It doesn't matter much, because the delegates are still awarded proportionally.

It does matter psychologically and emotionally, specially since Hillary! won (proportionally) in Ohio. With Osama taking Texas by a whisker it means the fight goes on, and they continue to bloody one another.

Ultimately it will comes down to Hillary! destroying the convention in her blind lust for personal power. Should be more fun to watch than the NCAA playoffs.

Ultimately it will comes down to Hillary! destroying the convention in her blind lust for personal power. Should be more fun to watch than the NCAA playoffs.

Posted by vernon

ff

Is that true ? He won the popular vote too?

Shouldn't that be front page news?

Or should we get Hillary a pillow and a kleenex?

hmm President Obama.. sounds nice.

Ultimately it will comes down to Hillary! destroying the convention in her blind lust for personal power.

Is there any other reason why somebody would want to be president of the most powerful nation in the world?

Donner - he won the delegate count, and as the Clinton camp (and Corky) have been telling us for months - it's all about delegates baby.

Is there any other reason why somebody would want to be president of the most powerful nation in the world?

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-09 08:05 PM | Reply

Most politicians know how to behave -- even if they are only fake manners.

When the GOP maneuvered to block Reagan in favor of Ford, Reagan took it with good humor (in public) and lived to win another day.

Unlike Kennedy's ugly attempt at destroying the Dems in 1980. All Teddy cared sbout was his birthright (well, actually it was the birthright of his three brothers.)Hillary! will reprise that. She cares not for America or even the Democrat Party. It's all about her.

The nominee will ultimately be Osama, I think. And Hillary! will then move to destroy him -- because he denied her what she's been conniving for all her life.

Then her head will explode, she'll crack in half, and an alien will climb out.

Indicted Chicago fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his cronies contributed at lesat three times more to Barack Obama over the years than the candidate has admitted:


During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.
Obama, who wants to be the nation's next president, has been purging some of those donations -- giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko's federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.
Don't tell Obama supporters. They might get the idea their new messiah is just some ordinary politician dealing with scam artists and crooks.

"It doesn't matter anyways, Texas is one of those irrelevant red states like Wyoming that Dems won't won in November, big deal." -- HRC and supporters.

Try to catch up a bit Scooter. 7 month old references just don't cut it anymore.

From today's article on the AP titled "An Obama-Rezko Primer"...


By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 10, 5:02 AM ET

"No one has alleged that Obama has anything to do with the charges against Rezko, nor has Obama been charged with any wrongdoing. Obama has donated to charity the money that Rezko donated to his campaigns, as well as money from other Rezko friends and partners, a total of $150,000."

obama is as dirty as the rest.

This actually might not be so good for Obama.

If he gets more delegates in Texas only from the caucuses despite having lost the Texas general primary, then that calls into question his other caucus victories, whether the caucus system is equitable, and whether they reflect the wishes of the voters of the caucus states.

When the GOP maneuvered to block Reagan in favor of Ford, Reagan took it with good humor (in public) and lived to win another day.

Like McBush now using Karl "McCain has a nigger baby" Rove? Principals don't matter to mavericks, I guess. Neither Hill or John are great candidates, but their open lust for the WH makes them even less appealing.


It is interesting that Hillary's 3-1 state victory only netted out 6 delegates. Wyoming makes March 4 a wash.

Isn't it cute how vern puts the exclamation point in Hillary's name?

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between "$50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.
Obama, who wants to be the nation's next president, has been purging some of those donations -- giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko's federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.
Don't tell Obama supporters. They might get the idea their new messiah is just some ordinary politician dealing with scam artists and crooks.


Posted by scooter28054 "

Scooter, how goes the scam with the RNC's missing money. Please report. Thank you;-)

obama is as dirty as the rest.

Posted by 08r4ever


Well that does it, then .... how can I vote for Obama now?

If he gets more delegates in Texas only from the caucuses despite having lost the Texas general primary, then that calls into question his other caucus victories, whether the caucus system is equitable, and whether they reflect the wishes of the voters of the caucus states.

