[Ninong]

New Magic Number: 67 41.5

Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by 176 156 total delegates. He has a total of 2,076.5 to her 1920.5. It now takes 2,118 delegates to win the nomination.

Hillary's landslide victory in Puerto Rico reduced Barack's delegate lead over her by 21 but Barack is now only 41.5 delegates away from the nomination. He picked up another superdelegate today.

Everyone had been predicting that Barack would win both South Dakota and Montana but a South Dakota poll published today shows Hillary way ahead of him in that state. The same polling company shows Barack with a 4-point lead in Montana.

Even if Hillary pulls off a victory in South Dakota and comes close to a tie in Montana, it won't cut into Obama's delegate lead all that much. It looks like Barack will finish the primary season with a delegate lead of at least 150 over Hillary. Hillary was hoping to cut his delegate lead to less than 100 and have more popular votes than him. That's not going to happen.

Barack is finishing the primary season with a delegate lead of at least 150 and a lead in the popular vote. The only way Hillary leads in the popular vote is by giving herself credit for 328,309 Michigan votes and giving Barack zero votes from Michigan.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Everyone had been predicting that Barack would win both South Dakota and Montana but a South Dakota poll published today shows Hillary way ahead of him in that state. The same polling company shows Barack with a 4-point lead in Montana.

Are these guys correct?

ARG predicts Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6% in South Dakota.

ARG predcits Obama 48%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 8% in Montana.

Those polls were conducted May 31-June 1. They're predicting Clinton will win South Dakota by 26 points, Barack will win Montana by 4 points. It will be interesting to see how close they come. I have a gut feeling they're way off on South Dakota.

The day before the New Hampshire primary, all of the polls predicted an Obama victory by anywhere from five to thirteen points. Hillary won by 2.6%. That was the worst case so far for the polls.

P.S. -- Here's a link to all seven polls in New Hampshire. They all predicted a victory by Obama. They were all wrong!

[SPasse]

George,

Win or lose, I think it will be over tonight.

Hillary is sending her staff home and I expect a concession speech tonight. If she does win tonight, it would give her another opportunity to bow out magnanimously.

If not tonight, within the next 48 hours…

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

George,

Win or lose, I think it will be over tonight.

Hillary is sending her staff home and I expect a concession speech tonight. If she does win tonight, it would give her another opportunity to bow out magnanimously.

If not tonight, within the next 48 hours…

Regards,

Scott

Scott,

She's scheduled to give a speech tonight from New York. She has invited all of her fatcat backers to be there. Campaign workers in Montana and South Dakota were given the option of flying home to await further instructions or flying to New York to hear her speech tonight. If they choose to fly to New York, they were told that they would have to pay their own way home.

I expect her to acknowledge that Barack is the likely nominee without actually giving a concession speech. She has reportedly been in negotiations with him on help in paying off her huge campaign debt. She has been spending money like a drunken sailor (a hard-working, white American drunken sailor) lately and some reports say that she has now lent her campaign more than $20 million of her personal wealth.

There are several reasons why she wants to leave things up in the air right now. For one, she's still hoping that something will come up to make Obama "damaged goods." Neither one of them has enough elected delegates alone to claim the nomination on the first ballot. If something disastrous should come up between now and the convention, she could still try to get most of his superdelegates to change their minds and vote for her, giving her the nomination on the first ballot.

So far the only superdelegate who was once committed to Obama and then switched to Hillary is that guy from the U.S. Virgin Islands and he was a Hillary supporter in the beginning. He committed to Hillary and then he switched to Obama and then he switched back to Hillary. I don't know of any other superdelegate who publicly committed to Obama and then later switched to Hillary. On the other hand, several of her superdelegates have switched to Obama.

Probably the most important reason that Hillary won't completely withdraw tonight is that she probably still hasn't gotten what she wants out of Obama. She wants him to help her pay off her debt, especially her debt to herself! I believe if she officially ends her campaign for the nomination, she faces time restrictions on paying back her personal loans. She now wants Obama to pay for all those nasty ads she ran against him.

