Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Obama not cutting superdelegate gap

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Three weeks ago, Clinton was leading Obama in superdelegates, 165-69, a 96 superdelegate lead. As of today, just over 3 weeks later, Clinton leads 201-107, a 94 superdelegate lead.

74 superdelegates have endorsed over the last 3 weeks (3.3/day), and Obama has won 38 of the 74, or 51% of them. So while Obama is now keeping pace with Clinton, he's certainly not cutting into the gap as some have expected, or even thought was actually happening.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of the Superdelegates (mainly the Senators and Representatives) that are holding out until they see how their constituency is going to vote.

The reason I say this is because I have written both my Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Susan Davis. Both sent replies stating that they would not be endorsing until after the primary and wouldn't discuss it. Hopefully they cast their support behind the majority in the state/district.

These superdelegates should be bound to some kind of rules, especially to allow this process to actually be more "fair" instead of having the potential of 800 being the deciding voters and going against the will of the people.

Patch Adam said...

Let us not forget, unlike the delegates that vote on their state's primary or caucus day, a Superdelegate can change their vote right up to the day of the convention.

Baring this in mind, Senator Obama's "keeping pace" pace would argue that this could become a hung-convention where a final tally may not be achieved until that fine August night.

Anonymous said...

whatever God's will for our future i pray that it has to do with Obama being in office.

CG4ET said...

I think that the conventional wisdom going into this race was that the superdelegate system was going to be the ultimate fire wall for Team Hillary.

In fact, the superdelegate system was created to ensure that an insurgent candidate would have a particularly tough time overcoming an establishment favorite (Walter Mondale?).

The surprise is not that Clinton maintains a lead over Obama. The surprise is that he has been able to accumulate so many public pledges of support from so many establishment figures who have much to lose from picking the wrong horse.

If Obama wins, though, it won't be because of establishment support. It will be because he motivated millions of outsiders to be a part of his movement and create a new political reality for the future.

Anonymous said...

First off I don't think their should be Superdelegates, why should a person have their vote counted twice just because they are an elected official or a party leader?

However we do have them and they shouldn't have to vote how their state or district votes, they should vote for the candidate they think is best.

Anonymous said...

I voted for McCain although I want Obama to win because I feel there is some rule out there that will put a Republican in office; one like Mike Huckabee. Example, I just learned about the superdelegate rule today. What else is there out there?

Anonymous said...

What Howard Dean and "the Democratic Committee" have done to Florida and Michigan is a crime!
It's fairly clear that the majority of voters prefer Hillary Clinton. That American Samoa holds more sway than these 2 states is pure conspiracy!
Howard appears very comfortable layiing the blame at the feet of Florida and Michgan law makers, but the fact is millions have cast votes that won't be counted. Now that's not democracy.
Shame on the DNC.

Anonymous said...

Endorsements by the Kennedy's and John Kerry are not done out of the goodness of their hearts. They endorse for "power" purposes.
Clearly Obama will be a fish out of water in D.C. (or quite simply a puppet on a string.)These guys will be the one's pulling his strings.
What Obama has been good at though is rallying the black vote and that of the young and ignorant.
The pittbulls in DC will have a feast on him.
If Clinton can hold off this conspiracy the first thing I'd do if i were her is veto all legislation sponsored by Ted Kennedy, deny federal funds to South Carolina and Georgia, and boycott Oprah forever. Scorch them like they've scorched her.

demo cratt said...

This Clintons will do anything to get into office and one has to wonder why. This election isn't about them; it's about our country, the plight of the common man, unprecedented war and huge debt. Hillary is beholden to special interests - Barak Obama is not. Barak Obama is the real deal here and I doubt that he will forget about his commitments to us, once he gets into office, unlike Hillary Clinton. And, can she control Bill?!

coffee said...

"If Clinton can hold off this conspiracy the first thing I'd do if i were her is veto all legislation sponsored by Ted Kennedy, deny federal funds to South Carolina and Georgia, and boycott Oprah forever. Scorch them like they've scorched her."

And what a great leader you'd be.

Milt said...

We (the people of our respective states) elected our Representatives and Senators to represent *our* views, *our* interests, and to speak with *our* voice.

