ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Clinton camp: All the way to convention

Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:30 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Athena Jones and NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Clinton campaign held a conference call, led by Harold Ickes, a top aide, to discuss the superdelegates issue and expectations for the upcoming contests. 

Ickes, a DNC member and superdelegate himself, said the campaign expects Clinton to "hold her own" in Wisconsin, to win Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and to have come close to closing the delegate gap with Obama by March 5th. He said by the end of the process on June 7th, when Puerto Rico votes, she would be "neck and neck" with Obama and would wrap up the nomination soon after. Ickes said the nomination would be settled "before we get to the floor" of the convention but that the campaign would take this fight all the way to Denver.

Ickes argued the "superdelegates" should be called "automatic delegates" instead, because the former makes it sound like they have “superpowers.” The DNC itself refers to them as “superdelegates” and as “unpledged” delegates.

"Automatic delegates don't have superpowers. Their vote isn't given any extra weight," Ickes said, explaining it was still a one-person, one-vote scenario, though they already get the opportunity to vote in primaries and caucuses like regular voters.

The effort to change the terms journalists use to refer to the superdelegates was particularly interesting as a political ploy. The word "automatic" has implications that would seem to fit well with the arguments the Clinton camp has been making, namely that superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment.

On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be “disenfranchised” and that the states were important to the Democratic Party's fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules.

But Ickes did. And he voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.

“There’s been no change,” Ickes said, adding that he was then acting as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee “not acting as an agent of Sen. Clinton. We had promulgated rules -- if Florida and Michigan violated those rules” they’d be stripped of their delegates. “We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign in those states.”

In fact, however, that was not why Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. They were stripped of their delegates because they violated party rules by moving up their contest dates before Feb. 5. A pledge to not campaign in those states did not come about until one was put forward by the four early states allowed to go before Feb. 5 by the DNC -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton was the last to sign this pledge.

“Those were the rules, and we thought we had an obligation to enforce them,” Ickes acknowledged today on the call even while trying to convince members of the media that Florida’s and Michigan’s delegations should not only be seated at the convention, but should also have full voting rights and that delegates should be allocated based on voting that took place in those states -- even though in Michigan, Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot and uncommitted got 41% of the vote to Clinton’s 55%.

Despite polls showing Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton in a general election, the campaign argued that Clinton would actually do better and that “polls change.” Ickes and spokesman Phil Singer argued that while Obama has carried red states, those would be states that would never go for Democrats in November. Clinton carried swing states like Nevada and Tennessee, they said. There was no mention of Virginia, which Obama won handily.

They also argued that Clinton’s base voters -- women and blue-collar Democrats -- are more reliable. Obama has “voters who might not be as reliably there,” Singer said. While that could be argued for the record numbers of young voters who have come out to vote for Obama, Singer made no mention of African Americans, one of the pillars of the Democratic Party.

Ickes repeated earlier contentions that there was no reason to "re do" the votes in Florida and Michigan and didn’t directly answer if they would participate in a re-vote in Michigan. Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible for Clinton to lose pledged delegates but control a majority of the credentials committee, which ultimately decides if and how Florida’s and Michigan’s disputed delegations would be dealt with.

EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified spokesman Phil Singer as Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Repeatedly call any person or state who didn't choose you insignificant and unreliable. That's a sure way to win over hearts and minds. Nice job, team Clinton.

A disenfranchised Michigan voter, who didn't vote because I didn't count, but now I do.
You Go Hillary...fight as hard as you have to so as to insure that we again don't put into power a president with zero experience.
You want to lift peoples spirits Mr. Obama...become a preacher. This country has been down this road and although you are no GWB you have yet to be tested and we just can't afford the test drive this time.
I would challenge you people to stop thinking in ideals.  Ideally, Obama has all of these ideas about change, and how when he is president the whole country is going to be great because he is going to change things.  

So the guy can speak, big deal?  It is an important thing to be able to do (i.e. see current president), but people seem to think he is going to turn around this country in a heart beat.  People seem to think if he is elected Social Security will be fixed, the entire education system in this country will be brought up to par, global warming will magically disappear, everyone will immediately get a sense of purpose and motivation, all curruption in D.C. will end, and the whole world will love the USA again!

