Hillary: The New Huckabee

Hillary's wins yesterday in Texas and Ohio breathed new life into her campaign. Basking in the glow of fresh momentum, Hillary did six morning show appearances today, and will continue to try to shape the story as a brand new race.

But Hillary's spin, and the media adoption of that spin, will do little to change an even starker reality this morning: Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama's pledged delegate lead was substantial before Texas and Ohio and will remain materially unchanged in its aftermath. He has cut Clinton's super delegate lead in half since February 5th, and is expected to roll-out as many as fifty more throughout the next few weeks.

Hillary needed to win about two thirds of the available delegates last night to begin to close the gap with Obama. Though we still don't have final vote counts, it appears that, at most, she picked up 10 delegates, a woefully insufficient amount. As counter-intuitive as the math may be, despite her wins last night, she actually made it more difficult for her to reach the nomination. There are now fewer delegates remaining and an even higher percentage she must win to reclaim the lead. After Ohio and Texas, she no longer has a path to the nomination.

In the coming week, we will see Barack Obama win Wyoming and Mississippi, likely by large enough margins to erase Clinton's net gains from last night. Six weeks later, Pennsylvania will become the next benchmark. Because her victories in Ohio and Texas were, at least in part, the result of a barrage of negative attacks, one can only expect those attacks to continue, and be amplified, in the days and weeks ahead.

Like Ohio and Texas, Pennsylvania's demographics favor Hillary. But a large victory in Pennsylvania is unlikely for a number of reasons, the most compelling of which is the length of time between its primary and previous primaries. Obama and Clinton will be able to dedicate the same kind of time, effort, resources, and organization to Pennsylvania that they did in the early contests. Despite Hillary's improved financial situation, she can still expect to be seriously outspent by Obama. With the amount of time and resources that Obama will put into the state, it is difficult to imagine her winning by a sizable margin. Obama's trajectory has continued to rise as voters get to know him, while Hillary's numbers have remained high, but static. In the early contests, Hillary's most significant win was by a six point margin in Nevada (where she ultimately lost the delegate count). A massive win for Hillary in Pennsylvania, as a result, seems unrealistic.

Yet there is little evidence that Hillary will leave the race after Pennsylvania, even having failed to alter the delegate count. That she has decided to continue the race today despite truly impossible odds certainly implies that she intends to march all the way to June.

Up until now, the lengthening of the campaign calendar has benefited Obama. He has had the opportunity to meet many more voters, build well-financed organizations in a number of key states, and improve the voter's view of his electability and readiness to lead. It is possible, therefore, that an additional seven weeks of primary campaigning could continue to strengthen the Obama candidacy.

But as Hillary continues to sharpen her attacks, she may slowly weaken Obama, raising questions gently about his religion and aggressively about his readiness. If his message is muted, and his candidacy weakened, it will not change the ultimate calculus. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And if Hillary's lasting contribution to the party is hurting his chances for victory, she will have done nothing more than shown herself to be a selfish liability: the new Mike Huckabee.

Comments

[quest44]

I keep hearing you Hillary supporters saying over and over again that Hillary has the popular vote and the deligate votes .I don't know what planet your on but Obama is in the lead with both the polular vote counting all the states that have voted so far and he leads in deligates and is not that far behind her in superdeligates .So she has a few more superdeligates but that is all she has .Texas was just about split 50/50 in the delagates and she came out of her wins in Texas and Ohio and RI with only four delegates after Obama won the caucus in Texas and you know he won Wyoming and will win Mississippi too so what ever she can pick up from Pennsulvania will not even count ,so the delgates will remain vertually the same .
As far as Florida and Michigan are concerned I have to laugh because she signed the same agreement not to seat the deligates of those two states as a punishment for moving up their primaries as Obama did ,the state;s knew this would happen and so did the people yet they did it anyway and now that Hillary is behind in votes and deligates she is crying fowl and wants her wins in Florida and Michigan counted and the deligates seated .Problem is some Florida voters didn't show up because they new their votes wouldn't count and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan nor did he campaign in either state ,so to count those votes would result in a lot of people who didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count would be disenfranchised .Hillary wants those states even though she knows that would make the primaries in those two states unfair to her Obama who was not even on the ballot in one and probably lost a lot of votes when people thought their vote wouldn't be counted .If Florida and Michigan were to be counted then there has to be a do over to make it an honest primary otherwise a whole lot of people will be so disgusted with this primary and they will probably skip the general election in November.

