is over and then back out.

You give him the title of Uncommitted so he can lay claim to their delegates. I'm not in the business of reassigning votes simply for "fairness". The best that can be done is that the Unc vote can be split by using exit polls.

So, Clinton should get the benefit of going against her word not to participate in that campaign? The best that could be done was that the legislature and the governor should not have moved the primary after accepting the rules. Both Clinton and Obama signed a pledge not to participate in that primary. She justified staying on the ballot and going against her pledge by saying that the primary didn't count. So, it seems to me that the only "fair" thing to do is to hold Clinton to her word... the Michigan primary doesn't count toward choosing the nominee.

And if the DNC allowed MI to be seated in some arrangement then they must obviously have had a change of heart which is not uncommon for them.* In which case, Obama should still get votes/delegates representative of the margin he would have most likely pulled (35%). It's would be as if his name was on the ballot and is the only thing that can be done to satisfy (relatively) all parties involved.

*I'm not suggesting this is what should happen, merely that the DNC can go superimpose their own rulings when its in the best interest of the party.

Have had a change of heart? Have they allowed MI to be seated? When did that happen? And can you please provide the DNC rule mentioned in the articles? I don't know what rule they are referring to?

That margin is now very slim. Obama has an 83,000 vote lead as of last night if you include Florida and Michigan. Source: RCP Now, 238,000 people in Michigan voted "Undecided", which could be interpreted as Obama so that would push his margin to 321,000. However, that is not insurmountable for Clinton.

Why is Hillary staying in the race?

I think Hillary believes she can win. Winning the popular vote is the first step. She must then convince the Supers that Obama cannot win. The trick is that she can't do this publicly. It must be one on one discussions between her camp and the Superdelegates. Many may not buy her bill of goods, but she must try.

The thing that just about every pundit forgets is that Superdelegates are free to switch FROM Obama TO Clinton, just as some have switched FROM Hillary to Obama. This crucial point is overlooked by everyone that it saying "it is over". It isn't over until the Supers pull the lever (or drop a rock in a box or whatever) for Obama.

Assuming she pulls ahead in the popular vote, her next hurdle would be convincing the Supers that Obama's chances of winning are lower than her own. She does this by highlighting Obama's failure to win the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, and Florida and the increasingly apparent failure to secure blue collar white voters.

In West Virginia last night, fewer than one in four whites voted for Obama. He lost by a whopping 41 points despite being the clear frontrunner. He lost every single county in the state. Heck, he's lost nearly every county from central Virginia all the way over to Dayton, Ohio. These are votes any Democrat will need to win these states and the White House.

Hillary's other angle is the Electoral College. Like most Democratic Presidential nominees in recent years, Clinton isn't winning the most states, but she is winning the big states. Salon presented this argument last month. My current tally has Mrs. Clinton at 294 votes if you went by the winner-takes-all electoral college system that is used to elect the President.

Of course, since the Democrats have chosen a system that is not the same as how the President is actually elected to choose their nominee, this tally doesn't give Clinton the nomination. However, a superdelegate should take this into consideration when deciding on who they should support.

Here's a reason. link



There's your perception, Amlord and then there's the reality.

The Illinois senator has picked up 26 superdelegates in the past week. At that pace, he will reach the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination - 2,025 - in the next three weeks, when delegates from the remaining primaries are included.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's best chance to slow Obama is to move the goal posts. She will get that chance May 31 when the Democratic National Committe's rules panel considers proposals to seat the delegates that had been stripped from Florida and Michigan. Those two states violated national party rules by holding their primaries in January and lost their delegates.

"Michigan and Florida are key to it," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said Monday.

Obama picked up four superdelegates Monday, including Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Rep. Tom Allen of Maine.

Obama has 1,871.5 delegates, including endorsements from party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton has 1,697, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press. That leaves Obama just 153.5 delegates short of the number needed to win the nomination at the party's national convention this August in Denver.

There are 217 delegates at stake in the six remaining primaries, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Even if Clinton wins most of those delegates, Obama could reach the magic number by the time South Dakota and Montana vote on June 3. link

The only way for Clinton to steal the nomination from Obama is if the DNC seats the Florida and Michigan delegates and even then she would still be approximately 100 delegates short of what she needs. Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and neither one of them campaigned in Florida. Any delegates seated from those two states will not be done in a way that only benefits Hillary.

Hillary can prolong the battle (and drive herself deeper in debt), but her only winning strategy depends on breaking the rules she originally agreed to.

That's called cheating any way you want to spin it.

Actually, what she "agreed to" was to not campaign in states that held their primaries early. As far as I can tell, she has held to that promise.

It ain't cheating to say "Hey, these 2 million voters are being disenfranchised, just like the Supreme Court did to them in 2000! What are we going to do about it?"

If the answer to the question above is "Nothing" then you turn off voters in a major swing state. Apparently, Obama is cool with that. Hillary is not (of course, she knows that she won quite handily there).

Yes, the State parties broke the rules. Should voters be penalized for something over which they had zero control? Obama is saying "Too bad, so sad", Hillary (with no other option) is saying "Wait a minute here." Both are doing what they need to do to secure the nomination. I can't say I blame them, unless one of them is running as the anti-politician.

OH yeah...like you were so broken up about those poor disenfranchised voters in Florida, Amlord. PUH-LEEZE!!!



Yep. It's real easy to win handily when in Michigan the only other Democrat on the ballot was your boy, Dennis "My Hot Wife Has A Tongue Stud" Kucinich.



Who exactly is the "anti-politician" in this race? I don't recall my candidate ever claiming he wasn't a politician. A different kind of politician, yes, but still a politician.

Of course Hillary is trying to grab any advantage she can and she would love it if the DNC were to count the delegates she won in a "contest" that wasn't really.

It's still cheating though. It's still trying to change the rules at the 11th hour to make up for the fumbling, bumbling, race-baiting, divisive and generally crap campaign the Clintons have run.

But keep spinning Amlord. Your sudden and newfound appreciation for fair play is actually kind of sweet. About as sincere as a pornstar's orgasm, but still kind of sweet.

Why do you feel the need to get personal? Why so defensive?

I'm pointing out Hillary strategy. I, like you, don't give her much of a chance to pull it off. But I've laid it out. I don't claim anyone in Florida was disenfranchised in 2000, the Democratic Party membership are the ones that cling to that notion. I simply related what I thought Hillary's strategy is.

How do you interpret what I've said is spin. It is a FACT that the superdelegates are free to change their vote between now and the convention. It is a FACT that Hillary has split the popular vote virtually 50/50 with Obama. It is a FACT that if (a big if here) the Democratic party used the same mechanism for choosing a nominee that the country uses to elect the President that Hillary would be far ahead of Obama.

Hillary needs to spin these facts into a message that will convince a few hundred more people to vote for her. These superdelegates are in control of the nomination process now. That is the only fact that matters.