Then there is the matter of what she expects to get in return for her "magnanimous concession." She's going to demand a lot in return for her telling all her legions of post-menopausal angry white women and hard-working white Americans without a college degree that Barack Obama really is qualified to be commander-in-chief and take those 3 a.m. phone calls in the White House. She will have to admit that she was mistaken when she said that John McCain was more qualified than Obama to be commander-in-chief. She can say that she is thrilled at the prospect of helping him pass health care reform.

But what exactly does she wants? Does she want to be VP? I think that's out of the question and I think Barack has already told her that that is out of the question. Bubba keeps saying that Barack should at least offer her the VP spot on the ticket. That's fine as long as both Clintons take an oath in front of at least five witnesses that she will respectfully decline the offer after it has been made.

Does she want to leave the Senate for a cabinet post? Being a United States senator from New York is already a very powerful position. She has four years left on her current term and she will almost certainly be reelected again. Another term in the Senate would take her to age 70. If she accepts a position in an Obama administration and he turns out to be a one-term wonder, her political career would come to an end. If she remains in the Senate, she could be the "I told you so" choice of the Democratic party four years from now, assuming Barack pulls an LBJ and announces that he is not seeking his party's nomination.

My best guess is that she will congratulate Barack on his success in gaining support from a majority of the delegates -- enough to claim the nomination. She will say various nice things about him. She will pledge to help him defeat John McCain in November. She will call on all Democrats to support the nominee of the Democratic party because the little bitty minor differences between us are nothing compared to the disastrous consequences of another Republican administration.

Then, after her gracious speech tonight, she will begin negotiations in earnest with Barack on what she expects in return for her continued enthusiastic support. There's no such thing as a free lunch in politics.

[Ninong]

New Magic Number: 10 8

Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by 194.5 total delegates. He has a total of 2,110 to her 1915.5. It now takes 2,118 delegates to win the nomination.

Updated as of 8:00 p.m. EDT. Does not include delegates from either South Dakota or Montana. Barack is expected to win both of those states.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Then, after her gracious speech tonight, she will begin negotiations in earnest with Barack on what she expects in return for her continued enthusiastic support. There's no such thing as a free lunch in politics.

Hillary Wants VP Spot

Hillary held a rigged conference call with her supporters this afternoon to assess her next moves. Several of her supporters told her that they thought Barack Obama should offer her the VP spot on his ticket and that if he didn't do that, they didn't know if they would be able to support him in November.

Hillary told her supporters that if they felt that strongly about it, then she would certainly be "open to considering it if it's offered." But just because everybody wants her on the ticket. She's just a humble servant of the people and she would be willing to do whatever they ask of her.

Within 10 minutes after the call was ended, two or three of the participants immediately called the press to leak everything that had been said on the call, including the fact that they believe Barack should offer her the VP spot in order to keep peace in the party and that she would be "open to considering it."

P.S. -- I believe it would be a mistake for Barack to give her the VP spot. He can publicly offer it to her on condition that she turn it down but that's about it. We don't need Hillary on the ticket.

[Future]

The only thing that really tweaks my nipples is the basic fact that our votes don't count in the end.

Granted I don't care if it's Obama or Hillary, the mere fact that the popular vote means nothing each and every time we vote just feels wrong IMO. You may say I'm wrong, but think about it. If we vote, then we are not allowed to go back and change our vote, whereas these superdelegates went to one side, then up and switched 2-3-4 weeks later. It's also the superdelegate count that dictates who runs in November. Why do we, average citizens, even bother voting if the decision is up to the delegates of each state?

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into the absolute basics, but it's just disheartening to watch this play out yet AGAIN.


BTW - as of this post it's
Obama - 2111
Hillary - 1913

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Future

The only thing that really tweaks my nipples is the basic fact that our votes don't count in the end.