Currently, the *popular* vote, as tallied from Yahoo election center, and not counting the "rogue" staes of FL and MI, has Barack Obama with a 92,955 *popular* vote lead over Hillary Clinton.

One person. One vote. This is how the system *should* work.

Otherwise, "we the people" is meaningless.

Anonymous said...

milt,

you're an idiot!
The democrat's of florida and michigan did not choose the primary dates. But we did show up at the polls and our votes will be counted. We will not go the way of Zimbabwe, Rhodesia, or South Africa. Total collapse and chaos!

mildred said...

anonymous,

i agree. obama has strong ties to louis farrakhan, his church supports anti-semitism, and this all frightens me too death.
if he wins i'd have to vote for mccain.
i'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

Mildred you are on bad drugs. You need to check your facts.

mildred said...

i have checked them, there was even an article on the washingtonpost.com by mr. cohen that factually stated that obama's minister and church endorsed an award given to louis farrakhan. the article went on to say obama was too much of a coward to stand up to his minister and congregation. and if he can't stand up to a congregation what will he do when faced with a worse threat. besides he's addicted to cigarrettes and this once again shows weakness. deny him a Newport in a time of crisis and his finger might trigger the "a-bomb."
again i fear this opportunist.

Oreo said...

I have to jump in here. I think that both Clinton and Obama are great candidates and that these kinds of attacks on either candidate should be left for RedState or for Freepland. A quick Google search will give you an answer (and show you that the freepers have already jumped on the story).

On January 15th Obama made the following statement:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

My problem is that I thought we learned from 2004 that you need to hit back hard when you get swiftboated. This and the "Did you know Obama is a Muslim" BS needs to be stamped out just as much as the "Clinton killed Vince Foster" mess.

nicole/simpson said...

he didn't decry it strong enough!
He's an orator and an empty windbag.
the swiftboats are oiled and fueled up. this democrat is aboard this time.
the time for change is now. yeah. okay. right.
every platform he proposes has been stolen form john edwards or hillary clinton.

Anonymous said...

Don't kid yourselves. Special interest groups can distribute funds to any candidate through the backdoor.
The so-called movement is made possible by the toils of young idealists of years ago like the Clintons.

converse said...

According to your figures, Obama increased his share of superdelegates by +5% in three weeks, from 29.5% to 34.7%. How is that "not cutting the superdelegate gap"?

At that rate, he'll have a majority in about ten weeks, sometime in the middle of April. Given current CW that this race goes to the wire, he's got plenty of time.

Anonymous said...

Be honest with yourself... Senator Obama would be ecstatic if he was able to keep Senator Clinton's super delagate count under 500. Someone has already stated somewhere (I don't remember) that he already knows that it will be very difficult for him to take this part of the Delegate Process. Many of these Super Delegates are the old & past players that he is so eloquently saying he doesnt want anymore. He wants change and that he doesn't want the past back in charge, but many of this part of the election process that determines the candidate is in the group that he is alienating. I don't really care who wins (Both should beat McCain), but please don't go overboard on the fact that he will have a majority by spring. He will be lucky if he keeps Mrs. Clinton at less than 60% of this group and that doesnt include the Florida and Michigan superdelegates that will probably be included at the end since I seriously doubt that either candidate is going to be victorious before the convention.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it strange that we always hear the statement that "we are fighting for the rights of others so that they can vote in a free and open election where one person one vote is the rule." I would like to have this rule in the USA. Oh well... I guess its to much to ask for.

Anonymous said...

Mildred et al,(elephants disquised as donkeys)
Obama is not a muslim and he does not support Farrakan. He does however believe that being a democrat means allowing people to have different points of view without being branded 'evil doers'. To strongarm his pastor over the endorsement would truly have been cowardice and self-serving. Instead, he remained true to his fundamental beliefs of democracy.
With a graduate degree in American history I can tell you that in times of need, America has the great fortune of having unlikely and seemingly unelectable candidates win the presidency. Abraham Lincoln was laughed at, and no one thought America would elect a man in a wheelchair. Thank God they both rose above their doubters. While Hillary would be a good president, it is doubtful that she can beat McCain. Obama can beat McCain and he will be a great President. The right person at the right time once again.