Next time you listen to Obama, look past the rhetoric.  Look at what he plans to do, how he plans to do it, and the outcome of that.  In the very least, I think you'll see that he may not be as great as everyone is saying.  

Hopefully though you'll realize he is a lot of talk and little action, at least proven action anyway.  

Unfortunately though, that is unlikely.  Unfortunately, Americans would rather vote on the "dazzle" of a candidate than the intelligence and experience of them.  Aren't we smart!
I am infuriated that the Clinton campaign is trying this crap.  Of course the delegates from Florida and Michigan shouldn't be seated, my three year old could hear the details of this situation and tell you what the right thing to do is.  I have always said that though I support Barack Obama I would vote for Hillary if she won the nomination.  Well that only stands if she actually WINS as opposed to STEALS the primary election.  If she manages to steal it there is no way in hell I'll vote for her.
Senator Clinton is sounding desperate.  She reminds me more and more of Bush and his "my way or the highway mentality."  I started out this campaign by being for Senator Clinton, moved to Senator Obama on principle, and feel more justified daily in that decision.  The Clintons have decided that this is their election by entitlement, and will apparently do anything they can to steal it.

Anyone else getting tired of the attitude?
Clinton offers more of the same.  It hurts the country and me.  Besides, I don't trust her.

Obama may turn out to be no better but at least I can hope.
I just want clear a few point. How do you call it a democracy when 1 single vote counts the same as the votes of thousands of people who leaver their work and for hours waits in line to vote. I also want to mention that I thought only in communist countries there is only 1 party and 1 persons name on a ballot that don't even counts at the end whsince 1 person alwasy is the supre ruler no matter what.
Is this the "Democracy" we want others around the world to see?  Is this the type of "Democracy" we want to shove down other nation's throats?  How can we expect others to follow our examples?  We can and must do better than this!

OBAMA-HAGEL '08
Obama and his FOLKS are as toxic to politics as a FEMA trailer!
HP Boston (Sent Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:11 PM)

_______________________

And that pertains exactly how to this article about how the Clintons intend to bypass the voters' preference and steal the nomination, no matter what it will do to the party?
hillary will beat mcaine obama whould get beat bad you obama supporters think he can win florida please not a chance the south will not vote for him, you obama supporters are living a dream
What is truly sad is four more years of a republican President. If the Dems has taken FLORIDA in the last elections, they would have had the White House. Now we want to tell all of the FLORIDA voters that they have no say in the nomination. Perhaps Florida voters can stay home and see if McCain takes FLORIDA and the WhIte House.
I notice that SUPERDELEGATES Sen Kerry and Sen Kennedy are backing Obama even though the voters in their state went for Clinton. Is Sen. Obama asking them to switch thier endorsements
Obama Supporters and Super Delegates
February 16, 2008

In the quick fire succession of recent primaries from Maine to Washington State and back to the Potomac, the voters have spoken. Republicans, although with indigestion and heartburn, have said "McCain's the one." With almost double the number of Republican voters, most Democrats have said "yes we can" for Obama, almost half have said "ready on day one" for Hillary Clinton.

Republicans, who like to reward the most successful by giving them everything, have set up a "winner take all" primary system that appears certain to coronate John McCain very shortly and give him the time he needs to heal wounds and soothe fears about him within the Party, and thus enable him to focus his attention on honing his argument against the Democrats for the fall campaign.

Democrats, being more true to the Jeffersonian principles of Democracy and representation of all the people, have created a primary structure that, this year, seems certain to maintain tension and passionate competitive battling within the Party that likely will alienate at least one or more major Democratic Party constituencies regardless of who wins the nomination.

And when it's over, the battlers may have to give way to the established insiders and party elites (super delegates) to make the decision in a political blood bath on the floor of the convention. Jefferson would have been proud.

