So, Hillary, Obama Can't Win? Tell Me... Who Won Texas?

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News has broken the news that when Bill Richardson called Hillary Clinton to tell her he'd be endorsing Barack Obama, Hillary emphatically said "Barack Obama cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.".

So, Hillary's case is no longer just that she's the best person to be president. It's that she has seen the future and knows with absolute certainty that Barack Obama will lose to John McCain, no matter what he and the Democratic Party does.

I say "he" because I'm referring to what Barack might do. It's now clear to me what Hillary would do during this general election scenario. She would be the "He's going to lose" voice in the Democratic Party. Really attractive, huh?

I wish I could draw well enough to create an editorial cartoon showing Hillary as a 5-year-old child saying "He's going to lose," over and over again, in a sing-song kind of voice. Because that's how she's behaving.

Since Obama's defeat is an unshakable reality in Hillary's mind, if Barack gets the nomination I hope Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean arrange for Hillary to spend the period between the convention and the general election in some far away place (Russia? China?) where her negativity will not drag down the efforts of the rest of us to prevent the Republicans from maintaining control over the White House.

Stepping back for a moment, I suggest you all consider the following: Hillary's "I know he's going to lose" statement is further proof that her mind works in ways that are VERY similar to how George Bush's mind works. We've seen various Hillary / George Bush parallels before.

(1) Hillary is a congenital liar (to borrow a phrase from William Safire), and so is George Bush.

(2) Hillary prefers to work in a secret (her Health Care Task Force) and keep secrets (many of her records are still kept from the public), and George Bush is that way too.

(3) Hillary has an almost cult-like fixation on thinking she will absolutely win the nomination and, then, the presidency. And George Bush has the same kind of fixation on his version of reality, as if God told him this is how it is... and how it will be. They are both just too sure they are always right.

So, listen up my friends. And open your eyes as well. Hilary is giving us a tremendous gift: the opportunity to see how her mind works... up close and personal... and not just at 3 A.M. but all the time. However, you have to stop thinking in horse race mode to receive this gift.

Progressives may say the most important thing is to elect a Democrat as president in November. But I say no... that's not good enough.

The psychological profile of who becomes our next president is just as important as the party to which they belong. We need a president who lives in the "real world"... who practices reality-based politics. If that president is going to think and talk about realities that don't currently exist, then those should be optimistic realities... like when President Kennedy said we would put a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s. Hopeful visions like that are great.

But a negative vision of Barack losing to John McCain... That has no place in the mind of a major leader of the Democratic Party. That's not like worry about Greenland melting. There's a scientific consensus that that will happen if we don't change what we're doing.

Even if there's a poll out today showing McCain beating Obama, the election results cannot be accurately predicted this far in advance.

If some of you think I'm being too hard on Hillary, then I'll tell you what. Let's give her a test. Let's find out which reality she lives in. Her own? One based on how she wishes the world would be? Or one that is based on the facts. The subject of our test: Who won the Texas primary.

That's a major news story that also broke this week. The final results of the Texas primary, as reported by the Associated Press, are that Barack Obama won. He got 99 delegates to Hillary's 94. The Baltimore Sun ran a great story on this in which Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat, is quoted as saying "It appears the Clinton campaign declared victory at half time."

What a great metaphor... and how true. Hillary tried to fool us into thinking the half time results were the final results. Another example of Bush-like ("Mission accomplished") thinking.

So, Hillary, the Texas Democratic Party has now told us what the true results are. Are you going to keep saying you won Texas or not? Acknowledging the real, final results -- publicly -- would begin to knock down my theory that your mind works a lot like George Bush's.

Bush's psychology -- which I see as more a product of family dynamics than political party affiliation -- has proven to be a danger to the Constitution of the United States. The way Bush's mind works led him to pursue the "unitary executive" theory, because it fit his need to control reality and operate in secret.

Does Hillary Clinton's need to control reality and operate in secret mean she would also follow the unitary executive theory? Her answer to the question "Who won Texas?" will help us begin to answer that critical question.

