It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

ebrown is correct, political parties are not a government entity. So the state has jurisdiction over when to hold elections and they oversee the elections as a government function, but it is the party's responsibility to meet the criteria to be placed on the ballot. And the parties have their own ideas about when they want the elections to be held, so they did not get with some of the programs that states instituted.

I do have a question about the Democrats simply deciding they don't like the current setup or rules previously agreed upon for super delegates or certain states, and so now they are suggesting ways to make new rules. That doesn't strike me as fair. Like if I am losing the game, I simply suggest we draw up new rules and throw out some of the previous results? How ethical is that? No matter how screwed up or unfair it was, it would seem it should be too late to change the rules now. They should go with what they have already arranged in my opinion. If I am playing a basketball game and it appears the 3 pointer is too easy, how do you scrap the 3 pointer in the middle of the game?

Hillary and her camp are the only Democrats trying to change the rules.

It may be true that I don't understand the election system. But as a lifelong democrat I sure as hell can not vote for the person that the political hacks have chosen for the democrats. Caucasus are too easily controlled by small gropes of people and don't really express the will of all the people. Only the ones who can afford and are healthy enough to travel. I know enough about our political system to know it needs to be revamped so it address the will of all the people instead its most wealthy.

rabel, the young energetic Obama groupees that are very ardent helped him do very well in the caucuses, so I agree caucuses are places where well organized campaigns with ardent supporters can do well. I am not sure this is altogether bad. It has advantages and disadvantages.

Also, the way I see it, the super delegates are a bunch of old political hacks that have been vested with power to help nominate the person the party hacks want, rather than the common everyday voter out here. Whether they would admit it or not, it is a tinge of socialist type party practices coming into play here. They don't really trust the everyday voter to elect the best nominee. But now that the system is exposed for what is really going on, it puts them in the hot seat to figure out how to explain it or do it the way they want.

Given our track record I'm not sure I trust the everyday voter either.... I include myself in that...

Not that small.

The Minnesota caucuses drew 212,000 participants.

The Colorado caucuses drew 119.000 participants.

The New Mexico caucuses drew 140,000 participants.

Even in Nebraska, almost 39,000 people participated.

In state after state after state, turnout broke all historical records, as precincts were flooded with voters, many of whom had never taken part before.

The image that the Clinton is trying to conjure up of some shady smoke-filled backrooms where political hacks and insiders cooked up the results among themselves in these caucuses is just ridiculous. Not just is it nowhere near the truth, but it also insults the masses of voters, including a whole wave of new participants altogether, who crowded to these events to take part.

Moreover, to dismiss those throngs of regular people as just insiders whose choice shouldnt really count is an insane election strategy, considering that any Democratic candidate will direly need all those new voters and prospective volunteers when the general election is on. Hillary is damaging the party's interests with such spin.

Unfortunately, state parties where caucuses were held, who probably just never expected one of the candidates who signed off on the whole process to turn against it during the campaign, have added a problem. The states listed above have recorded the actual number of individual voters - six-digit numbers as you can see. But in many other states, including Iowa and Nevada, nobody counted how many people came to the caucuses in all. The only numbers recorded were those of the select number of delegates voted in during the caucus as representatives for each precinct, who then went on to determine how the state's delegates to the national Democratic convention are distributed.

The result is that in any state-by-state listing of results, you will see huge primary turnouts listed next to the much smaller numbers for states like Iowa and Nevada, with only a footnote at best signalling that the latter actually represent only 1/5th or 1/10th or 1/50th of the total turnout in that state. That also makes any tally of "the popular vote" deceptive, since caucus voters are systematically underrepresented in those.

The New York Times

March 15, 2008
Delegate Battles Snarl Democrats in Two States

By MICHAEL LUO and JOHN M. BRODER

Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.

Reflecting how tense the situation has become, influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

The committee penalized Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries early in violation of national party rules, barring their delegates from being seated at the Democratic convention this summer. But with the Democratic contest now a scramble for every remaining delegate, the allocation of delegates from the two states could have a substantial impact on the nomination.

