The Obama campaign claims that Obama pulled more delegates from super Tuesday than Hillary-- 5-15 delegates more, depending upon the source.
Bloomberg news reports, 'We've won more states, we've won more votes and we've won more delegates than Senator Clinton,'' Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said during a conference call this morning. '"
Politico reports, "The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834."
Bloomberg reported that "Clinton's advisers said the two candidates would end up separated by no more than five or six delegates, who will decide the party's nominee for the general election."
That leaves ahead of Hillary on pledged delegates, but Hillary is still ahead of Obama overall because of superdelegates who have committed to her. There are still hundreds of superdelegates who have not yet committed and any superdelegate already committed can change sides at any time.
Politico reported,
"Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.
With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.
The running totals for the two, which includes previous contests and the party officials known as “superdelegates,” are only about 70 delegates apart, Russert said.
The bottom line is that the two are virtually tied.
Obama won 13 states, some of them smaller, and Clinton won eight.
On Wednesday morning, the battle was on to shape public perceptions about Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign said it was crunching its delegate numbers but was not sure it was correct that Obama got more.
The Obama campaign sent an e-mailed statement titled: “Obama wins Super Tuesday by winning more states and more delegates.”
The spin game is in play!
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Could that be US treasury money from The Childrens Fund? Or maybe a leftover windfall from real estate swindles of the past ? Wherever the money came from rest assured they will get it all back a million times over,and over and over,,,,
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 2:24:17 PM
You can spot a Clinton hater a mile away. They actually get off of I-40 so they won't pass through Clinton, OK. You're a better man than your post characterizes you as. Hillary is where she is at, because the Clinton's care about us "poor folk!" Ask yourself, before you post, WWOD - What Would Obama Do?
by
Dale Hill (55 articles, 0 quicklinks, 98 diaries, 341 comments)
on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 9:20:31 AM
In number of states and Democratic vote in those states, Obama was clearly the winner. Mrs. Clinton, however, according to the Associated Press at 9 AM Wednesday, has more total delegates so far: 845 to Obama's 765. While I believe this report is correct, I highly suspect that voting machine fraud led to this result.
The one thing that really gets my goat, though, is that this AP story reported that Mrs. Clinton won "eight [states] plus American Samoa." American Samoa is not a state, but a territory, where the Republican Party does not exist--and this "win" did not give Clinton any delegates! The mainstream media is trying to make Mrs. Clinton's victory loom larger than it is.
Finally, for any experienced Wikipedia members out there, I have a little job for you. This Clinton propaganda has even invaded Wikipedia, which reports in its "Super Tuesday, 2008" article that Clinton won 9 states. I just registered with Wikipedia today, but I cannot edit this article because it is currently semi-protected from those with new accounts.
by
Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 3:06:45 PM
Once again the media can't count. All we saw last night and this morning were vote counts, not delegates awarded. The "get it first, get it fast, get it now" crowd sure were quick with their predictions and projections and percentages. Here in New York, that total will not be announced for several days as the congressional districts have to be tallied and then party rules determine how the delegations will be constructed, based on gender, race and other balancing criteria. In fact, the rules are so convoluted the State Chair can't explain them. So, for the "get it right" folks, watch this space. At any rate, the race goes on and nothing was decided last night. I'm entirely all right with that. I would like to see a convention that actually means something rather than a coronation.
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 75 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 3:07:32 PM
Ken. All this talk about fixed election results and Hillary buying corruption is worse than spin and it cheapens the democrats chances in taking the white house from the real crooks. I am not crazy about corporate democrats(I voted for Kucinich) or the fact defense contractors finance both sides of the isle to buy influence. I'm not happy with the FCC making it easier for giant corporations(and defense contractors) to gobble up all the independent broadcasters in the nation either. In fact that is why I get most of my news from independent sources. That said, the coverage seemed fairly accurate to me(although Katy Kuric is a dimwit). It seems Jim Lehrer did a better job than the big three. Democracy Now also did a fine job today.
As you point out, the delegate count is tedious and complicated. That is all the media said and frankly I can agree with that. Can't understand all the hoopla either. It's as if every neocon hate message aimed at Hillary for the last decade is now being aimed at her by progressives and liberals. That doesn't make sense to me since either Hillary or Obama or both are our best chance in getting rid of the neocons.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 306 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 10:30:38 PM
thanks for writing this blog - if we want Obama elected, we need to bring in more grassroots. Many of us want a more united USA.
Clinton supporters seem to be unaware of the Clintons involvement with the DLC, or how the DLC emasculated the Democratic Party, took its values away, made it more "republican" or neo-con-like.
Hillary can't say she was against the war, considering she is a member of the DLC - the DLC is strongly in favor of the Iraq war.
A politics blog by the staff of The New York Times. The Caucus analyzes the latest political news from Washington and around the country and looks ahead to ... thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/dlc-leaders-cut-edwards-out/
The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story while progressives assert that Bill Clinton won campaigning as a populist only to abandon those positions after getting elected. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthiest one percent.
