The Dead Guy

I can’t even find the words to express my frustration, my disbelief, and my anger. Her words are enough. To state, in an editorial board interview for the Argus Leader, this response to why she hasn’t dropped out, yet:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it”

It is over, Senator Clinton. Pack your bags and go home. Now. You’ve insulted us long enough … you’ve damaged your name enough … you have damaged the party enough … you have made us all ashamed long enough.

With a follow up “Special Comment” from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown

Oh, and it gets worse - on Sunday, May 25, Liz Trotta on Fox News JOKES about assassinating Obama … this is why words mean something, Senator Clinton:

“and now we have what … uh…some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]….well both if we could [laughing]“

And Clinton Campaign Chair Terry McAuliffe blames the Obama campaign for the international disgust over Clinton’s RFK remark. How low can they go?

If you don’t think the world is disgusted - take a look at The Australian and their article “Clinton kills off her campaign”

Four Three states are enabling the Clinton campaign in their subterfuge that “Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote.” The only four three state parties which have not released hard counts broken down by candidate are: Iowa, Maine, Nevada, & Washington. These states hold party-run caucuses, and therefore are not required to release their counts to the public. However, every other caucus state party has released their data, and it is the secrecy of these four three that allows the Clinton campaign to continue misleading the American people.

“Hey - Iowa, Maine, Nevada, & Washington - count our votes!”

UPDATE: I just received a spreadsheet from a person in Nevada - they did keep track of precinct turnout, but not candidate strength within each precinct, only by delegates. When I get a chance this weekend, I’ll post the numbers.

(more…)

On March 28, over at Chris Weigant’s blog, Chris asked his readers to place their bets (in quatloos) when Clinton would drop out of the Presidential race. Well, I’ve done pretty well so far. I predicted that Obama would surpass Clinton in Superdelegates before the West Virginia primary (got it right) and several of my delegate totals from the primaries were darn close (I didn’t do so well on my original delegate estimate for Indiana). Also, I was only 1 day off for the John Edwards endorsement of Obama. My final prediction is Clinton drops out on June 16, just 31 days from now.

27. This is the magic number. (more…)

Tags: allotment, amp, bets, Center, chris weigant, clinton, CNN, DC, dcw, delegate, delegate count, democrat, election, endorsement, Indiana, John, John Edwards, June, june 3, Kentucky, magic number, math, Montana, msnbc, New, obama, Oregon, percent, politics, president, Presidential, presidential race, Primaries, primary, Puerto Rico, quatloos, race, rcp, Rep. Pete Stark, South Dakota, star, state, super, superdelegate, superdelegates, Virginia, War, West Virginia

46 contests have come and gone in this Democratic Presidential Preference cycle. Only 8 states and 2 territories remain. And yet, per Politico.com, there are 248 uncommitted superdelegates - that’s about 1/3rd of the total possible.

What are they waiting for? Are they leaders or are they cowards?

If your state has already voted in this year’s preference contest - look up your state on Politico.com and find out who is still uncommitted and tell them to “Shit or get off the pot!”
(more…)

This is an update to a post from earlier this month (The Math of Delegates). I thought since there are new polls available, that it was time to update these figures.

Both Obama and Clinton, as well as their campaigns, stated in the beginning that the nomination is about the delegate count. Only recently, when Clinton began to see her chances slipping in gaining a delegate lead did she want to change the rules of which they both had agreed. However, rules are rules and they are there for a reason - so that there is no doubt and no ambiguity in who the nominee is to be. (more…)

(more…)