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

Comments

[patriotscholar]

If the democratic party pulled together, Obama would win handily over McCain.

[chasgoose]

It's pretty hypocritical to accuse Clinton of shadiness in claiming a win of Texas when you make an equally specious claim that Texas Democrats chose Obama over Clinton. While there is no disputing Obama won more delegates, that doesn't change the fact that more Texans voted for Clinton than Obama when you combine the votes from both the primary and the caucus.

According to the NY Times, Clinton got 1,459,814 votes in the Texas primary to Obama's 1,358,785, while Obama got 23,918 votes in the Texas caucus to Clinton's 18,620. Ignoring the fact that many people in the caucus probably voted in both contests, Clinton still received 1,478,434 votes total to Obama's 1,382,703. So while Obama "won" Texas in terms of delegates, Clinton won Texas in terms of votes. When arguing about one's chances in a general election where the popular vote is the only one that matters, Clinton is totally justified in using the popular vote totals to claim a victory in Texas and support her argument that she has a better chance of getting elected in the general election. If Clinton were arguing that she won Texas solely in the context of the race for the nomination she would be absolutely wrong, but in the context that she was claiming victory it was totally appropriate.

[vipersdad]

Ok - according to many prominent newspapers, the Boston globe among them http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop//), over 119,000 Republicans reported they voted for Hillary in the TX primary. Subtract that out and the lead you describe goes bye-bye and Obama comes out 23,269 votes on Top of Hillary in the Popular vote.
How many of those repubs will vote for HRC over McCain in the General? I would think Zero.

If you think Hillary is justified in claiming victory, I think it's equally rational for Obama to claim victory as well. Anyways - the margin you describe (

[chasgoose]

I agree that Obama has just as much of a right to claim victory than Clinton, if not more, but I am just pointing out that Clinton's claims to victory in Texas aren't simply the result of her refusing to acknowledge the truth. The race was so close and it is so absurdly structured (both in the way that people can get TWO votes and the way the delegates are awarded) that there really was no definitive winner. If one candidate had won both the popular vote AND the delegates it would be easier to make a sole claim to victory, in this case it depends on what context you put it in.

Also did that article about the Republicans were voting for Clinton mention how many voted for Obama? I find it hard to believe that out of almost 3 million votes cast that no Republicans voted for Obama or that there weren't even 24,000 votes out of about the 1.4 million votes Obama recieved cast by registered Republicans who will not vote for McCain in the general election.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

It makes me smile to see how many people, such as you, redefine what "winning the Texas primary" means to suite your purpose.

Obama won not by my definition, but by the definition of the Texas Democratic Party. That's the organization that said "Here's the two-part process by which we will select our delegates to the national convention." And, as we all know, at the convention it's the number of delegates that determines who gets the nomination.

I'm reporting who won based on how the contest organizers define winning. Those who can't see that are letting their emotions get in the way of the truth... the same problem President Bush has.

[NorVaGal]

Clinton's win in the popular vote in Texas was assisted by the Limbaugh republicans crossing over to reek havoc with the democratic election process. I have seen estimates that more than 100,000 repubs voted in the Texas democratic primary for HRC. I am assuming that officials came up with that estimate based on their voter registration rolls.

We can pretty much predict that those repubs won't be voting for her next fall, in that all important "...general election where the popular vote is the only one that matters,...." according to you. That was Rush's whole purpose in sending out his minions to do the dirty deed. As a matter of fact, the cross-over voting causes many democrats to question whether Clinton in actuality did win the popular vote in Texas.

[montemalone]

Texas isn't over. The delegate selection process is multi-stages. We just had state senatorial district conventions March 29th. There, delegates were chosen to attend the state convention in Austin in June. At that time, the delegates to the national convention in Denver in August will be selected. Only after the state convention will the actual delegate count be known.
I was a delegate to the March 29 convention, and our precinct chose a delegate to back Obama in Austin. At this point Obama is ahead.
It's not yet decided.
I'm rooting for Obama.

