Oh, if only there were something more reliable than the popular vote to base our decision on...

Here's a question that I don't think has been investigated or covered, what role, if any, did any Clinton supporters or members of her campaign play in lobbying for or moving forward the primaries in both states? I've heard speculation that they were involved, but I haven't seen any articles where this issue was really dug into. Maybe it's because there is no there, there.

But it would be nice if everytime someone decried the will of the people, someone remind the reader that will of the people was violated by the actions of the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties.

Shorter Hillary: You must allow me to roll again, even though it's against the rules, because I've landed on "Go To Jail", and I don't want to go to jail.

All well and good Greg, and I like the analysis.

However, in the modern age, what exactly does a "popular vote win" mean? There are any number of estimates, depending on who you talk to:
1. (Most advantageous to HRC)- A "popular vote win" means that HRC has more, cumulative, votes from person participating in a secret ballot election called a "primary." This includes Michigan and Florida, but would discount caucus states like Minnesota, Iowa, Wyoming, NoDak, Washington, and the caucus portion of Texas.
2. (most truthful, though difficult to ascertain, hence unlikely to be followed by the MSM)- All votes cast, no matter in what kind of contest they occurred. (Caucus and Primary totals)

Add into that mix whether Michigan should actually be counted, since Obama received ZERO votes there.

So, Greg, what does John Murtha and John Corzine mean when they speak of a "popular vote win?" You can dice that number just as many ways as any other metric out there.

And this is a question missing from the MSM reporting of the subject (as it is from yours).

Obama got no votes in Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot. Hillary wants a do-over in Michigan with a slight 'adjustment.' If you voted the first time, you can't vote in the do-over. Obama says everybody should be allowed to vote in a do-over.

Do-overs? What the hell are they - four-year-olds playing stick-ball get do-overs. Need I say more.

mos, I have been seeing a lot of smiling and deliberate lying out of Hillary for the past month, and I am sick of it. E.g., took a look back at a Youtube of her winding up to give her dramatic pitch about the serious crisis and danger of "sniper fire" she faced in Tuzla. Watch her lying eyes. She's literally shifty-eyed in that clip. I'll try to find it.

Here it is. Shifty eyes start at around 20 secs into this 1:25 clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfjJi2qjR8

She will win the popular with Florida and Michigan counted.

Very safe statement to get the supers.

However, in the modern age, what exactly does a "popular vote win" mean? There are any number of estimates, depending on who you talk to:

Yes - because I maintain and will maintain until my dying breath that the only difference between the so-called popular vote and the caucus vote in Texas is nomenclature. The delegate count was based strictly on votes - who got how many votes. Votes.

Not from wonks, party officials or SDs or anyone other than regular voters.

They were votes and whoever got the most got the most.

well, duh ...

but maybe this points to the way out of the current mess: without a blowout in PA or IN, she'll never be able to catch up ... is it finally starting to dawn on her that she's a goner???? and she's readying herself for the (now inevitable) political long goodbye this campaign season????

Why do the delegations have to be seated in order for Hillary to claim at least her FL if not MI popular votes? They voted, ergo there are votes. Realize that is problematic where Obama wasn't on the ballot, but as she will say, that was his call! And I'm an Obama guy!

In any case, believe me she will claim the original votes as hers if pushed to it. What kind of ears that argument would fall on, I don't know. But this is a battle for superdel hearts and minds now, not pledged delegates, so now more ever, all's fair in love and politics. (I don't think that's true, mind you, but damn skippy if that is not the motivating sentiment on both sides now.)

That is why to whatever extent Obama did in fact nix revotes in Fla and MI, he may have been shooting himself in the foot. Those were opportunities to campaign in those crucial states, bulid general election capacity, spread her thin financially, and make her re-earn those important popular victories at great expense!

Oops.

I agree with this reasoning; Murtha said the same thing on Huffpost.

To get a handle on what it would take, you first have to decide on Michigan and Florida. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I don't think you should count Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot. In Florida they fudged about equally, so I don't see a reason for excluding them.

If you don't count Michigan or Florida, Obama is ahead by 730,000 (saw a cite on TPM for this) according to Angry Vet's "Most accurate" criterion. The same post as the one cited above said Clinton won Florida by 300,000 votes.

