Clinton Finally Has a Confetti Night

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Hillary Rodham Clinton finally had a confetti night. The Democratic presidential hopeful claimed victory in the Ohio primary Tuesday night and said that means, "We're going strong and we're going all the way."

Confetti rained down on her Ohio rally as she took the stage. She told the crowd her performance was a victory for everyone who's been "counted out but refused to be knocked out."

She and Barack Obama were in a tight race in Texas as she spoke, and her claim of Ohio victory had yet to be affirmed. Earlier, Clinton broke Obama's winning streak by taking Rhode Island, after Obama was declared the winner in Vermont.

Despite the turn of fortune, Clinton's still got an uphill fight to overcome Obama's lead in delegates.

Comments

[Camarosc35]

Congratulations, Hillary, you have proven your mettle, you are a fighter, this is what we need against McCain.

[lookforward]

It is time that obama drops out. Any rational democratic know for a fact that you MUST win Ohio and Florida in the primary to be able to win the GE and that did NOT happen. And before all you crazizes get all worked up....Obam­a does not stand a chance of winning Florida. Also the PEW research shows that if obama vs mcain...ob­ama will loose 25% hillary supports and if clinton vs mcain she will only loose 10% of obama supports..­.that is reflective of his electiablilty in the GE and the democratics will not win GE if obama is the nom...so he should just drop out...plus this superior judgement that he throws around really is BS . when it can to somthing as simple as buying a house he involved a crimnial. that shows very poor judgement.­..

[brwnizofmine]

You had better get a grip! She will not get Obama's support. We'd rather vote for McCain than vote for her. Keep thinking it!

[karrezza]

Ah, brown Eyes, are they full of shit to make them brown?
Because you gotta be the classic Repub favorite type voter.. McCain = Bush = McCain = Bush = McCain, get it???

[Boringat]

That was NOT confetti. She threw her knickers in the air with joy..It was dandruff.

[LindaLee99]

You are so clever boringAT Did you stay up all night to think of that? Very thoughtful, too.

[fourex]

Two Republican candidates won the Ohio primaries last night. There is a very good chance that GW Bush policies will continue for at least another four years. One candidate called for a 100 year occupation of Iraq, and the other said GW Bush brought freedom to Iraq. There can be no more excuses that you didn't know their policies.

[Spesabsquemetu]

Dear Dr. Dean,

I’m just an average American. I’ve taught my children that your word is your bond, that integrity matters, that you have to play by the rules, that your ethics are the standard by which you will be judged.

For years, I’ve pulled the lever in the voting booth, believing that my voice mattered, my vote counted, that by pulling that lever I was participating in a process where the governed get their chance to speak and express their will.

But I’m confused by what I’m hearing being discussed by the media, and beginning to doubt the entire electoral process by which we choose our president. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to understand what the rules are, who’s important and who matters, and who is less important and doesn’t matter, who makes the rules, and under what circumstances they can just be ignored and broken.

For example, perhaps you can help those of us struggling to understand the electoral process, by answering some of these questions:

Why would the size of a state come into play in awarding more voter-importance to that state after the pledged delegates for that state have already been awarded to each candidate where campaigning and a primary took place? Why would state size matter, when according to the media the voters would be very happy choosing Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton as seems to be reflected in the majority of elected delegates?

Why do two media outlets persist in ‘counting’ Michigan and Florida as ‘won’ states for one of the democratic candidates, when the Democratic Party states that no contest could be counted in either state and that no campaigning would take place in those states?

How can delegates “count” where no contest took place to elect a presidential candidate, in states where no delegates were won? Wouldn’t the process that did take place in those two states reflect conditions that are more akin to a name-recognition contest than a campaign-primary election process to elect a nominee for president?
Have you attempted to clear up this mistake on the part of MSNBC or CNN who continue to count these states as “won” states and “won” delegates and mislead the public into thinking that they were “won” by one of the democratic candidates?
Why would the media have an interest in promoting the myth that delegates were “won” when it seems to be an irresponsible and untruthful thing to report to the public?
Aren’t you concerned about this, and have you taken any action to correct this distortion?

Various media outlets ran polls that raised the question over whether voters would be pleased to have Sen. Obama or Clinton on their ballot. According to the media, voters were quite happy to have either candidate. Given the number of voters who have expressed a majority of votes for Sen. Obama, why does CNN / MSNBC now suggest that a quarter of Clinton voters will vote for McCain without asking the majority of Obama voters whether they would still consider Clinton? More importantly, why should this matter, when the majority of votes have expressed that the will of the people is in choosing Sen. Obama (1275 Obama vs. 1150 Clinton)?

