I take it you haven't heard that they are all going to switch over to HRC in Denver. It's true, because the nomination is not decided by who won a majority of delegates but who's leading in the general election polls 6 months out.

I wish President Kerry would do something about this. Doesn't seem fair.

In Oregon Obama:

Won with Women

Won with Whites under 60 (and all voters under 65)

Won with Union Households

Won with Voters with no College Degree

All that crap about who Obama can't win with we kept hearing after West Virginia just went out the window.

But...but...it's not his turn! He's not owed!

The same is true for Obama.  Neither candidate will have enough delegates unless superdelegates put her or him over the top.  The momentum is behind Obama (whom I support) but this thing isn't over just yet.

...so it's useless to speculate about it.

Obama has won over the superdelegates as much as he has the voters.  Which is to say JUST enough to come out ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/pol itics/21clinton.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&am p;adxnnlx=1211344023-wiC0oMsqXFnwzbRaaxh U7w

Debt repayment... and her own ego stroking... but that's about it...

Finding a graceful way out while honoring the passion of her supporters.  I have no doubt that she has the strength to do it right.

Probably gonna get halvsies. With Barack getting the half the uncommitted.

Umm, no.  Not Florida and Michigan.

And just for the sake of honesty, shouldn't anyone citing Clinton's contention that she's won the popular vote be obliged to state precisely how she's come to that figure:

Counting Florida and Michigan, with no Michigan votes going to Obama.
Not counting ANY estimate from four caucus states.

She she leads if you count every vote save those from the four caucus states.

I know that everybody knows who the nominee is, but her strongest point is based on a nonexistent metric.  Why nonexistent?  Because there is no accurate tally of the popular vote.  

I wonder who troll rated you... was it an Obama supporter who hates the concept of superdelegates?  Or was it a Clinton supporter who once praised superdelegates overturning the popular will, but now has changed their minds about that?

if Obama is the nominee (90%+ chance) there will be some thinking to do among the posters there.

Are you kidding?

...after Bush won in 2000 saying At long last our national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.

:(

it's sad when the joke becomes reality.

There ARE no rules

-Clinton Supporter.

The rest of your post looks like just a rant, but that bit of misinformation should be corrected.

Pledged delegates are based on a mathematical apportionment based on specific districts.  Each campaign knew these from the start, and they represented the popular will.  In the event that the pledged delegates did not generate the necessary delegates to secure a nomination, the superdelegates (party leaders) were created to lend their support to whatever candidate they wanted based on whatever metric they felt was right.  This is a ridiculous system, obviously, but it is what it is.  The pledged delegate total should be the only relevant metric.  In the future, if they want to switch to the popular vote, that's totally fine.  In that case, however, it will change the strategy of the campaigns dramatically.  As an example, Iowa and New Hampshire would not matter, and California and New York would be essential.

are those divvied out in the actual election.
They generally do (except for the douches who switch) support who they got apportioned to .

The elected officials (aka super-delegates, aka automatic delegates) are free to vote for whoever they wish.  The vote of their constituents is one metric that they should look to but there are other things they vote on as well.

The rules are a bit of a mess in that pledged delegates (the ones divvied up in the election) can switch.

I think the only way Hillary gets blame if Obama loses if she pulls a something like a Scoop Jackson in 1972.

like rookie, one term senator who's named Barack Hussein Obama, is black and has to deal with 13% of the country still thinking he's Muslim.

WHY IS THIS SYSTEM DESIGNED TO REWARD POWER PLAYERS?!

[me screams]

yeah, Bill and Hill had no influence when they were in the WH.

Maybe Bill Clinton's hand picked chairman shoulda wrote some rules.

what a joke

Pledged delegates are the ones that represent the voters that voted in the state.  They are divided up according to the allocation of votes.

Ted Kennedy is a super delegate who can represent whoever he chooses as can all the other super delegates.

I agree. Please join me on a conference call to Ted Kulongoski and Mike Easley, eviscerating them for going against the preference of their constituents.

delegates from?

(This is a delegate race, and not a popular vote contest, as you no doubt recall)

Clinton only leads in the popular vote if you give Obama zero votes in MI and you don't count the caucus states.

Half of Oregon's votes aren't even in yet. And including Michigan with zero votes for Obama is downright Soviet.

You don't think FL and MI will be halved? Hell, even the GOP did that. There is no way those states don't get punished. They cheated and the DNC will work a solution out.