[cittykat2]

it is unfortunate that the Clintons are still in shock since Iowa. They don't know how to lose fairly and gracefully. This is gutter politics and the super delegates can put an end to this.
The stakes are too high. The war is costing us dearly in lives, money and respect in the world.
Americans' need jobs. Our children's education system is broken, we need to fix it. Americans cannot afford health care, our seniors cannot afford their medication.

Democrats should unite and lets have McCain and Bush retire together.

[deejsmom]

great article - thanks!

[servatius]

And how is Hillary saying to Bill Richardson that Barack Obama cannot win the general election any different than Barack Obama back in December saying the very same thing about Hillary Clinton? Barack stated that she is too divisive to win the general election, among other things.

Moreover, Obama's campaign has certainly replayed and reinforced the old Republican lines about Hillary being - well, just name the word. Whether it's a reference to the blue dress, or that her time as first lady was "taking tea", or that her very existence in the campaign itself is proof that she only cares about herself and that she will do anything to win, the Obama campaign has stooped at nothing to paint Hillary as the Terminator, a souless collection of amoral destruction.

The Republicans didn't seem to think Hillary was just "taking tea" as First Lady. It drove Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other Republican harpies nuts that Hillary didn't confine herself to tea cups and shoes. How dare she be anything more than an ornament or a skirt to take up a chair.

If you listen long enough to some of the whining out of the Obama campaign you'd think that in comparison to Hillary, Stalin is a saint, and purged nowhere near as many folks.

I know Stalin used to be called "Uncle Joe" during the Second World War. Just another "crazy uncle" in our great big happy global family.

Well, in Hillary's defence, at least she is "likeable enough".

[Fabienne]

What does Stalin have to do with any of this?

[grendl]

You do know that whining about whining is still whining.

You're doing it too.

Of course you'll probably argue you're not. You're practicing civil discourse, buts it whining about whining. Thus whining.

And in pointing it out, I'm whining about whining about whining.

Best not to go down that neverending path...

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for pointing me to the AP report (from January 30, 2008, excerpt below). Yes, Obama apparently spoke in "she can't win" terms there. My research shows that this was a strategy he quickly abandoned when he was told he had gone against his pledge to run a positive campaign. If I can find similar evidence regarding Hillary changing her tactics, I'll blog about that.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article

DENVER — Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.

Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida’s crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.

‘‘Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change,’’ Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

[Sloane7]

Every day I am more stunned by the Clinton's increasingly negative, angry and devisive approach. What a way to sell a candidate.

[Jamchinadian]

Actually, this stated view of hers is completely consistent with her actions. She has been Actively trying to Ensure that, if (when?) Barack wins the Democratic nomination, he will lose the national. That is why she has been providing ammunition to McShame to use against BO, and why she, and Bill, have been publicly Endorsing McSame. This is most shameful and disgusting.

More than that; it's becoming clear that she has a two part strategy:

Plan A) Slime him enough with the "race card" and "patriotism" (e.g. Bill saying how wonderful a Hill/Mccan't race would be - between two people who love their country), etc. etc. so that he will drop in the polls nationally, and she will then be ablee to co-erce the super-delegates into giving her the nod.

Plan B) Failing the above, succeed in sliming him enough that McSame will "win". That then re-opens the door for her in 2012. So having engineered the intended result, she will gleefully say "I told you so" - hoping that she will then get the nod in 2012.

So, it's not just wishful thinking on her part. She and her family are actively trying to engineer this outcome.

Now: that raises the question. If she somehow manages to steal the nomination, which is worse - a vote for her or for Mcsame? What would be the difference? McShame may be the less bad choice - to at least re-open the door in 2012 for a true Democrat!

[jhNY]

Obama supporters often come off like smug little inside-baseball gamers on the subject of caucuses, because, well, that's all they are.

Self-employed dot-commers, students on a mission, retirees who want to make a difference, activists, etc, who can spare the time to attend these endless, self-congratulatory, droning affairs designed to dampen the enthusiasm of normal people, and to discourage their attendance, especially when they are being held when regular folks are working, and in places where you have to drive to attend, which leaves out the carless, who are often also poor. That's when the disciples get together, and in the case of Texas,in smaller numbers by far than the number of folks who voted in the primary, and that's when they rejigger the outcome to the benefit of the anointed one.