For those of you who said Obama should have dropped out when he was behind ,,that has to be the stupidest statement I ever heard ,When he was behind it was in the very begining of the primaries and there was still enough deligates out there to win not like now when Hillary knows she can't make up the deligates to pull ahead of Obama .So she is making this thing go down to the wire hoping they will seat Florida and Michigan and give her the votes in those states and that all the superdeligates will come join her side so she can be madam president .How selfish is that ? She wouldn't be winning the popular vote nor the deligates so she should win the nomination but she is willing to drag us all through hell and twist arms and make threats to try and steal the nomination away from the person who rightfully should be nominated. I'm sorry but she shows some pretty bad character to me and that is why I wouldn't vote for her ,,not because I am a sexist PEOPLE .I would love to see a woman president just not this woman !
I have never seen so much drama in all my life as I have during this primary race .I can't wait for the primaries to be over with so I don't have to hear any more whining and see any more nasty campaign ads and hear any more remarks about being a sexist on these bloggs ! BTW I am a woman and I am 63 so I have seen many elections in my life but this one is a circus and you can blame Hillary with her unethical campaigning for that !

[Seral]

We will see about that, if Michigan and Florida is also taken into account by re-evaluating the candidates. And I am sure we know how the demographics favor Hillary in those two states. Right now, Hillary wants to obtain the most of the votes, cause, if Hillary obtains more votes but loses to Obama in delegate count, it will be like the presidential elections of Bush. Though, I am sure, Obama supporters will consciously ignore that part. Right?

Also, I am amazed by how Obama supporters twist the results by ignoring what is going on here. Instead of asking for reasons why Obama cannot win among the core of the democrats, they attack Hillary for increasing the requirement of a candidate deserving Democratic nomination. We know how Obama came to his current state, and we know that it is not because he is actually better than Hillary. He does not have a better ecomomic plan, he doesn't have better health care plan, he doesn't have a better exit-Iraq plan. He has dreams, well, good night dreaming!

And, I would like to say that Huckabee similarity is beyond my understanding. Comparing a person that got the minority of the votes among not very good candidates to someone who got ~49 of the votes among good candites, is like comparing Bush to Clinton. If that is how a typical Democrat thinks, then, it is no surprise Bush was elected as President. Oh, let me also add that, I bet, this comparison would make a nice SNL sketch.

[Seral]

We will see about that, if Michigan and Florida is also taken into account by re-evaluating the candidates. And I am sure we know how the demographics favor Hillary in those two states. Right now, Hillary wants to obtain the most of the votes, cause, if Hillary obtains more votes but loses to Obama in delegate count, it will be like the presidential elections of Bush. Though, I am sure, Obama supporters will consciously ignore that part. Right?

Also, I am amazed by how Obama supporters twist the results by ignoring what is going on here. Instead of asking for reasons why Obama cannot win among the core of the democrats, they attack Hillary for increasing the requirement of a candidate deserving Democratic nomination. We know how Obama came to his current state, and we know that it is not because he is actually better than Hillary. He does not have a better ecomomic plan, he doesn't have better health care plan, he doesn't have a better exit-Iraq plan. He has dreams, well, good night dreaming!

And, I would like to say that Huckabee similarity is beyond my understanding. Comparing a person that got the minority of the votes among not very good candidates to someone who got ~49 of the votes among good candites, is like comparing Bush to Clinton. And, I bet, it would make a nice SNL sketch.