Of course they count. Obviously you're not old enough to remember back to a time when our votes really didn't count in the selection of each party's nominee. The primary and caucus system that we have now is a lot different that what we had sixty and seventy years ago when the average voter had little or no say in his state's delegation to each party's nominating convention. When I first started watching political conventions back in the late 1940's and early 1950's, things were a lot different. You would usually have three or four viable candidates still contending for the nomination at the convention and deals would be made in backrooms. The average voter had a lot less input then into the selection of each party's presidential nominee.

Granted I don't care if it's Obama or Hillary, the mere fact that the popular vote means nothing each and every time we vote just feels wrong IMO.

Of course the popular vote counts. In primary states, it's the popular vote that elects the delegates pledged to each candidate. In the caucus states, it's the popular vote that elects the party representatives to attend the state's convention to choose delegates to the national convention.

The popular vote determines the candidate each state supports. In the case of the Democratic party, all states are required to award delegates proportionally based on the popular vote. In the case of the Republican party, most states are winner take all. In the case of the general election, most states are winner take all. The candidate receiving the most votes wins all of the electoral college votes from that state, with just two exceptions where the electoral vote is awarded proportionally.

You may say I'm wrong, but think about it. If we vote, then we are not allowed to go back and change our vote, whereas these superdelegates went to one side, then up and switched 2-3-4 weeks later.

Technically, all of the delegates are able to switch their votes at any time; however, it's considered extremely unusual for an elected delegate to switch his support before the first ballot. After the first ballot, many elected delegates feel free to switch to another candidate unless their candidate demands that they remain loyal beyond the first ballot.

Superdelegates are something the Democratic party invented in the 1970's. The Republicans do not have superdelegates. There are 796 superdelegates. That's less than 20% of the total number of delegates. I believe that the superdelegates have outlived their usefulness and something will probably be done to change or modify this system before 2012. Some superdelegates who had announced for Sen. Clinton very early in the campaign did change their minds over the past month or so and switch to Sen. Obama. None of Sen. Obama's superdelegates switched to Sen. Clinton. One superdelegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands announced early for Clinton, later switched to Obama and then switched back to Clinton last week. Sen. Clinton stuck him on her campaign plane to parade him around the country last week as proof that she could capture Barack's superdelegates. It was a silly stunt that just highlighted how desperate her campaign really was.

It's also the superdelegate count that dictates who runs in November. Why do we, average citizens, even bother voting if the decision is up to the delegates of each state?

Of course the "decision is up to the delegates of each state." It's always been that way. The only difference is that if a state holds a primary, then the citizens of that state get to elect the delegates and those delegates are pledged to vote for the candidate they ran to support.

The voters in each state have never directly elected the nominees of each party. We elect delegates to the convention and the delegates vote for the candidate they promised to vote for. We have no say whatsoever in selecting the superdelegates. The superdelegates are the various elected officials: Democratic members of the House and the Senate, Democratic governors, Democratic former presidents, present and former important Democratic party officials. We don't choose those guys. The Democratic party chooses them for us. They represent slightly less than 20% of the total number of delegates. Hopefully the superdelegates will be eliminated completely before 2012.

Some people are in favor of dumping the electoral college system for the general election and moving to a direct election based on total national popular vote. There are reasons for and against such a change. For one thing, dumping the electoral college would weaken the power of the small states with little population (Wyoming, for example) and increase the necessity for candidates to pay attention to all of the voters. As it is now, the Democratic candidate doesn't need to spend too much money campaigning in New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, etc., because those states are reliably blue and the Republican candidate doesn't need to spend much money in Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, the Deep South states, etc., because those states are reliably red. With the current electoral college system, the candidates will devote most of their time and resources to a dozen states that are considered tossups. With the electoral college system, it doesn't matter if you win Texas by 1,000,000 votes or 100 votes. Either way you get all of the electoral college votes of Texas. Same with California or any of the other states. George W. Bush allegedly won the state of Florida by 537 votes in 2000. He got all of the electoral votes of Florida.