Pretty much sums up my concern.

I don't like the caucus system either, but the "wishes of the voters" who ACTUALLY VOTE are expressed under either system.

If he gets more delegates in Texas only from the caucuses despite having lost the Texas general primary, then that calls into question his other caucus victories, whether the caucus system is equitable, and whether they reflect the wishes of the voters of the caucus states.

Carry that logic further. If we should discount caucuses because they aren't representative, we should discount superdelegates even more.

I prefer primaries to caucuses, especially when caucuses have viability thresholds like the one in Iowa that made my candidate Joe Biden look like only 1 percent of Iowans supported him when it was actually around 10 percent.

But the game's about delegates. The fact Obama got more out of Texas should mean he won the state.

The fact Obama got more out of Texas should mean he won the state.

And the fact that the caucuses after Edwards dropped out have been nothing but "one person-one vote," just like regular elections, hasn't been discussed nearly enough. The only difference is that the caucuses have s shorter voting time period than do straight elections.

I went to my first Texas caucus at 18 (caucused for Gore in '88; he was seen by Demos as to conservative and lost to Dukakis that year). Anyway, it took three hours.

I don't see people who work for a living attending those things. The folks who turn up at the caucuses I've been to look like the type with time to burn.

If he gets more delegates in Texas only from the caucuses despite having lost the Texas general primary, then that calls into question his other caucus victories, whether the caucus system is equitable, and whether they reflect the wishes of the voters of the caucus states.

No, it calls into question Hillary's win. All the GOP Limbaugh voters who showed up and voted for Hillary in the Primary wouldn't be caught dead standing in public in a caucus expressing their support for Hillary.
Did Hillary win the primary, or did the GOP give it to her?

Hillary's support is also very soft among Democrats. Camp Hillary can whine all they want about the Latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving trust-fund babies who "Have the time to sit around and caucus".
But the truth is, Obama voters show up to the caucus and make the time committment and Hillary voters don't.

In a nation that had to fight a war to win it's Democracy, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died defending that right... Democracy isn't free. It has a price, and civilians aren't excepted.
Anyone who tries to tell you that going to a caucus is too much work to vote is full of shit.

It's the price of democracy, and Obama voters are willing to pay it, and Hillary voters aren't. And that says volumes about the candidates.

Oh, and Obama worked to get Bill Foster elected to Haster's old seat in the IL-14 district, and Hillary did nothing.
And Foster won.

Obama has coattails for Nov, Hillary doesn't.

"From today's article on the AP titled "An Obama-Rezko Primer"..."

I read your C&P about Obama/Rezko but it only talked about the campaign contributions and nothing about the shady land deals - was that included in the primer as well but not in your C&P? Personally, I am much more concerned about the $300K-$600K Obama may have skimmed on the land deal than campaign contributions (which will never be fully accounted for given it is Rezko + associates). Well, I guess the shady land deals and the letter Obama wrote on Rezko's behalf for the shady condo projects....was that in the primer too? Seems like Obama should get the title of 'fixer' rather than Rezko.

Scooter, how goes the scam with the RNC's missing money. Please report. Thank you;-)

this isnt a contest of which party is dirtier or candidate, the point was/is, that Hussein is as dirty as any repub, it just takes time for the dirt to show up since no one in the press is looking for it. when there is one thing wrong, keep digging and you will find more. This rezko thing isnt over, remember he is up against the clintons, they are just waiting to take him down.

besides the i will change everything and i have more experience than he does, is there really any policy difference?

"Obama has coattails for Nov, Hillary doesn't."

Until he gets swift-boated and loses in a landslide to a republican turd that is obviously senile. Obama is already crying because people use his middle name - this is nothing compared to what Rove will do with Rezko and Michelle's retarded statements (and questionable promotion). Open your eyes, Obama is just as dirty as the rest.

Obama is just as dirty as the rest.

