Now, why might I ask is this a "key number"? Dems are about evenly split between obama and clinton. The only way that clinton can win is if the supers override the will of the people, sooooooo clinton supporters obviously support that proposition. This really isn't rocket science.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
Page 1 of 2

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

I wonder if Hillary wants to be president so much because she owes a lot of people favors.

I know it is Sat but it looks like ya’ll (ieGreg) could find something nittygrittier than a Newsweek poll to base a post on. The lede in the Newsweek article is:

Sen. Hillary Clinton's primary victories in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island have revived her near-dead campaign and brought her into a statistical dead heat with Sen. Barack Obama among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to a new national NEWSWEEK Poll.

Last week, in the first graf of their poll piece, they informed us that:

The poll also found that no clear leader has emerged for the Democrats, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain locked in a statistical dead heat for their party's nomination. And as the candidate running hardest on a platform of "change," Obama enjoys only a small margin as the candidate Democrats view as likely to effect that change.

No news is NOT good news, kemosabe. And when the lede is based on Dems and “Dem LEANERS”, from a telephone survey of 1215 regestered voters, ya gotta wonder if there aren’t better polls to snatch a weekend post from.

BTW I appreciate the effort and thought that goes into this site; look forward to THM reopening. And like the guy said when he was told that the poker game he was steadily losing in was crooked - I know, I know what’s going on - but it’s the only game in town.

McCain-Clinton 2008!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA

But once again this is assuming superdelegates think Hillary is the better nominee but Obama would win the popular vote.

Noone seems to assume that superdelegates would also think Obama is the better nominee.
And Bill Foster tonight may prove that Obama does have long enough coattails.

I think that's the mistake the Obama campaign made by making it about who has the more pledged delegates. I think they have a real shot at convincing superdelegates for other reasons.

So all that is pretty pointless to me.

Greg, I also heard that the voters were "evenly spilt" in Florida 2000 over the Supreme Court stealing the election and suspending democracy.

"I think that's the mistake the Obama campaign made by making it about who has the more pledged delegates. I think they have a real shot at convincing superdelegates for other reasons."

Here's an interesting point:

Kos had a breakdown of what would happen if supers vote their states. It breaks down slightly for HRC but close to a split down the middle.

What exactly is the incentive for a super in Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado or South Carolina or Virgina to vote for HRC?

The MSM assumes they will all break her way, but she is routinely saying they "don't matter". I wonder if this will not end in a "politics is local" kind of thing where self-interest, ie. good coattails will prevail. The red staters seem to think Obama is better for them. So why on earth would a super from Colorado or Washington vote for Hillary?

May be a problem that solves itself (ie. Clinton's lackeys in PA, CA, NY go for her, but everyone else in the 35 states Obama wins votes for him.)

McClinton- running well for the VP spot with McCain

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/12546/31319/218/471680

It's only one person, but a superdelegate was on the Daily Show this past week, and John asked him who he was going for.

He said "Barack Obama is my man" and confirmed that he bases this on who has the delegate lead, and all the other superdelegates he talks to feel the same way.

Asked whether he would switch to Hillary if she took the delegate lead, he said "Absolutely".

Again, just one perspective, but interesting.

Hillary's house of cards will fall soon enough. She has written her campaign's obituary already, it just hasn't been read aloud to the general public yet. She has totally inflated and lied about her accomplishments. She's endorsed the Republican nominee, and by the metric she herself uses, has called him more qualified than herself as well. A large hook needs to come in from stage right, and yank her away.

While this poll might suggest the Democrats are open to either Clinton or Obama winning the nomination, I take something different from it: 43% of Democrats would be angry/upset/disappointed if the superdelegates chose someone who did not have the delegate lead. That is a rather ominous statistic come fall.

note to commenters: the tribune article and the telegraph article are both linked on the front page, in the main blog

Question: do we know what percentage of these two groups have already committed? That would give us a sense of how the remaining superdelegates might shake out.

Rstephen, with Michigan and Belarus, where Hillary was also the only one on the ballot, she leads in the popular vote! You're right about one thing, though: She never gives up. She will likely report for her swearing-in next January regardless of what the parties and the voters determine.

One thing you should mention those who think the pledge should decided will be pissed off to all hell if super delegates steal it. Those who think its ok for the super delegates to steal it wont mind if they dont.

I think the only factor that should influence the super delegates is what the effect will be if they select one candidate over the other. Both Clinton and Obama are well qualified to be president, and both are likely to be presidents we will be proud of, so trying to chose one over the other based on their qualifications isn't good. But, if chosing one candidate will cost us the election in November, for any reason, that is a bad choice.

The primary election system for selecting delegates to the convention was set up so the voters could determine the candidate and not have the party insiders do so. Super delegates are largely there to honor their service to the Democratic Party, not for the superior wisdom they possess.

This surely means that the Democratic candidate should be the one with the most elected delegates. If we wanted the winner to be the one with the most actual votes, nationwide, we wouldn't use caucuses in any state, since that is not a voting method. We would use a single national primary election instead of state elections with carefully crafted rules for relating delegates selected to the vote totals.

I think the majority of the super delegates understand this just as I do.

Given my own estimates, based on what I've read, I think the most likely scenario is that Obama will win the pledged delegate count, and Hillary will win the popular vote, after FL and MI figure into the equation, which almost certainly they will, whether it be on the basis of the original primaries, or on re-dos.