If we had a direct election system instead of an electoral college system, then the candidates would have to devote equal time to the entire population. Obviously they would concentrate on the major population centers but when you eliminate the winner take all approach of the electoral college, then Democratic candidates would be campaigning heavily in Houston and Dallas and Republican candidates would be campaigning in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Republicans won't waste their time in San Francisco because San Francisco is reliably blue, very blue.

I don't see any major changes coming any time in the near future to the electoral college system. I don't think we're at that point yet and I'm not sure it would be a change for the better. As far as the superdelegates in the Democratic party are concerned, I think they have to go and the sooner the better.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Are these guys correct?

ARG predicts Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6% in South Dakota.

ARG predcits Obama 48%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 8% in Montana.

Those polls were conducted May 31-June 1. They're predicting Clinton will win South Dakota by 26 points, Barack will win Montana by 4 points. It will be interesting to see how close they come. I have a gut feeling they're way off on South Dakota.

The day before the New Hampshire primary, all of the polls predicted an Obama victory by anywhere from five to thirteen points. Hillary won by 2.6%. That was the worst case so far for the polls.

P.S. -- Here's a link to all seven polls in New Hampshire. They all predicted a victory by Obama. They were all wrong!

ARG Correctly Picked Hillary to Win South Dakota

ARG correctly picked Clinton to win South Dakota and Obama to win Montana but they were off on Clinton's margin of victory in South Dakota. Right now, with 62% 98% of precincts reporting, Clinton has 55% to Obama's 45%. ARG predicted a 26-point margin of victory for Clinton in South Dakota.

Montana has just started reporting results but the networks have declared Obama the winner in Montana. Update: With 48% of precincts reporting, Obama has 58% to Clinton's 40%.

P.S. -- ARG's polls in both states were way off. They did pick the winner in both states but that was about it. Hillary won South Dakota by 10 points, they predicted a 26-point margin of victory. Obama is winning Montana by 18 points, they predicted a 4-point margin of victory.

[Future]

I live in Florida, so far our votes still don't count. They are trying to get something together, but up until now Mich. and Fla. votes haven't counted.

I always hated politics, probably always will too. No I'm 34, so I don't remember the "Good `ol times" ha ha. I also hate this Superdelegate thing. I know the Rep. doesn't have this, but that is besides the point. The point is all I really seen in the past 12 years is changes in the system and how it operates. It's become rather disheartening to just watch as this Superdelegates crap basically does as they want when they want.

Then again, maybe I'm just too confused about how it all works to actually understand it. lol

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Future

I live in Florida, so far our votes still don't count. They are trying to get something together, but up until now Mich. and Fla. votes haven't counted.

That was resolved last Saturday. All of the Florida delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated and each will get one-half vote. It's possible that Barack Obama might decide to change that at the convention and allow each delegate to get a full vote. The Republicans decided to give Florida half votes. I think they're seating half the delegation and giving them each a vote. In any case, both the Democrats and the Republicans decided to cut the Florida votes in half, which is exactly what is spelled out in the rules of both parties.

Michigan's delegation is being seated and each delegate will get one-half vote. Sixty percent of the Michigan delegates were awarded to Clinton and 40% to Obama. Clinton received 55% of the vote in Michigan. Obama's name was not on the ballot. "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote in Michigan. The other five percent went to minor candidates who did not withdraw their names. The Clinton Campaign was not pleased with this compromise. Clinton wanted Obama to get absolutely no votes from Michigan. Zero. The Michigan "uncommitted" delegates would have been free to vote for him at the convention if they chose.