Ironically, all the current condemnation of super delegates is too little too late -- they were created exactly for the kind of situation we are shaping up to have with Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama. And when that system was set up, no one complained, not vested core constituencies, not liberal commentators and radio talk show hosts, not elected democratic officials, not Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, not Paul Begala and James Carville, and not Michael Moore and Katrina VanDen Heuvel. And not the New York Times or Washington Post, not Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and not Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich. And for that matter, not Walter Cronkite. NO ONE.

And now, all of the most serious criticism of the system comes from those who support Barack Obama. And their reason is simple. They fear that the vote will be too close to call by the delegate count and that somehow, Hillary Clinton would broker and negotiate her way to the majority of the super delegates -- that's why they are calling for pledges that all super delegates vote the way the voters vote in the primaries.

The argument of most of the Obama supporters who want the super delegate structure strapped or at least some sort of "binding" pledge that they will support who the voters support is based on the assumption that Barack Obama will wind up with the most votes and delegates going in to Denver, even if he is short of the total needed for a first ballot victory. Not so fast.

Barack Obama won a most impressive string of victories from Maine to Nebraska to Louisiana to Washington State, all within a short period of just a few days. And he continues to pocket endorsements from well respected elected Democratic officials, from Senator Leahy in Vermont to Tom Daschle in South Dakota to Gov Christine Gregoire in Washington State. And he continues to demonstrate his great speaking prowess and success in fund raising.

But Hillary was just announced as the winner in New Mexico, and her winning there is less important to her than the fact that she did not LOSE there. Winning there nets her 2 delegates more than Obama. But if she had lost, it would have cemented the Obama run with no interruptions, AND, it would have cast major doubt on the viability of the Hillary-Latino alliance as an argument for her candidacy for the general election in the fall. And a loss there would likely stall her closing of the gap with Obama in Wisconsin. As things stand now, Hillary is 4-5 points behind Obama in Wisconsin and could close the gap further.

But here's where it gets interesting. All the pundits say Hillary not only has to win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania, but she has to win big. And right now, I see Hillary winning all three of those states and winning them by 8 to 12 point margins. In those states, that's big. More significantly, it would likely put her back on top of the total vote count and with the delegate count as well.

And if nothing changes after that significantly (we all wait for Puerto Rico), it would then be the Obama supporters who would then argue that the super delegates should vote for who they think is the best candidate and can win in November etc, and that they should not be bound just by who won the most votes -- the argument they are making now.

And there's one other potential surprise that could have a major impact on this race. I believe it is likely that John Edwards may endorse Hillary Clinton for the nomination over Barack Obama. And if Edwards does so, I believe it would be for three reasons.

First, I think Edwards may conclude that Clinton is the tougher candidate to both fight in the fall campaign and to fight back against the insurance and oil companies once she were in the White House. Second, I think Edwards may conclude that Hillary's healthcare plan will come closer to accomplishing his goal of true universal health care that he feels so committed to and passionately about. And third (and this one will not be so openly discussed), Edwards was born in South Carolina and represented North Carolina. I believe he may conclude that there is a planned "southern and mid-states strategy" that Republicans and Swift Boat type groups will utilize in the fall campaign that will make it tougher for Obama to actually win versus Hillary's chances to actually win.

Finally, I believe that if Edwards is going to do this it will be soon as he knows he has, outside of Iowa, his strongest populist-middle class support in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to a lesser degree. Consequently, he will want to have his endorsement really make a difference -- and with those primaries looming, if he does make this endorsement it would likely be sooner rather than later.

With the points I made earlier that suggest that not only is Hillary not out of this, but in fact, she may wind up ahead by June in both vote count and delegates, and then you combine that with the possible impact of a John Edwards endorsement were it to occur, then look for the Obama supporters to flip-flop on their current position concerning the super delegate structure and "change" their position to some other criteria to request votes from super delegates. If in a competitive battle both sides hate the super delegate structure, there may very well be a strong argument for leaving things just the way they are!

If events happen as outlined above, and I believe they will, come this summer at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama's ability to request votes from super delegates will have been mortally wounded by the current position that he and his supporters are now exclaiming in February. Can anyone say flip-flop?

I love it!

