I am totally amazed that just a few years ago the average American public would have nothing to do with anything that even remotely sounded like a Middle Eastern or Muslim name - TODAY -we are ready to elect a man to to the President of the United States of America who's name is "Barack Hussein Obama". No wonder the entire world thinks we are crazy! It's amazing how the media can talk the America people into anything!

CNN and MSNBC (Todd) keep on counting the Superdelegates.

I think if it comes down to the Convention there's no way that they're going to go against the winner of the regular pledged delegates. If, eg, Obama has a lead of 57 pledged delegates, are the Supers going to risk losing the general (because that's what they'll be doing) to back Clinton?

I think the Supers are a distraction just now. Let's focus on the pledged delegates and we'll see how things play out in the summer.

(Having said that it would be like 2000 all over again if the winner of the pledged delegates was beaten out by the Supers).

As for the first commenter. You've already posted your racist comment several times today. Please go back to your GOP sites.

Obama was born in Kansas of a (very) white American mother and raised in Hawaii. He's a Christian who's a member of the Church of Christ.

Or are you a Hillary troll...?

Either way, I'm praying for you.

(The world may well think we're crazy because we voted for Bush twice - I suspect that they'll be delighted to see us have a President who can bring some respect back to the USA)

Lostwithamerica...you must really be lost. Go find a pro-Huckabee blog where you can speculate on the value of the solid, southern-sounding name Huckabee...

I wrote this on the other thread in response to your post.

"What's amazing is that people like you, lostwithamerica, could be so facile as to judge someone by their name alone.

The world thinks we're crazy because of our policies and our support for the most destructive administration our nation has ever elected...Bush...with a perfectly American sounding name. I'm out here in the world, and I can assure you that the view from ouside looking in offers a very different perspective. There are a lot of funny names out here, but names mean nothing. Intellect, judgement and ideas do mean something. Barack Hussein Obama has an abundance of these qualities.

Perhaps the American public is on board with that? I certainly hope so."

I agree with Scotty59. Hey Scotty, can you beam lostwithamerica up to the planet Ignoramous?

You're right Liam. Gloating is not what the Obama campaign is about.

Get to work is right. I'm not in the States, but I am already sending emails to everyone I know to share with them the reasons why I'm supporting Obama; not bad-mouthing Hillary but pointing out the advantages of Obama winning the nomination.

HRC is not the enemy. To the contrary. She has been a dedicated Senator to NY state and will continue to be a tremendous asset to our nation in that role. But I firmly believe that she is not the best choice for our country, the Democratic party, and our nation's future.

It's time to turn the page and embrace a new era. As Americans we should not be afraid to embrace new leadership because there is strength in new approaches, new ideas, new voices. It is what our democracy is founded upon.

I believe we need to move beyond brand-name politics and entertain the idea that someone other than a Clinton or a Bush can run this country.

We all need to encourage our fellow Americans to give Obama a fair hearing. They will not all agree, and that is fine, but most everyone has given the Clintons the benefit of listening for many, many years. We all stand to gain from evaluating both the ideas, character, and the candidate's ability to inspire our nation when we choose.

I'm all for not letting up, but let's not spread misinformation, either.

Obama is viewed as a native son in Hawaii. He'll win there.

Haha, check out these pics from the WA Caucus off Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Hillary's Supporters, Obama's Supporters.

lostwithamerica do your homework. You're trying to spread the Madrassa lie, which has already been researched and debunked.

While you're doing homework please read a bit more about Madrassas and who is the principle exporter of that school system (the Saudis) and then think about how cozy the Bush family is with them. I haven't heard a peep from the Bush Administration about encouraging Saudi's to fund secular education in Muslim countries around the world. Have you? Send me the link if you have.

And Obama didn't go to one of those schools anyway. Your homework will certain show that much of that Wahabi education movement spread during the late 1980's on. Not all, but the movement gained ground in that era. Obama, if I calculate age right, was out of grade school then.

As an aside, my kids went to a Japanese School for about the same amount of time that Obama attended school in Indonesia. They weren't indoctrinated into Shintoism or Bhuddism, or any other religion. It is possible to just learn math and spelling and new games to play in schools abroad, particularly at such a young age. It's amazingly normal! We do more proselytizing in schools in America and indoctrinating our kids with the Pledge of Allegiance than most any other country in the world! My kids have been in schools in 4 countries over the past 7 years and have never been required to recite anything like that. These are both public and private schools in Japan, France, Australia, and Singapore.