And then they crow on and on about the victory they manufactured, which is all in the rules of course, but signifying nothing for the general election, wherein votes and only votes will count.

Do you think Obama wins Texas in the Fall? Yes or no? Want to bet your paycheck?

[veteran1964]

That was a dumb question. This was a Democratic primary. This was NOT a general election. You are comparing a primary to an election. Normal Texas thinking. You must be the wrangler on Bush's property. By the way, that area stinks to high heaven. WHEW!
Obama will win the general election when he is our nominee. Wanna bet your paycheck? John McCain will be swamped into concession by the amount of democrats that are going to vote this fall. You have no friggin idea. Of course, you guys in Texas think you know everything.....That's a joke. That's why this guy from North Carolina went down there for five years and took care of most of your women in a man's way.....:0
Get off your horse wrangler and get the facts. Bill Clinton won caucuses during his election cycle. I didn't hear them bitching about that. All of a sudden, a black man comes down and wins the caucuses, with white people behind him and your rednecks are upset and willing to bet your $10.83 weekly paycheck on a bet.....LOL

[LBM]

The FINAL results are not what is being reported by the media. Hillary will win the most delegates at the state convention because they add the delegates from the primary, the caucus and also add in super delegates from the state which Hillary is winning at about 2 to 1. The FINAL delegate numbers for Texas is Hillary with 143 delegates and Obama with 126 delegates out of the total 228 delegates. Everyone out there saying that Hillary didn't win Texas doesn't know the facts. Here are the facts on how the TX delegates are allocated:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877

[jhNY]

If all that idiocy was directed at me, you missed. I know what just took place in TX was part of the primary process. I also know that Obama winning the most delegates there thanks to the easily-gamed caucus system in place guarantees him nothing by way of a victory IN TEXAS in November. But I don't doubt he can win the general election if he's nominated.

I truly appreciate the space allotted here for manly displays of conquest by North Carolinians who disport themselves in Texas 'with most of your women', as I am a New Yorker, and feel better just knowing that you and your penis are busy elsewhere.

[kunzarina]

My sister was a delegate for Clinton at a Texas county caucus. She said it was bedlam, with no organization and overrun with very loud, very abrasive, mostly college-age Obama supporters. She had not come up against the unfortunate Obamabot stereotype at all until the caucuses and she was shocked by how impossible it was for Clinton supporters to figure out how to register, much less make their voices heard. I don't believe that all Obama supporters are like these very obnoxious few. (I've also seen some pretty nasty Clinton supporters -- though online, and certainly fewer in number and never in person.)

Clearly, the caucus process is broken. I'm a former Edwards supporter. I moved support to Hillary because I thought she was the most electable in the general. As a populist, I feel that caucuses do not represent all democrats and aren't, in my opinion, a good guage of whether or not a candidate would do well in a general election. Incidentally, I'd feel this way if Edwards were still in the race and winning caucuses. Just because my candidate does well doesn't change the basic fact that the system is rigged for one niche's interests to prevail.

[AnninCA]

The reports from around the country was that this was the tenor of the caucuses. Obama supporters shouted people down, pulled dirty tricks, even locked people out.

It was awful. It's shocked a lot of Democrats.

The real story here is that Obama has stolen this election away from people.

[PrdAmerican]

Why don't you add the birkenstock wearing, latte sipping trust fund babies comment as well.

I've seen the spectrum of Obama supporters, and it's amazing. From the unemployed, the healthcare worker, stay at home moms, working moms, social workers, students, and yes even the dot commer, the little old lady from pasadena, black, white, hispanic, asian, and everything in-between.

