First of all, it was not in the DNC rules that Obama could not remain on the ballot, it was his choice to have his name removed and his choice alone.

Second, you are correct that without Michigan, he still maintains a lead in the total popular vote, but that lead if you include JUST Hillary's margin of victory over "undeclared" in Michigan is down to about 150,000 votes. That is not an insurmountable lead for her to overcome in the remaining primaries, especially given the likelyhood that she could pick up 300,00+ margin in Puerto Rico.


They are not campaigning for her, but rather for the continuation of the democratic party's infighting, so of course you bolster the underdog if that is your objective.

Nonesense. A vote is a vote. It is interesting that you raise the issue of caucuses vs. primaries, because a huge portion of Obama's pledged delegate lead (if not the entire lead) comes from his margins in caucus states, where the participation is hugely skewed towards upper-middle class party activists and away from the more rank-and-file lower-middle class voters which have gone heavily for Hillary elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is that neither Obama or Hillary can claim the nomination soley on the basis of their pledged delegates; both will require superdelegates to put them over the top. These delegates are free to chose either one (or neither one) for any reason they choose. It is dishonest to say (either on the part of the candidate or the media) that either of then can possibly have the nomination locked until the convention.

Add to this the possibility that Hillary could always go to court over the rules not conforming to constitutional requirements (which a court could reasonably find they must where the primary/cuacus is funded with government money) and you have utter chaos and the reality of BOTH sides having perfectly reasonable arguments in favor of the Superdelegates supporting them with equal claims to "fairness" (Obama arguing that they should choose to merely ratify whoever has the lead in pledged delegates; and Hillary arguing either as a matter of the popular vote or that the method for allocating the pledged delegates is inherently unjust).

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

matching over 90,000 Floridians to a Texas list of felons with this criteria

Voter - William Jefferson Clinton

Felon - Wil k Clintock

MATCH

------------------------
less than 1,000 people of the 90,000 were actual felons

you should watch this if you think it's legal

Intro ... Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election


Looking forward to the movie Recount - wish I had HBO

__________________

Correct, but irrelevant. We are judging a claim of fact, not fairness. Hillary Clinton claims to have the lead in the popular vote. Is she, as a matter of fact, correct in making that claim? There is no evidence for this.

Also true, and also irrelevant. I was not arguing against the practice or trying to accuse Republican voters of anything shady. Whether they are in fact guilty of anything shady makes no difference for the present purpose. The fact that they will not be voting for either Clinton or Obama in the general election, however, does.

It is not nonsense. A vote is not a vote in a state without an election. The fact that some states have not held elections means there are votes that could have been cast if they had, which were not, which means that Hillary has no basis for claiming to be ahead in the popular vote total. Or at least, no logical and good basis.

I realize a lot of Obama's delegates come from caucuses. This, like the points above, is however irrelevant. The sole question under discussion is whether Hillary Clinton is justified in claiming to be ahead in the popular vote total, in any way that has a meaning going into the general election. She is not.

The rest of what you say is true, there will not be an absolute lock on the nomination until the convention itself. However, that is, again, irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Clinton is trying to sway the superdelegates to her side with an argument that she has the greater popular appeal, based on the popular vote totals in states that held primary elections. But, for the three reasons already stated, her argument is specious. She does NOT have the greater popular appeal, at least according to the polls, Obama does.

True, the superdelegates are free to give her the margin of victory, since Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win outright. There's no question about the legalities of that. But she is presenting an argument as to why they SHOULD vote for her which does not hold up, for purely factual reasons.

if the media plasters ANYONE on the television 20 hours a day... ANYONE can become very popular,,,, or unpopular.

Well, we have a problem with the popular vote. Something that one of the talking heads brought to my attention the other night. Many of these states were caucas states. Meaning, no primary actual voting. So it's going to be hard for either to make the claim that they won the popular vote--when considering this.

In my opinion, every single state should be done with a primary. Meaning actual voting machines, that go from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.. Caucases disenfrachise so many people, they're ridiculous. There are people who work at night. Then, there are working Americans who work all day, then go home to take care of children. After that, the thought of spending all night at a caucas, when they know they have to get up early the next day, to get kids ready for school, & head back off to work, is just unacceptable to them. Now, lets expand the disenfranchisement to the elderly, whom are never caught out after dark.

The majority who show up for caucases are the young. The rest are left out in the cold.

Actually, there is ample evidence for this to anyone who can actually count. If you want to leave the issue of "fairness" out in making the determination, then it is an absolute FACT that more people who have gone and participated in primaries and caucuses have voted for Hillary:

Clinton: 17,639,952
Obama: 17,576,579
Margin: Clinton +63,373

Those are the absolute facts.

That is a subjective judgement, as I pointed out above, the absolute FACT is that Hillary has received more votes in primaries and caucuses than Barack Obama has.

