First of all, let's be clear on one thing -- this race is over. Barack Obama has won. Hillary Clinton has lost. Obama's pledged delegate lead is insurmountable. He leads by about 150 delegates in that category. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not catch up to him.
Clinton's supposed big win last Tuesday amounted to a measly 6 to 7 delegate pick up. If that's a big win, then she needs approximately 20 more of those to get competitive. Obama might have picked up more delegates than that in Mississippi alone last night. He picked up twice as many delegates as that in South Carolina alone.
Even if Senator Clinton won the remaining nine contests with landslide victories, she wouldn't even get to within a 100 pledged delegates of Obama. Even if they re-voted in Michigan and Florida and she won by overwhelming majorities in those states, she still wouldn't be anywhere near Obama's numbers.
Her big claim to fame now is that she wins the big states and the swing states needed for the general election. I don't know why people take these claims seriously. First of all, so what? If she wants to win on big states alone she should move to a country where there are only big states. But in this country, where we have states of all sizes, she has lost.
Second of all, when did Massachusetts, New York and California become swing states? The election she theoretically won in Florida was not contested. So, her claim is that since she won Ohio, why don't we just give her the whole election?
Third of all, the fact that she wins these states in the primaries means absolutely nothing about what would happen in the general election. She won California - does that mean Obama would lose California to the Republican candidate? Of course not. The Democratic candidate will win California no matter what. Rhode Island is the state with the heaviest Democratic vote in the country. Does Hillary's win there mean that the Republican will win in Rhode Island in the fall? Don't be ridiculous.
The reverse of this argument is also true. Just because Obama won Idaho doesn't mean that the Democrats will win Idaho in the general election. These are apples and oranges comparisons. It's not really an argument worth discussing, except for the fact that the Clinton camp has done a good job of getting the press to actually discuss it.
The overall argument that she has lost the pledged delegate count but that she has won the more "important" states is asinine. Come on people, snap out of it. Obama has won nearly twice as many states as she has (29 to 15 in the last count). Are these states not important? Will the general election only be held in the states Hillary picks?
I'd love for her to make this argument in the general election - well, I lost the electorate count, but I won the important states like New York and California! Congratulations. Now go home.
So, why is Hillary Clinton still in the race - and still spending millions of dollars against Barack Obama? It's important to keep in mind that every dollar she spends attacking Obama now is a dollar in John McCain's pocket. This might give McCain a $20-30 million dollar advantage, if not more. He can't raise enough money on his own, but when he combines his attack ads with Hillary's, they're in pretty good shape.
Well, Senator Clinton is still in this race because she thinks she can still win this primary. How? By stealing it. She is willing to overturn the will of the voters by getting enough superdelegates and switching Obama's pledged delegates to come up with a victory.
Remember, pledged delegates are supposed to vote the way their state voted. Earlier in the campaign, Senator Clinton's team said they would never go after Obama's pledged delegates. But now, Hillary Clinton herself in an interview with Newsweek has said that she will in fact do exactly that.
Now imagine if Obama won the elections with a comfortable margin, as he is clearly going to do, and then Hillary Clinton took the nomination anyway at the convention by getting super and pledged delegates to move against their own voters. How do you think that would play?
The convention would be an utter disaster. The election would be a fraud. The party would be in shambles. All so that Senator Clinton can win at all costs. It's too outrageous a thought to even consider the possibility. But that's exactly what the Clinton campaign is banking on right now. Come on, is she really going to do that?
Imagine how Obama's voters - the majority of the party, by the way - would feel if Hillary Clinton was selected by the party elders even if she lost the election. They would, justifiably, feel robbed. To say they would be disenfranchised is a gigantic understatement. Do you think they would show up to vote for Senator Clinton in November?
In the one year Democrats have an excellent chance of winning the presidency, would they really sink their own chances like this? Well, we know the answer to that question.
Speaking for myself, I can't imagine a worse outcome than having another Republican candidate who agrees completely with George Bush win the presidency. But can I really get myself to vote for someone who stole the election in the primaries? I don't think so. So, here's my solution: If Hillary Clinton tries to take this election at the convention by overturning the will of the voters, I will show up there with a pitchfork.
Senator Clinton has to understand that she can't do this. She can't win based on pledged delegates. It is now mathematically impossible. And she can't win without the pledged delegates because it would rip the party apart. So, she has to mercifully come to the conclusion that she cannot win. And every day she stays in the race from here on out is a day she spends money helping John McCain win instead.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
I am reminded of the words of The Bard in Henry V; ( The nomination ) "France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe,
Or break it all to pieces".
We cannot allow this creatures madness, ego and self-interest to go on any longer! SUPERDELEGATES TAKE NOTICE! This is now YOURS to end! END IT NOW! Come out and declare!
At this point, the superdelegates should be held responsible for any additional infliction of damage to the Democratic Party and, thus, any damage to its chances of success in the general election. The math isn't going to change between now and a convention. Assuming it goes that far, Senator Obama will arrive with more pledged delegates, more popular vote, and more states won. Even seating Michigan and Florida "as is" isn't going to change that - and they aren't going to seat Michigan and Florida "as is." Howard Dean is appearing now with some regularity and he is consistently saying, "We are 3/4 of the way through the nominating process and we aren't going to change the rules now to the benefit of one candidate and the detriment of the other. Any new solution with respect to Florida and Michigan will have to be fair to both candidates." Fine. So does anyone have the power to tell Senator Clinton that it is over? Yes. The superdelegates do. The superdelegates can step in at any time and effectively end this thing and I think that is ultimately what will happen. The question is when.
and those interpretations will be correct.
hey superdelegates... don't fuck this up!
probably. she's exhibiting those character traits.
superdelegates, it will be perceived by many as her stealing the election. And perception is everything in politics. It would not be good for the party.
HRC did her senior"hidden but not really " thesis on Saul Alinsky who was a community organizer and radical whom she knew.. He's an interesting guy . I think she really lives by this rule book. Here are Alinsky's rules for radicals. sound familiar?
"Personalize it"
Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/
I think she (Mrs Clinton) figured out since John McCain ain't conservative enough, so why not go right and try to pick up those disenfranchised GOPers. As for the left, well after she steals the election, they'll just not vote or just end up voting for Ralph Nader
This is a year when the Democratic Party should clean up in the general election, but already they are allowing Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council to set the agenda. To their own demise, I fear.
She and they will do anything to get her elected.
As everyone can plainly see Hillary has failed. America rejects her philosohy.
The MAJORITY has spoken.
Thanks Cenk
not to mention that the superdelegate system is unnecessary to begin with.
i do not support a system that gives insiders more individual power than the average citizen.
i support first and foremost - fair elections. FAIR!
if hillary "wins" the dem nomination unfairly (i don't give a shit what the technical rules are)... my conscience will not allow me to vote for her or mccain in the general election. i will sit out... even though i'm dying to vote. i will sit out in protest of the war. mccain will then win the presidency and you can thank hillary clinton for that.
Hillary doesn't get the nomination, Obama does. 