It will be up to Barack Obama to decide to allow the Florida and Michigan delegations to receive a full vote each instead of just a half-vote. He might very well do that. It will have no effect on the outcome because he beats Hillary even if she gets all of her Michigan and Florida delegates. And he's ahead of her in the total popular vote, too. Hillary's claim to have more popular votes than Obama is based on her taking credit for her 328,309 votes in Michigan while giving Obama zero votes from Michigan. Once you leave Michigan out of the tally, Obama leads in the popular vote, especially if you count the caucus states that did not release an official vote total, just delegate count. Hillary conveniently ignores those caucus states in her tally. Even if we give Hillary credit for her Michigan votes and then give Barack credit for the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan, he would still have a lead over Hillary.

Then again, maybe I'm just too confused about how it all works to actually understand it. lol

Each party (Republican and Democratic) will nominate a presidential candidate. We the people have already chosen those candidates. In the good ol' days, the candidates weren't really selected until each party's nominating convention.

P.S. -- I failed to mention all the minor parties: Libertarian party nominated Bob Barr. I don't keep track of the others all that much.

[Ninong]

Hillary: "I will be making no decisions tonight."

Hillary reminded us all once again tonight that she has "received more votes than any other primary candidate in history." That's true if you give her credit for her 328,309 votes from Michigan and give Barack zero. Just before the Michigan primary, Hillary said that everyone knows it "won't count for anything." In spite of that, Hillary continues to "count" it. That's the only category left where Hillary can claim a victory. She won the popular vote as long as we all agree that Barack got zero votes from Michigan. That's seems fair to Hillary.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements. They may be overwhelmed with fantasies involving unlimited success, power, love, or beauty and feel that they can only be understood by others who are, like them, superior in some aspect of life.

There is a sense of entitlement, of being more deserving than others based solely on their superiority. These symptoms, however, are a result of an underlying sense of inferiority and are often seen as overcompensation. Because of this, they are often envious and even angry of others who have more, receive more respect or attention, or otherwise steal away the spotlight.

Hillary said a lot of nice things about Obama without actually congratulating him as the nominee. She managed to talk a lot tonight and say nothing. She did make a big deal of telling us that her "18 million voters must be respected." That was a careful choice of words. It means she wants Obama to offer her the VP spot. More than that, she actually wants the VP spot. He doesn't want to give it to her. He's willing to offer it to her but only on condition that she agrees in advance to decline.

[Ninong]

Does Hillary Want VP Spot???

Depending on who you want to believe, she either wants it or she doesn't. One pundit claims that he was told by a ranking member of her campaign that she does want to be vice president on the Obama ticket. Another pundit says that he tried to confirm that with two highly placed Clinton supporters and they both told him that she really doesn't want the job but she does want Barack to publicly offer it to her...AND... she will insist that he not choose a woman as his vice president.

So... In return for agreeing to turn down Barack's offer of the VP spot on the ticket she wants a pledge from Obama that he won't choose a female VP running mate. It's an ego thing with Hillary.

Former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, would make a good VP choice for Obama because it would help him carry Virginia. Warner is running for the Senate seat that will be open due to the retirement of John Warner (no relation). I would like Obama to choose retired Marine Corps General Tony Zinni just to drive McCain nuts but he's probably a long shot.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

ARG Correctly Picked Hillary to Win South Dakota

ARG correctly picked Clinton to win South Dakota and Obama to win Montana but they were off on Clinton's margin of victory in South Dakota. Right now, with 62% 98% of precincts reporting, Clinton has 55% to Obama's 45%. ARG predicted a 26-point margin of victory for Clinton in South Dakota.

Montana has just started reporting results but the networks have declared Obama the winner in Montana. Update: With 48% of precincts reporting, Obama has 58% to Clinton's 40%.

P.S. -- ARG's polls in both states were way off. They did pick the winner in both states but that was about it. Hillary won South Dakota by 10 points, they predicted a 26-point margin of victory. Obama is winning Montana by 18 points, they predicted a 4-point margin of victory.

Obama Won the Popular Vote

We don't even have to worry about adding an estimate for Maine, Nevada, Iowa and Washington. Obama received more popular votes. Period. The End.

Hillary thinks it's fair for her to count 328,309 votes from Michigan but she's the only human being on the planet who believes that.