Again, your point of view is exactly why people around the world think America is crazy. My guess is that you supported the Iraq war too!

boy, that was smart.

lostwithamerica do your homework. You're trying to spread the Madrassa lie, which has already been researched and debunked.

While you're doing homework please read a bit more about Madrassas and who is the principle exporter of that school system (the Saudis) and then think about how cozy the Bush family is with them. I haven't heard a peep from the Bush Administration about encouraging Saudi's to fund secular education in Muslim countries around the world. Have you? Send me the link if you have.

And Obama didn't go to one of those schools anyway. Your homework will certain show that much of that Wahabi education movement spread during the late 1980's on. Not all, but the movement gained ground in that era. Obama, if I calculate age right, was out of grade school then.

As an aside, my kids went to a Japanese School for about the same amount of time that Obama attended school in Indonesia. They weren't indoctrinated into Shintoism or Bhuddism, or any other religion. It is possible to just learn math and spelling and new games to play in schools abroad, particularly at such a young age. It's amazingly normal! We do more proselytizing in schools in America and indoctrinating our kids with the Pledge of Allegiance than most any other country in the world! My kids have been in schools in 4 countries over the past 7 years and have never been required to recite anything like that. These are both public and private schools in Japan, France, Australia, and Singapore.

Again, your point of view is exactly why people around the world think America is crazy. My guess is that you supported the Iraq war too!

boy, that was smart.

As a former Independent turned Clinton supporter, whenever she gets behind we rally around her. I have encouraged a number of folks to give to her campaign since Super Tuesday. I have also encouraged them to make calls and volunteer. Most people didnt know she needed help.

Get your cameras out guys; this is going to be a photo finish, and the best girl will win. :)

HRC has made it difficult to know that she needed help given all of her public assertions of certain victory.

The one that stands out in my mind was the December interview with Katie Couric when she emphatically responded to Katies question about whether she had considered the possiblity of losing. HRC said, "Oh, I will be the nominee."

Photo-finish or not, it is at least refreshing to see the democratic process exercised. HRC is one choice, and only one. Obama offers an entirely different path; one without rancor, political baggage, and a long history of divisiveness. That certainly is appealing.

It isn't over yet.

I have researched my candidate.

I really like what I've learned.

George Bush has an American name and salutes the flag AS he violates America's civil liberties AND dismantles the US Constitution. I suppose this makes you feel better about things, huh?

Obama would do more good for America than Bush ever dreamt of doing.

Yes JeanTN - I did have two kids in private school there for those five years. We switch schools twice because of the beliefs they tried to promote to the kids. I have at total of three kids and they have been in seven different schools globally - many have been a very good experience for the kids - some have not - we had a very difficult time in Indonesia - they values and beliefs were different than America.

I believe everyone is missing my entire message - think for yourself - do not let the media pull you into their spin. Do your homework and vote what you truly beleive is right for America.

As for you ThompsonLives - did your mother teach you no manners - bigot is such a nasty word! Make it a great day - ThompsonLives!

Have you listened to Obama's speech tonight?
During the speech he spent a little time putting some distance between Hillary's health care plan and his plan and he defends his "hope mongering" but for most of the speech he was going after GWB's policies and the defender of those policies, John McCain.

The GOP have annointed McCain (although everyone is not behind him yet) and even before day one, Obama is going after him.

Hillary? She's bogged down in a spat with the media.

What shock that you had a difficult time in Indonesia. No doubt that the schools your kids went to were private internatinal schools, and perhaps they ran into a little difficulty from others who look upon the US/ Bush administration policies as aggressive and destabilizing. I have known two american families, both conservative republican corporate families, who switched their kids from schools that dared introduce the notion that the US war in Iraq was unjust.

Everyone gets your message very clearly. It's dumb.

A wonderful day!
The more people know Barack, the more they like him! This sort of broad coalition will bring great change to this country.
Tomorrow is another day and the work continues in Maine but I need one last dream of the day. What if Barack wins everything else in February? That has to have a major impact on Ohio, Texas, and Penn. He wins out Feb and takes 2/3 of those later states and Hillary will need to bow out gracefully.