Hillary then pulls a Lieberman. 


She runs as an independent against both Obama and McCain. 


My thinking is, yes it is possible, as long as Hillary thinks she can actually win at that strategy and rationalize that it won't just throw the election to McCain. Which she might be able to rationalize, knowing her AND knowing how the voting goes in CA, NY, NJ, FL, MA, PA, etc... Where Hillary is probably stronger than both other candidates.


So, Obama really does have to beat her in states where currently she can beat him. It's true. And Obama has to beat McCain everywhere else. Or else it's Hillary and our first independent president. Anyone care to take a look at that math?


And if you're an Obama supporter, like me, there is only one choice. Time to pack up and get your ass to Pennsylvania (and then to Florida) to do some retail politics. I'm already loading up the car.
Latte for the drive anyone? Back seat open, room for at least three.
Where are our party's elder statesmen/women? And why won't they put a stop to Hillary's wildly destructive behavior and tactics before she takes us all down with her? After the 7 years of hell that IS the Bush presidency, there is simply too much at stake for them to not stand up to the Clintons once and for all. Force Hillary to abandon her filthy, win-at-all-costs, kitchen sink strategy. Make her keep it on the REAL issues...in a clean and honest way. If she refuses, repudiate her for the ugly campaign that she is running.
By the way, I voted for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. However, I thought it was selfish of him to remain in office after the scandal broke and he was impeached. (But, knowing the Clintons' lust for power and their willingness to hold onto it no matter the cost, I was not surprised.) Instead of allowing the country and our party to move forward with Vice President Al Gore after his presidency was, in effect, neutered...he outstayed his welcome. So...with a country divided over the scandal and its aftermath...and rampant Clinton fatigue, the election was close enough for the Republicans to steal. The result? The tragic presidency of George W. Bush.
I find it ironic that the Clintons could now bring about a third Bush term with John McCain. Even though Senator Obama has won twice as many states and is ahead by insurmountable margins in both pledged delegates and the popular vote, Hillary refuses to see the writing on the wall. Instead, she's resorting to lies and dirty tricks to steal the election from Senator Obama. In doing so, she is once again proving to be one of the most divisive, polarizing politicians in history. And we are all paying the price.
I think what she's going for is McCain-Clinton '08, bipartisan Bush redux. Ad nauseum.
''I have thought about this for a long time,'' Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. ''I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed.''
''We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,'' Mrs. Clinton said. ''We have mass communications, we have mobility through transportation means to knit our country together that was not conceived of at the time of the founders' proposals about how we elect our presidents. I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people.''