Clinton Flips on Superdelegates

Reader Comments
Back to blog

There is another important variable in Sen. Clinton's favor - two actually: Florida and Michigan. I remain surprised at how little discussion there is of this issue in the media, with over 300 delegate at stake between the two states.
Pro-Obama Democrats, many of whom to this day have not ceased shrieking about "rules" taking precedence over "votes" in the 2000 Florida re-count, seem not to be overly distraught that millions of Democrats in Florida and Michigan are being shut out of the nominating process due to party rules.
These are clearly very important states in the general election, and I find it hard to imagine a situation in which the powers-that-be in the DNC can, with a straight face, suggest the voices of voters in those states just don't matter. It would be fun to watch how the party officials completely deny the voters in those states a voice in the process.
Both states lean toward Sen. Clinton (she won both primaries), and it would seem foolish if she threw in the towel before the decision on how to deal with those two states is resolved.

airfoil of WA 11:12PM March 02, 2008

As her absolutely last chance, Hillary would now need huge landslide victories in BOTH Texas and Ohio, and everybody knows THAT is never going to happen. After March 4 it will be mathematically impossible for her to win, even if they threw in Florida and Michigan.
What will probably happen on Tuesday is a narrow victory in one, and a narrow the defeat in the other state, with delegate gains more or less cancelling each other out. Will she face reality then, or set yet another firewall? If she cannot make tough decisions, maybe she should not be President.

Ergo Sum 7:26AM March 02, 2008

Adam, Barry, & Ellen,
I respect your accomplishments in life, and the fact that you feel you've made an educated decision when choosing your candidate. But as you suggested Barry, research matters. I did some of my own about Senator Obama and his so called campaign of change.
In Neverland Senator Obama does not take money from registered federal lobbyists and pacs. This makes him pure, new, and different. But here in the real world Senator Obama does in fact take money from lobbyists and pacs. It was well documented in the LA Times last year. But since the media, and the citizenry in general, like theatre more than reality they've let Obama have a free pass (as has the Clinton campaign for some reason).
In the real world the candidate of hope and change is in fact a duplicitous liar and a fraud, who has exploited every loophole he can to violate his own pledge while maintaining his pose of purity (so much for your character argument Ellen). Read all about it since you obviously haven't (I assume this as you claim to be educated and have done research; but I find it hard to believe that a rational, educated person would support a candidate who violates the central principle of his campaign on a daily basis).
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
Senator Obama is not going to change Washington. He likes it just the way it is; especially if it gets him into the White House.
Yes, research does matter. It's too bad that the 10 million plus Americans who voted for him didn't seem to do much of it.
I'm not thrilled with the choices we have left. The substantive candidates; Biden, Dodd, and most notably Bill Richardson, were forced out of the race as the media started running with the Clintbama show in January of 2007, as if they were the only candidates that mattered. Now we're stuck with two candidates who are woefully under qualified to be President; who will both inspire Republicans to crawl over broken glass to vote against them.
I was really excited about this election cycle. I was thrilled about the prospect of getting the Shrub out of the White House. I was excited about Bill Richardson; the most qualified candidate that has run for President in my lifetime, and one that could handily beat any Republican. Instead, I'm already looking forward to 2012, and will probably end up voting for my cat in November. At least then I won't feel like a schmuck for voting for Obama.
I've always considered myself a Jeffersonian. But the more I read the comments on blogs like this, the more I think John Adams was right about the mob.

Shtuey of NC 10:37PM February 29, 2008

In regard to the Obama corrupting the comment somewhere above.
I say "Its good to feel young again"
Go Obama

Scott4Obama of OH 4:53PM February 29, 2008

He's using other peoples rhetoric to cover his own lack of his experience
check out obamacopy.com

Michael Sanders of OR 3:16PM February 29, 2008

Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist in the best best sense of the word. On issues like Iraq he has proved that he is capable of independent judgement, you have to think how difficult it was to come to this judgement when everyone was clamouring for military action following 9/11. Actions have often unintended consequences which can not always be foreseen. But in the case of Iraq millions of people all over world foresaw that American action was not going to have the intended results. I believe as I did then that Sadam Hussain could have been got rid of by other means. Liberal imperialist interventions are not likely to succeed even in failed nation states because of the reaction it produces among the natives. Interventionist policies need to be thought through. I was in favour of interventin in Afganistan but now I am not sure. American people owe it to themselves and the world some forward thinking on this matter. Obama is most likely to facilitate this than other candidates in the field.

sinna mani 7:34AM February 29, 2008

In the beginning I leaned toward Hillary, thinking she was pretty intelligent and knew what we the people really needed. The more I watched the debates the more I realize and see what a arrogant. spoiled person she really is. From crying to whining to being overbearing. This is a problem-solving person that we want to be our Commander in Chief. What is she going to do, claim PMS next ? I surely do not want her making decisions for me. I say Mr Obama has the right answers. He is for giving everyone a chance to go to College and has the right answers for me on Social Security efforts.
BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT !

Sharon of WI 2:40AM February 29, 2008

Heard about the one about who Bill will campaign for if Monica Lewinsky were to enter the election? "Yes, I will campaign (camp-in) for Hilary but I prefer to camp-out with Monica"

Melissa Jones of NV 11:33PM February 27, 2008

Thank you Barry and Adam. The problem with Clinton's attack on the purported "emptiness" of Obama's campaign is that it indirectly and incorrectly indicts those of us who support him. As you both point out, people support Obama for many reasons. Although I by no means discount the importance of rhetoric (and would have a hard time voting for anyone who did), I'm in this for Sen. Obama's demonstrated character, judgement, and, yes, his position on issues.

Ellen of IL 7:16PM February 27, 2008

Despite the comments of Kevininphx that she has "just under 50% of the votes", the fact is that it is no longer possible for Clinton to win the nomination in 2008, and she must know that.
If I use CNN’s count, she is behind by approximately 150 pledged delegates, with a little over 1000 left to allocate. That means she would need to get over 57 percent of the rest of the popular vote, or to put it another way, a greater than 14-point lead in the rest of the contests in order to pull even in pledged delegates. That isn’t possible. She also knows that if the super delegates steal the nomination from the first viable black candidate, when he clearly won more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more contests, it will destroy the Democratic Party, as well as her chances in the general election. I believe we would see riots – maybe not as bad as 1968, but real riots.
I have to believe that she is now planning for 2012 or 2016 rather than 2008. She may be calculating that she would have a better shot in 2012 against McCain than against Obama.
Running against Obama as a sitting Democrat, when he had beaten her before, would be almost impossible. But if Obama loses the general election against McCain, she can easily get an “I-told-you-so” Democratic nomination in 2012. In that case, she may think it to her advantage to stay in the race and wound Obama, as long as she can do it without alienating too many voters.

John of CA 5:55PM February 27, 2008