Anonymous said...

Obama needs to stay on message and stop the whining. That's not how he will get superdelegates if it comes to that. All of the slogans and chants remind me of preachers that pass the hat and live in big houses and drive big cars. Let us decide who we want based on the detail outline of plans to address the issues. How will the program be funded, who will run it and what budget item will you be taking the money from?

The real stuff - no more pontifications.

Anonymous said...

I hate to tell you like it is, but look how fast the now Obama supporters have thrown their savior the Clinton's under the bus. They don't care if Obama can do anything. They just think that they will have a 4 year free ride and a bigger sense of entitlement since the race and slavery card aren't working anymore. So all you youngsters be very careful what you wish for....

Anonymous said...

What is it that thrills you about Obama. I get that he's a powerful speaker, but beyond that he has no great record so to speak of. Unless you want to tout his record in the state senate. The reaosn y'all love him is:
a) he's the first serious black candidate or
b) he gives you a boner with his verbose way of speaking.
Either way you're laying all of your eggs in an unknown basket.
Maybe he'll turn out great or he may be as unprepared as Jimmy Carter and get pushed around the Capitol for 4 years. He could be the beginning of the end for our great democratic party.
Gush all you want over him. I guess he's kinda like the Miley Cyrus of politic's.

Alyson said...

As for anyone suggesting that Michigan or Florida delegates should count were not paying attention when these states broke the rules to move their primaries up. The could have moved the Republican Primary up only and held their Democratic Primary normally but they chose not to. And as it is widely reported the more states get to know Obama the more they like him and are inclined to vote for him. No campaigning by him in a state where everyone knows Clinton's name because of her husband is a cheap shot and unfair...

NOT EVEN to mention that Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot per the DNC request! Suddenly it makes sense why Clinton did not. How can you possiby award elegates from a State where only Clinton, Kucinich and Dodd were on the ballot??

How does that even make sense??!!

chilco said...

alyson,

Your argument is stupid!
Florida turned out almost 1 million votes for Hillary. We the citizens had NO control over our State Legislator's moving the primary up.
Now are you and your Obama supporters so depserate to win that you'll discount the nearly million in Florida?
That's the way George Bush wins elections, not democrat's!
I understand that your candidate hasn't won a major state other than the racial states of Georgia and his home state of Illinois.
Furthermore, if Obama supporter's think Idaho, South Carolina, and Iowa will go democrat in the general election you're living in a dreamworld!
Fact is Hillary has won the BIG states. The people in these states have seen first hand the racial divide and how the blacks have forgotten the Clinton's, and these voter's have spoken. They don't like your "shady" style of politic's. You have every right to vote "race" in this election, but the millions of us democratic voters who've sided with Hillary shouldn't have to lie down for your ethnic persuasion (s.)
Besides Obama did get a percentage of votes in Florida and would automatically get some delegates here.
I'm a staunch democrat. I like Obama, but he won't get my vote. He's a freshman and should learn "the political art of compromise" prior to a presidency or I promise you he will be chewed to pieces in Washington, DC.
You can be as idelaistic as you want, but so were the Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, and in present day Hugo Chavez supporter's.
Change is great. But it's got to be more than a mantra and diatribe.

converse said...

To anonymous @ 4:35 pm:

You greatly misunderstand politics and are significantly misreading the current campaigns if you truly believe that Clinton will come anywhere near gaining the support of three-quarters of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates.

Andrew K said...

Chilco, drop your nasty tone. Alyson didn't mention she was an Obama supporter anywhere in her argument. She's just pointing out that it's unfair in many ways to give Hillary Clinton delegates when SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE BALLOT. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

And about you bringing race into it again: Shame on you. I wonder how you explain Obama's Iowa victory, again?! I'm listening...

Sgt. America said...

Mildred, I'm White. My mother belongs to that church, my father was raised in that church and what you are saying is a lie and sinful.

chilco said...

