Clinton wins the "primary." Obama wins the delagate count. Both claim victory. Business as usual. Interesting that the media has given almost NO coverage to this since--one could argue--they were responsible. Once they declared Clinton the "winner" of Texas, Obama's camp flooded the caucuses which eventually led to him winning the delegate count.
Mundus vult decipi
As it is about delegates in the end...Obama won Texas.
Here is what I don't get... So you award 2/3 of the delegates to the popular vote and 1/3 to the caucuses, ok I can see that. But look at the numbers... participation in the caucuses was in the neighborhood of 10% of the voting. That gives each caucuser a lot more voting power than the actual voters. How does that work?
But in the end Obama won the state without winning the vote. leave it to the DNC...
I liken Hillary Clinton to you're annoying family member in Monopoly who won't quit. She just keeps rolling the dice and landing on free parking. He has a bunch of hotels, but she owns Boardwalk and New York (HAAA). So the money keeps changing hands, but she's slowly losing money. She sits there just hoping that after 4 hours you land on Boardwarlk 18 times in a row to slightly tip the game in her favor.
You're phrasing a question so that it has 2 possible answers.
Did she win the popular vote in Texas? Yes
Did he win the delegate allocation in Texas? Yes
Just depends on what "win" means.
As of today, Clinton leads in the overall popular vote. She is behind in delegate numbers.
I have never experienced an election year that I wanted to get finished as much as this one in my entire life.
Weird wrote:
As of today, Clinton leads in the overall popular vote. She is behind in delegate numbers.
Could you cite a credible source for this statement?
Mundus vult decipi
It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.
mark my words, clinton will get the nomination. the superdelegates and the reinstated fl. delegates will put her over the top. she will offer the vp seat to obama, who will wisely decline, and then she will go up against mccain, and get her ass handed to her. we will have mccain as president and the dems will retain control of the house and senate. at the very least, look for more fiscal responsibility than we've had in the past 8 years.
that said, i'm not voting for any of them...
McCain is a bomb waiting to self-destruct. If he does not, it's only because the press protects him by keeping his real (very nasty) personality off the record.
or he's just too honest for you
I believe Obama is ahead in the popular vote. California had a vote counting problem (in LA county) due to a confusing ballot)that was just resolved and he picked up a bunch of previously uncounted votes this week. The number of people participating in caucuses is at historically high levels. Not sure how to count all those folks.
main stream media continues to shill for Clinton(they want a horse race...it means big advertising dollars) and the National Enquirer and Globe Tabloid rags are owned by one of her big time supporters. they had some interesting covers at the supermarket checkout this week.
Obama won.
I just love seeing the so called, 'core' of the democratic party go at each other like wolves. We need a gay candidate next to seal the deal.
It's a lock... no worries...
Obama And FARC
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Terrorism: The March 1 death strike by the Colombian army against FARC warlord Raul Reyes broke open a trove of contacts in his computer. So why did the name of Barack Obama turn up there?
Related Topics: Election 2008 | Latin America & Caribbean
Admittedly, it pales compared with other material from the dead thug's computer — such as FARC efforts to obtain uranium or Hugo Chavez's $300 million support.
But the little Obama reference within the 15 FARC letters released by the Colombian government signals a disturbing pattern of contacts with rogue actors. It's not the first time, and Obama has yet to distance himself.
In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."
Aside from some interesting possibilities about who these "gringos" are — a congressional delegation did visit Ecuador and an international leftist "congress" was held in Quito around this time — the real question is why anyone secretly consorting with FARC would be able to speak for presidential candidate Obama.
Obama hasn't said a whole lot about Colombia other than to criticize President Bush's good relations with President Uribe. With this correspondence suggesting that FARC knows what he thinks, maybe the American voters have a right to know what he thinks, too. Five questions come to mind:
1. Is it true Obama would cut off Plan Colombia military aid to our ally, which would serve the terrorist group FARC's interests?
2. Does Obama still oppose a free trade agreement for Colombia, even though that puts him on the same side as FARC in the debate?
3. Does Obama know or care that one of his staffers or supporters is claiming to disclose his positions in secret meetings with FARC terrorists outside government channels?
4. Can he tell us why his supporters would pass on such information to terrorists, and what he or she could gain from it?
5. Will Obama, as president, treat FARC as the serious terrorists they are, given that they still hold three Americans hostage?
These aren't idle "gotcha" questions, by the way. Based on his campaign so far, Obama favors meeting and negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions, passing secret messages to foreign countries at odds with his public positions and tolerating Che-flag wielding leftists among his supporters who advance a radical agenda in his name.
Now that FARC seems to have an inside line to Obama's campaign, maybe he ought to come tell voters what he really stands for.
FARCing Obama wrote:
You'll read anything anti-Obama won't you?
Yes, that is weird... in the sense that it is not true. Obama leads in popular vote (even if FL is included), delegates, and states won.
No way to spin this.
See:
YEAAA RCP rocks!
Biker wrote:
Yes, that is weird... in the sense that it is not true. Obama leads in popular vote (even if FL is included), delegates, and states won.
No way to spin this.
See:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
girl from Clinton's 3am ad support's Obama
haha, whoops
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/clinton.ad.obama.ap/index.html
Troll 45 wrote:
You'll read anything anti-Obama won't you?
I'll read everything I can and then I'll read between the lines for good measure.
Obviously you should read more and troll less.