[thefixisin]

Dylan you amaze me. Hill has half the support of the Dems and your saying drop out? So your boy can go on to defeat in november. He Obama has has twice the money,all the press, and the still cant finish the deal, whats up with that? Hillary as the new Huckelberry, I think not, how about Obama as the new Kerry ya thats it! The black vote and the elite libs are the only ones supporting the empty suit.

[jasonball]

Roughly half of all Democratic Party voters have demonstrated that they support Clinton over Obama - they are within what - 70 delegates of each other? But yes, you are right. She should just get over it and drop out!

She's delusional if she thinks she can win - after all - she has been proclaimed a loser by the media. And lord knows that when a politician is behind they should just give up ASAP. I agree with your impecable logic and consquently I never understood why Obama stayed in the race when he was behind in delegates and when superdelegates were overwelmingly supporting Clinton. Clinton may have just won two large states - including arguably the most important state for the entire Presidential race - Ohio (and by a substantial margin), but clearly she is losing steam!

[thebirdstheword]

Do you have the slightest understanding of mathematics? Cry all you want, but the assessment is accurate.

[z1scouts]

I find it very interesting when a writer can point out that 60% of white voters in Ohio voted for Hillary as oposed to Obama. They pointed to this as a race issue. When I read most of what the white male media says and writes about Clinton, I am amazed that more is not being said about the gender bias.
What are you guys so afraid of?

[inwonderland]

SOMEBODY SEND THIS TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TO USE AS PART OF AN AD...A SURROGATE SPEAK, A SUPERDELEGATE'S SHARING ON MAJOR TV. SOMETHING. AND BANG IT LIKE A DRUM...LIKE A SLOW, ONGOING, BEAT OF A DRUM.

SOMEBODY GET THIS IN THE CAN AS A YES WE CAN MEDIA ALERT.

AND,. MAYBE THE CABLE TV MEDIA WILL HAVE HAD ENOUGH SELF FLAGILATING FOLLOWED BY THEM BECOMING HILLARY PAWNS LAST WEEK...AND ACTUALLY HAVE CHRIS MATTHEWS, WOLF BLITZER AND ANDERSON COOPER BEHAVING LIKE REPORTERS NOT TREND CHASERS.

PUSH THIS TRUTH. SINCE IT IS..AFTER ALL, THE TRUTH...NOT CLINTONIAN TRUTH..BUT REAL TRUTH.

[jasonball]

You're insane if you think that there is a bias towards anybody but Obama. I never see the media talking about what pants he wore, what his facial expressions are like, his laugh, etc (unless to swoon over it). Matthews has even admitted to being moved to tears by Obama...

And yet Clinton and Obama have split delegates roughly 50/50, she is within 100 delegates of him, and at one point she had the overwelming support of superdelegates and a delegate lead comparable to Obama's today... So I guess you would have supported a move to push Obama out of the race when he was behind despite being supported by approximately half of the Democratic Party?

And Yes I would love to see the media stop acting as trend chasers. Talking about which of the candidates are losers and which are winners - they should simply report outcomes. They have already messed up twice as regards the Democratic race: predicting Clinton inevitability and now predicting Obama inevitability. The fact that posts like this must constantly be put out in an effort to persuade people against Clinton shows how far from over the race truly is. Though it sure would be nice if during a close race when huge sections of the population agreed with our opponents we could just push them out of the race - that would be nice - we should do that when it comes to the general election too. We can just have one party rule. Wouldn't that be so nice?

[z1scouts]

It is disturbing that Obama has entered the mainstream of our lives and the media and has given him "carte blanche" in most everything he says or does. Hillary Clinton who has had been held to a higher standard and I am sure if she had only 2 years as a senator under her belt would be blasted and labeled as having no experience to even try.

She has been maligned up and down by the misogynist press and organizations such as MoveOn.org and it appears that nothing can stop it.