Well guys,
I guess the Washington Post lies then too! I'm sorry if thgis hurts your feeling's that Obama won't stand up to a minister in his church or take a stand when it counts. Don't kill the messenger.
Truth is truth. Sgt. did your mother's minister endorse the award for Louis Farrakhan or not?
No flip/flop. It's a yes or no question???????????
Andrew k......... Iowa is a caucus state, as a matter of fact most of the states won by Obama are caucus states. Will your desire for the whitehouse cloud your ability to see that the overwhelming amount of votes have gone to Hillary?
Andrew>>>> let's forget Michigan. He was on the ballot in FLA and got crushed. AND yes guys I guess I'll be unpopular in here but race is always an issue and will be more so in the general election.
Look if Oprah, Ted kennedy, and maria Shriver can't help your candidate in the BIG states, then it's clear Obama is not the populist choice.
Get over it or argue on. Either way facts are facts. Now cigarette smokers of america unite, Obama is here.

Alyson said...

Andrew K... THANK YOU!!!

AND CHILCO- YOU NEED TO STOP YOUR CONDESCENDING AN WHINY TONE WITH ME AND EVERYONE ELSE AND GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH YOU SUDDENLY YOU SAY (YOUR WORDS HERE) "You can be as idelaistic as you want, but so were the Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, and in present day Hugo Chavez supporter's."

THAT IS AN INSULT AND A SLAP IN THE FACE TO EVERY AMERICAN THAT HAS ANY IDEALISM LEFT WHATSOEVER. AND YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A HORRIFIC EXAMPLE OF BEING AN AMERICAN WHEN YOU BEGIN TO COMPARE OUR IDEALISM WITH THE TYPES OF THE COMMUNIST DICTATORS YOU DID.

QUITE LITERALLY THE STUPIDEST ARGUMENT I MIGHT HAVE EVEN HEARD THUS FAR.

SUDDENLY YOUR CANDIDATE MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE, AND YOU HAVE RESORTED TO COMPARING PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH HER OR GOD FORBID WITH YOU TO FOLLOWERS OF HITLER??? SURELY I MUST NOT BE HEARING THIS CORRECTLY, BUT SADLY I THINK THAT I AM.

AND IF I WERE VOTING ALONG RACIAL, ETHNIC, OR GENDER LINES THEN YOUR RACIST ARGUMENT BECOMES EVEN MORE LAUGHABLE, AS I AM A WHITE 32 YEAR OLD CHRISTIAN FEMALE BORN AND BRED IN THE SOUTH WITH A MASTERS DEGREE IN SOCIAL WORK WHO MAKES LESS THAN $25K A YEAR. AND YES, I PROUDLY VOTED FOR OBAMA. AND YES, I PROUDLY DONATE $10 A WEEK TO HIS CAMPAIGN EVEN WITH MY LIMITED SINGLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD AND WITH MY STUDENT LOANS THAT I AM PAYING BACK.

IF I WAS VOTING ALONG ANY OF THLINES YOU SUGESTED WAS, IWOULDBE VTING FOR HILLARY. BUT I DIDN'T AND I WON'T IN NOVEMBER.

STOP YOUR WHINING ALREADY. AND FOR GOODNESS SAKES, STOP YOUR NEGATIVE ATTACKS ON PEOPLE HERE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!

YOU ARE MAKING HILLARY SOUND EVEN WORSE AND MORE DESPARATE WITH YOUR WORDS ALONE.

I THINK I JUST BROKE EVERY STEREOTYPE YOU OPTED TO GIVE ME.

IF ANYONE'S ARGUMENT IS STUPID HERE, IT IS SADLY YOURS.

Anonymous said...

OK, really, can we stop with Obama as a anti-semite. It's ridiculous. He's clearly in this to unite the country. That is the clearest part of his message. In terms of superdelegates, I sort of get it, but what's wierd to me is that non-elected party honchos are superdelegates, so someone like Walter Mondale, doesn't need to be accountable to any constituency. I get that there is political expertise there, but I think with the political expertise has to come a certain amount of accountability. So that if someone feels strongly enough about a candidate to risk being re-elected, then that's their call, but ultimately they need to be sacrificing something and accountable to the people who elected them. I also find it very strange that both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are superdelegates. That's wierd.

tacjam said...