Our caucus was civil and a great place for debate and certainly did not lack enthusiasm from either side. People carpooled, people helped the elderly by providing rides, those who could not attend, were afforded the opportunity to sign affidavits to submit their votes. Most notably absent, however, were the Rush Limbaugh Chaos voters who are attempting to subvert the democratic process as evidenced in TEXAS, OHIO, and MISSISSIPPI Primaries. As it would turn out....the caucus is fast becoming our only protection AGAINST these type of low class, grotesque tactics from the Right.

This whole, the "caucus is un-democratic" b.s. certainly was not uttered by Bill Clinton in 92' or 96'...in 2000 and 2002, again, the caucus was not attacked, they were actually hailed as proof our democratic process in the party was alive and thriving. Ask yourself, be honest....if it was your candidate winning...would you be decrying the caucus? Wouldn't it just be another democratic process by which to measure the success of your candidate?

[vipersdad]

Yes - insulting fellow Dems because they disagree with you is classy. It's a great way to engender party unity....oh wait... that's what your candidate and her proxies have done consistently. Remember her mocking Barack's speechmaking style? Classless....

She is a Joe Lieberman democrat....which is to say - not a democrat.

[kunzarina]

Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. Google it yourself if you think I'm trolling or lying or drinking kool-aid or whatever.

[NorVaGal]

Why did you not crusade to end these horrible, droning affairs prior to the beginning of this primary season? You have had 4 years to stamp out these unfair election events. Better yet, why didn't you eradicate them years ago so that Bill Clinton would not have had to endure all of his horrific caucus wins? I never heard about how godawful these caucuses were until Hillary started losing in them. Prior to that, they were just dandy. But-- do not despair. You and like-minded others will have unlimited opportunities to rid the earth of caucuses AFTER the conventions. BUT NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ELECTION. Toodles!

[calluna]

"Hillary has an almost cult-like fixation on thinking she will absolutely win the nomination and, then, the presidency"

This trope pops up quite often on HuffPo. What exactly is a "cult-like fixation on thinking she will absolutely win the nomination..." She's running for president. It is not a laissez-faire activity. Do you really think Barack Obama isn't "fixated" on the idea that he will win the nomination and the presidency?

[grendl]

Has Barack Obama ever said Hillary Clinton can't win the presidency?

She's said that about a fellow Democrat, the party's potential nominee. Yes, he's still leading in the delegate count to date, and earning more superdelegate defectors weekly. She's a one woman cult of personalities. She's Sybil, one personality proud to share a stage with Barack Obama, another ridiculing his message of hope.

One can be fixated on winning the presidency, but when you sell out a fellow party member, its time to admit you have a problem. She endorsed Senator McCain, and man who wants to stay in Iraq, no Viet Nam and that POW camp until we win it. Yes, Viet Nam, the war that has never ended in John McCains mind.

For a hundred years. Maybe that appeals to Hillary. Maybe she still won't concede her vote opening the door for war was ill advised, and thats what made her side with the man across the aisle, who keeps assuring us we can take that hill.

Its a mountain. Not a hill, and it doesn't want to be democratic right now. There are ancient scores to settle and blood feuds, and sectarian chasms so vast, they may never be bridged. But Hillary harbors the notion they can, and thus endorsed McCain because he's the candidate who doesn't make her vote to go to war foolish.

Personal pride has gotten the best of her. She is a one woman cult.

[jrterrier]

This guy should be drummed out of the business for arguing that Obama won Texas. He knows better and if he doesn't, then he should not be holding himself out to be an expert on the race. And unless he holds a degree in psychiatry or psychology and has actually tested the candidates, his pseudo-psychoanalysis of the candidates is hogwash.

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, which is the only thing that would determine the electoral college numbers. In November, there will be no Texas three-step where people can go to the polls three times and can shout and shove each other at caucuses that last all day.

And Obama's camp has been arguing that Hillary can't win because of her negative numbers since this race started.

[Fabienne]

Do we need to say this over and over? There are NO electoral votes in the primaries, and it as been repeatedly debunked by statistics that who wins primaries has anything to do with which party wins the state in the general election.

[NorVaGal]

There will also not be Limbaugh republicans voting for Hillary in November.

