This is the only part of your post that I disagree with. The constant harping by right-wingers on the mainstream media as if it were "liberal" is preposterous.

Mother Jones is liberal media. Utne Reader is liberal media. The Miami Herald, the Palm Beach Post, and CNN are not.

"Liberal media" does not mean "everything to the left of Rush Limbaugh."

The editorial pages of those newspapers and others prove beyond a doubt that they are liberal. Read their opinion, they are ideologues plain and simple. Also, study after study confirms that the personal views of the editors and writers of these newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal rather than conservative. This inherent bias bleeds into their reportage of the issues. It is clearly a matter of degrees, and I agree that the "NY TImes" is no "Utne Reader", but the bias is there nonetheless.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

No, I've just become used to Lost Soul posting a new thread every day or so where he blames the ills of the world on "liberals".

The editorial pages are not where you would find stories like the ones Lost Soul quoted. Also, what constitutes "liberal" in your mind? Many of those who decry the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media think the country's center of political mass is considerably to the right of where it is, and most of the country's media are not advocating, they're following public opinion so as to maximize circulation, which is after all where their money comes from, directly or indirectly.

Sure, you can find media that are genuinely left-wing, but generally they have no pretense about being anything else. And in those media you will find scorn heaped on the right-wing bias of the mainstream press -- with equally little justification.

This is all a rather moot point. The popular vote doesn't matter in the primaries, it's all about the delegates.

Also a million people have voted in Oregon and he is cleaning up. He will be ahead in the popular vote count, she's done.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

A million people? Cleaning up? lol... Man you love you some Obambi!! Now for the reality check.

Counting the Republicans, maybe a million voters will show up in Oregon. Of these there will be roughly 700k votes cast on the Democrat side. So it appears that BHO will win by roughly 100k votes in Oregon. HRC already beat BHO by around 250k votes in Kentucky (she put a whoopin' on the boy!) . So let me summarize - HRC picks up another 150K votes in the popular vote and quite a few delegates. Meanwhile Obama is still unable to close the deal. Let the fighting continue!!! !!!!!!!

PS - when you count the Mich and Fla votes- HRC is way ahead of Obama in popular vote.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

Except, of course, when you allow reality to step in.

With Florida and Michigan, Clinton would be up by 205,276 votes; just over .5%. Hardly way ahead.

Of course, those votes will never be counted in that way. So, Obama is still ahead, with a lead of 417,805 votes (1.2%).

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Hillary still does not have a frivolous argument--far from it.

Dem delegates don't elect POTUSes--voters do.

On votes, she is winning the swing states and big electoral blues whilst he is mostly winning the solid reds that McCain will almost certainly win in the general and some blues any Dem will likely win if either he or Hillary ran.

She also might wind up with more popular votes when counting FL and MI and that's definitely something to consider. MI has many electoral votes and FL is a key swing state. Whilst he wasn't on the MI ballot, IIRC, voters could choose either her or others on the ballot or 'none of the above' or 'uncommitted' and she won it over 'other.' As for the 'other,' those votes could have been for him, Edwards, or whoever and we don't know if the non-Obama 'others' would vote for him.

On the other hand, Obama voters may have chosen to stay home or vote on the GOP side in MI, etc, and the same with FL if it was an open primary so it isn't perfectly reflective. And concerning counting states, some consideration must be taken for Operation Chaos minded GOP and DINO spoilers who voted for Hillary in bad faith and what effect, whether more hype or reality and if so where, it could have played a role. Some did do that though. PR voters also don't have a say in the general election.

I wouldn't be in any hurry just yet and, if I were a superdelegate, take some more time to see what plays out and/or what can be worked out.

A shared ticket is still, IMO, not out of the realm at all. In fact, if Hillary ran the top and Obama as VP, it could be the better bet in the gambling man's eyes for both him and the party. The ticket would have the combined power of both for a great shot at winning, he'd get into the White House anyway and get all the experience that comes with it and presuming she gets re-elected, he'd have incumbency to become the POTUS and still be in only in his 50s.

She might also be the VP in reverse if she wants it and that might do the trick.

Other factors are certainly to be considered and he may win anyway, etc, but the situation has many things to analyse.

Nope, Gore won the popular vote with more than 500,000 votes than bush. Bush just needed Florida that year and he had his brother there to put in effect Karl Rove's suppression scheme. illegally disenfranchising over 90,000 voters to win the Presidency.

__________________

I can understand a Clinton/Obama ticket, but not in reverse. Obama could probably find a better VP candidate who offers more than Hillary Clinton.

I agree with Kash. Hillary as Obama's VP doesn't offer much substance.

Experience? Nope.
Credibility? Nope.
Foriegn Policy Expertise? Nope.
She doesn't offer as much as she thinks in swing states when it comes to moderates.
Economic experience? Nope.


Strickland would be a much better choice.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

But the problem with this, as I pointed out above, is that it's impossible under the present circumstances to tell who won the popular vote. To recap:

1) Many states did not have primaries, but instead held caucuses. In those states, we have no popular vote totals to count.

2) Florida and Michigan provide flawed results because Obama didn't campaign in either one and wasn't even on the ballot in one of them.

3) Republican crossover voters distort the totals, since many of them will not vote in the general election for the candidate they chose in the primaries.

I agree that Hillary doesn't have a frivolous claim. What she has, rather, is a dubious one. If it could be shown that she really does have a popularity lead, that would not be frivolous at all, but she can't. And in my opinion, based on the polls, she doesn't have that lead at all.

I'm afraid the most reliable guide we have to popularity at this point isn't primary results but polls, and the polls give Obama the edge among all voting groups except older white females.

This means that her support is stronger than his among Democrats in those states, or was at the time of the voting (indications are sometimes otherwise now), but it does not mean her supporters would not vote for Obama if she weren't on the ballot against him. Also, doing well in red states is a good thing. Yes, McCain will likely be able to win most of those states in the general anyway, but if he has to work for them, and spend his campaign money (which will be less than Obama's) trying to shore up support in states he ought to be able to take for granted, he will have that much less time and money to spend reaching into swing states that he needs to win to win the election.

All in all, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a claim here, and I think she knows it. What I think she's doing is just keeping the fight alive until the last state has held its primary or caucus. After that, After June 3, I expect a concession speech from her.

Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. bush knew he would win Florida with the help of his brother and Karl Rove's voter suppression scheme. They successfully and illegally disenfranchised over 90,000 votes to win the state by a margin of 543 votes.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_462.pdf

Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud

__________________

As far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong), the problem was not with Bush and his brother, it was with the electoral college system of voting. Within the bounds of that, it was completely legal.