Mrs. Clinton won the primaries in both states, but the contests were not sanctioned by the party, neither candidate campaigned in the states and Mr. Obama did not even put his name on the ballot in Michigan.

Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

"If you're not going to count my vote, I'm not going to give you my money," said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida's delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

"If we do not resolve this issue," Mr. Korge said, "I think it's safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000."

The anger from Clinton fund-raisers seems to emanate mostly from Florida, where the impasse appears farthest from resolution. Democratic Party officials in Michigan on Friday proposed a new primary election on June 3 to make up for the January election.

The new vote, which would be run by state elections officials but financed with money raised from private sources, is far from a sure thing. It requires approval by the divided state legislature and from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. There is also no assurance that the party can quickly raise the estimated $10 million it would cost to redo the January contest.

Meanwhile, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Clinton supporter, raised the possibility of seating his state's delegates based on the January vote ?- which Mrs. Clinton won 50 percent to 33 percent ?- but awarding each Florida delegate only half a vote at the August convention. That would mean that Mrs. Clinton would narrow the delegate gap with Mr. Obama by a net of 19 delegates, rather than the 38 she would have gained under the January result. She trails Mr. Obama by more than 100 delegates, according to most counts.

Mr. Nelson discussed the plan with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on Thursday on the Senate floor. A Nelson aide said they told him they wanted the Florida problem resolved but did not endorse his half-a-vote plan. Other Florida Democrats said the Nelson proposal was only one of many ideas floating around.

Mr. Obama has consistently rejected seating any delegates based on the January votes in Michigan or Florida, which he said were unfair because neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. In Michigan, while Mrs. Clinton's name was on the primary ballot, many Obama supporters voted for "uncommitted," a line that got 40 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton's 55 percent.

As for the latest Michigan proposal, aides to Mrs. Clinton signaled they were likely to go along with the plan, but the Obama campaign was more skeptical, according to people involved in the process.

"We have to do something," said State Senator Tupac A. Hunter, a co-chairman of the Obama Michigan campaign, "but I don't know if this is even legal."

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said of the Michigan proposal: "Nearly 600,000 Americans participated in the Michigan primary in January, and we have a solemn obligation to ensure that their voices are heard. The best way to make that happen is to honor their votes, but if that isn't possible there should be a new state primary that doesn't leave taxpayers footing the bill."

He said the Clinton campaign was waiting to hear more details.

The plan was negotiated by Senator Carl Levin, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers. The four Democrats, who all claim neutrality in the presidential contest, have been working with state and national party officials and representatives of the two campaigns to try to find a solution to the delegate impasse.

"We agree that the Michigan delegation should be seated at the convention, and without a fight before the Credentials Committee or on the floor of the convention," they said in a statement Friday afternoon.

A person close to the negotiations, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks, said the Clinton campaign was receptive to the June revote plan but the Obama forces were holding back for now.

The person said that Michigan Republicans, who control the State Senate, said they would not stand in the way. But Democrats, who control the state House of Representatives, are divided between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. "The Clinton people say they're not going to block it," the source said. "The question is what the Obama people are going to do."

The situation in Florida seemed more intractable, with Clinton supporters arguing the party's prospects in November could be jeopardized if a satisfactory resolution is not found. Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.'s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.

"My wife and I could max out, and we won't," said Ira Leesfield, a Miami lawyer who has given $61,500 to the committee since 1997. "We're dissatisfied with the D.N.C. not taking the bull by the horns."

About 250 top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton met Wednesday in Washington. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign's chairman and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, encouraged the donors to pick up the phone and call party leaders, as did Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview Friday that he did not approve of donors' holding back their contributions to the D.N.C.

A review of records filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that top donors to the committee gave more to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Obama. Of 196 people who have given at least $30,000 to the D.N.C. since 2005, it appears 71 of them contributed to Mrs. Clinton, with donations totaling more than $295,000, while 67 gave to Mr. Obama for about $189,000. And 25 gave to both.

Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the D.N.C., defended Mr. Dean's handling of the dispute.

"While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results," Ms. Paxton said. "It's never productive to negotiate through the press, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that's fair and consistent with the rules."