Why should it be so different between a bi-racial man and a woman candidate? Why are they not being looked at evenly handedly and why is so much about this woman about her spouse?

Less than 6 months ago Bill Clinton was still one of the most popular figures on our political canvass. How and what made it change so quickly? ITS THE MEDIA STUPID!

Grant it the American people want a change from the way Washington is run but how could it be possibly thought that Obama has the stamina to beat back the onslaught that befell the likes of the Jimmy Carter, Clinton and most recently John Kerry (remember Swift boat)? These individuals had political acumen to sustain the barrage of dirty politics played on them, what does Obama have, Opra, the people, with his "yes we can" slogan? All he has are slogans.

Now to my point, Obama fans are highly critical of the super delegates and how they maybe swayed to vote for Clinton over the popular vote for Obama. Throughout this primary process the system has decided to treat one better than the other; has favored one over the other.

Had the exploits of the media been fair, I might have agreed, that the most popular should get the nomination; but now I ask, why shouldn"t Clinton take advantage of the super delegates? It has not been an even playing field, will continue not to be an even playing field; the primaries are not over and the fight has yet to begin. We are to stand behind the party for democracy and unite behind the popular candidate, why not the best candidate? Obama is an empty suit filled with empty promises and if nominated let alone elected will be bad for the Democratic party and for the Country. The stolen 2000 election changed us, and not for the better, this one could certainly end the Democratic party.

[AnninCA]

According to the latest headline, Obama has gathered 50 superdelegates who will pounce this week. This is the convention but Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan.......out of luck.

So we enter with a candidate who does not have a mandate and has worked a back-room deal.

How does President McCain sound?

[greejambri]

Back-room deal, eh, Annin? How do you know that? Possibly many of the sensible supers still out there have seen enough of the Clintons' slash-and-burn Karl Rove-inspired butcher job she is willing to do on a fellow Democrat for the sake of her own narcissistic ambition. This woman is pathetic. She will throw anything and anyone under the bus to get the nomination, in spite of the fact that Obama leads in pledged delegates, states, and popular vote, and there is virtually NO WAY she can catch him in the time, and with the contests, that are left. In a way I kind of feel sorry for Hillary, but only a little. This was supposed to be a cakewalk for her. She believed she had the nomination all sewn up, so so much that her campaign had no game plan for after Super Tuesday. I APPLAUD any super-delegate that comes out now for the candidate that will be the eventual nominee, based on how the voters have spoken. That candidate is Barack Obama.

[Ward1964]

By your own testimony,being a viewer of Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper,you must already know what it took Mr.Loewe so many tortured lins to say,even if Obama wins everything in sight,from now on he can't get 2024,either,without a backroom deal with "super"delegates,which he pretends to disavow.If you're going to spout Blitzer and Anderson,give the whole spiel.Shouldn't the rest of the states,who never get to have a say in the nominating process,get to at least vote?
Why do so many of the supporters of Obama want Hillary to quit?Have you no confidence that your man can stand up to the heat of the battle?If he can't go on for three more months,how will he withstand the scrutiny of four years in the Oval Office?
And I saw that he has spread $500,000 around amongst the "super"delegates who not already committed,after saying they shouldn't help her win.
Read Schlesinger's explaination of delegate rules and conventions,also on this edition of HuffPo.It'a a good read.

[myname]

Food for thought:

Is it at all possible that Hillary doesn't care if a weakened Obama loses to McCaine (like she didn't care about Kerry's loss) so that she will be the frontrunner in 2012 ?

[greejambri]

BINGO!

[Notapathetic]

I believe she sincerely DOES care if McCain wins in November. She would prefer Obama, for sure.

She just cares MORE that she is the nominee. I truly believe that she would give her very life for just four years at what she considers the top of the mountain. If she thinks she has even a ghost of a chance to fulfill her self-aggandizing impulse she will sell out the Dems, me, you, the thousands who will die in battle because of McCain, and never blink an eye.