[SamThornton]

Whatever one's opinion of Sen. Clinton's character, veracity, or electibility, the moment I realized Mr. Brant was citing William Safire as an authority on anything is the moment he lost me.

Mr. Safire, in case the reader doesn't know, was the former NY Times resident conservative to whom President Bush awarded The Medal of Freedom in 2006. You know, the very same award every goofball incompetent in the known universe has received from Mr. Bush.

[AnninCA]

I have certainly more examples of blatant lies from Obama than from Hillary this season.

But more important, Hillary won the Texas primary. I hate to remind you, but there will be NO two-step in the Fall.

No caucuses.

Just primaries.

[grendl]

Barack didn't resort to sexist tactics in this race. The Clinton campaign deliberately tried to tap into America's fear of a black man. Thats the only reason she thinks he can't win.

Why else? If he were white with the numbers he's showing, and the voter turnout, would anyone suggest he can't win. They'd be hailing him to the high heavens.

No, because he's black, she and her people think this country won't elect him. Not saying she's racist, but her belief that this country is still to racist to do so is self evident.

And you don't have more examples of lies from Barack than Hillary. Unless you dare list them here.

[Syco]

If she won why did he get more delegates?

[AnninCA]

Actually, because of racism in Texas.

Her Latino voters count for less.

[Merin]

Delegates are how you win the nomination, AnninCA - not convoluted twists of logic -

this state counts because it's a Swing State, that state counts because it had a Primary, half that state counts because the Caucus half we don't like - those states don't count because they are usually Red, and these two states count even though they broke the rules.

NO.

Ahead in Popular Vote. Ahead in States Won. Ahead in Pledged Delegates. Erasing the gap in super-delegates. Lower negativity ratings in almost all polls.

[AnninCA]

Recent polls show he's losing the swing states.

He'll lose in the Fall.

And I think the reason will be is that he turned the Democratic party into Clinton-hating Republicans.

Now, it's just not that hard to go actually vote Republican.

[AnninCA]

Actually, I must say I find the insistence on wining Texas even when he got busted in the primary vote a bit telling about his entire narrative about how he's "won" the nomination.

Same exact story.........:)

[JerfyT]

there wont be any primaries in the fall, Ann, only the general election

[PrdAmerican]

SIGH...ignorance for AnninCA must be bliss.

[AnninCA]

Just elections, I meant to say. No caucuses.

BTW, did you catch the post on the actual winner of Texas?

[Fabienne]

Let's hear all of the lies from Barack Obama. Then someone else hear can put up all of the lies from Hillary Clinton.

[grendl]

Once again Hillary has sold out the party in her newest claim that he cannot win the general election.

Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, why would you say that to the world. Does she understand these things called cameras actually record events as they happen? And every pronouncement she utters is caught for time immemorial?

I don't recall any other democratic candidate employing such a scorched earth policy as Hillary Clinton. Sure they bruise each other up, but I don't recall Jimmy Carter ever saying Ted Kennedy cannot ever win the presidency. It is an outrageous sense of entitlement she possesses, and when you look at the support he's getting from the electorate, Hillary's assessment of Barack's viability seems even more like wishful thinking, not grounded in reality.

But its been an absolute pleasure to see Lady MacBeth run for office I must say. And as for Bill, who can't believe Bill Richardson promised he'd stay loyal to his face, think about your wedding vows Mr. Clinton. How many times have you promised to be loyal to your wife?

I suppose there's a double standard in place. Lying in your personal life, and public life are two different things to you. I say the contagion is evident.

[BenMurphyNYC]

Governor Richardson has said over and over that the content of that conversation was private (yet heated) and that he would not discuss it. I don't understand why he discussed it with ABCNEWS.

[AnninCA]

He is just so full of BS. *haha His entire endorsement was all about the Clintons. He mentioned Obama almost as an afterthought.