Do the votes of the non-college graduate voters in the minority that chose Sen. Clinton (1150) matter more than the votes of the college graduate voters in the majority along with the non-college graduates in that majority - who chose Sen. Obama (1275)?

Can you please help me understand why the super delegates belonging to Sen. Clinton
( 241) are more important than the super delegates belonging to Sen. Obama ( 202), yet, the pledged delegates majority representing the will of the American people belonging to Sen. Obama ( 1275) are also less important than the pledged delegates minority belonging to Sen. Clinton (1150)?

Is Texas, New York and Ohio more important as states than: Wisconsin, Virginia, Connecticut and Missouri?

Are the Asians in California more important than the Asians in Hawaii?
Are the Blacks in Louisiana less important than the Whites in Ohio?

Just exactly how is “state-importance” determined?

If the larger states are more important in voter worthiness in choosing the president
(despite the fact that the media has proven that Democrats – according to them will be happy to vote for Sen. Obama rather than Sen. Clinton), than why let the little states vote at all? Why not just leave out all the little states, and have the super delegates and all the BIG states who the next president of the United States will be?

Do the votes of the blue collar White workers matter more than the votes of the Hispanic casino workers?
Should the blue collar workers have been sued to stop them from voting in Ohio as the Hispanic Casino workers were sued in Nevada?

Why does it seem that in some Black communities, the board of elections seems to run out of ballots for voters to use (as in Ohio), but not in the White communities in Ohio?
Why does it seem that voting booths always seem limited in Black communities but not in White communities, or limited in college communities (where Sen. Obama is very much favored) rather than in other large white populated communities? Please correct me if I am wrong about these impressions. It just seems that this is what has taken place, and I’m trying to understand just exactly “how” the board of elections “prepares” for something as sacred as the will and the voice of the people weighing in.

Why was there just one voting booth assigned in Texas to the large college community of young Black voters who rose up in support of Barack Obama? Just exactly how are those voting booths assigned? By skin color? By ethnicity? By religious belief? Do all the college campuses experience this problem across the nation? Why does it seem that the board of elections is very unprepared in certain communities across the nation in dealing with the numbers of registered voters it knows that it has? And why is it that in Sen. Clinton’s state, 60 election districts reported votes of “zero” for Sen. Obama, only for it to be discovered that there were significant votes that had been cast for him that seemed to suggest a very close contest between him and Sen. Clinton? How did the same mistake happen 60 times leaving a negative impact on Sen. Obama?

How do two states ( Florida, Michigan) become “counted” as “won” when there was no campaigning there and no delegates “won”? Aren’t you concerned about clearing that up for the news media that persists in counting them as “won” states for the candidate who persists in believing that something was “won”?

When did the magic take place that turned un-counted votes and un-counted delegates into counted votes and counted delegates? Is there a delegate geni? Can you help explain this to the rest of us, because it’s tough to understand – even for those with a college education.

Can you please explain how 1477 is not greater than 1391 or how 27 contests won are less significant than 14 contests won?

Are White votes more important than Black votes, non-college graduate votes more important than college-graduates votes, California Asian votes more important than Hawaii Asian votes? Do the super delegates weigh race, color, religious beliefs, ethnicity and state size ( in spite of the national population expressing that they are happy to vote for Sen. Obama in place of Sen. Clinton, though – the majority of voters have clearly chosen Sen. Obama) – what are the factors being used, the criteria being considered by those super delegates in their decision making process of choosing our next president? If the voice and will of the people do not matter, then why have any of the remaining states votes – since, some are small? Does Washington DC vote? Why should their voices matter since they aren’t even a state, and besides – aren’t they too small to matter?

Should Super Delegates reflect the will of the people, or their own personal preferences struck through back-room deals behind closed doors, and if this is how presidents are chosen, why are you putting the electorate through an election?

Why not just have the super delegates choose our president? Why not do away with the election process all together? Why not just have one name on the ballot – and call that an ‘election’ (similar to what took place in Michigan)? Why not just have all the big states vote and tell the small states that their voices don’t matter?

At 3 AM when I wake up, will I still be in America, or will I have been hijacked into the land of coronations and Soviet style “elections” that only have one name on the ballot despite 1477 + having already spoken?

Please help me understand this election process, Dr. Dean. I’m very confused about whether I even have a voice anymore, no less a vote.

