Clinton Wins in Landslide in West Virginia

Reader Comments
Back to article

.....Miss Lewinski...She voted for the war.. blah-blah....
If Hillary wins, we get EVERYTHING Clinton related. or we pick someone else and get some respect back in the world. No amount nitpickyness about Obama will change that fact as Mr AND Mrs. Clinton have proved themselves before he came along. Obama or no Obama ,no more jokes in the Whitehouse.

Decapoe of NC 11:47PM May 15, 2008

Obama follows the rules!
In 1776 the rule said only white male landowners can vote.
From 1776-1864 the rule said slavery was legal.
From 1776-1869 the rule said a person race or servitude could be used to prevent a citizen from voting.
Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the rules said Negros sit in the back of the bus…
DNC rules Florida & Michigan voters do not count.
Obama was a sheep in Rev. Wright’s flock.
Obama opposed a revote in Florida & Michigan. An act of a chicken. A chicken is not a leader.
The President of the U.S. is a leader NOT a follower! A leader to represent all the people and change bad rules!

Geo of MI 7:38AM May 15, 2008

Hiliary, just be honest. How much money did "your people" pay the good Rev. Wright.?

dell of CO 7:04PM May 14, 2008

Rather than disenfranchising everyone that doesn't live in WV by counting our votes only once, why not do what the Republicans did: do a WINNER TAKE ALL in every primary you won, and a proportional delegate distribution in every primary you lost.
The nomination is yours!
Heck, why not do that in November!

New_Math of AL 6:36PM May 14, 2008

Excellent points, all. The same old dribble...I've seen it all too often here in DC.
I think there's something more than "old school politics and fear mongering" going on here, however, and I agree that MI and FL knew the rules going in. However, the DNC is handing the Republicans a ready-made argument against either Obama or Clinton:
If Obama is the nominee: "the candidate of all 48 states!"
If Clinton is the nominee: "selected not elected!" (because only the superdelegates can hand her the nomination). Actually, this argument applies to Obama as well...even more fodder that the DNC has to think about.
Why can't the two candidates actually tell us what they would do? Because neither wants to actually put forth anything of any substance (neither does McCain, for that matter). So, all we have to go on is how they have acted in the past. Clinton's past is shady (to say the least) and Obama's is very unknown (I really haven't seen anything of substance he's done in either of his elected offices).
Further, there's the whole "R" and "G" words that nobody wants to talk about. Race and gender, regardless of what anyone says, play a part in this election.
And then there's November.
The Clinton folks keep looking at November and saying: "It's the electoral college, stupid. So superdelegates should put me up because I can win the electoral college." I don't know if she's right on that account, but that is, essentially, her argument. Frankly, she's made it a lot less eloquently than I just did, and upset a lot more people in the process, IMHO. The Obama folks say "The popular vote is what matters, and the electoral college votes will follow." I don't know that I buy that either, only because there's a lot of party switching going on so all the numbers look suspect.
Either democratic candidate wins NY and CA, so those prizes are somewhat no-brainers. McCain takes AZ, and probably most ot the southern states. The swing states are likely the biggest battlegrounds, and, unfortunately for the DNC, those swing states include FL and MI (as well as other states that Obama and Clinton have split in terms of wins).
I see you are an Obama supporter, and for logical, sound reasons. I see lots of reasons to support Hillary as well. I'm undecided, because I want to see what the DNC does...don't kid yourself, they are still into "politics as usual." I think it's high time this party decided something on SUBSTANCE, rather than back room politics. I only wish that both candidates had the guts to face each other and tell everyone what they really think, rather than living their lives sound bite to sound bite.

Common_Sense of DC 6:06PM May 14, 2008

It amazes me that certain individuals are willing to turn their backs on results and popular votes. Last time I checked it was voters who decided our elections, not longshots based on counting states that were too selfish to follow the rules, thus having their voices stripped. If you would be so kind as too look at the hard numbers, Mr. DiBello, you would see that Obama has been leading in popular vote for quite some time now. So you are basing your presumption that he shouldn't win on the fact that the superdelegates will rally behind the candidate who claims to have more "electability. " Last time I checked we democrats weren't too happy when the popular votes failed us in the 2000 election, so why should we be making that same history repeast itself here?
As for this issue of Clinton being the obvious shoe-in to win the general election, have you seen the national poll numbers that show Obama doing slightly better than Clinton in the November election? If the numbers showed a large disparity where Obama couldn't hold a candle to Hillary, I could see your point. At this time, however, it seems you intend to disenfranchise the larger majority of voters because you believe a canidate can win based on one of the smaller primaries. She may have won many of the larger states, but not by enough of a margin to save her failing campaign and not by enough to warrant her claim to be the most electable candidate.
Finally, old supporters and stalwort friends are jumping ship because they are ready for something besides old school politics and fear mongering. Clinton can only make her case by preying on the fears we all have of 4 more republican years. You tell me how she can make a substantial difference that Obama can't that isn't based off the notion that her experience will lead the way. If nothing else her experience makes her unable to change and adapt, which is what we need right now. So you go ahead and support her gas tax relief and health care plans that already failed during her first lady years. I am going to side with someone who isn't feeding me the same old dribble, trying to scare me into their way of thinking or expecting me to like them because they have a blowhard theory about how they have more support.

of IL 5:01PM May 14, 2008

Kefka of NY:
You don't represent me and many Democrats like me. If Hillary listens to the Democrats she will stay because that is what most of us believe.

Katherine of IN 4:28PM May 14, 2008

vote4thebest of CA:
I'm sorry to tell you, but I read in the news regarding delegates where at least one state (I think it was Iowa--not sure) was redistributing Edwards' votes to Obama. I thought that was wrong since Edwards' suspended his campaign, he didn't stop it. In fact if he had a few more delegates, he could have been the compromise candidate. Although that would be highly improbable (not impossible).

Katherine of IN 4:23PM May 14, 2008

I am counting Florida votes, and the number of delegates required is 2209, not the controversial new figure devised by the DNC. If Hillary is not given Florida and Michigan, then the party will have stolen the vote and betrayed the people. I have always counted Florida, because if you take voters rights in any way you set a terrible precedent and you are un-American. That is what I consider Obama because he has never wanted those votes counted unless they benefited him. So Obama would deny us our votes. That is baloney!

Katherine of IN 3:23PM May 14, 2008

Well-said “Think About It from Pa”. The Superdelegates that have changed their nomination from Clinton to Obama are nothing more than SHEEP that is following the crowd. They have no backbone. They hear the reports that Obama will win and they simply want to be on the team that wins. People like this should not a Superdelegates.

Greg of OR 3:01PM May 14, 2008