I've never seen anything like the lust for power this woman has, and I go all the way back to FDR. I'm telling you, folks, Hillary is unbalanced. Mark my words.

[PTTY]

The DNC should just split the votes in half. Why go through the expense of redoing just DIVIDE THE DARN DELEGATES AND FORGET ABOUT IT.

THAT is the only fair way to handle it.

[dwmorris]

Obama: The New Dukakis

[PTTY]

Hillary the old Monica, Paul Jones, Vince Foster, Impeachment, Travel gate, White Water, Blue Dress, etc.

[dwmorris]

This is a good illustration of why Obama is unelectable. The "Obama movement" is populated with too many partisan zealots willing to parrot the anti-Clinton attacks of Atwater, Rove, et al.(seven of their greatest hits are listed above). In the process of filling the liberal blogosphere with this tiresome old anti-Clinton hate speech, these people have put a pernicious taint on the Obama campaign. Bottom line ¦ McCain cannot win without waging a hyper-negative campaign (which he will), and Obama is unelectable in that environment without the passionate support of the entire Democratic Party. Ironically, while the internet has propelled the stunning ascendancy of Obama to within striking distance of the Democratic nomination, it has also ruined his chances of becoming President.

[Ward1964]

All this venom over a blowjob,and he wasn't even your husband!

[musselmanm]

I am hoping to bring dignity back to the office of President of the United States.
The Clinton ticket is not my idea of either dignity or class in any way.
The Bush/McCain ticket is even worse and it is already heading downhill.

[Delaware22]

Dylan, newsflash! Obama can't win either! This is going to be a fight to the end, hopefully. And, if it has to be a "dream ticket"...Hillary, Pres. and Obama, VP! He's too much of naive newbie to be president. She needs to show him the ropes.

[revjmike]

Obama will not agree to be Hillary's vice president nor vice versa.

If Obama doesn't win the nomination or run as a third party candidate (not likely, but possible), he'll back Hillary officially; but I cannot imagine him putting for the effort she'll need to keep SOME of his folk come fall.

[Fasteddie1515]

Hillary states that she has been vetted for the last 15 yrs. I,m learning stuff that the average 18 yr old voter has no clue of. The Clinton's have the MSM all over the Rezko case, and it's not about Senator Obama. Yet Senator Clinton has a case of her own coming up, dealing with her 2000 Senate Campaign Finances. Yet the MSM whom all know about it seem to act as if this trial is not as important for some one seeking the highest office in the land. This is part of an article from the World Net Daily

Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons " Bill, Hillary and Chelsea " along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

[PTTY]

She needs to show how to get the Repugs out to say McCain has more experience than she has.

To rally the Repugs to replay all the new dirt as well as the old dirt.

[greejambri]

Never happen!

[Notapathetic]

My wife spent 35 years meeting some of my foreign customers, working charitable events, helping set up our industry health plan, etc. She was in the vicinity of many multi-million dollar decisions I had to make in my business and sometimes talked about deals with me.

That means she has CEO experience and could step right in on "Day One"??

Hillary's "experience" is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard....yet millions of people believe she actually has Presidential experience. Makes you wonder how some people can even figure out how to tie their shoes!

[AnotherTry]

She's seen it a heck of a lot more than Obama has. And i doubt your wife is as intelligent as Hillary and your wife probably doesn't want to do your job.

Hillary has more experience by simply being on the planet 18 years longer than Obama. i give her credit for being a succesful politican and mother. We don't know yet how successful Obama is as a father.