If you want to start raising issues such as strategic cross-over voting, doesn't that also mean you should take into consideration ALL potential factors, such as the overall ELECTORAL strength of the varioius states each of them will have an edge in over McCain in the General Election? Should Superdelegates discount Obama primary and caucus wins in states that he has absolutely NO chance of winning come November? Should they discount for delegates he won in caucuses vs. primaries as being representative of far fewer actual votes?

Now who is comparing FACTS with their own notion of "fairness". It is an absolute FACT that more people have gone to primaries and caucuses and voted for Hillary than Barack. That is the FACT. One could also point out that Obama has benefited from the lack of primaries in the cuacus states as his appeal is much stronger amongst the type of higher-income, more party activist core that comprises caucus participants. Obama's pledged delegate lead would likely be much lower (if he had one at all) were there primaries in every state.

Take Texas for example which gives us a perfect example of this. Hillary won the popular vote (even if you include the partipants in the cuacus) yet got fewer delegates out of the state than Obama. What does that say about the "logical and good basis" for giving cuacus votes equal weight to primary votes?

There are only two ways to count the popular vote total, by including, or excluding the participation in cuacuses. In both cases, as of today, she is ahead in BOTH counts. Period.

Well, the polls, why even have votes! If polls at this point had any meaning beyond indicating areas of potential strength and weakness, Walter Mondale would have been President in 1984 or Michael Dukakis would have been in 1988.

I don't care what Clinton's argument actually is, the point I am making is that BOTH Hillary and Obama have perfectly legitimate arguments in favor of Superdelegates supporting them respectively, and based on all the rhetoric I have heard for nearly a decade from the democrats (every vote must count, one man one vote) it would be far more compromising of their stated core principles to ingore a popular vote majority on her part (if that is how it comes out) than if they gave the nomination to her.

Again ignoring your own distinction between "factual" and "fair". Assuming the current numbers hold up (which with Puerto Rico they are likely to) it will be an absolute FACT that more people who participated in the process voted for her than Obama. You may think that for various reason that is not a "fair" reason to give it to her based on other factors, but the FACT is that she will have gotten more votes.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

By the way, if you want to bring polls into the independent judgement of the Superdelegates, are are some to consider from RealClearPolitics.com:

Florida:
McCain v. Obama - McCain +8.3
McCain v. Clinton - Clinton +3.0

Obama down 11.3 points from Clinton

Pennsylvania:
McCain v. Obama - Obama +5.0
McCain v. Clinton - Clinton +9.7

Obama down 4.7 points from Clinton

Ohio:
McCain v. Obama - McCain +2.3
McCain v. Clinton - Clinton +8.3

Obama down 10.6 points from Clinton.

Just assuming that every other state from 2004/2000 stays the same, Hillary wins the election by carrying Ohio and Florida.

Barack is winning neither of those, and with him on the Ballot, Pennsylvania becomes more of a battleground state for McCain than against Hillary.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

looks like a clear victory for the CFR...

i cant WAIT! to see what kinda "changes" hes going to make....its so exciting!!

__________________
Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.
Ariel Sharon
CONGRESSMAN LARRY McDONALD EXPOSES THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1983

Here is the start of my "Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Be The Democratic Nominee for President"

When Bill Clinton came to Microsoft to give a speech, he was received warmly by a crowd who were impressed by his wisdom and his view of a better, more helpful and compassionate world. People naturally are drawn to and appreciate an intelligent, well-spoken person who can think on their feet. He touched on a lot of issues and he had a lot of great one-liners in dealing with world events such as "Osama bin Laden likes technology just like the west likes technology. But bin Laden likes it exclusively and the west likes it inclusively". While the crowd was left pondering this gem, Clinton would either throw out either another line of insight, or a line of wisdom or a line of encouragement. This left the group constantly intrigued and mentally stimulated.

There was a question-and-answer period at the end of this speech and Clinton answered each with detail and precision. One woman asked if he could hold a Cabinet position in a Hillary presidency. Specifically, I believe she asked if he could be secretary of state.

The former president said, "That is a good question. The answer is no." And then he explained that a law was passed – I believe during the Lyndon Johnson administration – that said an immediate family member of the president can not be in the cabinet. This had something do to with Bobby Kennedy being in John Kennedy's Cabinet and a president can not or should not have to fire a family member. President Clinton went on to say that he thought that this was actually a very good idea.

This makes me wonder because Hillary was in charge of revamping the Health Care system during Bill Clinton's presidency. But on the other hand, this really was not a position of power.

(#1) A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not Mirror the Years of the Bill Clinton Presidency
This leads me to the first reason why Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for president.

I always suspected that the only reason why many people liked Hillary Clinton was because of the run-off charisma from her husband. When I first noticed her surfacing as a candidate for president, I was at a loss as to why so many people liked her and they seemed to like her very much. I went to several liberal and progressive web forums. They seemed to be upset by my just asking the question as if I was questioning some divine prophecy. Trying to get into the heads and understanding how liberals think is often difficult. Ann Coulter might be wrong about a lot of things, but one thing I think she gets right is that Liberalism is like a church. You can not question the divine doctrine or those who are appointed the Pope of the Church of Liberalism – doing so will get you banished from the Progressive web forums.