Thus, to my view if Obama can play out the final primaries to a draw or close losses, then he'll maintain his lead and the party has to bite the bullet, forget about electability and give him the nomination. Murtha and other supporters make the same argument. She could win Pennsylvania by several hundred thousand votes or she could win it narrowly. The difference between a 250,000 vote win and a 50,000 win would change only a handful of delegates, but would be huge in terms of who ends up with the popular vote.

I personally think that Clinton should publicly state that she will cede the nomination if she cannot erase Obama's current lead counting Florida (and possibly Michigan).

Just stop for a moment and remember how tactical these people are. Do you seriously believe they would be saying this for one moment if they thought Hillary wouldn't end up winning the popular vote? They are simply creaming themselves now so certain they are that in Philadelphia and the other forthcoming primaries Rush Limbaugh is going to do exactly what he's promised to do: get Republicans en masse going into the booths and voting for Hillary.

If, for some yet unknown reason, Hillary and her backers know that she has already lost and cannot catch up, but have some other impelling reason to make the primary last as long as possible by pretending to movable goal posts, what would that reason be? That is the question that has been nagging me, because of her staying in, but continually trashing the grassroots frontrunner.

My best guess is that the answer to that question would make sense [status quo candidate for colluding insider party bosses vs grassroots change agent] if the public could 'follow the money', though that has been made hard to do without the disclosures which the Clinton camp refuses to make available. There are clues. Hillary says, "Lobbyists are people, too". Hillary's money comes mainly from those who are already in money/power positions. Health care insurers were willing to cover her staff though she failed to pay the premiums. She and Bill have become personally rich in the past seven years. Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr have become buddies. Hillary is rather openly turning to Fox News and Schaife and Limbaugh as allies.

Just think about the threat to the status quo elements in both parties in the event of a President Obama effectively bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the back room dealings in DC, dealings which, for decades, have maintained the income divide via the old power sharing arrangements.

y Fractal -

ten thousand kisses!!

Senator Clinton should spend the rest of her campaign slinging mud at McCain so that when Senator Obama is the nominee he doesn't have to. Get all the slime out there from Mrs. Clinton, who everyone expects slime to come from. Let McCain make a doofus of himself failing to wash it off and leaving a trail of it behind him.

Then the debates will come along and McCain won't be able to get a coherent thought out while Mr. Obama does his usual thing.

That will be it for McCain and Mrs. Clinton will have done the party a humongous favor.

NO, STOP letting the Clintons sell you their own narrative.

You don't think they planned to have some of their supporters say if she can't win the popular vote, she can't win?

Then have all the MSM do pop. vote totals, and start talking about what it WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE if Hillary didn't sign off on the DNC agreement to disavow Michigan and Florida?

The popular vote is not how we decide elections.

It's not even how we decide who stays in a race or who drops out of a race.

I think if Clinton can campaign without denigrating Obama, she should. If she actually has something important and unique to say, she should say it. But, if all she has to offer is more comments on how horrible Rev Wright's sermons were, its time for her to stop.

How do we gain anything as a party and a country by having her tear Obama down?

If she can't win by convincing us that she is a better choice (versus he is a worse choice) then she should lose. Its as simple as that.

Buying Obama - The Auchi Connection

Tracing the trail of Iraqi born billionaire Nadhmi Auchi indicates Rezko's deals may include a money trail leading back to Saddam Hussein oil for food program.

A 2004 Pentagon report described Auchi, "who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principal international financial manipulator and bag man."

Auchi prospered in Saddam’s regime collecting "commissions" on sale of weapons and other goods to Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s.