The great fun about this issue (other than I am practically guaranteed to win by bet with Cyclo) is that the Democrats created it for themselves.

Jesse Jackson runs and, afterwards, the Party is persuaded to run a primary system that is ultra-democratic: Proportionality.

And yet, the clever Party insists upon a failsafe should the great unwashed overwhelmingly choose someone that resonates with all the funky aspects of their insipid and ignorant positions. Hence, the super-delegates, party regulars who are granted the power to override the idiotic popular preference.

The Party worked hard to deprive Jesse and Al Sharpton from securing the nomination. The nuclear superdelegate option was never contemplated to be invoked because the smug Party leaders were sure that an African-American (or Latino, or Lesbian, or Eco-Maniac) would never rise to the nomination.

But a mulatto has.

Never-the-less the same principle for super-delegate participation ( a rational check against the foment of the masses), is if Hillary has anything to say about it, to be shortly evoked.

Obama is in trouble.

But if the Clintons figure out a way to rob Obama, there is going to be a massive problem created for the party, to the point of mutiny. Do you think the Clintons and their minions are that devoted to winning that they would say, "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead?" Maybe they think Obama will fall in line and accept vp, and all will be healed? Are they that naive?

Never look a gift horse in the mouth. This could be the best thing to ever happen to the Republicans, as it is something that has the ability to open the eyes of millions of voters to finally see the truth about their own party, something the Republicans or talk radio could never accomplish.

pray, to what elusive truth do you refer?

Finn calls the Democrats ignorant then uses the term mulatto. Finn,the A2K gift that keeps on giving.

As well, he implies that the super-delegate system was put in to prevent a Sharpton or Jackson nomination. Then he ignorantly states that that "Party leaders" were sure that an African-American or otherwise undesirable in Finn's ignorant view would never seriously compete for the nomination. One wonders than why they would put the system in place, wouldn't one?


And Finn, thanks for continuing to expose us to your profound epicaricacy.

The truth is that the Dems are a diverse coalition with a large umbrella. A coalition whose diversiity leads to a lot of in fighting. The Republican Party is a party of rich, white people and not-so rich white people who embrace the snob appeal of the Republican Party and walk together blindly in lock step.

The Deep Blue Divide

For months, Democrats were just thrilled with their choices. Now they can't even stand to sit together.

Julia Baird
NEWSWEEK
Mar 15, 2008

For the past five years, a group of friends, mostly military wives or retired government workers, have been meeting for lunch at an Italian restaurant called Amici's in a strip mall in Stafford, Va. All Democrats, they don't come just for the wood-fired pizza or $8.99 lunch buffet. They come to talk about their beloved party. But lately, the air has chilled in the Tuscan-themed room.

At the lunch after Clinton's loss in Virginia, Alicia Knight, 49, a Hillary supporter, came in late. The only spare chair was between two Obama supporters, both old friends of Knight's. "I was so angry, I didn't want to sit between them, so I sat by myself at another table," she says. "It's become like the cold war: in order to maintain the relationship, you don't talk to each other." Recently, the Clinton and Obama groups began lunching separately. "We couldn't take the bashing, the smirkiness of the Obama fans," says Linda Berkoff, 63.

It's unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats. But as the weeks have ground on, the intensity between Democrats who disagree has calcified, the vitriol grown fiercer. According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).

For many Democrats, what started out as a glowing opportunity for a historic presidency has become a depressing display of division and anger trumping reason. Because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minor, the debate is not about substance; it's been mainly about character and identity in a contest between a black man and a white woman. Historians insist that intraparty bitterness is nothing new. But growing anger about perceived racism and sexism is souring what was once excitement among Democrats about an embarrassment of riches. Now many are embarrassed that the party which prides itself on diversity is battling its own prejudices. Unaffiliated Democratic strategist Donna Brazile believes it has become "a brewing internal civil war."