[Obamamo]

Hillary has run a shabby campaign. From firing her workers to send slanderous remarks the way of her party comrade, Barack. I do not believe Hillary has the integrity to become our first female president. There is more than enough other woman that would make a fine president, but just not her. She has climbed to success on the slumping shoulders of her husband. There is sooooooo much dirt underneath the Clinton's fingernails, that Barack could easily use to destroy her if he chose to go that route, but he is a gentleman and I foresee him going that direction. Although he must raise the level of the game and show her the mirror to pull the battery out her back and stop the wannabe energizer rabbit. She doesn"t have what it takes to unify the nation, nor would she change the catastrophically Bush"s foreign policies, She acts and is running her campaign just like a Republican. We cannot have someone who CRIES ON TV. IT IS A SHOW OF VUNERABILITY!!!! She cannot have someone who will answer the phone at 3 am and say, "why are you asking me the questions first?" She is not strong. Crying for votes and sympathy is not what our country needs. We need someone to win on hard work and honest intentions....NOT SYMPATH¦.NOT VINDICTIVENESS¦¦.. NOT FEAR

[Fasteddie1515]

Hillary states that she has been vetted for the last 15 yrs. I,m learning stuff that the average 18 yr old voter has no clue of. The Clinton's have the MSM all over the Rezko case, and it's not about Senator Obama. Yet Senator Clinton has a case of her own coming up, dealing with her 2000 Senate Campaign Finances. Yet the MSM whom all know about it seem to act as if this trial is not as important for some one seeking the highest office in the land. This is part of an article from the World Net Daily

Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons " Bill, Hillary and Chelsea " along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

[revjmike]

You posted an article from a Republican web site that features Ann Coulter and other idiots. Even if it is true I wouldn't trust it to be true from reading it in that rag.

[JohnDavidMyself]

Mr. Loewe,
In reference to current delegate counts and delegates remaining to be won, your comment "Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination", has been much over-used by pundits and bloggers. The obvious, unstated analog to this line of questionable reasoning is that 'Barack Obama cannot win the Democratic nomination, either'. The requirement for winning the party's nomination is NOT a simple majority. You know that.
The rules for many elections and for deliberative bodies also mandate more than a simple majority. Sorry if you don't approve, but that is how the nominating process for the Democratic Party works. That is the rule. You know that.
Requiring more than a simple majority is a valuable contruct in the democratic process, for it prevents the 'many' from overwhelming the 'few'. The intent is, if a decision (or person) does not have significant enough support, i.e. meeting a predefined threshold, then those involved must work together to reach a compromise. This is not a new or unique requirement.
I can enthusiastically support either Obama or Clinton as the Democratic Party's nominee, but the process must be allowed to play out. The contest does not end when one's preference is ahead; it ends when the well-thought out rules are followed and the process reaches its natural conclusion. That's democratic. We all know that.

[boycottrightwingthings]

Thank you for bringing reason to the debate, JDM I think that people are forgetting that not long ago, Hillary was ahead. It seems as soon as Barack was ahead, Barak supporters were saying Hillary should go away, end it, and that is ridiculous. Borack is not ahead by THAT much, and when he was behind, no one said that he should bow out, so I don't know what these Borack supporters are thinking. They keep on saying they won't support Hillary if she wins, but that is immature, and dare I say, sexist? I would support Borack if he was the winner, even though I think his lack of any real experience is a minus, not a plus. The worst alternative would be John McCain, Bush's third term, and we cannot as a people (except mabe the top 1%) afford that!

[Psalm30]

Is there a particular reason why you write his name as 'Borack' rather than correctly as Barack?

And you may say that a decision not to vote for Hillary as the nominee would be both premature and sexist. I would disagree on both counts. I am a woman who supported Shirley Chisolm in her run for President. I am hoping and praying for a woman to be President in my lifetime. And I feel cheated that Hillary Clinton is the choice of the party at this time. She has no qualifications at all compared to the men in the Democratic field this year. All of them, other than John Edwards, had more legislative experience than she had. Richardson and Vilsack had executive experience. There was a time in this country when Clinton's type of 'experience' as First Lady would have been valued more highly because there were so many barriers to women's direct participation in politics. But now we have qualified women who have spent decades in the house and Senate. We have women who are governors of states we have women who are business CEOs and college Presidents and high cabinet members. Any one of them would have more qualifications than Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has decided to run a vicious, racist campaign that is disloyal to the party and dismissive to millions of voters and dozens of states. She has injured relations between African-Americans and the Democratic Party to the point that, if she is the nominee, millions of black voters will simply refuse to vote in the Presidential election. We won't sit this one out because she is a woman. We will sit this one out because she is so offensive that we feel the Democrats deserve to lose if they nominate her.