A recent Pentagon report accuses Auchi of "unlawful activities working closely with Iraqi intelligence operatives to ... arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq," and to "organize an elaborate scheme to take over and control the post-war cellular phone system in Iraq."
At Saddam's insistence a scheme orchestrated by Auchi appropriated billions of dollars from America through America’s Oil for Food program into Auchi’s bank account. These transactions passed through Banque Nationale de (BNP) from its 1995 inception until 2001 through Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings Company (GMHC) which was the largest private shareholder in Paris.
Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings has connections in Iraq which lead right back to Tony Rezko.
Auchi's company helped finance a 250 megawatt power plant in the Kurdish town of Chamchamal, Iraq, teaming up with Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae. In December, 2006 Alsamarrae was accused of graft and is being charged in a $2 billion Iraqi reconstruction corruption case. Alsamarrae is a Chicago resident with dual US-Iraqi citizenship -an embarrassing connection for the war critic Obama. Alsamarrae is now living in his Chicago mansion.
Writing in Human Events, March 3, 2008, John Batchelor reports on an Alsammarae-Obama-Rezko connection:

"...in April 2005, one month before Mr. Alsammarae left his post, his Ministry of Electricity signed a contract for $50 million with Companion Security to provide training to Iraqis to guard electrical plants by flying them to Illinois for classes.

"Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko's former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich's staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract....

"The timeline of Companion discussions in 2006 is important to note: April 2006 Frawley speaks to governor's office; August 2006 Frawley speaks to senator's office; October 2006 indictment of Rezko revealed; October 2006 Rezko arrested upon return from Syria; October 2006 Alsammarae convicted in Baghdad and makes his first escape attempt; December 2006 Alsammarae escapes from Baghdad. ...

"(In 2004) Mr. Auchi traveled by private aircraft to Midway Airport in Chicago and then to a fete at the Four Season Hotel, where he met with his business partner in Chicago real estate, Mr. Rezko, as well as with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Also present that night, according to a fresh report by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy of the London Times, was State Senator Barack Obama, who had recently won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat...."

The Obama Connection
Recently the London Times reported that Auchi had been a business partner of Rezko since 2003 and between April 2005 and 2007 loaned Rezko at least $18 million.
On February 1 the London Times reports uncovering, "state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to (an) Obama fundraiser in May 2005. Fintrade's directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr. Auchi's wife."

"A company related to Mr. Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr. Obama's bagman Antoin ‘Tony' Rezko on May, 23 2005. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

These Funds from Auchi's loan helped finance a complex series of transactions between Rezko and Democratic Presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama involving the 2005 purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion and Rezko's purchase of an adjoining landlocked parcel.
Rezko claims he paid “full market price” and Obama apparently received a “discount” of several hundred thousand dollars for his parcel. Rezko then improved his parcel to benefit Obama.

Instead of handing cash to Obama, Rezko handed Obama a preferential price for property. This is the same form of “honest graft” and preferential treatment that sent former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner to jail over 30 years ago, see United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1974).

The Chicago Sun-Times recently reported that Mr. Rezko, around the same general period he was wheeling with Obama, also provided a preferential price for a property purchase by U. S. Representative Luis Gutierrez.

Instead of transferring cash to buy influence, Rezko was engaging in structured property transactions and preferential treatment of public officials to confer significant financial benefits on them, far above the legal limits of any legitimate political contribution permitted by federal law.
Rezko was a key early-money fund raiser in Obama's state Senate campaigns. and Rezko's relationship with Barack Obama goes back to at least 1990, when Obama's law firm did work relating to a Rezko housing development.
Rezko as a major mob figure is not known for civic-mindedness or desire for good government.

At a March 3 news conference in San Antonio, Texas, Chicago-based reporters peppered Obama with some of the questions the national news corps has avoided for over a year. Obama claims he had already answered the questions in the Chicago media. He said: "These requests, I think, could just go on forever. At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote:

"Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out ‘last question,' and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. ‘C'mon, guys,' he pleaded. ‘I just answered, like, eight questions.'"

I saw an interesting picture of Bill and Hillary on HuffPo and you know, this could bring them back together.

Or she might decide to choke the life out of him right in front of Jesus.

I can't decide.

And that's not Hillary hate - so don't start. That's humor - or an attempt thereby. I'm allowed to talk about them as a couple. Greg and Erik have spent most of the day gossiping.

;)

nice Spam, olandug. Rezco is dead, the controversy now is Wright. Get with your right-wing talking points please!

Anywho, back on topic:

With popular votes as the new Hillary metric, PA just became even more important.