I'm not sure how SC, Georgia, Utah, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, DC, Wisconsin, Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon are not then speed bumps.  That isn't even listing caucus states.  

Lets face it, if Obama were 100 delegates behind right now...Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana would be "speed bumps" for Clinton.  

your link is to the ABC news homepage - it says  nothing of the popular vote...Clinton leads in the popular vote only if you count it in one very odd manor.  If you count it in the dozens of other, more correct, ways Obama leads.  And, even if Fl and Mi are sat in full Obama is still the winner.  

The choice of the majority of Democrats is the nominee.

Sorry, but I think Clinton's 35 point win in KY is more than a speed bump.

Why, is Appalachia adding a couple more states? The reality is that Senator Obama was never going to come close in WV or KY. It's unfortunate that they had to come at the end of election because they serve to propagate false hope among Clinton supporters.

Clinton is still raising money to compete in the remaining 3 contests and there is Florida and Michigan to be resolved on May 31. I wouldn't assume that their delegations will be halved per Chucky T.

You can assume, however, that they aren't going to impact the outcome of the contest (nor can they, at this point).  

Also, according to ABC News, Clinton leads in the popular vote.

I'm not going to engage you on the merits, because at this point, we both know your argument doesn't have any. I just have to ask you, doesn't it make you feel like a Republican to make such blatantly-dishonest arguments?  

Gloat and bash?

See, these are the types of comments I just don't understand.

Agreed...  But Jerome and Hillary are being disingenuous, to put it nicely, to say that she leads in the pop vote.  If you count MI and FL and give Obama zero votes in MI AND you don't count Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (because they didn't release pop vote numbers).

Then and only then does she lead in popular vote.

You are under many mistaken impressions, the least of which is that this is an election for a party's nomination, not for the office of Presidency itself, therefore the Constitution has abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with it.

And Hillary has only won the popular vote if you WANT her to win the popular vote, but this is an argument that has been stated & ignored so many times that it is hardly a bother anymore.

Go read the comments in this diary and then kindly spare me your sanctimony.

She has NOT won the popular vote, and any attempt to claim all of Michigan's votes for Hillary and none of the uncommitted votes for Obama is factually ridiculous.

Stop comparing the primaries to Florida.  Democrats are not upset that Gore lost despite winning the popular vote.  We're upset because Gore lost despite winning the electoral college vote.  If we were so wrapped up in the popular vote, we wouldn't have cared about winning Florida by .000001 percent.  No one was credibly arguing that Gore should have won solely because of the popular vote.

The objectionable thing in Florida in 2000 was that the legitimate process was blocked and a vote of 5-4 gave the EC delegates to Bush, NOT that Gore won the national popular vote. The official metric in Florida was supposed to be popular vote, and the Supreme Court stopped the recount of the vote.

No one here but the Republican trolls would have been horrified if Kerry had gotten 100,000 more votes in Ohio, and beaten Bush while losing the national popular vote (by around 3 million votes). The national popular vote isn't the legitimate metric in the Presidential election, and it isn't the metric in the Democratic nomination (and Obama is winning the national popular vote anyway, so this is reality speaking, not partisanship). Legitimate governments are based on elections that are governed by rules that are agreed upon before the election, not ad hoc claims of what should have been fair rules, cobbled up after the fact.

If she overcomes all this against her (and I believe she will), she will become the best president of the US - EVER.  And history will write a huge new story, inspired by a former hippy-lady who married a poor former hippy-lawyer - to become two of the most beloved Democratic Presidents in the country's history.

Biggest fairytale I've ever heard...

Seriously, anyone who thinks that either Hillary or Barack is going to be the greatest president ever (barring some kind of horrible calamity) is an extremely-deluded supporter.

The "Clinton as victim" meme is getting kind of old. She came into the primaries with a massive lead, 100% name recognition, a 100+ lead in superdelegates, the biggest name in Democratic politics, the support of the most popular living president, a massive fundraising operation, a schedule designed by mostly Clinton-appointed DNC members, and a massive aura of inevitability. She hasn't pulled herself up to barely having a shot at the nomination - she's fallen from a sure-fire thing to this.

You're clearly a subscriber to the magical realism school of politics. If I knew you better, I'd probably give you the "he or she is so wrong for you, don't do it" speech.

Naaahh, maybe I'll just use "Yes, Wendy, you can fly!"