Even the candidates are concerned. Last Thursday, Obama pulled Clinton aside on the Senate floor. In a three-minute conversation that Obama aides, who asked for anonymity in recounting a private talk, described as cordial, Obama told Clinton that it was important for them to tamp down the more-inflammatory and controversial statements of surrogates. Last week Clinton finance-committee member Geraldine Ferraro resigned from the campaign after speaking dismissively about Obama, arguing that he could not have come this far if he were white. Earlier this month, Obama adviser Samantha Power called Clinton a "monster" and had to resign. Now, both candidates agreed, it was time to rein in such people before more harm was done.

Much of that harm, it seems, is in the tenor of the debate?-in insults about age, experience, gender, race, religion. Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says the attacks over race and gender have created "a level of tension inside liberal, elite ranks that is not something we've seen before." All this, of course, is made more acute by the technology enabling instant, angry political debate. "Every fight, every attack is not just a New York Times story, but it's magnified by the blogosphere and 24-hour cable news that rehashes and rehashes it over and over again," he says. "Every sore gets rubbed raw."

Still, despite the tension at places like Amici's, historians dismiss the idea that there is something unique about this year's voter angst. Alan Brinkley, a professor of history at Columbia University, says, "I don't think the level of vitriol is particularly high by the standards of recent elections." What is different, he says, is the length of the primary race, and the fact that it's "the role of gender and race," this time around, that have escalated the passions. Beverly Gage, a political historian at Yale University, says politics is no more nasty today than in the past. She points to 1920, when Warren Harding was running and opponents, hoping to tap into racist views of the time, circulated a rumor that he had "Negro blood." In other primaries, the fight between Democrats has been just as, if not more, bitter: 1948, 1968, 1980 and 1984. Charles Kaiser, author of "1968 in America," says the parallels to 1968 are remarkable, especially in the manner in which Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy attacked each other. "The left is devoting all its energy to fighting itself rather than fighting the real enemy," says Kaiser.

But these fights took place decades ago; the battle between Clinton and Obama supporters is clearly the fiercest in a generation. Brazile says the problem is not the vitriol, but the fact that old demons?-of "misogyny and slavery"?-are being revived. "These are the wounds that don't heal so easily." And this, history tells us, will take more than three minutes on the Senate floor.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/123582

As War Neared in 2003 -- Hillary Was Silent
Posted March 16, 2008 | 11:41 AM (EST)
by Greg Mitchell

Wherever you stand on the Obama/Clinton race, one thing nearly everyone agrees on is this: She voted for the war resolution in 2002, has not apologized for that vote since - but now says the resolution did not really authorize the war and calls the 2003 invasion a mistake. But what did she do in attempting to halt the war - which she felt she did not authorize -- in the two weeks before it began? Apparently, nothing.

With fifth-anniversary coverage now in full swing, I probed The New York Times' online archives today from March 6 to March 23 in 2003 (the war started on March 19), looking for evidence. Numerous articles involving the junior senator from New York turned up, but most related to subjects pretty far afield from the war: from abortion to the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Buzz up!on Yahoo!The only Clinton statement about the war in the Times - as the countdown arrived - came in a revealing roundup of local officials' views written by Joyce Purnick. She found several top New York officeholders strongly against the war (such as Rep. Rangel), and a few okaying it. But here is her summary of Hillary's views:

"The award for the most indefinite position has to go to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. When her press secretary, Philippe Reines, was asked her position, he sent a transcript of Mrs. Clinton's remarks last Friday on CNN and a news account of her comments on Monday during a visit to Watervliet, N.Y. (It seems that the senator, still a bit first ladylike, is reluctant to pick up the phone.)

"She said on CNN that the president ''made the right decision to go back to the United Nations''' and suggested that the country 'take a deep breath, deal with Iraq if we have to, understand exactly what we've gotten ourselves into, because in the briefings I've received, there's a lot of unknowables.'

"In Watervliet, the senator said, 'This is a very delicate balancing act.' And, 'I fully support the policy of disarming Saddam Hussein.' She also urged the administration 'to try to enlist more support.'

"A skeptic might conclude that Mrs. Clinton wants to appeal to her antiwar constituents in New York now, and to a broader base later -- if she runs for president. Or maybe she remains conflicted."