At this point, we just need a candidate who will win the nomination outright, crushing the rest of the way. With tonight's results, it's time for everyone to support Obama, or the convention will be FUBAR.

Just stop disenfranchising the voters who spoke in Michigan and Florida, and those yet to speak in Ohio, PA and TX, before demanding the Superdelegates wear Rajneesh necklasses at the convention.

Just stop claiming that Florida and Michigan Dem votes were fair, and we will stop the so-called disenfranchising.

Have primary votes for Dems in Florida and Michigan next weekend, and I'll teach you how to spell necklaces, fumiste.

As someone mentioned, CNN gives Obama a 31-delegate lead (pledged delegates that is).

Clinton has 1,100 delegates and Obama has 1,039, according to CNN calculations.

Obama leads in pledged delegates -- 908 to 877 -- but Clinton's superdelegates -- 223 to 131 -- give her the overall lead.

Basically, they are still tied. Obama has about 50.87%. So, Hillary does not have to win that big in TX, OH, and PA to overcome that lead. However, whether she wins all of them (big or not), it seems likely that they will still be in a dead heat come the convention. The problem is that without MI and FL in the mix, and the race being this close, I don't think there is any mathematical way either can go over the top. As for pledged delegates, let's assume they distribute more evenly to match the pledged proportions. That would reverse Hillary's overall lead by about the exact same amount. Still not near enough to go over the top.

Obama's only chance to go over the top is if he gets a bounce from these victories and ends up winning TX, OH, and PA big. However, neither caucuses nor southern victories have not given him a bounce so far, and there is a good reason for that. Neither even remotely reflect the demographics of the American public. Caucuses are made up of elite, highly active citizens. While on one hand, this is arguably a good thing, the main reason this group is such a small % of the population (1.2% of registered voters in both parties combined in WA and 10% of Nebraska Dems, for example) is because the nature of American society (overwork, underpaid, poorly educated, and stressed out) prevents the rest from participating. Their opinions still count, and the indications from more representative primary states (like CA, NY, and NJ) is that they go for Hillary. So don't count your chickens just yet.

BTW, what a Hillary troll? Is that some sort of monster who hides under bridges scaring the little children who support Obama? I am pretty sure the commenter who posted about Obama being an alien and having two black children was mocking the media and the repugs rather than making a racist comment. As if a black man having two black daughters was in some scandalous. Get a grip.

I agree with Gretz that we will have a major problem if this infighting goes on for months. I also agree that both on the ticket would be OK. I could live with either one at the top. However, as the math in my last post showed, it is absolutely not the will of the people that Obama be at the top of the ticket and that is unlikely to change between now and the convention. It is, and will remain, pretty much a 50/50 split. So, the big question is whether Obama supporters can live with him as VP. I kind of like the idea floated in the cafe the other day about Dean having the candidates pledge to be on the same ticket and whoever has the most delegates on convention day gets the top of the ticket. But they need to agree now, not when it'll be more clear who the winner will be.

As for FL and MI, I think the best idea is for them to redo their votes (but not with caucuses as has been suggested elsewhere as that would give the same demographic skewing that has happened in those events so far.) However, all candidates were on the ticket in FL and none campaigned there (though a national ad by Obama did appear on cable just before the vote). As for MI, it wouldn't be really fair to count that vote, but Obama was pretty dumb to remove his name from the ballot and participate in the shortsighted disenfranchisement of a huge block of important voters in order to adhere to some arcane rules that maintain a completely corrupt and undemocratic primary system that gives the choice of the nominee to places that do not look at all like America.

Just a reminder that no Dem who won IA has even won the presidency because caucus-goers do not reflect the larger population. (Carter did get more votes than any other candidate in '76, but it was still only about 25% and he lost by a big margin to "uncommitted." If you really want a candidate that will be supported by the masses of citizens in this country, we need to have him or her nominated by the masses of citizens in this country.

Domerask spins "If it goes to the convention Obama fatigue could indeed be a factor by then."

The nation is in the grips of a massive and growing Clinton fatigue. So, in the best Rove-Bush-Clinton style of campaiging, you criticize your opponent on his strength and your weakness.

Anyone like Domerask who relishes the thought of a Convention fight, should read Frank Rich's NYT column today "Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War"
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ref=opinion

Frank Rich is a TRUTHteller and masterfully insightful. He looks at the dishonesty Clinton campaign, its efforts to drive deep racial divisions, and its lack of concern about colatteral damage to the Democratic party, the nation, our social fabric.