Hillary's a loser.

Vaya con Dios, Hillary.

[Ninong]

Democratic Party Leadership Giving Hillary 48 Hours to Concede

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Democratic Governors Association Chairman Joe Manchin and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean released the following joint statement early this morning:

The Pelosi-Reid-Dean-Manchim statement:

"We have come to the end of an exciting primary and caucus process: the voters have spoken. As the Democratic leaders of the Senate, House of Representatives, the Governors and the Democratic National Committee we commend all of the participants of the 2008 primary process, especially Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for making this such a transformational election. Because of the enthusiasm our candidates have inspired, our party has brought record numbers of voters to the polls, gained millions of newly registered Democrats and now has advantages in states many thought were difficult to win. We are grateful to the millions of Independents and Republicans who have crossed over to vote for a Democratic candidate for President.

"Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election. To that end, we are urging all remaining uncommitted super delegates to make their decisions known by Friday of this week so that our party can stand united and begin our march toward reversing the eight years of failed Bush/McCain policies that have weakened our country.

"We once again congratulate all of the candidates for their leadership and dedication to providing this countrywith a New Direction. We look forward to working with them and with all Democrats to win the White House, congressional seats and state capitals so we can deliver the change the American people deserve and demand."

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Obama Won the Popular Vote

We don't even have to worry about adding an estimate for Maine, Nevada, Iowa and Washington. Obama received more popular votes. Period. The End.

Hillary thinks it's fair for her to count 328,309 votes from Michigan but she's the only human being on the planet who believes that.

Hillary's a loser.

Vaya con Dios, Hillary.

Hillary's Speech Last Night

The more you think about what Hillary said last night, the more you realize just how insulting her performance really was. Before the speech, her campaign let it be known that she would recognize that Obama had more than enough delegates to be the nominee. She did NOT say that in her speech. She left that part out.

She did not actually congratulate Obama on winning anything last night. She said some nice things about him but she did not say that he was the nominee of the Democratic party. There wasn't any need for her to congratulate him on winning Montana because the Montana results were not in yet when she spoke but she could have congratulated him on having more than enough delegates to claim the nomination. It only takes 2,118 delegates and Obama had 2,136.5 delegates without counting any delegates from either South Dakota or Montana. As of this morning, there were only 117 superdelegates left who have not publicly committed. According to MSNBC last night, almost all of those superdelegates have indicated privately that they will endorse Obama. I know that the dozen or so senators who have not yet announced plan to do so as a group but only after the remaining House superdelegates have announced.

Hillary reminded us several times that she has "received more primary votes than any other candidate in history." That's true only if you give her credit for Michigan and give Obama zero for Michigan. She also told us that she has carried the big, important states, the "ones we will need to carry in the general election in November." All the states Barack won are apparently unimportant. Barack won the popular vote and he won more than twice as many contests as Hillary but apparently most of those contests don't count, especially if they were caucus states.

Hillary's speech last night was not a concession speech, as it had been advertised in advance by her campaign. It was a plea to the superdelegates to change their minds about supporting Obama and switch to her because she is the only one able to carry the big, important states, which is nonsense. She and Bill are both convinced that Obama cannot win in November and they believe that she can win. That's the bottom line. And she is still trying to convince the party leadership that they should override the will of the people and give her the nomination because it is their duty as superdelegates to choose the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. This is absurd because black voters would either stay home or they would vote for McCain if the superdelegates stole the nomination from Obama and gave it to Hillary.

Hillary began her speech with the declaration, "I will be making no decisions tonight." And she ended it by demanding that her "18 million supporters must be respected." What she is saying is that if she doesn't get what she wants from Obama it means that her voters are being disrespected and she won't feel obliged to urge them to support him in November. It's an implied threat.