A little over a week later, on March 14, this letter appeared in the Times, from Susana Margolis of New York City: "It's increasingly evident that the likely invasion of Iraq is only secondarily about the variously offered objectives, from weapons of mass destruction to ''liberation.' Rather, it represents a historic change in United States foreign policy: the establishment of an American garrison to carry out policy goals in western Asia by military means.

"The president should come clean on the administration's true intentions, and it is the Senate's duty to debate the issue. Yet there's not a word. New York's senators, having voted for the resolution last year authorizing the use of force in Iraq, appear to have lost their voices entirely. History will record that when the country effected a sea change in its posture toward the world, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer were nowhere to be found."

Nothing else related to Iraq and Clinton turns up in the Times' archive until a week later. Skip ahead to just after the war began, to a March 23 news story: "In New York City, about 35 members of a group called Westsiders for Peace sang, prayed and protested at lunchtime outside the Third Avenue offices of Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Complaining that the senators supported the war, the protesters carried manila file folders that bore messages like, ''Who represents us if our senators aren't listening?'''

Umm.... How would Sharpton ever have remotely approached securing the nomination, superdelegates and the like or not? Remind me how many votes he ever got?

Sharpton was entertainment, but to say he would ever have had a credible path to the nomination, from which he was just "deprived" by the party machine, is fairly out in leftfield.

The New York Times
March 16, 2008
For Democrats, Increased Fears of a Long Fight

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON ?- Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict.

Interviews with dozens of undecided superdelegates ?- the elected officials and party leaders who could hold the balance of power for the nomination ?- found them uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election.

While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

A New York Times survey of superdelegates last week found that Mr. Obama had been winning over more of them recently than Mrs. Clinton had, though Mrs. Clinton retained an overall lead among those who have made a choice. Over the past month, according to the survey, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, picked up 54 superdelegates; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, picked up 31.

"If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote," said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, "I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken."

Mr. Altmire said he was repeating an argument that he made to Mrs. Clinton during a session at her house in Washington on Thursday night with uncommitted superdelegates.

The interviews were conducted at a time of rising displays of animosity between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton repeatedly arguing that Mr. Obama did not have the foreign policy credentials to stand up to Senator John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee. Several superdelegates said they were concerned that this could hurt the Democratic Party in the fall elections and put pressure on some of them to endorse one of the candidates to bring the contest to a quicker conclusion.

"It would be nice to find a way to wrap it up," said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has not committed to either candidate. "If the current trajectory of the debate continues, the divisions will make it more difficult for many of our candidates."

Over all, the interviews with these influential Democrats presents a portrait of a particularly exclusive political community in flux, looking for an exit strategy and hoping they will be relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home.

"This was everybody's worse nightmare come to fruition," said Richard Machacek, an uncommitted superdelegate from Iowa, who said he was struggling over what to do.

In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown would seemingly have an easy task. Mrs. Clinton won his state by 10 points. If the nominating fight had to be resolved by party leaders, wouldn't he side with her? Not necessarily.

"It's the overall popular vote, it's the overall delegates, it's who is bringing energy to the campaign, it's who has momentum," Mr. Brown said. "It should be wrapped up before the convention, and I think it will be."

Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is not wringing his hands. "I don't see the problem," he said. "People complain and criticize each other, and then they always work it out."

But Eileen Macoll, a Democratic county chairwoman from Washington State, is expecting something different ?- and not exactly looking forward to it. "I think it's going to go all the way to the floor," Ms. Macoll said. "We will take the vote and that will be the nominee. We're going to see that happen."

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker ?- the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi ?- step in to forge a deal.

Yet even as some of them pleaded for intervention, they said they were not sure what could be done in a race with two candidates who have so much support.

"It think it has got to be brokered before the convention," said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. "I think there should be a couple of people ?- maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility ?- to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it."

When asked how, Mr. George just laughed. "I just think the two campaigns have to do it," he said. "I think we lose credibility in America if we let some group come in and do it."

But David Parker, a superdelegate from North Carolina, was not about to give much deference to any political leader in a contest that was of such consequence. "I don't think too many people are going to listen to Howard Dean unless he appointed them," Mr. Parker said. "The D.N.C. is not some monolithic group that is going to move as a body."