Amen Chilco,

Someone with a real sense of what is still going on today in America.
Race is an issue and will be for some time and this is due to the people like Jackson, Sharpton, and Barron. Because they are the ones who continually throw the race card out there like a big slap in the face.
Don't forget kids we were once young and full of hopes and desires. And guess what we still have those hopes and desires and do want change. After the 8 years of hell that GW and shame throughout the world (we do need allies) that he has brought on us. We want someone who can not only promise us change, but deliver it to us.
I'd love to see a Hillary (experience), Obama (Novice-DC Kennedy/Kerry whipping boy). Then in 2016 with his experience. Go for it and God bless.

tacjam said...

And as for the Superdelegates. They have the right to vote for who they want. Just because you elected them in they no longer have a choice? That's just they way the USofA works. If it were any different---we'd be saying goodbye to President Gore and trying to figure out who g w bush was. Oh that's right he's the decider.
Well hopefully WE DEMOCRATS will flood the polls no matter what and let the repub-lie-cons know change is a comming. Be it Hillary or Barrak.

Anonymous said...

If people were really honest with themselves and others, they would see that Hillary is the only candidate really prepared to be President on the first day. Forget and forgive what Bill did. Most men would do the same if they had the chance and thought they would not get caught. If Hillary can forgive Bill, that is all that matters. It is no one else's business. Bill Clinton was one of the most succesful presidents in our history. I believe that Hillary will also be a great president. I feel that anyone who says they hate Hillary, its really all about them. I would like to know why people hate her. I want to hear about solid, political reasons. The Republicans are all scared of her because they know she will be a great president, and bring the Democrats back to the forefront. Obama is a good person and a good speaker. But, he is not prepared to be the next president. I do not feel he can even pick a qualified cabinet. I imagine most of the young people who back Obama, have not even investigated his platform. Go Hillary!!

chilco said...

God Bless tacjam and the following "anonymous" comment.
Listen guys..... I really don't hate Obama, and you can donate $10.00 of your social workers check if you like. (As an aside: You'll pay even more when he raises your taxes thru the roof,) but that's your perogative.)
I wish when I was a twentysomething single i could have had a guy like this to believe in, BUT then I got older and maybe just a bit wiser.
BTW Alyson YOU'RE HOT!
Finally.... Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chavez were not communist's, matter of fact Chavez is beloved by the youth of Venezuela, and he is bringing "CHANGE" just as promised. Duly elected as well!
BTW Alyson You're HOT.

Anonymous said...

I think the primaries are a lot more interesting when Bill Clinton is on the campaign trail, showing his true colors. He did such a great job in South Carolina! It's over for Hillary. She truly has one person to thank......Bill.

Rick said...

Chilco you need to relax. You are missing all of the big pictures here, and there are many. Florida's delegation agreed in 2006 to abide by the DNC primary scheduling rules. Your state, not the DNC, broke the rules. Now your beef is with your Republican Governor and your Republican Legislature. VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER when you cast your vote for Obama or Clinton. Your primary vote, however, will not count. It is not fair. We are all very sorry that you thought that your vote was going to count, but everyone else understood that it wouldn't.

What if the DNC decided to allow Michigan and Florida to do what they pleased? Hey, Maryland wants to hold their primary on 12/27/07. Is that OK? Oh, wait, Virginia wants to go the day after Thanksgiving in 2007 when everyone is off work. Is that OK with you? Where do you draw the line? Florida broke the rules, you voted when you knew it wasn't going to count, now move on.

Democrats need to understand that we are living in a 50-50 country. The election in November is about voting in as many Democrats as possible. You may put down Barack's ability to bring in votes in red states that we won't win, but guess what? Obama on the ticket might bring an extra Congressman in Iowa, another in Colorado, two more in California, etc. Obama will not lose any state that Clinton will win. Clinton is hated like no other person in this country. She will bring out the Republicans in force to not only vote against her, but to vote for Republicans in Congress.

Democrats, get smart.

chilco said...