[msmaggie]

Allow me to help with some of your questions. Super delegates have been part of the D party process for about 30 years. They have always been "independent" at least on paper. If this system offends you, the time to complain was before the primary process began. The rules is the rules--and they were out there for all to see. As to Florida and Michigan, this will be resolved by the courts. The DNC will not permit the delegates to be seated, there will be legal action, and I predict re-dos will be authorized.

Hope this helps.

[Spesabsquemetu]

Yes, the rules are the rules: the electorate elects the president.
Not the super delegates.

But according to your theory, it appears that we can assume that White votes are indeed more important than Black votes, that California Asians are definitely more important than Hawaii Asians, that Black votes in Louisianna are irrelevant to the White votes in Ohio , which is also vastly more important than all those White votes in WIsconsin.

It's 3 AM.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR VOTE WENT?

[LoloZ]

It won't answer many of your questions, but a recent article in The Nation reassured me about Howard Dean doing the right thing. THere was a link to it on a recent Huff Posting. Though we don't hear much about him, i do think that Dr. Dean will do the right thing by Obama. Check it out.

[tadpoles]

What you're basically saying Spesabsquemetu is that the American Electoral System is a fuck-up and I agree. Who understands it? The caucus in Texas goes to Obama (according to the NY Times) but the popular vote is Hillary's?? It seems absurd. As absurd as this Electoral College nonsense that puts GW in power over the popular vote for Gore.

Parliamentary systems in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, tons of countries, work so much better and don't waste trillions of dollars in the process. Time to ditch the system here and allow more room for the Kucinichs of the world to get their ideas more in the mix.

[JeffinIllinois]

This isn't the electoral process. This is about finding out who Democrats want to run for President in the general election. It's not about Republicans. It's not about Independents. It's not who is just simply joining the process and are mad at the current administration, the party that they represent, or the things they have done. You've got the right fight in you, but it's being fought in the wrong place. Your argument is for the general election. The whole nation is so overly sick and tired of the direction our country is taking that any opportunity to vote or express your contempt (and damn right you are angry and it's good!) that we miss what this process is actually about. If you are angry with Republicans, and now, I assume, angry with Democrats, then it is time for another political party.. and you can establish whatever rules you like.

[gonnuts]

What complete fools we are.

If H Clinton should indeed be the nominee (and I believe she will be) it will be the worst thing that could happen. Clinton would keep many Independents and Democrats home not to mention disenfranchise all the new voters brought into the fray by Obama, but she would cause many of the Republicans that would have stayed home to go to the polls in droves and make the possibility of a President McInsane very real.

Not that it would make any difference if Obama won, there isn't a so-called front runner that wouldn't kowtow to corporations over the people anyway. Our entire election process is skewed and set-up to keep good people and ideas from gaining power. Between difficult regulations, prohibitive fees, corrupt bureaucrats, State AG,s and partisan judges just getting your name on a ballot is a monumental task. Next you have raise an insane amount of money from people that for the most part do not share your views and if you could get past all this you have to fight massive media opposition designed to ignore, ridicule and destroy anyone that threatens the system and lastly e-voting puts the last nail in the coffin.

[karrezza]

WAY TO GO HILLARY!!!!! HILLARY 2008!!!!

[gonnuts]

you're an idiot

[snowcat]

Take the gloves off an go negative, Barack. That's obviously what America wants. There are plenty of past and current Clinton skeletons to bring out! She has reduced you to a speech and fairy tale and millions are furious with her for it. Fight back, please!

[JeffinIllinois]

And that is how you hand the election to Hillary. Just go ahead and pull on one those strings like he tried with NAFTA. Go ahead and respond using her own ad against her and she will take your response and use it against you. I'm not sure what generation you are from, but this is NOTHING. Hillary has had the sink along with the entire house thrown at her for YEARS. Strange, she keeps getting elected and re elected. I mentioned your generation because you may not be aware of how rotten and nasty Republicans will get. One of the worst Republican attacks I've ever heard of was towards Ann Richards in Texas. Republicans took a picture of her, imposed it so she looked like she was having sex and then went to all the cars in the parking lots of churches on Sunday morning and put the picture on the windshield­s...who? Karl Rove working for George Bush. Hillary will have no trouble with Karl Rove. As for Barack Obama.. I really do want him to be President in 8 years. Karl Rove will work Obama over until no one will vote for him... we can't have that. If Barack is going to survive a general election (because he really could still be the candidate) it is far better to get this Rezko, NAFTA, and whatever else we have yet to learn out of the way.