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. Others use this label too though and belong to other organizations and have differing agendas contesting to define that term and control the party's future.
The organization supports some forms of Social Security privatization but opposes financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.
During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" [7]. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."
Official site for the presidential campaign features My.BarackObama.com (MyBO) for supporter networking along with news, blogs, video and photos, speeches, ... www.barackobama.com/ - 7k - Cached - Similar pages
All of Obama's people are former Clinton people. All of them are also a part of the DLC. Brzezinski is Obama's chief advisor. He's the guy who started Russia's Vietnam in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets even invaded.
Hillary's health care plan serves about ten million more then does Obama's plan. Also neither plan is single payer which in layman's terms mean no universal coverage.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 306 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM
Well that might well be Dennis but if the democrats had run a winner take all scenario like the republicans, Hillary would be way ahead since she won most of the big key states. That said, they are both on the same team and I believe it is very likely(and very smart) to consider the possibilities in a Hillary/ Barrack ticket. Hillary will get the woman's vote, the Hispanic vote and the senior vote, Obama the white mens vote, the black mens and womens vote, the independent vote and the youth vote. That would be McCain's worst nightmare, leaving him with the conservative vote and the bible thumpers vote.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 306 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 9:59:02 PM
I was an Edwards person still undecided on the current Democratic field, but I can tell you from Dem meetings that there is no way that Obama would ever agree to play second fiddle to Hillary.
We can all argue about the Clintons' policies, but even as someone who was a big fan of the Clintons' in the past, their tactics in this campaign against Obama have been at the very least distasteful, at worst verging on outright racism. Saying that Obama could be "mistaken for a drug dealer" (not just Sheehan but Mark Penn himself, Hillary's campaign manager), that he was of "Muslim heritage" and "could be considered disloyal and a madrassah attendee" (Bob Kerrey), the kid, the hip black friend, the shuck and jive comment. Oh, and then Bill Clinton himself stupidly trying to compare Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson and paint him as "the angry Black candidate." And after all this the Clintons accuse him of race-baiting?
The African-American community knows that Obama taking a running-mate slot on a Hillary ticket would set back African-American gains by many decades-- it would essentially be a validation of the Clintons' race-baiting tactics here and would open up such tactics against any minority candidate in the future, since the message would be that such tactics would eventually be forgiven. It would also forgive the Clintons for things like closing down the caucus sites in Nevada 1/2 hour early and giving false directions to Obama voters, openly disrupting NH GOTV efforts, trying to steal votes in New Mexico (funny how those provisional ballots spent the night in the homes of Clinton backers in the state), even trying to entirely disenfranchise Iowa college students from voting at all!
On top of other transgressions-- the Clinton anti-Obama hate mailing in New Hampshire distorting his reproductive rights record, whipping up fear in the electorate that Obama would pave the way for al-Qaeda attacks, various acts of condescension toward Obama, now Hillary Clinton essentially using money that Bill Clinton acquired in shady deals to circumvent campaign finance laws-- no way.
Obama would do catastrophic harm to himself, his movement and democracy in the country by accepting a VP slot on a Hillary ticket, considering the crap the Clintons have been perpetrating. It would be a validation of all the worst tendencies of US politics, which is exactly one of the things that Obama's movement has been pushing against. Not in any way acceptable.
McCain is an unpleasant figure in many ways but he's a much more palatable Republican for Dems and Independents than his colleagues. And nominating Hillary after these tactics would anger the Dem base so much, it would be playing right into the Republicans' hands.
by
Jim Lasker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 4:36:31 AM
I tried the link for the video, Rob ,it's not working .
First of all, let me say the democrats have historically been more fiscally responsible ,at least to my best recollection .
Conservatives will die and be burried along time for the damage they caused to America and Americans. I don't like any of the candidates except for Ron Paul ,mike garvel ,Denis Kucinich.2 out of 3 democrats.
Could you fix the video link Rob i wouldn't mind seeing that action
by
dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments)
on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 3:37:09 AM
AS USUAL ITS THE SAME AS 2000 2004 THE CHOICE ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO THE LESSER OF EVIL. THE SHEEP WILL PICK ONE, EVEN IF THEY LOSE MORE OF THERE FREEDOMS. THE PEOPLE DESERVER EVERYTHING THEY GET. AH ALL THE GOOD GUYS ARE OUT OF THE RACE, MIGHT AS WELL VOTE A FOR CFR MEMBER AND IN 8 YEARS MAYBE I HOPE WE WILL GET A BETTER CHOICE I HOPE SO. AND MAYBE WE SHOULD GO TO NIGHT SCHOOL, WAIT STOP, FORGET THAT, GO TO DAY SCHOOL BECAUSE WE WONT HAVE A JOBS ANYWAY AND LEARN SPANISH.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 4:50:23 AM