OK Rick,
we'll just forget that over 1 million democrat's voted for Hillary in this past primary!
Honestly most of you make me want to vomit!
You're ultra-liberal persuasion will understand in November when the disenfranchised democrat's in Florida turn against this crap, and either don't show up to vote or cast for McCain.
Bottom line NO MATTER WHAT is we voted. 1 man 1 vote. They should count. (And BTW Obama would get some delegates out of the deal as well...... were you thinking of that?)
You MoveOn.commer's were afraid to take on the Bush/Cheney crowd when they stole the election, but now you want to steal it from us democrat's who did our civic duty. And we beat your guy fair and square here in Florida.
Rick and Company.... you can have Idaho, North Dakota and every other state that Obama won't win in November. IT'S CLEAR who wins the BIG states, but you'd rather smoke hemp and daydream about a guy you know nothing about. No record so to speak of. Good for Obama and his supporter's, and to get elected, but bad when he the man is faced with life and death situation's.
I've never missed voting in an election in 25 yrs. and I swore I'd never ever vote republican, but if my vote means nothing to you or the democratic party, then screw the party, screw the back stabbing John "the blueblood" Kerry, and the "killer-coward" Ted Kennedy.
Do I sound pissed? Yeah! Well there are more than 2 million democrat's that feel like I do in Michigan and Florida.
All you Johnny come lately's can discount us now, but we'll have a voice in November. Remember that!
Now maybe I'm worked up....again, over something that may never happen, as I truly believe my mexican friends and fellow democrat's in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will pull this out for Hillary (along with our super delegate support.) I ascribe to a scorched earth policy in politic's. This is no tickling contest and it's time to pull off the gloves and expose Obama for the ultra-liberal candidate he is. The likes of which hasn't been seen since the "great experiment" Jimmy Carter. If Obama get's in we get 4 years of ineptitude and once again will be swept out in 2012.
Right is right. And my vote WILL count or believe me this Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, and MoveOn.Org crowd will hear from the established democratic party in November.

Anonymous said...

Better yet.....
If I'm advising John McCain I run Colin Powell on my ticket for VP and blow up the black support for Obama.
Yeah I like this move.

tacjam said...

Wow Chilco, it's amazing how so many of us do have the same feeling.
I too and a lot of NYers and Jerseyites are planning to do that same. I am 42 yrs old and have never voted for a rebub-lie-con, but when push comes to shove I will, as will many others vote for Mcain. For me experience trumps idealism. At this point in time we need strong direction not promises of hope and change. That was nice in the 60's with JFK, but guess what Obama isn't a Kennedy.
So I guess the Kennedys and Kerry will be changing their superdelegate votes to Hillary since he (obama)believes if their states voted that way they need to vote that way as well.
And you know what is funny? That Obama has said, but of course not lately, "i'm not sure how I would have voted in 2002 for, or against the war". And to all of you "hope" and "change" mongers.
Can YOU honestly say that after 9/11, you didn't have the feeling of going after Saddam, even if we knew he had nothing to do with 9/11, but because YOU too thought he had WMD? And I didn't want another 9/11 to happen. So yeah I feel just like a lot of others feel used and abused by our governmet. If you say no, look deep inside and you know you are just full of sh*t. Because we ALL were scared sh*itless and trusted our government was being honest with us. Only latter to find out what a load of crap and lies we were fed. So go with your empty promises, and enjoy the next 4 to 8 years under Mcain. Because the states that obama has won will most likely go red anyway. The bigger states who have voted for Hillary will probably go for obama with a lot of them going for Mcain.

Oreo said...

So since Bush now has so much experience I'd expect you'd vote for him if he was running again?

How much do you know about John McCain? Bush said he's the "best guy to carry on my agenda" Do you really want that?

Spend a few minutes here and let me know if you still think McCain would be a better choice than Clinton or Obama.

Anonymous said...

Clinton haters need to stop long enough to see real leadership. This country was most prosperous during the Clinton Administration. How soon we forget. The Obama mantra comes up empty!! Go Hillary!!!!!

tacjam said...