She not only has to win PA, she has to win "big" in the words of John Corzine. "You gotta see a real cut into this popular vote."

This is the EXPERIENCE Hillary gained as First Lady - She had quite a mentor

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

O my god - the Repuglicans are soooooo hoping it's Hillary. O my god.

"Some Top Hillary Hands Concluding She Can't Win Nomination Without Popular Vote"

WELL, DUH!!!

For the moment it is fine if the Obamites want to play to game of discounting the delegates from Fl and MI.

But IIRC, the DNC merely said the delegates would not be seated.

Therefore, the popular vote in those two states stand.

And if you want to get technical which everyone seems to want, the tally in Michigan:
Clinton - 328,309 votes
Obama - 0 votes.

Can someone explain to me what all the talk is about the popular vote. Most caucus states have no popular vote so to speak. So does that mean that only states that have a primary are considered defining states to the Clinton Campaign. I always thought this was a delegate race. All states award delegates. Not all states have primary elections. The popular vote is an uneven metric. The caucus states demostrate what an incredible ground organization Obama has built. This will be useful in the G.E. Hillary's ground game appears to be lacking.

hyperRevue - well yes in a manner of speaking - her people were here challenging the credentials of delegates over and over holding up conventions for hours and hours and all those sweet little tricks out of Rove's bag.

And yeah I think her camp has tried to say that. They sent a letter to the head of the Texas Democratic party and requested that our conventions be delayed while they went through the records of the votes and the chairman said sorry - everything is under control and we're going to do it the way we always do.

So basically what I mean is if she brings this up again as a big issue - I haven't heard anything lately.

The dire financial situation of her cam[ign gives great insight into how Hillary will mismanage our economy and funds if she's allowed to steal and loot the election against the wishes of the people who have voted and rejected her.

Spend, spend, spend, and then beg for money when all the money is spent. Not a smart strategy to run a campaign or the kind of fiscal responsibility that we need from government.

For someone who is "not ready" Obama is doing a wonderful job running a great campaign with fiscal responsibility.

The queen has no clothes.

FL and MI ACTUAL popular vote results:

Clinton 1,199,295
Obama 576,214

(BTW, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel were also on the ballot in MI. Obama chose not to be. Stupid move.)

Clinton gains over 600K popular votes on Mr. Obama.

Can't wait until the Obamites scream about disenfranchising voters. Hypocrites.

So it goes.

Except that pledged delegates aren't a truly proportional system - if they were, then the popular vote would mirror the pledged delegate count.

Actually the exact inverse is true: The popular vote isn't a truly proportional system - if it was, then the pledged delegate count would mirror the popular vote.

The very reason for electing delegates instead of simply summing total votes is to give each state's Democratic Party the freedom to select their nominee by whatever method they deem best represents their voting public's opinion. If all states used the same primary system, then there would naturally be more congruence in the results, but the fact is that states use a variety of voting systems -- so it's absolutely meaningless to just "add them up."

The allocation of delegates to each state according to previous election participation and relative population compensates for the different voting systems -- whether primary vote, caucus, or "two-step" -- and therefore gives us as good as measure as any of total aggregate opinion.

In essence, the pledged delegate count IS the popular vote (or at least as close as we've got), and at the moment, Obama leads Clinton by an insurmountable 13%!

Publicola Hussein - This is all pure speculation but the Michigan thing does smell a bit. The wife of Rep. John Dingell, Debbie Dingell, along with Governor Granholm, pushed Michigan to the front of the line. Senator Stabenow was instrumental too. That they all support Hillary is interesting and the fact that Hillary didn't remove her name from the ballot, while Biden, Edwards, Richardson and Obama did, is curious.

Unless someone spills to the press, we'll never know. It would be good to hear Hillary's reason for staying on the ballot. At the time, she said it wouldn't count so it did matter.

Real Clear politics has the popular vote up including and excluding Michigan and Florida. Even with those states, Obama is up by 94,000. He should win in NC by double digits and he is narrowing the gap in PA and IN. It's hard to see how Clinton could over take him, in the popular vote.

Plus, with the a steady flow of super-dels announcing for Obama, and double the cash, Hillary will need a miraculous string of wins to pull off the nomination.