Obama has won more delegates in the hybrid primary/caucus race in Texas -- doesn't that mean she failed to "win both Texas and Ohio" which was her husband's litmus test for survival?

I am not the first to make this observation, of course, but let me put it in another light?

Are we asleep, folks? Hillary claims the media has been biased against her? Consider:

1. For a solid year she was given frontrunner status and covered as if the other candidates were on quixotic missions.

2. In every debate, as long as she didn't commit a gaffe she was declared the winner. She is not even a good debater!

3. She has been given a free ride on her ludicrous "35 years of experience" claim to the point that nearly all voters, whether they favor her or not, believe she is supremely experienced.

4. She has not been pressed to release records or explain flip flops.

5. Most egregiously, and this is still going on, she has been given credit for "winning" Nevada and Texas without a peep from a single commentator even though she gained fewer delegates in each -- which was the whole point of tose contests!

Texas is clearly an example of the media giving Hillary's spin machine utter credibility in the face of utter irrationality. She won the primary, lost the caucuses, and LOST OVERALL! That's the simple truth.

Can't Chuck Todd, John King, or someone who is counting the delegates stop the charade that Hillary has won the "big states?" The superdelegates seem to be too dense to get this on their own so they can tell her to stop her cynical claim to a "comeback."

yup. Especially when you look at REAL voting irregularities in California (the "double bubble" in LA county that got my mom) and new York (where to date, at least 80 precints in HARLEM (!!!!!!!) registerred zero (are you kidding?) votes for obama. It's likely his margins in those states were significantly smaller. I'm not gonna bring up the limbaugh cross over Hillary voters in TX (he encouraged listeners to cross over and vote Hillary to thwart an Obama upset), because Obama probably got some republican crossers (though I'd argue they are far more likely to be loyal rather than saboteurs). Ok, I guess I did bring it up. Sorry. Couldnt resist.

But overall, agree. The nomination is about delegates for a reason.

JP

If it was any other candidate running against a front-runner with Barack Obama's stats right now, the media would have declared the race over. So what makes Hillary Clinton special? No, it's not her gender. It's that she's a celebrity.

Where Hillary Clinton got a celebrity's sense of entitlement is a mystery. But the media feeds it and this symbiotic relationship between them is good for neither. Clinton is now throwing a celebrity tantrum and before this is over she'll be in rehab.

Obama 08!

I'm personally supporting Obama for president, but lets not get out of hand. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Texas by a couple hundred thousand votes. I don't think we should be complaining on the Obama side about how we've not been given credit for the victory. Besides that point, its not very likely that Obama or Hillary would take Texas in a general election. Texas is the republican's California or New York. It almost always goes republican since who knows when, and it goes republican big.

Obama 08!

Hillary for VP 08!

hawaiimike: you are WAY too sensible to be hanging around with these conspiracy-theory cultish fruitcakes. How about come over to the Clinton campaign and let these boys caucus with themselves in a dark red state?

You know, all you had to say was that Clinton won a fewer amount of delegates (except the caucus hasn't assigned its delegates and more than half of the precincts still need to report) in order to make your point.

But she did win the popular vote in Texas and Nevada (despite some weird Obama flyer urging people to switch party affiliations for a *day?!*).

The fact that Obama still got more delegates in Nevada is ridiculous (but I guess, that's the primary, and if you're willing to take that result, you'll be willing to let the SDs make their decision regardless of the popular vote).

So, thanks for bringing that up!

I really don't want to see another Clinton in the white house. I personally believe that it will be an easier opponent for John McCain and the far right. Hillary is an instant motivator. Just say her name to a republican. Besides that, Obama has fantastic view points on foreign policy, a very interesting health care initiative, and I've honestly never in my life seen a candidate that could inspire me to go out and help improve my country, hands on. I think this countries #1 problem is we're far too cynical. I've been to a few places outside the States, and I'm inspired by people's loyalty to their culture and the genuine bond that is instilled within the communities. America needs culture. Its our most lacking aspect. Our country has turned into a money grabbing individualist chase to the bloody finish. Even our reputation as a giving nation that looks out for the weak around the planet has been completely shattered. In my gut, I feel that Hillary Clinton will be an extension of GW Bush's spinning in the mud for 8 years. I have a strong gut feeling, that if Hillary were to take office, her political persona will shine. The problem is that she is so divisive and stubborn, that she will basically put America into the exact same hole we've been in for so long. She is not inspiring. Thats my bottom line for not supporting her.

I think Obama is so lucky to in the place he is right now--as front-runner, with such exaggeration of his qualifications for the hardest job in the world by his uncritical fans. I think he is lucky that a much more thoughtful man--Edwards, dropped out of the race. For example, did you listen to Edwards' comments on a question of his faith, did he believe in prayer considering the death of their young son. He responded that his faith had been tested and he had to (reasonably) conclude that prayers are not always answered in the ways that we would like, but he still had faith. Compare with Obama's answer the other day to someone saying "I'm praying for you!" with "I believe in prayer!" simpleton..