Based on all the public statements Bubba made over the past few weeks, I believe she does want the VP spot on the ticket. That's exactly what a highly placed Clinton Campaign insider told one of MSNBC's regular contributors yesterday morning. However, another regular MSNBC contributor reported that he talked to two different people in Clinton's inner circle and they both told him that Hillary was not interested in returning to the White House as second fiddle. To save face, she wanted Barack to publicly offer her the VP spot, which she would respectfully decline, but she also wanted a confidential guarantee from him that he would not choose a female running mate -- a rather strange demand from someone who claims to be a champion of equal rights for women.

It's obvious that Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership have had their fill of Hillary's games and they are giving her 48 hours to save face. By the end of this week, they are going to declare Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee and move on with the general election campaign.

Here's an interesting side note: Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Diane Feinstein are both from San Francisco. Pelosi does NOT want Hillary on the ticket and Feinstein does. Feinstein is close to Hillary. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is also from the SF Bay Area, originally announced that she would be supporting the candidate who won her state (Hillary) but she has since said publicly that she will support Obama as soon as he has enough delegates to claim the nomination. Pelosi really, really does NOT want Hillary on the ticket and the only other person I can think of who feels even stronger about this is Michelle Obama. She can't stand Hillary.

[Cas]

Well the Dems just lost a seat in the Senate. You would not believe the clowns they want to replace Obama in Illinois. Talk about left wing nut jobs and crooked pols. I am a middle of the road independent and I have never supported any of the possible replacements for Obama.

US Rep. Jan Schakowsky - Lakefront Liberal, husband convicted of kiting checks for a fair housing orginazation.

US Rep Luis Gutierrez - Bill Clinton's Justice Dept. shut down a suit concening the gerrymandering of his district. His district conisits of two Hispanic areas in Chicago one on the North Side and one on the South Side. His district includes at least ten miles of streets that cut through two other districts and includes mostly business. Also a big support of FLAN.

IL Senator Emil Jones has not met a tax hike he did not support. His son is a lobbist for Com Ed just forced through the largest rate hike in Illinois history. The rest of his family works for state or local officials.

IL Secretary of State Jesse White- Machine pol friend of Mayor Daley. Arranged a pardon for an armed robber so that he could be a Chicago Alderman. The guy served 10 years for mutliple armed robberies.

The Republican party is all but dead in Illinois, Former Gov.George Ryan in Prison for corrpution, Ran Alan Keyes for Senate, then Jim Oberwies Claimed the number of illegals entering the country every day would fill Soldiers Field. If the Republican party can find anyone with a pulse they will beat any of the above named canidates.

[Ninong]

McCain's Speech Leaves FOX Speechless

You have to watch this video clip of excerpts of McCain's speech last night along with comments from the media pundits, especially the crew over at FOX News. It's hilarious! To say that they were unimpressed would be a gross understatement. Even the people at FOX think it was the worst political speech they have ever heard.

[Ninong]

Hillary's Speech Last Night (Cont'd.)

I must have missed Terry McAuliffe's introduction of Hillary last night as "the next president of the United States." Is he really that delusional?

Several of Hillary's key supporters are not at all pleased with what she is doing right now. They were told in advance that it would be a concession speech. It wasn't. Now they are being told that Hillary needs a few days to decide her future course of action, whatever that means.

One of Hillary Clinton’s most loyal backers on Capitol Hill is voicing frustration about the position she has put her supporters in.

In an interview with ABC News, Rep. Charles Rangel said he thinks it is time for Clinton to publicly clarify what she is doing and allow her supporters to switch their allegiance to Barack Obama.

“Unless she has some good reasons-- which I can’t think of-- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements (of Obama) and dealing with what we have to deal with… so we can move forward,” Rangel said....

Asked why the Senator told supporters Tuesday night that she needed more time to consider her future, Rangel said: “I have no clue.”

Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis is circulating a petition calling on Obama to put her on the ticket. Hillary is trying to pressure Obama to offer her the VP spot. As she said earlier this week, she "would be open" to considering the VP spot should it be offered. Hillary just can't seem to shake her sense of entitlement.