I can totally see the Obama supporters flip-flopping on the super delegate structure! HAHAHA!

Obama and his supporters claim they want the super delegates to vote the way the people did, but they would have John Kerry and Ted Kennedy voting for Barack Obama, despite the people in Massachusetts voting overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.

Obama and his supporters position on the super delegate structure is easy to expose for what it is: the ultimate FLIP-FLOP!!



Vote Hillary Clinton for President!

www.hillaryclinton.com


Why does the Clinton campaign dictate the news?  Everyday I see news stories with content primarily lifted from conference calls with Clinton's campaign and press releases from Clinton's campaign.  The Clinton campaign has even designated press releases as self-proclaimed "breaking news" and the medie carry it.  

I am very uncomfortable with this attempted manipulation of the media.  It reminds me far too much of the way the media was manipulated by the Bush administration in the months before the Iraq war.  
"Automatic Delegates" is a hop, skip and a jump from the "Healthy Skies" initiative and "we do not torture."  Might work on Republicans, but it hasn't worked on Democrats in eight years.
The primary difference between Clinton and Obama is integrity. This is yet another example of Hillary Clinton's willingness to bend, twist and break the rules for political experience. She agreed with the DNC that these states would not count and because of this the lesser-known Obama refrained from campaigning in FL and even withdrew from the MI ballot with Edwards per DNC instructins. He abided by party rules and so did she at the time. Now that she is desperate to steal this election anyway possible, suddenly she is the humanitarian fighting for voting rights??? How false can you get. Let FL and MI caucus or vote on the web if it is too much trouble to caucus. And note this: without counting 'superdelegates' obama still wins, even if Hillary cheats with Florida and Michigan'd 'fair' elections. Do the math!!!
More spin coming from the Clinton campaign. She's going to lose Wisconsin and Texas. The only upcoming state she's going to win (and it will be close) will be Ohio. PA will also be very close, going either way. Obama's going to have a huge lead in pledged delegates and the Super-Delegates are going to start moving to Obama's camp in huge numbers. If Obama has a big lead in pledged delegates, Hillary and all her spin machine won't stand a chance. The Supers will go with the front-runner.
Does she really believe that just because she is Hillary Clinton that all superdelegates should just vote for her? Automatic only for her, but not for Obama. Is this what we want in the White House?
I keep reading that Obama helped the people in Illinois that were losing their jobs and shutting down factories.What happened and how come these things were not taken care of?Whay are there still no jobs and shttered factories?Please answer as so many of you are experts on the feats of Obama.
obama cult is getting really creepy. It is becoming almost like Jihadis. That is how jihadis blow themselves up with a same chant YES WE CAN!!! trying to reach heaven where 7 angles are waiting for them.
nuanced - You read my mind! Ickes has the perfect name as the rep for this Clinton group! They are truly "icky!"
Wouldn't reinstating the delegates from Florida and Michigan in an effort to avoid disenfranchising their voter essentially disenfranchise the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters in both states who did not vote because the DNC AND Hillary both told them that the primaries were "beauty contests" and would have "no meaning whatsoever"?  Is that not extremely disingenuous to tell people that and then later demand that the "meaningless" contests be counted, just because you find that you're now behind?

It's a dirty, deceitful trick.  I hope both states get to hold do-overs, but if not, the delegates should not be seated.  If Hillary will not honor the rules of her own party, who's to say she will honor the rules of the Presidency as laid out by the Constitution?
Typical Clinton politics. If you can't win honestly
then win; no matter what you have to do. You have to admire the unmitigated gaul of the Clinton machine.
I wonder what she will come up with for her next message/slogan. She doesn't have much record, and her
experience is very lacking. The last debate was just
a waste of time and drew little distinction. She should pack it up and go back to New York with her
tail btween her legs. And take lyin' Slick Willy with
her!
If and when the Clinton's income tax filings are made public - which they have refused to do - and the suspected super-funds from the super-Saudis are revealed, this will be a disaster if done after the nomination.  We also want her White House papers released, over which Bill has exerted executive priviledge.  Something stinks here!  The super delegates should be sensitive to these vital issues before we get locked into a horrid nomination that will give McCain the presidency.
The DNC allowed the Republican Party control the Democratic primaries since the Michigan Supreme Court and the Florida Legislature, both Republican, approved the date of both primaries.