Hey Cookie,

Never did I once say that Mcain would be better than Clinton. I am 120% for Hillary and not for Obama. It's not that I don't like Obama except that I repeat, I feel experience TRUMPS an idealistic promise of nothing. Meaning anyone can say "I am for change" or "I am for hope" and who in their right mind wouldn't ne for change or hope after the 8 years of hell this moron named bush has put us through.
We need more than hope and change to put this country back where it was. We need to be able to look to our new President to get us back on track not only internationally, but also domestically. That will take a bit more than just hope and change. Someone with EXPERIENCE in both the international and domestic arenas. What has Obama been the head of--and right from his mouth, the Harvard Law Review, My Senate Office, and I head up my Campaign. Well, with a resume like that.....makes me wonder.

Democratic? said...

To both Michigan and Florida: Yes, you should have a vote that counts. Should it be the primary that took place in January? No. Your state party screwed up here. I understand your anger and would feel the same way if my state had done this. That doesn't mean that a vote taken when the people were told (and the candidates agreed) that the vote wouldn't count, should be considered a "fair" vote.

If you want 1 vote for 1 person, then hold a sanctioned caucus now, within the rules of the party and make your vote count. Michigan especially cannot count. How can you suggest a vote should count when the party requested the candidates remove their names from the ballot. One did and one didn't. You cannot say that to make things "fair" this vote counts.

Florida has a little better argument since both names were on the ballot, but still, the state broke the rules of the DNC. The DNC set the rules and Florida chose not to follow them. Now the people shout that the DNC did something unfair? If you want a vote, petition the Florida leaders for a new vote. HRC had no trouble agreeing that the Florida wouldn't count till she saw that she needed those votes and had won the state.

We as the Democratic Party have a huge problem here. We cannot disenfranchise two states in this union. To do so is political suicide. Delegates from MI and FL must be seated at the convention and the only way to do it fairly is with a new and sanctioned vote. Yes this costs the party money. The DNC and the state parties need to pony up and pay for it.

My thanks to the hosts for creating this forum and the time and effort they put into sharing their research and information.

dave said...

First of all, let's get real. Obama doesn't have the experience, and the Washington faithful don't want to lead some "kid" around showing him the ropes. We need Hillary in there to pick up the ball and run with it, which she'll do. The delegation will not "allow" Obama into their inner circle at this time. Enough of the nonsense!!

Anonymous said...

I'm with you. It takes more than just campaining for change. Obama needs to add substance to his mantra. It's not there - no leadership - no experience. If he wins we are headed for trouble. Hilary will hit the ground running in getting the middle class back on track. We need to get serious about the welfare of this country.

Anonymous said...

Just because HILLARY was the first lady doesn't make her a better canidate!!!! Barack is more than cabable of successfully running this country! By the way, Bush had experience/leadership and look what that got us.

Anonymous said...

True. And like Obama, Bush was also likable. So, take a another look at where that got us!!

Anonymous said...

Experience? Not a requirement for being president. Woodrow Wilson, Eisenhower, George Washington, to name a few. Hillary is old school Washington. She is in deep with lobbyists. What ever happened to her promise to reform health care when Bill was elected? Oh yeah, the lobbyist began giving her money. Hmmm.
I for one, find her forgiveness of her husband distasteful. I feel it is a sham to promote their political agenda. I would have had more respect for her if she had kicked him out. It would have made her more human.
I really don't think anyone in Washington is so ignorant to not want to listen to a president because of his age. Kennedy, 43, and Teddy Roosevelt, 42, had no problem.
We need a breath of fresh air in Washington, an outsider who will question how it's always been done and try something different.
I'm a Republican and my vote is for Obama.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Democrat - At this point, I'm not sure who I will vote for. What worries me is I along with the rest of America want the chance to vote before Obama is put in office. Your view is so clouded by such profound dislike for Hillary - wow. Obama - McCain and all the others are tainted by Washington too. Clinton is not exclusive. No one knows at this point where Obama's money is coming from either. As far as healthcare promises by Hillary she was fought hard by ignorance. Now is her chance.

zimchinanai said...

hillary clinton always reminds me of the peter paul scandal i wonder why it was never brought up in this campaign.shes untrustworthy period.

zimchinanai said...

can anyone tell me the diffrence btwn bill clinton wen he was running for president and obama.bill was for change and had less experience so now wats wrong with obama coming up with change.hillary doesnt sound sincere at all in here speeches and the fake laugh doesnt do her justice.vote obama or someone else but the clintons no no