[CubanPete]

(cont) Oh, and also, don't you think it would be fair if only registered party members were allowed to vote for who they want representing their party. I am a registered Independent and I hope Hillary Clinton wins the nomination but if she doesn't I may start a petition to get her to run as an Independent, because I do not think the Democratic Party deserves someone like her. Anyone that actually tries to look at her "unbiasedly" would see that she knows her subjects well, speaks about them well, and has worked hard in the public sector. The main members (Pelosi, Reid, etc) of the Democratic Party seems to be a bunch of spineless, gutless and especially whiney bunch of people - just like these Obamamaniacs. So please, Senator Clinton, take your toys and start your own party if the Dems stab you in the back, and remember, when the Democrats come crawling back to you begging for you to take them back after the Republicans cut loose with all the attack ads on Obama showing his fellow crack buddies or the guy that said he gave Obama a "Lewinski" for money, and especially those ads you know are coming showing Michelle, the kids and Obama himself sitting on a pew while Wright is talking about those mean white folks - just tell them sorry - you are not interested.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

While I appreciate the reasonable tone of your two-part comment, I did not write a post on the subject of the election system I wish we had. I wrote about the primary election system (in Texas) we already have. And I wrote about Hillary's psychology, which you apparently don't have a problem with.

For now, redesigning the election system will have to be a topic for another day.

But what We, The People, do have the opportunity to do with the election system we have right now is decide if we are going to vote based on real facts or made-up facts... based on what a person's character says they would do with our economy and issues of world peace... or based on what someone claims a candidate did in his or her private life. (Your Lewinski comment.)

[CubanPete]

Actually my post was directed at another poster who feels Obama won Texas and as I stated in my post Hillary won Texas. Sorry for the confusion. I should have posted my post under a reply to the post I was responding to (my mistake - glad I am not running for President - that would have definetly cost me the nomination!!) but thank you for your reply!

[CubanPete]

Hello again, I am curious though since you wrote '.... subject of the election system I wish we had. I wrote about the primary election system (in Texas) we already have." What are your thoughts about how the superdelegates should vote since that is also part of the election system we have now? If the super delegates overturn the voters wishes and vote for Hillary - will you argue?

[veteran1964]

I need a handkerchief...I think I am goiing to shed tears like Hillary. The underhanded one. Bill Clinton won caucuses and both he and his wife never said a word about them. All of a sudden, someone else wins one and they cry. Amazing double standards. If you are pulling for Hillary, get ready to see her demise. Votes are coming to N.C. and we are going to seal the deal for Obama. Over 65,000 new voter applications have been filled out in two months here and they are all for Obama. Funny thing is, when the polls are taken, these new voters are never called.........ONLY the same old idiots are called each time. Random? I'm 62 and never had one call to get my vote. Amazing fairness in the polls. lol Get ready for your sweetheart to finally get shut down.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

(part 2)

I have no doubt that the general election will see accusations flying around our never ending news environment (even though much of it will not, in my opinion, deserve to be called "news"). But what Barack Obama's candidacy will offer us all - because it's an issue he is campaigning on - is a chance to reject the politics of "voting from the gutter". We are a better people than that. We can laugh at those who say "Wallow with me in the dark side of human nature. Vote with me from that sick place. Don't worry about war and peace or global economics. Worry about who had sexual relations with someone outside of their marriage. That's how you should decide how to vote."

I'd much rather vote based on who I think will see the world clearly, including what new hopeful options exist that - because of advances in science and international development theory - never existed before.

[Fabienne]

Please do convince Senator Clinton to join in an Independent Party with you.

[vipersdad]

She can have Joe-Mentum as her running mate!

[NorVaGal]

Cuban Pete: Now you're talking! That is the BEST idea any Clinton supporter has come up with yet. A Clinton-Lieberman ticket (Oops! Better make that Lieberman-Clinton, since she is the junior senator) would be a godsend. Please get it organized ASAP!!!

You are exactly right that the democrats do not deserve a self-serving, dishonest, cut-throat like HRC. But, be careful. Just like with the black voters who have supported the Clintons for years, if the latinos ever displease her or Bill about anything, she will unleash the wrath of hades upon your hapless heads. We'll leave the light on for you.