While the Republicans punished FL and MI cutting their delegates in half, the DNC went to the extreme measure of eliminating all delegates.

With the DNC counting all the MI and FL delegates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have similar number of pledged delegates close to 1130 (excluding Super delegates).

The GOP is laughing all the way engineering in part the fight which is alienating Democratic Party voters to the benefit of John McCain in the general election.
The DNC should just pay for the costs of another primary in Michigan and Florida.
If the Clintons' choose to fight to the convention . . . and the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated  . . . and if this tactic plus the superdelegate tally provides Sen. Clinton with the winning margin; then I will not support another Democratic Party candidate in my lifetime.

I am a democratic-leaning registered independent that has been consistently put off by the lowbrow nature of our politics.  Mr. Ickes statement is almost a perfect encapsulation of everything I despise about our political discourse.  It has to change or the Democratic Party will lose an entire generation of young Americans.

I've read quite a few critical comment about what is perceived as a "take our ball and go home" mentality of some of Sen. Obama's younger supporters.  Characterize it however you like, it is a reality that we have been disengaged from our system, mostly because of the gutter political style and utter contempt for our intelligence perfectly on display in Mr. Icke's comments.

I think I'll go give a few bucks to Sen. Obama now.  
You want change? you will see change if that kid obama gets in the white house, you will all be out walking the streets looking for jobs, plus eating at th soup kitchen.
Clinton's best wins have come in Florida (a state made up of Northeast transplants, and where nobody campaigned), and Michigan (where she ran against some guy named "Uncommitted"). That is one hell of a strong candidate.
I am very uncomfortable with this attempted manipulation of the media.  It reminds me far too much of the way the media was manipulated by the Bush administration in the months before the Iraq war.  
brian (Sent Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:47 PM)

-------------------------------------------------
Exactly Brian...the drums are beating!
Obama and his FOLKS are as toxic to politics as a FEMA trailer!
HP Boston (Sent Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:11 PM)

By what you post on here seems like you've been living in one of those trailer's for way to long. Get out & smell some fresh air.


Barack Obama for President!!!!
So all of those Obama supporters, I assume that you would like to disenfranchise the 1.7 million voters in FL and over 1 million in MI??  It doesn't stand to reason that we should discount this portion of the electorate b/c these states will be crucial in the general, regardless of who the nominee is.  Not counting MI and FL could discourage these voters from participating in the general. You can bet your last two dollars that Obama supporters would want these votes counted if he had won. Obama essentially ran a campaign in MI it was an anti-Hillary campaign in which he encouraged supporters to vote "uncommitted" in an attempt to embarrass Sen. Clinton (of course the Obama-loving media never made an issue of this.) I think the election should have a chance to play out and the MI and FL votes should be counted. At the end of the day if Sen. Obama is still ahead then he'll become the nominee if not then the more competent Sen. Clinton will be the nominee. I hope the electorate wakes up and realizes that we are facing radical terrorists, a failing economy, broken healthcare system, social security system soon to be in the red, lack of border control, no implementation of 911 Commission recommendations to ensure adequate homeland security and on and on.  I want a president with the experience and proven track record to lead in these perilous times. I think Sen. Obama is a wonderful orator but that doesn't equal experience or proven track record.  On the stump you'll hear a lot of positive enthusiasm about bringing the right and left together but do you honestly think that the right will embrace the most liberal-voting senator with weak policy positions? Sorry not going to happen. Sen. Clinton not only has a proven track record of bipartisan accomplishments she knows how to stand her ground and live to fight another day.  Clinton is one tough and capable chick.
I did believe in the cliton's but they are just as bad as Bush and his people. Bill just can't stand the fact that black man has a legit chance to beat his wife and become President. I can live with a up and down vote, may the best woman or man win.But if they do use tricks. I feel that Dem party will never be the same.
Don't read too much into these comments, John Edwards was saying the same thing a week before he dropped out.  I can't imagine Hillary Clinton is willing to rip apart the Democratic Party for her own personal ambition.  Surely even she is starting to see that Barack Obama has started a movement that has the ability to truley change thic country and the world.  She can't have that big of an ego.  

