I’m Glad That is All Done
Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.
Obama’s total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.
Which means…
the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days. – via kos
Unhinged, psycho-raving maniac Clinton supporters still plan to blow shit up in Denver because they are crybaby losers.
However, Hillary Clinton could take a big step toward healing the party that she has tried to wreck for the pastr three months by calling off her crazy lunatic supporters and concede to Obama.
It could happen…
An idea stolen from Balloon Juice — a preview of what we can expect from HRC protesters.
ON TO DENVER
Yeah, she should just hand it over. I’m sure if the tables were turned, you would expect him to just hand it over, too. Please. I originally wanted her to suspend her campaign, but I think it would be great if she took it to Denver.
Can one of you big ‘rule’ followers explain something to me? Obama took his name off the ballot in MI. Regardless of the reason (and we all know the reason), his name was not on the ballot. How is it possible that he not only gets all of the uncommitted delegates (remember, there were three other candidates who removed their names as well), but he also gets four that were stripped from HRC. Is that in the rules? Do the rules state that uncommitted delegates can go to a specific candidate or is that one of those rules that was ‘changed mid-stream’? I know how you guys hate changing the rules mid-stream, so I know you couldn’t possibly support that.
So how is it that you can get so fired up over a set of rules that you clearly didn’t bother to understand in the first place?
The primary rules are all over the internet and there is lots of smart commentary all over the place on this too. You will understand exactly what happened today one you get the right background.
Nah nah nah nah,
nah nah nah
Hey Hey hey
GOODBYE!
Hey Dom the DNC rules committee has just made it impossible for this party to get together by their ruling on Michigan
So all this talk of unity just went out the window doesn’t Richardson and Biden deserve some of these delegates
I have utter disgust for the process today. If this committe of 27 ‘big heads’ is so hell bent on rules, explain why they were willing to bend them at all. It sort of reminds me of an old joke about the whore haggling over the price.
After following these Obama threads, I’m glad to be a Clinton supporter. Talk about “Unhinged, psycho-raving maniac s” ….you Obama worshippers take the cake!
The bending was a compromise to Clinton. I agree that 0% of FL and Mich should be seated.
Sheez,
Try to do a someone a solid and see what happens?
You know the old saying when the judge asked the whore when did she know she was raped and her answer was ” WHEN THE CHECK BOUNCED”.
My thoughts completely the Rules committee could have seated the entire delegation of both states and Obama would have still been in the lead however Hillary now has the majority of the popular vote and appears to be the strongest candidate so we went with Iowa with Gore and Kerry and now we are heading down that same path to ruin and would anyone please tell me when was the last time Iowa was BLUE Along with North carolina South Carolina and Missisippi
she is the strongest person to kick Mccain’s ass
No we are going to suspend because who knows what can happend between now and DENVER
A MISTRESS A GAY LOVER EITHER FOR HIM OR THE WIFE TAX FRAUD ANYTHING
THIS POST WAS TO SEE HOW FIRM YOUR GOAT WAS JASON
I FIGURED THAT YOU HAVE NO TROUBLE MAKING AN ASS OUT OF YOURSELF ON THIS SITE I MIGHT AS WELL TRY IT ( HA HA)
Whatever happened, its done. Time to move on.
Jason, Jason, Jason. When I first started reading your comments on DWA, I assumed you were in your early 20’s. Someone recenty told me you are in your 30’s. I can’t begin to tell you how disappointed I was to hear that.
P.I. – Don’t talk to Cassandra about the rules. She evidently knows them inside and out. Except of course Rule 13(a), especially as it pertains to MI. More commonly known as the Fair Reflection Rule, it states tht “delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference, or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants”. See, they only like the rules that benefit their candidate; the rest can be bent or broken.
Does it sit well with you (and that’s a general “you”) that they awarded Delegates to someone that wasn’t even on the Michigan Ballot ?
Talk about breaking the rules. I guess HRC should have just removed her name from SC and NC and any other state that she was going to lose.
I find it surprising that the Obama folks are hailing yesterdays results it seems that they are basking in the very thing that they were condemning early in the campaign and that is their Guy is now the product of a Backroom deal by party hacks.
TT: True enough, one supposes. But it’s worth it to see you and Dom foam at the mouth.
TT is a GOPer concern troll, in my opinion. Dom is a flexible DEM. To neither is a 2008 DEM White House a top priority, nuff said.
This is DE Liberal, dears.
“Does it sit well with you (and that’s a general “you”) that they awarded Delegates to someone that wasn’t even on the Michigan Ballot ?”
Seriously now, Matt, in the context of crooked things done by a politcal party, does this shock, surprise or dismay you?
I realize you’re a rules-oriented sort rather than a pragmatist, so let me say that, from a pragmatist’s perspective, about as many people give a damn as will vote for Ralph Nader this year. Remember the lesson of “Meatballs”: “It just doesn’t matter! It just doesn’t matter!” Except, of course, to Hillary dead-enders.