Similarly just go down the list of the other things he's supposed to believe in and you'll find about-faces and superficiality, from being for campaign finance reform--but Hey Mr. Rezco, got cash? To opposing NAFTA, oh wait, my campaign is now in Canada talking pro-NAFTA. Palestinian rights in occupied lands? er, change that to Israel first, sells better. I am positive, and for a change from partisan blah-de-blah...but I demand to see the 12 year-old tax records of Hillary's husband. Firing his foreign policy head, but probably not for calling Hillary a 'monster'--that's probably common around his campaign, but really because she believed that his pledge to bring all U.S. soliders home from Iraq within one year could not be done. Running for president within 1 year of his first national government job? How is he going to understand how government really works? Yes, the traditionally abused African-American is going to support him, but if he really is so great and liberal, why doesn't Nader support him? or registered democrats? of Caliornians? or New-Yorkers? Or Ohioans? Or Massachusetts (despite rich dumb-bleeps Kennedy and Kerry)? Or New Jersey? (despite bulbous frog-necked Bradley). Or Florida (where as we speak his anti-democracy people are fearing a redo for their lives) or Michigan. or rural dems? or union dems? or hispanic dems? or Asian dems? or working class/blue collar dems? or the elderly? Why don't ANY of these groups support Obama if he REALLY is all about 'bringing us all together'? Maybe they would prefer a candidate who they know isn't just talking nice but can actually fight for change in their lives.

In summary, Obama is not thoughtful or experienced or even terribly sincere, he is just pandering to the easily converted. That's MY reason for not supporting Obama.

"I think Obama is so lucky to in the place he is right now ..."

Is echoing Geraldine Ferraro's inane remark helpful to the Clinton cause?

"... as front-runner, with such exaggeration of his qualifications for the hardest job in the world by his uncritical fans."

It is Hillary Clinton who has inflated her resume to the size of the Hindenburg.

"... but if he really is so great and liberal, why doesn't Nader support him?"

This is a joke, right?

"Why don't ANY of these groups support Obama if he REALLY is all about 'bringing us all together'?"

Groups don't cast ballots. Individuals do. That's why Barack Obama is leading Clinton.

Obama 08!

pwoxby:

Groups don't cast ballots. Individuals do. That's why Barack Obama is leading Clinton.

Obama 08!

Yeah, we'll see about that. I really think that Clinton will end up with the popular vote, especially if they allow Florida to re-do their election.

If Hillary somehow pulls of the popular vote, and takes it by 100,000 votes, what gives her the right to the nomination? Especially since she's lost the delegate vote. Say she loses the popular vote, and Obama wins it by 100,0000 votes? I mean, whatever the final tally, these Clinton supporters will claim rights to the nomination. What gives?

Hawaii Mike: you should know by now that there are a lot of considerations to be made for picking the best candidate. People say 'groups don't vote, individuals do,' but isn't the peer pressure of 'groups' what disproportionately influences caucuses? As a loyal democrat, I would kind of like our nominee to represent the democratic party, and which candidate has won the majority of those votes? That's one consideration. I would like our candidate to represent our nation's largest states (which will give us a headstart to 270 in the fall), and which candidate represents California, New York, and Texas? (people should only vote once, you know). I know I know the young suburban educated white male is "down" with Obama, but does he really represent our party if Hillary wins among hispanics, asians, union members, rural dems, working class/blue collar dems, female dems, etc.? Plus, there was a time period in this long contest in which Obama was REALLY getting the media pass, see Saturday Night Live's very accurate parodies. This is when Obama built a very large lead--in a manner that is not the way people vote in November.

Yes, I will be willing to vote for Obama. But, I sure would feel better about it if he could win a big state, such as Penn or Michigan or Florida, AND if he holds on to the popular vote. If not, and Hillary wins all of these states, and Indiana and Puerto Rico and ends up with the popular vote, I would hope the super delegates choose her even if it's on the 2nd ballot.

another consideration: it sure seems to me--by reading these posts, that Clinton supporters would be much more willing to have Obama as her VP than Obama fans would be to have Hillary for his. So, in the name of unity for the party, that would be another reason--even if it's at the convention, to pick Hillary as the nominee.

"So, in the name of unity for the party, that would be another reason ..."

... to nominate the more divisive of the two candidates?

Obama 08!

Just saying that Hillary is 'devisive' while Obama is 'loved by all' is idiotic. Familiar with a preacher named Wright, by any chance? Wake up and stop repeating cliche's.