Is he dirty, or is he going to get swift-boated? Swift-boating means he's going to be smeared with false charges, hardly necessary if he's got legitimate dirt.
So first you need to decide if Obama's dirty or not.

And if all you've got is Hussein and a clean land deal, then Obama wipes the floor with McCain.

I am much more concerned about the $300K-$600K Obama may have skimmed on the land deal than campaign contributions

This has been discussed to death. Obama skimmed nothing from the land deal, he was the high bid on the house, there is not one instance of Quid Pro Quo with Rezko.

And if there was, you think Hillary wouldn't be trumpeting it? There's nothing there, nothing that will hurt Obama in Nov vs. a member of the Keating 5.

Then her head will explode, she'll crack in half, and an alien will climb out.

Posted by vernon at 2008-03-10 12:05 AM


OMG Vern made a Funny!

"I read your C&P about Obama/Rezko but it only talked about the campaign contributions and nothing about the shady land deals - was that included in the primer as well but not in your C&P?"

No, because I was responding to an erroneous post about campaign contributions.

But since you asked so nicely, here is what that same article said about the home purchase...

"Q: Did Obama get a special deal on the price of his home?

A: The sellers originally asked for $1.95 million but agreed to sell for $1.65 million after rejecting two lower offers from the Obamas. The Obama campaign says it has an e-mail from the sellers stating that this was the best offer they got and that the price for the house had nothing to do with Rezko buying the vacant lot."

why does this article call him "Osama"

It doesn't. Just childish posters like Vern who giggle like six year old girls whenever they say "Osama" instead of Obama.

OK Let's look at the 'big state' numbers where the two candidates campaigned:

State Obama Clinton
California 2,126,000 2,553,000
Texas 1,358,000 1,459,000
New York 698,000 1,003,000
Illinois 1,302,000 662,000
Ohio 982,000 1,212,000
Georgia 704,000 330,000
New Jersey 492,000 603,000
Virginia 627,000 350,000
Washington 354,000 316,000
Total Obama Clinton
Final Total 8,643,000 8,487,000

"If he gets more delegates in Texas only from the caucuses despite having lost the Texas general primary, then that calls into question his other caucus victories, whether the caucus system is equitable, and whether they reflect the wishes of the voters of the caucus states."
_____________________

What?!!!! The Democrats don't care about equality and wishes of the people. That is why they have the Super Delagates - to subvert the will of the people at their discretion. If the Dems cared about equality, there would not be so much power placed in the hands of politico Super Delagates.

Uta is right. I saw it in a South Park episode. Douchebag.

I wonder how the numbers would crucnh if we could weed out all the Republican trolls who voted for HillBilly? I'd be happy to use poison to do the job, btw.

The last time I heard all the states votes counted not just the big ones. If Billary is whinning about her ability to win in big states she is telling medium to smaller states that there citizens votes don't count. This lady is no lady and will go to any end to get the nomination even if it means destroying the democratic party.

I really think if Billary was elected that if she was handed the Red Phone at 3am she'd probably panic and yell for Bill as she would not know what to do. She has no real foreign policy experience (visiting 80 countries does not count unless you are there from the State Deptartment and have the clout of the President which she never did. She has no Crisis Management experience in world affairs. Lets get real Hillary, shame on you for lieing to the American public. We are not all that stupid. How in gods name did you convince some American generals to back you???

Meanwhile, the Oligarchy continues to print and/or vocalize Hillaries alleged victory. This includes 80 New York Districts in with the statistically impossible result of ZERO votes for Obama. All the while Hillary and her shills are crying that the press is too hard on her and too easy on Obama. What a crock of shit.

Unlike Shrub, Hillary is intelligent. It is impossible for anyone to do a worse job than Bush. Hell, a ham sandwich could do a better job, by doing nothing. But, like Shrub she has sold out to the political realities of our time, Government of, by and for the Corporations. How bad does it have to get before people vote for their own best interests? Between TV, a dumbed down education system and vote rigging, pretty bad.