Everyone has predicted that the Clintons will do anything to win. And we are seeing it happen. But "ANYTHING to win" is still shocking, discouraging and very sad when you see it play out day to day.

The hope is that average Americans, who believe in democracy are also recognizing more and more, day to day exactly who the Clintons are and rejecting the prospect of yet another Clinton presidency.

Good Morning.....Nice win.......now catch your breath......

Madem Prez......is gonna take you out in TX, Ohio, PA where it's more like America. Get the votes from Mich and Fla. Handle the rules committee. Get BO in a room with Dean count the cookies, take the top spot, BO will be the Vice, not a bad training position, and that will be that. How many time do I have to tell you this. I told you after Iowa, did you listen? NO, I told after SC, did you listen? NO.
Here we go again. After March 4th it's over. Never mind the Beltway Battle. It's all about March 4th and PA. She's the Queen.

Hi Greg,

I'm going to criticize your reporting another time if I may.

Again you reveal yourself as a Clinton operative.

Once again, you word your article in a way that completely discounts the message of the Obama campaign.

Was it necessary to use quotes around the word memo? Are you being sarcastic, as if sending out a memo was a bizarre or stupid thing to do? It seems to be just a conduit in which a message was sent, so what importance does the form of the message really take?

Next you let everyone know that the Obama campaign is making claims. Claims seems to be an odd word to use. In choosing the word claim rather than states, you inherently cast doubt on what's being said. After all, the Obama campaign is just making claims, so why take the claims seriously?

Then finally, you switch the tener of the article to editorial by positioning yourself as a campaign authority. "Of course" delegates will choose the nominee. A little touch of sass, smart alicky wit, in the middle of a serious campaign article? I mean you're an authority, and the obama campaign is just making claims. Why don't you run for president?

The bottom line Greg is that you're either a very incompetent reporter (reporter not person) or you're consciously discouting the Obama campaign. I think we all know which one it is.

Could somebody please explain to me upon why everyone has written off Texas as a Clinton win? Leaving aside the utterly bizarre delegate selection method, the only poll I've been able to find from there is from last May. Hillary 41, Obama 33. Last. May.

I think its a mistake, and a little obnoxious, to think that Latinos in Texas are going to behave just the same as Latinos in Texas. It seems to me that there are quite different cultural, social and political factors at work.

At this point the only meaning way to track the race is by committed delegates. This is the only number that tells you what is going on from primary to primary, and even this number is not hard and fast, depending on who is doing the counting.
The super delegate count is amorphous, changing, and elusive to track because it is not formal until the convention when the super delegates get a chance to vote.
After the Saturday primaries it looks like Obama leads in committed delegates, and after the Potomace Primaries on Tuesday he could even widen his lead.

I wish posters to the site would quit the "in the tank" for Obama/Clinton accusations. Give it a break..

Part of the reasoning for the "Clinton will win the big industrial states" argument is because she won NY and NJ. Yeah, but NY is her "home" state. (And NJ is next door). She should win her home state.

Now, if, say, California had been her home state, would she still have won NY and NJ? Maybe. All I'm saying that her being the Senator from NY complicates things and doesn't necessarily mean that she'll get huge support in Ohio and Pennsylvania eg.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when the Democrats dismiss the voters and promotes establishment candidate Clinton over Obama this fall. And that will be a fitting commentary on the elections in the US.

The argument will be about franchise of votes in FL and MI and the super delegates, effectively dis-franchising the votes of the majority of voters.

So we will get an opportunity to see the Democrats who are supposedly the party of the people expose themselves as the cultural elitists, where their self-promoting is the final determining factor irrespective of the voters preferences.

The "presumptive candidate" is your candidate so get over it!

You get a choice of the establishment candidate or the establishment candidate.

This will be as interesting to follow these threads as those over at FreeRepublic as that reality sinks in.

Any poll of Texas and Ohio (and let us not forget Vermont) will mean less than nothing unless it is dated after This Tuesday.

Only then will we begin to get a sense of the race there. And I would suggest to Clinton supporters not to tout any polls from a while ago because once the post-Tuesday polls come out, it will only serve to make her look weaker. You might want to hold off there.