[CubanPete]

Hillary won Texas. The only reason you seem to think Obama won it is because you feel that Caucas' are legitimate "will of the people" indicators. Caucases are like jury duty. A person may be actually innocent (or guilty) and some jurors actually listened to the evidence and came up with the right decision, but there is one or two people that have the bully mentality and human nature being what it is, some people will back down from confrontational types and "go with the crowd" even though that is not how they would have decided if they were not timid about voicing their opinion. I am not criticizing the "timid" types - that is how human nature is. We all know who the loudmouths are, who are quite ones are, etc. What I am criticizing is the fact that some things like jury duty and voting should not involve this type of procedure. If we all truly cared about democracy, we would have a popular vote. We would also give free equal air time to all presidential hopefuls and do away with candidates raising money for air time, etc. That is why alot of good candidates for president have had to drop out of the race - and we can probably all agree that one of them may have been the best candidate. The arguement that since Obama raised 40 million he is the best candidate. WTF? If that's true then Bush and Cheney were the best candidate also

[blueraven]

If caucuses don't represent the will of the people, what species are the beings who attend them, and how have they managed to interbreed with humans for so long that they've escaped notice?

[Titonwan]

Huh? Would you care to repeat that? I was in the other room sending a donation to the next President-Barack Obama. Now, what were you ranting about?

[IndependentJones]

Oh, so you think Obama shouldn't be in the lead because of the Caucuses, he should be in the lead because of the popular vote? Got it. Thanks.

Follow-up question: So, by your own standard, Obama is still winning, right?

[CubanPete]

If Michigan and Florida are not counted - yes, Obama is winning. Happy? Did that make you feel good? Hey, How's your guy doing in the latest Kentucky poll?

[klondiker]

A) Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Texas by over 100,000 votes.

B) Barack Obama won the caucuses in Texas.

C) In the general election, there are no caucuses.

D) The Texas winner in the general election will need to win the popular vote in the state.

Do you get it now?

[BenMurphyNYC]

Hillary also won the Nevada Caucuses but walked away with less so-called "elected" delegates. The whole system is severely flawed.

[mounthoodliberal]

a democrat will not win texas in the general.

do you get it now? (probably not....)

[Titonwan]

Dont hate the player, hate the game-player.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

I am not talking about the general election. I am talking about the (a) who won the Texas primary and (b) that it is not credible to say today that you (or anyone) knows who will win the general election - including who will win Texas - with absolute certainty.

The winer of Texas is who won according to the rules of the Texas Democratic Party. I am reporting those results, not making them up.

And acting as if you know what will happen in November now (rather than that you are guessing), is to be engaging in "magical thinking"... as if you have the ability to travel to the future. You have an opinion. And I will stand for your right to express your opinion... as long as your recognize that that's what you are doing. When you - or Senator Clinton, for that matter - starts claiming your opinion is Fact... that's when I say "Sorry, Charlie. We've just lived through two terms of that with President Bush. It's time for that to end."

[Titonwan]

I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten these folks, but if you stand too near the cage, they become spooked and start hooting and running around throwing feces everywhere. (I think they got that idea from their "hero").

[klondiker]

You claim that my statements are opinion, not fact.

Can you please tell me SPECIFICALLY which of the four statements in my earlier post (A through D) are not facts?

Second, your post claims that because Obama won Texas, it should put to rest concerns that he can't win. The response to that is, "Well, it still doesn't assuage concerns about his electability because he didn't win the popular vote."

I'm not saying that I know what will happen in the general election. I'm saying that Obama winning the CAUCUS but losing the POPULAR VOTE, does not inspire confidence for the general election, when the measure of victory will be the POPULAR VOTE.

[bossjimgettys]

Yeah, I get it; Texas is going to vote for McCain in November anyway so what is your point? I'm a bit more concerned with nominating a candidate who can potentially carry swing states and give a boost to Democratic congressional candidates. Do you think HILLARY WE-HATE-HER-SO-MUCH-WE'LL-VOTE-JUST-TO-VOTE-AGAINST-HER can achieve this? Bwahhaha.