[SameOldSameOld]

I agree. That old cliche is true: Nice guys finish last. He needs to stay on message but put out some ads reminding voters what happens when you have a Clinton in the White House; loss of democratically control congress, loss of democratic governorships, extreme partisanship (made worse under W of course) and then there is Lewinsky. Lets not mention Watergate, Vince Foster and the now famous "right-win­g-conspira­cy" quote. There is so much damn material the Obama camp needs to bring out, especially if the Clinton camp is going to play the fear game.

[Delle]

Quite Ciceroian. :-)

[karenann]

Hate to say it, but I agree. America isn't ready for positive campaigning, and likely isn't ready for positive change either.

I think it's time to put the push to revealing the Clinton financials. Bill's been a private citizen for awhile now, and it's important for the public to know exactly where their money's come from and to whom they're beholden because of it. Lots of deals have been made. . . .

And Mr. Obama, why not point to some of the unresolved issues of Hillary's past dealings and overt failures. If her camp is going to dredge up what they believe to be your past failings, it can't hurt to remind people of some of the realities of the Clinton years. People often get convenient amnesia to forget the unpleasant things in their lives.

Last, I think it's important to present a comparison of your records -- get it out there! You've written some good, solid legislation, and have made more substantive contributions during your legislative tenure, both at the state and federal level. There's a big difference in HRC's failed health policy (why would I think she could do it now?), her inability to bring folks around the table, her polarizing effect while in office, her earmarks for things like a Woodstock Museum -- all while she not only failed to bring jobs to NY, but oversaw a DECREASE in employment in her state. This is troubling. For her to blame it on Gore not being the president does little to assure me that she'll be able to get people together in D.C. That's kind of the point of this exercise, isn't it?

[EuroRant1]

Congratulation Rush ... well done!

[A Meat Beetle]

Yes, Rush did a great job of using reverse psychology and getting hundreds of thousands of Democrats to fall for it. Well done indeed!

[rollingdivision]

The current Democrat primary rules are inherently flawed and must be changed. Super delegates, proportional awarding of delegates, throwing out states which don't follow the rules all make for what looks like a complete insider selection not voter election.

[msmaggie]

How does proportional awarding of delegates equate to insider selection? And the super delegate idea is based on Burke's notion of government, a well respected dogma among students of governments.

[rollingdivision]

Unless the electoral college is eliminated it is a bad match for a party to rely completely on a contrary proportional system. It allows and sets up circumstances where winning many small states can earn a Democratic candidate the nomination while that same candidate doesn't have the support in the large states needed in the electoral college to win the presidency. Burke was wrong.

[rollingdivision]

Proportional ensures no one Democratic candidate will ever be able to gain a lead of more the the 40% of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. So, proportional empowers the super delegates with the super delegates always having enough votes to select the candidate.

[musselmanm]

With the last moment smear campaign involving Hillary and some of the conservative hacks in Canada, I must now advocate for this time being the time to mount a counter attack from the Obama camp. We have seen how well a lack of payback works from John Kerry.
While I want to change the political warfare and split of our country, I think it may take a while to change completely. This is the message of Barack Obama, a new direction from the hatred of our representatives from the other side of the isle and within our own party.
I do not even need to go on to pointing out the talking points that can be used against the Clinton team.
I think the Clintons now even in the primay season must fear the light of day that will be brought forth, hopefully by my candidate but also the Bush/McCain war and poverty and torture ticket in the general election. If Hillary is serious about throwing even the kitchen sink, let us begin to throw the truth about the Clintons to the forefront of this campaign.
Thank you for taking the time to read this1
Vote for the democrats nominee for President of the United States.

[JeffinIllinois]

I detect yet another generation gap comment here. Hillary has had, and continues to get, all of it thrown at her. The Republicans taught you to hate her, but you don't know why. Hillary is doing Barack a BIG favor. You must not be aware what the Republicans have done and will continue to do. Barack will be thrown into a grinder. We can't let that happen.

[vcthree]

So...you let him get thrown into a grinder by one of his own, for his own good?

What kind of fucking political party is that?