While the situation is fluid and could change as the voting plays out in Pennsylvania next month and in a series of primaries and caucuses scheduled to last into June, there seems to be intensifying support for the idea that superdelegates should follow the voters rather than for the approach promoted by Mrs. Clinton: that they should exercise their own judgment about who would make the best president.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Members of Congress from states where Mrs. Clinton won or seems likely to win, including Mr. Brown in Ohio and Mr. Altmire in Pennsylvania, made a point of saying they would not feel bound by how their states voted.

"Barack's impressive showing in our state is attractive to me," said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, where Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton two to one in the popular vote last month. "If somehow 200 superdelegates decide this, it will be problematic."

And there were indications that Mrs. Clinton is facing some questions among the superdelegates about her electability and her potential effect on other Democratic candidates in November.

"A key question to me is how the candidates would affect the down-ballot races," said Steven Achelpohl, the Democratic state chairman in Nebraska. "I think Obama would have a more positive impact on our other races out here in Nebraska."

As of Friday, Mrs. Clinton claimed 254 superdelegates, and the Obama campaign said it had commitments from 213; the figures provided by the campaigns differed somewhat from those tallied by The Times.

Mr. Obama has won 1,367 delegates in primaries and caucuses, compared with 1,224 for Mrs. Clinton, based on a count and projection by The Times. A candidate needs 2,025 votes to win the nomination.

There are 246 superdelegates who are not listed by either campaign as supporters and are viewed as uncommitted. Of those, 107 are from states where Mr. Obama won nominating contests, compared with 83 for Mrs. Clinton. An additional 56 come from states that have not yet voted.

Of the 246 uncommitted superdelegates, 75 are women, 10 are governors and 100 are in Congress. So far, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are relatively even when it comes to competing for elected officials; Mrs. Clinton's overall advantage among superdelegates has come from current and former party officials, reflecting the ties she and her husband have built over the years.

Some argued that the fighting between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was good for the party, by keeping the candidates in the news and energizing Democrats. "People are just enthusiastic about their candidates ?- I don't find any rancor here," said Jennifer Moore, chairwoman of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

But many called on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to tone down the rhetoric, warning that it could polarize the party and damage the eventual nominee in the general election battle.

"I am very concerned about it, and I think they ought to cut it out," Mr. Achelpohl said. "We need to be unified in the end. Some of these remarks that people are making on both sides are unacceptable."

The superdelegates said in interviews that more than anything they wanted the contest resolved before Democrats assemble in Denver at the end of August.

"Every day that this continues, people can surmise that this is going to the convention in Colorado and it could be decided by the superdelegates," said Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association. "There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen."

Webpage Title

A fair enough article, but then there's this bit:


I really, really wish journalists would learn to interpret simple stats. The the exit poll in Texas said no such thing.

What the exit poll said (scroll down to about three-quarters down the page) is that Clinton voters made up 91% of those who would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee. Well, duh - there's not many Obama voters who would be dissatisfied with him as nominee. But Clinton voters also made up 31% of those who would be satisfied with Obama as nominee.

Same the other way round. Obama voters made up 87% of those who would be dissatisfied with Hillary as nominee - thats self-evident. The only surprise is that Hillary voters actually made up as much as 10% of those who would be dissatisfied with her as nominee. Perhaps Republican cross-over voters heeding Rush Limbaugh's call to cross over and vote for Hillary just to get the less electable Democrat nominated. But Obama voters also made up 32% of those who would be satisfied with Hillary as nominee.

And in both cases, the group of voters who would be satisfied with the candidate was about twice as large as the group of voters who would be dissatisfied.

A little calculating shows that this means that in actual fact, just 52% of Obama voters in Texas said they'd be dissatisfied if Hillary were to be the nominee, and 59% of Hillary voters saying the same about Obama as nominee. Kind of wholly changes the story, huh?

You really should contact Newsweek and straighten them out. They're obviously in need of a bit of hand-slapping.

The media in this country have no idea how to handle simple statistics. It would be funny if this were a one off, but it happens all the time. Stats.org is a good site tracking media statistical errors.