Can she?
Tampa wrote<<Is he really a Muslim? He said he has been a member of the same church for 20 years and he is 46 now so where was he for 26 years before that?

'YES SHE CAN'>>

If that's the best argument you have against Obama, your Hillary is toast. As someone said, I'm sure there's a place open for her on Desperate Housewives.
Don't read too much into these comments, John Edwards was saying the same thing a week before he dropped out.  I can't imagine Hillary Clinton is willing to rip apart the Democratic Party for her own personal ambition.  Surely even she is starting to see that Barack Obama has started a movement that has the ability to truley change thic country and the world.  She can't have that big of an ego.  

Can she?
Wonder if Barbara Boxer has remained neutral thus far because Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, has fallen behind on making alimony and child support payments to his ex-wife who is Sen. Boxer's daughter?  Bob, Raleigh, NC
This is an excellent reason why Hillary Clinton should not be president. She is crooked,Schemimg, and will do any thing to win, even selling her soul. Actually this is a scamm. What they are proposing is an insult to all, not just to Obama. If they are willing to break the rules during the campaign, what will they do if they get elected? They really think the American people are fools.How can she talk to us about what matters for our children and families with this kind of behavor? Any promises she makes on the campaign trail, dont belive them. She is just saying what she thinks will get her votes. She has totally discredited herself. This sounds like some kind of weird movie or work of fiction. After this, every thing she says should be discounted and dismissed. The sad thing is they really dont understand that they keep digging a deeper hole for themselves. Voters who are undecided can see what kind of dishonest person Hillary is and vote for the person who makes us all feel proud to be Americans.
I keep reading for a push to seat Michigan delegates, but can not for the life of me understand how that could happen where only the candidate who thumbed her nose at the party rules by placing her name on the ballot could benefit.  How does a candidate who didn't "run" get fair treatment, when those who might have voted for him or them  had little incentive?  And how would votes of "uncommitted" for the little they're worth be allocated among the candidates who honored the rules? While I can understand the frustration of the Michigan voters who either didn't vote or whose votes don't count because of this controversey, but it makes no sense to retroactively pretend a real election took place.  
And the list of ploys and backroom deals by the Clintons goes on and on and on...ad nauseum.  She is desperate..her campaign is in free-fall and she is grasping for every vote she can get...by fair means or foul.  And this is a person who claims to be ready to lead from day one?  She can't even lead her own campaign team.
FYI

The newspaper Sen. Obama cites in continuing to misrepresent Hillary's record on trade wrote that "Obama's use of the citation does strike us as misleading..It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office."

Wish we would have more debates on real issues.
How can Hilliary Clinton expect to be trusted and be able to bring the country together if all she and her supporters have ever tried to do is subvert democracy and the electoral process. Why does she need to use dirty tricks for somebody who is said to be very smart and competent. She said she found her voice in New Hampshire and yet her husband goes around the contry makng her case, while distorting her opponents records. They go around injecting race, gender, "victimhood",...People are sick of it, and so am I.

It sounds like the Clinton camp is playing Rovian word games.

I think that the people known as "pledged delegates" should from now on be known as "elected delegates."

The people known as "superdelegates" should from now on be known to as "unelected delegates."