Regardless, without any other reason for supposing why people liked Hillary, I was left with only the name recognition and the face recognition and their subconscious appreciation of happier times. When all possible reasons are discounted, the only reason left, no matter how improbable, is the only possible explanation.

My suspicions were confirmed by several people who would openly admit "I miss Bill" when I am talking about having a president Hillary.

Well, it is time for me to officially burst this bubble. As Bill Clinton said himself, he can not be placed into any real position of power in a Hillary presidency.

So now ask yourself this. If you could erase Bill Clinton from the picture – if you could remove the association between Bill and Hillary, would you still be excited about Hillary Clinton being president?

You might tell yourself that since Hillary seemed to be a powerful player when Bill was president, it might work the other way. It would not. The two have very different personalities and ideologies and interpersonal skills and management styles. Bill is a charismatic intellectual while Hillary is a driven, ambitious and power-hungry leftist ideologue. Switch the seats of power and you have a very different administration and, as a result, a more troubling future for our country.

Being the wife of Bill Clinton should not be a reason why you would want to support Hillary. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not be any way like the Bill Clinton Presidency.

I urge all Clinton supporters to put country ahead of party and vote for McCain in November. This country can't afford a Democrat right now.

__________________
Nate Peele
www.Thatsrightnate.com
"Finally a journalist is not scared to question the truth"--TJ Baker Holm

Good point and I wonder the same thing when I see a Clinton supporter..

__________________
Have a Great Day And Smile.
Laughter is the best medicine


Politicians and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reason.

If you seat the delegates right now from Florida and Michigan, giving Hillary 60% from Florida and 51% from Michigan, then Obama clinches the whole thing and she's still behind in pledged delegates, as well as Super Delegates.

The only way she's winning the popular vote right now, according to her supporters, is if you give her all the votes she got from Michigan and assuming that ZERO people from Michigan voted for Obama.

That's bloody ridiculous. The best way to go about things is to do both of those states over again and get every vote counted. Then Hillary will have a definitive loss on her hands since Michigan will be pretty close even if she does win Florida 60-40.

What a joke. Liberals in America suck. They always find a way to screw everything up.

Well the way the economy is this country can not afford a Republican.....LOL..

__________________
Have a Great Day And Smile.
Laughter is the best medicine


Politicians and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reason.

The entire Popular Vote argument is bullshit.

The primary election is based on a delegate system.

To claim that the popular vote entitles you to a win even though your opponent got more delegates is like saying ...... "Yeah, the other team won the basketball game based on points, but hey, our team got more rebounds than they did!"

.... so what? Games and presidential races have rules and they have a structured point system to determine a winner. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. If you want to change the rules, you have to do it when you're not actively competing and in consultation with an authoritative body.

All the Clinton supporters can jump up and down, shout at the top of their lungs, cry foul, and hold their breath 'til they turn blue.... All Obama has to do say one word "ScoreBoard!..."

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

But as I pointed above, that doesn't mean squat. Hillary is trying to argue that because she got more popular votes in primaries so far, she would likely get more votes than Obama in the general election. Unless we can conclude that, we must reject her argument. And we can't, because there are too many voters who weren't able to vote, and too many Republican crossovers who don't represent Democratic voters in the fall.

We can't reasonably conclude that about either candidate.

No, it's a reasonable projection of voting behavior. We know that a lot of Republicans crossed over and voted in Democratic primaries, which makes perfect sense the way things are. The Republican nomination was locked up a long time ago. If I were a Republican voter in a state that allowed this, I would probably have voted in the Democratic primary myself, because my vote in the GOP primary would be meaningless and I could hopefully influence the Democrats to nominate the least objectionable candidate. But that wouldn't mean I'd be voting for the same person in the general election that I did in the primary.

Now I realize that McCain is not well liked among movement conservatives, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of them won't be voting for him this fall. But it would surprise the hell out of me if many of them vote for Obama. That just doesn't make ANY sense.

Anyway, this definitely fudges the claimed numbers, and means the "absolute FACT" you're quoting is also a MEANINGLESS fact.

Absolutely, and I'm 100% certain that a lot of them will do exactly what you're describing. But that just backs up what I was saying: that the person who won the most popular votes so far is no way to judge who's most likely to win in the fall.

Definitely not me. The only yardstick I'm using is how good a predictor we have of votes in the fall.

But what I'm saying is that neither way gives us a good indication of likely strength in the general election.

Perhaps they do, but the one being talked about on this thread is specious.

Why do you keep tossing in that word? "Fair" has nothing to do with it. It's all a matter of whether we have any reason to believe, on the basis of popular vote totals, that she would be the better candidate in the fall. We don't. And that has nothing to do with whether any part of this process was or is "fair."