This is a great and factual post that will be seen as gloating or trolling. I am very proud at this moment of all that has gone on these last 15 months. The fact that Barack Hussein Obama a.k.a. Barry is so close to clinching the nomination brings a smile to my face.

Actually, the Clintons did lose an election or two in Arkansas back in the day. But it's been a while.

   ran for reelection for Governor of Arkansas. He also lost when he ran for Congress earlier on, but maybe that wasn't significant... Whatever. Neither candidate is perfect, but we will do fine with the Senator from Illinois. He wasn't my first or second choice, but I've grown to respect and appreciate his political skills as well as his great oratory.

To be clear, this is McCain's response to Obama's criticism of McCain during tonight's speech.

he ordered his McCain 'underpants gnomes' trolls to copy and paste nice things about McCain on blogs including myDD.

The reward: 50 super secret troll points that you can redeem for a Maverick mouse pad...

Is that for real?  It really sounds like a Clinton memo.  

If John McCain is just going to run the same campaign that HRC ran against Obama, Obama is going to win in a landslide.  

HRC is a much more formidable candidate than John "I lost my bearings" McCain.

I agree with this.  There are three more contests, and it will be great to build more Democratic infrastructure in at least two of them (and pimp PR for statehood!).

With your permission, I'd like to co-opt that.

I'm 29 now, but I'm pretty sure my adult life hasn't started yet.

though I have a little more cover as I am 23.

BTW congrats on the DNC invitation as a state blogger.  Kudos!

after all there are 50 states in the union whose votes should count, but the Clinton campaign apparently hates the states of WA, IA, ME, and NV.

There votes count and with them the climb becomes a lot steeper for the FL count.

In God's name how to do you not count FL?

Unsanctioned contest + no campaigning = doesn't count

This is precisely the kind of posting that tells this Clinton supporter NOT to coalesce if Obama is the nominee. Why the heck would I want to be associated with you?

The blogosphere has made the Obama movement look schizophrenic from the start. He says change, hope and unity and his supporters post drivel like your "poem." At one point, he could have been an attractive (though still fragile) candidate for someone like me, but DKos and lately DD have pretty much ruined him for me.

Kerry lost to Bush by 3 million votes. Hillary's support is over 16 million strong. Do the math.

for her, I'd like to think the majority of Clinton's supporters aren't morally bankrupt enough to surrender the country to four more years of Bush because they'd rather see McCain in office than the nominee of the party they purport to belong to.

I'm coming to think that the comparison to this primary as a "hostage crisis" was more apt than originally thought.

bullshit, it is significant actaully, but, wait for it, I agree with you, it's not over until one has the magic number whatever is determined, because that is the rule.  

But he is far closer and he beat a Clinton in the delegates race, that's a pretty amazing feat

Oh, OK, so caucuses are a fraud?  

If so, Bill Clinton's presidency was a fraud.  And Hillary needs to refuse any delegates she won in caucus states.

When she does that, I'll believe you're not being disingenuous about caucuses being "a fraud."

Also, as you surely know, polls taken 6 months out from the general when there is still a primary going on tell us almost nothing (historically) about how the GE will actually shape up.

And what about the big Obama lead over McCain in Pennsylvania in those same polls?  That's a state he supposedly "can't win" while HRC can, so it needs some explaining if you think polls tell us much at all about candidates' chances in the general right now.

I don't get this.  I thought we were all progressives in the end.  Yet my fellow progressives are so blinded by indignation that they cannot let go of some very elitist beliefs, namely that a small cadre of party insiders should overrule the results of a process in which everyone participated knowing and agreeing to the rules -- voters included.  

Your fellow progressives are looking to fundamental principles, the principles that give any rules legitimacy, and the touchstone of progressivism: the will of the people.

We live in a democracy, i.e. we govern ourselves. That means our rules are subject to the will of the people, not the other way around. When faced with a set of rules that pervert the will of the people we abandon the rules, not the people. Al Gore's procedural loss is a perfect example, to progressives that was an abomination.

This is America, where the rules serve the people.

that they would support the candidate that wins the majority of pledged delegates.  Its a more compelling argument to many than the comparatively flawed 'popular vote' argument.

I read this three times trying to see if there was something coherent in it.  I don't understand what you're saying.  Try again?

Don't be silly. You know the answer to that.

I predict "she won the states with the most square miles."