To whom I pose this question: Does the number of people who refuse to accept a reality affect that reality? To paraphrase by analogy, if a sufficient number of Bush 28-percenters still claimed Iraq really had WMDs even though we haven’t found them, would that make it more likely? Cheney claims this even today. If the 28%ers agreed, would it say anything significant beyond the pathology involved in their continued belief?
“I guess HRC should have just removed her name from SC and NC and any other state that she was going to lose.”
No, just the ones under sanction by the DNC.
While I’ve often said that if it were a choice between Hillary Clinton and Satan, I’d have to give the devil his due, it’s worth pointing out that Mrs Clinton has won more votes than Barack Obama, and her margin in votes will only increase after these last few contests. She’s 174,000 ahead ~ counting Florida and Michigan ~ and that number might reach 200,000 after these last few votes.
The Michigan results (1/15/2008):
Hillary Clinton — 55.2%
Uncommitted — 40.1%
Dennis Kucinich – 03.7%
Chris Dodd ——– 00.6%
Mike Gravel ——- 00.4%
If Chris Dodd, who had already withdrawn, received 0.6%, could we reasonably assume that Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who had also withdrawn, would have received something like that? John Edwards was still in the race at the time; why don’t the Democrats give him half of the uncommitted delegates?
We all realize that the Democrats want to Just End This, but y’all ought to recognize that they’re doing so by changing the rules in the middle of the game, and counting votes that were never cast.
“Seriously now, Matt, in the context of crooked things done by a political party, does this shock, surprise or dismay you?”
It doesn’t surprise me at all Al, and I really don’t have a dog in the fight but as an observer of the process – albeit from the outside – the question remains. Does it sit well with those of the Democrat Party, and not with the Hacks, the Supers or the Back Room Brokers but with those for whom this Party is acting on the behalf of, the walking around Dems, to award Delegates to a candidate who was not involved in that particular State’s Election?
For me, whether I was supporting one or the other (shudder the thought), or even if this was happening in a race that I was partial to, this would be the point where I severed the tie. And granted, the DNC is a private organization with the right to draw it’s own rules but, this was a State sanctioned Election where no votes were cast for Obama, none at all …
These are interesting times for sure.
‘about as many people give a damn as will vote for Ralph Nader’
First, I think you underestimate how many people ‘give a damn’. Also, it may behoove you to remember that those who voted for Ralph Nader would have put Gore over the top in 2000.
‘This is DE Liberal, dears.’
Yes, Nancy, but it’s worth it just to see you and Jason foam at the mouth.
Cassandra –
Since you’re such a good rule-follower, I would suspect you are outraged by the MI Dem Party counting Obama’s write-in votes when their state does not allow them to be counted unless the candidate registers for them upfront, right? I’ll bet you’re pretty steamed about that. I mean, what with winning ‘fair and square’ being the new meme and all.
According to Chuck Todd (on MSNBC) the numbers used by the Clinton campaign for their popular vote tally do NOT include:
-Democrats abroad
-Guam
-Virgin Islands
-Washington State
-Maine
and they are using estimates for totals in:
-Nevada
-Iowa
Obama won 6 of those 7 contests.
So much for the popular vote….
That’s those vote totals haven’t been reported. And the fact that he won the most delegates in those contests doesn’t mean he got the popular vote. She won TX, he got the most delegates. Don’t ask me to try to explain the ridiculous popular vote/delegate system the Dems use. I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. All I know is that a win is not necessarily a win if you’re a Democrat.
dominique
why don’t you go out to dinner, with a mirror? Look at yourself for about an hour straight, then when the hour is up, ask yourself to the mirror, “do I sound stupid defending hillary?”
and when the mirror answers you with a yes, then WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Dimnitroll!!
Girl, you’ve been thoroughly trounced here.
Your candidate has been out-campaigned and you, particularly, have been out-classed (well, maybe not by Jason).
You have been burned, almost as badly as Burris used to take his lickin’s.
You surely couldn’t hope to win over hearts that sincerely want the Democratic Party to dominate in the general election. Barack Obama is who is in the lead and the party needs a nominee. It is that simple, no matter who won.
STELLA I notice you like to quote Chuck Todd of MSNBC why haven’t you quoted his other chart where he showed in the general election with Obama against McCain where Obama will more than likely win the popular vot by a 3 to 4 million maybe even higher yet lose to THE SENILE OLD MAN
DHB your SHut the fuck up remark is below your style which I have come to admire.
Oh my, TT… you really aren’t familiar with Donviti’s style, are you?
And Stella was referring to the popular vote, not polls that still refelect three candidates. Don’t change her point to suit your message.
Whatever, Nancy. It’s not easy to reason with insanity, but I’ve held my own in an incredibly hostile “unity” environment.
We’ll see if Obama dominates in November. You clearly aren’t paying any attention to the trajectory in this race, but I wouldn’t expect you to. I’m sure your nostrils are completely clogged with sand by now.
Donviti – I don’t generally dine with mirrors, but if I did, it would only be raving about my beauty and my eloquence. 😉
I wonder what your mirror woud say. Probably something along the lines of ‘grow up, for the love of christ’.
P > I wasn’t talking about the popular vote in the primaries but how Chuck showed how during the general Obama could come out ahead by up to 6 million votes and still lose to McCain Chick’s charts not mine.