[thebirdstheword]

You would support Obama, but you spell his name three different ways in the same post???

Please don't bring "and dare I say, sexist" into it. I could just as easily call you a racist for not supporting Obama.

[JerryJef]

The qualification for nomination in the Democratic Party IS a simple majority and has been since the 1936 convention. Prior to then it was a 2/3rds majority.

This year, excluding Florida and Michigan, there will be 4047 delegates. The nomination will go to the person receiving 2024 votes. Including those two states, the delegates will total 4414 with 2208 needed to nominate.

That aside, you are right that neither Obama nor Hillary can achieve this simple majority with pledged delegates alone. Obama's deficiency equals 89% of the remaining delegates to be chosen. He won't win 90% of them, and neither will Hillary. Which means this convention will be decided by the unpledged delegates.

[JohnDavidMyself]

JerryJef,
You are correct in pointing out that "a simple majority" is the requirement. I was focusing on the delegate threshold issue, which is the simple majority, but went astray in denying that a simple majority is all that's required. No excuses.

Thanks; we all need to be 'kept honest'.

[DietrichMoody]

You are Wrong. If the written INTENT is for the person (candidate) to have significant enough support and make a strong case, than Hillary loses. Hillary Clinton started out as the leader and a sure thing. She has been given the benefit of the doubt time and time again, because of her earned good will over the years as first lady. In due process, her lead in the Delegate count and Popular vote evaporated. Her, endorsements by major players in the Democratic party has evaporated. The underlying INTENT of the people shows that there is a shake up. And Hillary is rattled. Her name recognition and her good will, basically her only assets, have been chipped away. She has not tried to recover these, because she is too busy RE-campaigning. Or campaigning, because she never had to campaign. Her nomination was based on good will and name recognition.

In the long run, it will be hard to argue an intent based on a "moral right and name recognition" against authentic intent on change. There are bumps here and there, but the authentic Intent driving Obama to victory is taking on a life of its own. Its not manufactured or forced. That is why he is able to recover and move on.

[revjmike]

Of course, for Hillary, it will end only when and if she has the most delegates for a day or two. That probably won't happen; but she's too vile to get out early. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party or its eventual successes.

If she wins by "back room politics" she'll lose the election when millions of young folk who wanted real change either opt out of voting or vote for the Green Party candidate.

[applecherry]

Of course, for Hillary, it will end only when and if she has the most delegates for a day or two. That probably won't happen; but she's too vile to get out early. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party or its eventual successes.
If she wins by "back room politics" she'll lose the election when millions of young folk who wanted real change either opt out of voting or vote for the Green Party candidate.
===============================================================
REPLY
I'M A OBAMA FAN
If Hillary wins fair with more pledge delegates I might vote for her, but if there's a back room deal & they give it to here with less pledge delegates than Obama. I will vote Republican.

[Ward1964]

WORD!

[Butterfly8]

Everyone is talking of Hillary's big win in Tx. Big win? If it was "winner take all" you could say that, but in this case they practically divided the delegates in half. Plus, Obama won all the major cities, and had more votes in the -65-year-old age group, including white men, women, hispanics and afroamericans. So where's the big win? I see Obama won Texas, if you think of delegate allocation - in the primaries and the caucaus.... Hillary is ruining the best chance for Democrats to get to the White House - I'm fed up with this campaign. It's getting dirtier every day and it will be dirtier when this is over. This is not what Democrats stand for.... I'm getting nervous over here....

[rinpochet]

Apparently also the Republicans did as they were told by Rush Limbaugh and 8% of the Republican vote went to Hillary. They want her badly as the candidate as they know they can beat her.