Jay L,
You can count on Hillary only if you love politicians who divide the nation and if you are too blind to open up to reality. Hillary is trying to change the rules in Florida and Michigan even though she agreed to the rules last year and understood that if these two states changed their calendar, they are in violation of party rules. But of course they will vote in November.
Also, you seem to clearly condone distorted facts, lies and desperate campaign tactics. You have to udnerstand that Hillary is the establishment candidate and should have been expected to win in states where there are more registered Demcorats than not, and that is why she won CA, NY, Mass., etc. You should also remember that she was expected to win 20 of the 22 nominating contests on Feb. 5, yet Obama won 13 of them.
You need to wake up and stop being an accuser wth no substance.
Pundits are debating the issue of "delegates" vs. the "popular vote." Well, the RULES say it is the number of DELEGATES that count. The DNC has gone the extra mile in past years in making sure the delegates are apportioned out in a fair manner. They don't condone "winner-take-all" contests. So it seems that this philosophy would transfer to this question about "delegate count vs. popular vote count." If the popular vote count were given preference could it not favor someone who happens to be from a very populous state - or have some other strong connection to other populous states - which would give that person more actual votes, but not be an accurate representation of their overall appeal across the country? We still - rightly or wrongly - are bound by the Electoral College in the general election. It doesn't matter if someone wins a state in November by ONE vote - or ONE MILLION votes - they only get a set, finite number of Electoral votes. So the goal is to win as many different states as possible. We all know that both Obama and Hillary will win TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC states like NY, MA, NJ, and CA. The difference is that Obama has shown he can be really competitive in Swing states like Missouri and Iowa - and in GOP states like Kansas and Nebraska. If the decision as to who the nominee is is based solely on the "popular vote" from the primaries and caucuses, it is possible that Hillary could be slightly ahead because of populous states like NY and NJ. BUT - Obama will lead in the Pledged Delegates won which will be a more accurate gauge of who could do well in the most states in the fall. So, whoever wins the Pledged Delegates is the better nominee for the Party as that total more accurately demonstrates who has the broader appeal across the country.
Is he really a Muslim? He said he has been a member of the same church for 20 years and he is 46 now so where was he for 26 years before that?


Tampa--

Respectfully suggest that you read over the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).  Seems the guy that began the Christian movement seemed to believe that no matter how late one comes to the party, that person receives the same measure of grace as does those who have arrived quite early.  Note the chastisement of those who believed themselves 'entitled to more' because they arrived early.  (Prodigal Son reflects the same theme.)  

Think about it.  And tell your 'conservative' friends, too.  And respond in kind to the 'hate e-mail' when it comes to your state.

Good luck to you.
Does anybody seriously think that New York is going to vote for McCain?

Didn't think so.

Not only that, but the arguments are wrong on the facts.   Washington state, Illinois, and Maine are all considered "blue" states, probably along with several other of Obama's victories.   Really, the spin from the Clinton camp is amazing.   If the Democrat's strategy is to win New York and California and ignore all of the unimportant places, then Senator McCain will have a nice snooze into victory.
Obama is the candidate of Style and Substance.  If a person believes that he doesn't have experience, something is lacking in them not Obama.  Being a voter requires participation, the world will not spoon feed you the truth but you can get plenty of soundbites.  The Clinton's have made inexperience stick even though it isn't true and many of you just go a long for the ride.  I understand why they do it.....I don't understand how you can proudly display your ignorance.
This kind of spin and sneaky behavior is SO "Clintonesque" .... next Harold will be debating what "Is" is while wild Bill will be chasing skirt on the campaign trail.

Just 90's politics dated and why Obama is needed.
So, so much hypocrisy ...

Anyway, changing the name doesn't actually change the function or anything about the delegates.  A rose by any other name ...  Automatic is actually far worse of a name, because first, it doesn't make grammatical sense, and second, automatic implies they are beholden to a given candidate--super implies they can switch.  Super is more accurate.


Nuanced: I'm assuming his name is pronounced Eye-ckes.



I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign wants to be viewed as so desperate.  I'm also not sure why she wants to be viewed as somebody willing to cheat to win.
It is truly shameful that Hillary Clinton is trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated.  Her "victory" celebration in Florida was just silly.  I voted for Obama in the Florida primary and will vote for him again in the general election.  I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination (which, thankfully, is looking less likely by the day).  Obama is inspiring, he is growing the Democratic party and he will soundly beat John McCain in the general election.  Hillary Clinton...  Jeez, I really don't understand why anyone is voting for her.  Four more years of Clinton after 20 years (!) of Bush-Clinton-Bush?  People really want that?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=671358

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google