WTF? You getting physical? Don’t get to much of a rush out of your fun, it’s unseemly.
umm…what?
TT, you addressed Stella in your previous post.
TT, The list of votes NOT counted by the Clinton campaign just keeps growing….
Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Texas (Caucus only)
Washington
Wyoming
My point…..When you use HRC’s own criteria & apply it fairly Obama has more delegate votes AND more popular votes….
The popular vote argument is nuts. Don’t you think BOTH candidates would have run their campaigns differently if the popular vote mattered?
Argue that you like her better, that you think she’s more experienced… whatever, but please stop this popular vote nonsense.
All I know is the dems need to get their shit together. In four years the words delegate and superdelegate should be banished from our vocabulary. The only thing that should count is the popular vote. End of story.
The Dems are not the only party with delegates, but superdelegates should be banished or restricted to DNC members and old heads. Not enough to make a difference to anybody.
The popular vote argument is very much like Donna Brazile said yesterday — changing rules in midstream and is cheating.
Not saying they should change the rules at all, Cassandra. On the contrary, because they’ve fucked things up so much they should wait for the next time round. Dems — and myself– complained to no end after election 2000 when Bush lost. Consistency’s all I’m asking for here. The Dems should have realized this shit last year. Of course this is the party unable to get its shit straight so I’m not at all surprised. I can’t wait until after the gov. primary in September so I can switch back to independent.
A nationwide popular vote primary would be interesting looking forward.
If we had that this year Obama clearly would have won a nationwide one day popular vote primary.
He was kicking ass and taking names befor Clinton started throwing buckets of slime on him.
No matter. The healing starts today.
All Clinton people please stop beign haters. Say goodbye to bittersness and hello to unity.
I’m sorry, Mike — I meant my comment about the popular vote to be addressed to the conversation just above your comment, I should have been clearer about who I was addressing.
Stella for a gal that’s a loser she continues to Kick his ass.
If he’s such a strong candidate why does he continue to lose to a lady he has already beaten
You feel the bitterness flowing away from you now, don’t you?
It is getting more an more difficult to keep your anger white hot.
FYI
Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor and a national co-chairman of Clinton’s campaign, said Sunday: “It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday’s contests, she needs to acknowledge that he’s going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him.”
If Clinton is such a strong candidate why has her National Co-Chair bailed on her?
C’Mon T –
If Vilsak can accept reality, so can you.
Here’s a question… If I’m to believe Clinton supporters and their claim of sexism (which I do, in some part) then why wouldn’t sexism figure into her electability argument in the general?
I mean, if she really lost the primary because the media, etc held her to a different standard because she is a woman then how would she overcome that problem in November?
I’m serious about this… Maybe I should post this question, but now Jason has gone off and offered unity, so this question might undercut his efforts.
One other thing has been bothering me about Hillary’s campaign. Why is she surrounded by men. Oh, I know there are women on her campaign, but they aren’t front and center. When I think of Clinton’s staff/supporters – basically the people I see on TV or read in print – I think about Mark Penn, Bill Clinton, Wolfsen, Ickies, Carvelle, Lanny Davis, Rendell.
What’s up with that?
The answer to your question is simple. Sexism would certainly still exist; however, the media would not act as a surrogate for McCain as they have for Obama. When you add her unbelievable knowledge of the issues inside and out (there is no more effective wonk in Washington), she would mop the floor with him in debates. Obama? Not so much. She would beat McCain handily.
I’m not sure I understand your point about her being surrounded by men. I suppose we could ask why Obama – the candidate representing change – has surrounded himself with the old guard (Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Daschle, et al)? Doesn’t that fly in the face of what he is supposed to represent? I guess you take help from wherever you can get it.
The media wouldn’t act as a surrogate for McCain? Are you kidding me? The media loves the “maverick”. Honestly, I think one of Obama’s strengths is that the media cut him slack as well.
And, Dom, my question was about Hillary, a candidate who cites women as her base. I just find it odd. The only woman who springs to mind as a HRC supporter is Hillary Rosen, and she’s so wishy-washy.
Obama isn’t the issue here. And I am serious about this. I truly believe Hillary was ill-served and ill-advised by these men… especially Penn. It seemed their answer was to de-feminize her, as if building up her ‘testicular fortitude’ image would make people forget she was a woman.
It is why I think her show of emotion in NH caused such a stir. She’d been portrayed as tough, a fighter, and above the stereotypical “female” image. Ironic how that moment of emotion served her well and then was scrapped by her campaign.
Anyway, I’m sticking by my point. Hillary’s men cost her this primary. To them her sex was merely a historical talking point and not the strength it should have been.
Look she holds the cards now if she decides to pull a Ted Kennedy like he did on Carter Obama is done I don’t think she will However I’ve noticed that a lot of you folks put faith in what MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s says and Yesterday his map of the electoral votes showed Obama getting the majority of 6 million votes more than McCain and losing the electoral vote by 45.
Would we have a revolt in this country if that happened or would we put our tail between our legs like Gore and Kerry?
TT, do you even read the comments above yours before you start typing? Just asking.