[sideways74]

Since Obama cannot close the deal and actually get the votes, he will buy them. Which I understand is business as usual, I just have a hard time stomaching his change you can believe in when it is the same as all the rest. Obama buying the vote of super delegates - Change you can believe in for sure!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

[frappe]

First of all, Obama's money comes from small contributions from over one million contributors. These people willingly contribute what they can because they BELIEVE in their candidate. To date, Obama has a rather large lead in pledged delegates, a lead that, without convincing superdelegates to switch their votes, is insurmountable. These pledged delegates were not "bought", they were "earned". The superdelegates' choices should reflect the hearts and minds of their respective constituencies. That is the only fair and just approach. This is not "buying" the superdelegates' loyalty as you suggest. It is, quite the opposite, it is winning it in the primaries, just where it should be.

[msmaggie]

If Florida is counted or more likely re-done, the delegate lead is not insurmountable. I don't understand your math.

[stumped]

Frappe, here's an article on where Obama's money really comes from. It comes from Wall Street.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

[Zyzzygowski]

Cut and pasted from the article -

"... Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ..."

They are both doing it, and nothing is wrong with it.

[sideways74]

I think it is the degree that Obama is doing it is the issue. At the end of the day he will have purchased the votes of super delegate regardless of where his money came from.

[Eternal]

Dayton OH Mayor, Super Delegate Just endorsed Obama on CNN

First or last of the day?

[msmaggie]

I thought the Obama people were all about super delegates "following the will of the people"? Didn't Hillary carry Ohio? I'm so confused.

[JeffinIllinois]

Of course she did.. DUH

[kirotahoe]

in hillary's interviews and also terry mccauliff's, they both included florida and michigan when they were naming the states they won. hillary also said it in her victory speech. the elections were disallowed in both states, hillary had the only name on the michigan ballot. to say you won is both misleading and dishonest. what a way to start an administration. have we not seen this same way of manipulation for the last seven years?

[vcthree]

To claim victory in Michigan is like when Saddam claimed victory in his "elections"; of course you "win", when yours is the only name that can be selected.

[dct19]

And 40% of the people still voted undecided

[JeffinIllinois]

That is incorrect. Being incorrect is what is misleading and dishonest. If you actually go to the state board of elections in Michigan you will find:
Hillary, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and Uncomitted in the election results. No one told anyone to pull any names off of any ballot. Why would one do such a thing anyway? Judgement? Hmmm. As far as Florida.. everyone was on the ballot. Last time I checked, Florida and Michigan get television, internet, and radio. The fact that there are so many uncomitted in Michigan indicates that people in Michigan knew their rules and what to do if their candidate was not listed.

[mombabytiger]

I know this is repugnant, but listen to Sean Hannity's radio show sometime. When Clinton was "inevitable" he attacked her day after day. But there were very few specifics. Just a general "we hate her" attitude. Lately they've been attacking Obama. They have dug up the dirt and hammer it home constantly. If you want to know what's going to happen if Obama is nominated, just listen to Hannity. All the talking points are there. All they have against HIllary is they just plain don't like her.

The Dems HAVE to figure out a way to unite these two camps. I personally believe that a Clinton-Obama ticket is the only way out. "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

[veracal]

Why are so many of you so scared of republicans?

[vcthree]

I can render a guess, but...the truth would hurt too much.

[JeffinIllinois]

No one is scared of Republicans. I'm scared that Democrats wont be willing to fight as dirty as they do. After Gore and Kerry... we must fight on their level.. or be comfortable with our morals and lose.

[frappe]

As in "follow the money", it is important to "follow the pledged delegates". The simple truth right now is that despite all of the hoopla over the Clinton victories last night, the final tally for last night's contests will reveal that Obama will possibly emerge with a net gain in pledged delegates. The exact numbers should be available by Saturday.

So, it is important for Clinton followers to not get too excited by last night's results because the delegate picture actually improved for Obama and deteriorated for Clinton.

Both camps now realize that this battle will be won on the backs of the superdelegates and the winner of that battle will be determined on the basis of who has earned and won the majority of the pledged delegates as it is they who represent the hearts and minds of the majority of voters.

Clinton supporters, merit will strictly determine the final outcome and merit will be determined "by the numbers", as it should be. Stolen elections are strictly the province of that diseased and rancid party that we've all grown to hate -- the Republican party. In the final analysis, the Democrats will opt for that solution that can't be "politicized". And who can argue with "numbers"?

In any event, let's pray that Hillary and Barack don't end up cannibalizing the other on the road to the nomination. This is what the Republicans are praying for and salivating over. Let's deprive the Repulsive, Rancid Republicans with the ability to feast on a Democratic carcass. Let's, in the final analysis, unite to defeat our common enemy -- the enemy of a brighter and more secure future for all of us. Let's deliver a boat load of PINK SLIPS to the Republican pretenders. They've earned it!