Obama Surpasses Clinton in Numbers of Pledged Delegates With Weekend Sweep

Tomorrow we have a few more contests. Should Obama sweep the Potomac primaries tomorrow, it may be time for Clinton to do the right thing for the party she claims to care so much about and bow out and allow Obama the chance to mount a national campaign. I hope she has the integrity and humility to do just that. ALL the polls show she is a much better candidate against McCain, and just a casual conversation at the coffee shop you can sense that most people will vote for McCain over Hillary, yet would support Obama over McCain. Obama appeals to a huge demographic, as well as moderate repbulicans. Hillary would serve to embolden the republicans and unite them. So vicseral is the hatred of her, and it is irrational, but reality, that the right thing to do would be for her to step aside and unite this party behind Barack Obama for the next president of the United States.

Yes, he's a wonderful speaker - we all loved him at the convention - and he's got a great excitement about him. He wants change - who doesn't? He offers hope - um, yeah, that was Bill Clinton's line in '92. He didn't vote for the war - right, he couldn't because he was not yet a member of the Senate. (Easy to say how you would have voted when you didn't actually have to vote.) Most of his goals are the same as Hillary's, the same as John Edwards. So who should we pick?

We need to choose the candidate that will win in November AND get the job done. I want the one who can make it past the Rove gauntlet. There was some suggestion that Obama snubbed Hillary at the SOTU. This isn't high school. Has Obama never heard of Karl Rove? If Obama can't handle Clinton, then how on earth will he be able to stand up to the full Rove Smear Machine?

I want change - Real Change - not just talk. We are in a real mess here with real problems: the war, the economy, our diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. We need someone who knows what they’re doing. Hillary can get it done.

Thank you for answering my question for me...although some of you still insist on living in the past, "it ain't comin back" Your comment doesn't say much about where were headed in the future either...now does it....Everything about Amerika today is the complete opposite of where it began over 200 years ago...Greed...Laziness...Intolerance towards others...the list is staggering. But your vote and a "fresh face" is gonna change everything? They are all one in the same......animals. Greed and self serving agenda's are some their better attributes. New and fresh is not alway's better.

Some of you are in for a very, very, rude awakening.....but you can alway's choose to stay asleep...they don't care either way.

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's".
- Mark Twain

I am astounded sometimes...at the ignorance that permeates throughout this once grand nation of our's....

Still believe your vote will make a difference????

That's like saying the "spoon" made Rosie O'donnell fat......

But I digress........

Rules should Rule...and most of us voters in states with primaries/caucusus after Super Tuesday have never have had a choice in other nominating processes. So I'm not too inclined to feel sorry for MI and FL. HOWEVER, this nomination process is coming down to the wire. I'm convinced that the voters from two of our biggest states need to be included. Its really that simple. The ONLY way to do it properly is to establish a date for MI and FL Democrats to vote again, but after the PA primary (if it still is a tie). Saying 'vote again' is actually a misnomer, since many voters didn't vote because they knew it wasn't going to count.

We can't afford to have this derision, we are an inclusie party.

As a Florida progessive Dem, I am outraged at the DNC and the cluster you know what they have made with my state. Over 4 million people voted in the FL primary - four million! Every single candidate was on the ballot, we made our choice. What F'ing right does some committee have to throw out our votes? Sounds like Repugs to me and the old days of poll taxes. Because some bigwigs at the DNC and in Tallahassee made bad decisions, 4 million Democrats are being disenfranchised? No caucus, no national proportional seating, is acceptable to me or the voters in my state.

I also love the double std. on superdelegates. Oh, they have to vote like the voters in their state, but it's OK for Kennedy to campaign and give money and presumably even vote for BO but all the rest have to do what their states say?

Come on Democrats - act inclusive for once when it really counts. Take the needs of the nation to get some decent governance and restore our constitution into account and don't slant everything towards any one particular candidate. Michigan should revote, not caucus where participation can be artificially limited, and FL votes should be counted. It's the only FAIR way, it's right and it's Democratic. Please don't tear the country and our party apart!!

jaglady

It is now more than official. Obama not only leads in delegates but is capable of appealing to voters throughout the wonderful spectrum of humanity that is this nation. That the Billary campaign attempts to leverage a victory off the issues of race and ethnicity is one of the greatest hypocrisies ever to emerge from the Democratic Party and that's saying something. It looks like the Billary will finally have to face the reality of democratic choice. If the Democratic party hacks attempt to "super" delegate this nomination from the clear choice of the people, they will produce a firestorm of indignation which not only will assure a Republican victory in November but also a very diminished change in Congress. This is not only a problem with the Dems but with the American left in general. I am a left-leaning independent who supports Obama but will NEVER support Billary or a party that whines about a war and an economy which seem to be beyond their capacity to remedy. Hillary says that Obama is all talk. For the last two years we have had little more than talk from the Democrats altogether. And now they want to shove down our throats the moldy remnants of a former administration? I don't think so.

The real pressure on the so-called superdelegates will come from the voters, as many of them are elected officials (reps, senators, governors). So let's say Candidate A gets more of the popular vote in the great State of Confusion than Candidate B (and thus more of the pledged delegates). There are ten superdelegates in the State of Confusion, all of them elected officials. Now, what might be the fallout for those superdelegates/elected officials if they go against the tide of popular vote and award themselves to Candidate B, who got less of the popular vote? Maybe losing their own elected positions? I would suggest that a voter strategy to ensure fairness might be to let your superdelegate/elected officials know that if they go against the popular vote, their jobs are in jeopardy. The trick is to find out who they are, from a reliable source. And if anyone knows a reliable source for indentifying the superdelegates, please tell us.

Thanks for clearing up the delegate counts! You would thing that our media with there Star Trek studios would be able to explain it to people but they didn't. Thanks Buzzflash! Superdelegates will not thwart the will of the people!

Black against Brown?

Snip:

Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."
But not in Clinton's campaign. At the Jan. 15 debate, before the Nevada caucuses, where the Latino vote was important, NBC's Tim Russert read the Bendixen quote and asked Clinton, "Does that represent the view of your campaign?" Her response was chilling: "No, he was making a historical statement."

CLICK LINK

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012701612_pf.html