Clinton is much stronger among the Hispanic voters the Democrats need to win if they are to triumph. That fact has already brought her California, and I believe will bring her Texas. On the other hand, Obama seems the stronger candidate in November on the issues.In particular, he has a great shot at turning the election into a referendum on the War. If that happens, the GOP is cooked.

Clinton is much stronger among the Hispanic voters the Democrats need to win if they are to triumph.

And Obama is stronger among the African-Americans voters the Democrats need to win if they are to triumph. There is nothing to suggest that either demographic will swing to the Republicans if their favorite candidate loses the primary.

Officious is as officious does, kafa.

Like a lot of supporters of Obama who have tired of this memo from the HRC camp, we're sitting out the general if she wins the primary. Trust.

Enjoy your pyrrhic victory at that point.

The calendar favors Obama for one simple reason:

He now will have the time to camp out in Ohio & Texas (three weeks +) in a sort of mini-Iowa/NH. The voters there will get a very good look at him that most Super Tuesday states did not.

Any lead Clinton has will be shrinking, to be sure. That is not to say that she won't win. She probably will. But her campaign has made all three (including PA in April) of those states as a must win (depending on what happens Tuesday). If he picks off one of them, then it could be troublesome.

Looks like Colin Powell just endorsed Obama on Late Edition (without naming him.)

I don't see how she gets the delegate lead back; her only blowout wins have been in her home states of NY and AR, and in OK where he didin't campaign. No more states like that remain.

I don't see how HRC gets the lead in pledged delegates back. Her only lopsided wins have been in home states (Ny & AR) and states where Obama didn't campaign (TN & OK). There are no more such states on the calendar.

I think even in TN the final margin was "only" 14 points, which was closer than I would have guessed. I am pleased because Shelby County (my home) came in at 70% for Obama, so at least there's that.

I assume that all those Obama fans telling HRC that they'll not support her if she wins the nomination will also be urging her supporters not to back Obama should he win, yes?
Or is this solely a hyperpartisan auto de fe?
The horrid truth is still most likely HRC winning the nomination and Obama as VP. Yes he will accept, "hypocrite" (read ambitious politician) that he is.
Will his fans then diss him in order to spite HRC? I wonder...

Subliminability:

There's also that little state of California (where Obama was supposed to be so competitive with his momentum) where Hillary thrashed him by 60 delegates (224-164).

I also have to laugh when people don't consider Arkansas a purple state when they're making their blind assessments here.

Also, could you name a so-called purple swing state that Obama has won that is more so than Tennessee? Also, once again, whether it is perception or on principle, Hillary is pretty much in the driver's seat re another prominent swing state that figured so much in the 2000 election. Florida voters may feel dissed by the DNC and Obama, but I'll bet they like Hillary just fine right now.

60 delegates (224-164)

Wrong. HRC won California 195-152.

could you name a so-called purple swing state that Obama has won that is more so than Tennessee?

Iowa, Colorado, Missouri.

Can some helpful nerd calculate what kind of marginS HRC would need to win a net of 90 delegates out of TX OH and PA? I know it's not a mere matter of statewide numbers, but it's part of the helpful nerd's job to make reasonable assumptions ...

I want to reiterate liam's comment above. If you are an Obama supporter - it's time to work hard! I've been working on my large italian family in Ohio(we all grew up working class in Cleveland). To my surprise they are starting to move towards Obama. They are supposed to be Clinton's demographic, but with their kids opinions, his inspirational speeches and story, some distrust of the Clinton's truth telling challenges, they seem to be starting to switch. We can make progress, we don't have to give up on OH, PA or TX.

Colonpowwow----you are a good, well educated democrat---I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying.

When you speak of the popular vote----are you adding the totals of caucus states such as Iowa and Washington, and giving them the same value as the primary state voters like Tennessee and Missouri? That way of fighuring would allow New York to eliminate the vote margin in all the caucus states combined. Are you counting the popular vote totals in Michigan and Florida? Surely not. You have a high enough IQ not to do that.

One correction to a statement above:

Sen. Obama belongs to the "United Church of Christ" (previously called Congregational Church in some parts of the country - a well-established, well-recognized and organized Protestant denomination)

NOT to the "Church of Christ" (also Protestant but a much smaller sect mostly in the South - very fundamentalist: no music at services, no dancing, no celebration of Christmas, etc., and very decentralized organization)