It's going to be very hard to make the case for superdelegates respecting the pledged delegate count if it's contradicted by the popular vote. Most Democrats and most Americans most basically respect the popular vote as representative of their will, and it's only going to look very, very bad for the Obama camp to insist that the pledged delegate count should trump democracy.

Are you a current Obama supporter who (for any reason) will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination for President?
Then please take a moment to sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

Most Democrats and most Americans most basically respect the popular vote as representative of their will,

thank you president Gore.

Most people know that our elections have complicated rules, but there are only two things which matter in the end: delegates and electors.

"Super delegates are largely there to honor their service to the Democratic Party, not for the superior wisdom they possess."

This is absolutely false, and I challenge you to find any reputable source that backs you up. The superdelgate system was instituted precisely because it was assumed that the supers, as leaders of the party, would vote with the long term interests of the party at heart.

This is from a column by Jim Hunt, who chaired the commission that created superdelegates:
"In creating superdelegates, the Democratic Party recognized the expertise that its top holders of public office have gained by running for office themselves. They are experts at winning. They know the issues. They are in a unique position to evaluate presidential candidates. They have a well-honed instinct for how candidates will be received in their own states and districts. In short, they can help the Democratic Party pick a winner."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022602649.html

They are specifically not obligated to vote for whomever has the pledged delegate lead, or the popular vote, for that matter. Of course, one of the factors that the supers have to take into consideration is that Obama supporters can't stand losing, and will tear apart the party if their candidate isn't nominated. It's just a matter of how much they want to give in to extortion.

And for all of you who are whining about Hillary wanting to change the rules, that is also false. When the DNC stripped the FL and MI delegations, they wrote into the rules that the two states could petition the Credentials Committee to regain their status. Hillary has encouraged her delegates to vote for reinstatement. Please tell me how that is "changing the rules." I think insisting that the supers have to vote for the pledged delegate leader, even though that is nowhere written as a requirement, is a better example of changing the rules.

If Obama wins popular vote + delegates + most states won there is absolutely no way the superdelegates would over turn everything for Hillary. It would be the end of the Democratic Party, and disenfranchise an entire generation of voters who are going to be voting in the next 8-12 Presidential elections. How could the Democrats ever proclaim to be the part of less corruption if that scenario played out?

Wow. Bravo, Bill, to call Terry out on his bullshit.

"Dems are pretty much evenly split on whether the super-delegates should back the candidate who wins the pledged delegate count and/or popular vote or whether they should back the candidate of their choice..."

Hey Greg, those aren't mutually exclusive. (Greg Sargent is logic impaired, as usual.)

If the SD back Hillary then half of people will be PO'ed and the party split. But if SD choose to support the the pledged delegate leader, then they meet both criteria.

TO THE SUPERDELEGATES, AND TO THE NON-DLC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:

I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that I will not vote in November for any ticket that includes Hillary Clinton. That's it. Even if it includes Barack Obama.

This may seem unreasonable, but I will not vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket any more than I would for a Clinton-Obama ticket. Two reasons:

1) Any scenario that would make it possible for the Clintons to get back into the White House is unacceptable to me and, in any sane world, should be to the adult, non-DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

2) It is increasingly clear that the Clintons will be drag on the ticket in either position, not least because it seems they will be prominently featured in a trial that will be a GOP wet dream. Deja vu, anyone? A trial that could take place in ... wait for it ... October.

A trial that, whether or not it is actually in process in October, is certain to generate headlines and ads and GOP talking points that will sink the Democratic ticket if the Clintons are anywhere near it.

Here's a preview, and you can compose your own October headlines:

“... Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's (Peter Paul, 'Hollywood mogul') Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the gala and fundraiser.

“Paul contends his case will expose 'the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party,' which seeks to attain 'unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government.'

“The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Had enough? Seriously?

Torture the terrorist until they give up the information needed to sace americans. I am all for it. Torture the bastards.

A president needs to do what has to be done to protect American.

"If the race were winner take all"

It's not

Play by the rules or leave.

HRC = Cheatocrat.

After the so called loyalist party members dubbed the superdelegates make their decision as to who the Dem nominee for President will be for the General 08 election "We the peon voters" Indies, Newbies & Crossover voters will have a chance to have our say. But NOT until after these superdelegates vote as their rules dictate. ... for anyone and for any reason they decide. thats the rules so nothing more to be said about it. As for changing the Dem party rules in the middle of a Primary?? I wont go there... loose/loose so why bother.

So what happens after the convention... A few scenarios...

1 In the General vote FOR your states entire Dem Senate and Congressional seats.

2 Decide to vote AGAINST the Dem nominee by leaving the Presidential slot BLANK in Nov 08

3 Vote with your feet by not showing up to vote in Nov 08

4 Vote for the nominee just because thats the only choice you have been given

5 Most importantly vote FOR the candidate because this Candidate is YOUR choice.

I assure you Sen Obama being a loyal Dem party member will urge his supporters to toe the Democratic Party line... I am voting for a candidate for President of the United States... NOT a Party...I don't care about Party.

I am NOT a follow my party right or wrong voter..I'm not even a member ..It will be interesting to see how many Indies and newbie & crossover voters feel the same way.

On to this Convention... Lets see the loyal party democratic party superdelegates make their decision. We will then know if the Democratic Party elders are interested in having us turn out to vote for their hand picked candidate or not.