<p>I am very skeptical despite my enthusiasm for Obama. The nomination will likely be determined by the Superdelegates who for a variety of reasons may prefer Hillary, even though Obama would be so much better for the down-ticket races.</p>
<p>" heard the story of Hillary “lending” her campaign $5 mill,which is a sneaky way of getting around campaign limits"</p>
<p>To be fair, Clinton is being no more sneaky (in this instance) loaning personal funds to herself than Mitt is, or should I say was, loaning funds to his campaign.
Neither is constrained by finance/spending limits because they aren’t accepting matching federal funds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BedHead: You must not be reading any national newspapers, then, or your local paper isn’t covering this stuff. </p>
<p>The delegate count isn’t that far apart, true, but neither is it tied. Currently, I believe Clinton has 1,024 delegates, while Obama has 933.</p>
<p>And while Obama does have some momentum, news items have shown that he did not do as well in some states as was predicted. They have suggested that once voters actually get to the polls, they’re casting a vote for Hillary, when they said they’d cast a vote for Obama. I suspect this falls back to the “devil you know” theory.</p>
<p>Currently, Clinton has half the delegates she needs. Add her predicted superdelegates to that, and anything else she picks up-- my guess is, she will be the nominee. One thing is for sure, barring any big slip-ups by either of them-- this will come down to the Convention. Edwards is still holding on to his delegates, from what I gather (reason for suspending his campaign-- rather than ending it), but I doubt whatever he has will tip the scale for either at the Convention. It’s anybody’s guess what will happen with Florida and Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure Billary is itching to spring that “something unforeseen” if at all possible. I suspect that desperation might motivate them to take a calculated risk. And if things continue on the current trajectory, especially if Obama does as well as the pundits all think he will in the “Potomac Primaries”, the Clinton campaign may panic and think they really have nothing to lose. It may not even take that much. </p>
<p>In other words, Expect A Bomb!</p>
<p>They are already starting a movement to get the “disenfranchised” voters in Micchigan and Florida fired up. Billary needs those delegates.</p>
<p>I think the Clinton funding issue will be intersting to see as it evolves. Maybe the Clinton campaign will take a loan from Romney’s slush fund?</p>
<p>I agree that there is a bomb. She is itching for another debate to take Obama down…:eek:</p>
<p>Someone is studying the debate films as we speak.</p>
<p>“Currently, Clinton has half the delegates she needs”</p>
<p>CNN has different numbers.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/</a></p>
<p>“They are already starting a movement to get the “disenfranchised” voters in Micchigan and Florida fired up. Billary needs those delegates.” </p>
<p>Howard Dean is talking about re-voting in Florida and Michigan. Wonder how they could make that happen. A couple of horse heads in people’s beds?</p>
<p>Yes, CNN is saying Clinton has 823 and Obama has 741. It’s still a close race.</p>
<p>The Clintons will do whatever it takes to win and stay out of jail.</p>
<p>“Wonder how they could make that happen.”</p>
<p>IMHO, that’s what they ought to do. Just say that those states broke the rules for the first primary, so that one doesn’t count, but if they want to have a legitimate primary later in the spring, they can. This would allow the voters in those states to have a say, AND ensure that there’s a fair fight for those votes.</p>
<p>The law, as I understand it, allows a political party to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing.</p>
<p>Re-doing the MI and FL primaries would be a good solution. It would not be fair to allw the current results to influence the outcome. All candidates agreed not to campaign in those states, because the primaries were not sanctioned by the DNC. Hillary’s was the only name on the MI ballot! Those state parties were warned that their delegates would not be seated if they did not follow the DNC rules for scheduling their primaries.</p>
<p>Hillary will argue that she already won. She won’t allow another vote now that Edwards is gone and the momentum has shifted. Are you kidding?</p>
<p>“Those state parties were warned that their delegates would not be seated if they did not follow the DNC rules for scheduling their primaries.”</p>
<p>ANd they didn’t follow the rules, so why a do-over?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another great idea from the Obama campaign: If you go to the website you can create your own page/blog and you can raise funds for him, complete with a little “rising thermometer” icon that grows as your collected contributions grow. One young man who heard Obama talk about the woman who sent in $3.01 and a Bible verse was inspired to try to get 10,000 people to match her contribution, thus raising $30,100. Last I heard he was up to about $5,000 before Super Tuesday. </p>
<p>This kind of personal, creative connection to a campaign is really what the net-roots is all about and Obama is way out front on it.</p>
<p>“Hillary will argue that she already won. She won’t allow another vote now that Edwards is gone and the momentum has shifted. Are you kidding?”</p>
<p>But the delegates don’t count.</p>
<p>“And they didn’t follow the rules, so why a do-over?”</p>
<p>Because the primary voters in those states didn’t make the decision to break the rules – some jerks in the state party did. Even though, legally, a party primary is a private affair like a board meeting, most people don’t view it that way. They view it as one half of their Constitutional right to elect their president. It’s bad for the party, the process, and the people in those states to be deprived of participation because some bigwigs decided to mess with the national party.</p>
<p>I’m not going to debate about the tears. I believe that they were scripted. You think they were genuine. Only Hillary knows (or her closest advisors), but as zoosermom said, the timing is just too darn suspicious for me to believe they were genuine.</p>
<p>I just cringe when I hear these scenarios of the supers deciding this election (although they are very plausible-souding). Someone at the top of the Democratic party better realize that they will lose TONS of voters if the superdelegates decide this election. The superdelegates should not exist.</p>
<p>BTW, that is probably what Bill is doing: threatening (oops, I mean lobbying) the supers behind the scenes. I doubt he’s eating popcorn and watching TV, unless it’s with a super.</p>
<p>“It’s bad for the party, the process, and the people in those states to be deprived of participation because some bigwigs decided to mess with the national party.”</p>
<p>That’s probably true, but by the same token, rules are rules or there would be chaos. who pays for the primaries?</p>
<p>Quote: “A couple of horse heads in people’s beds?”</p>
<p>Nope, they’ll use old tired donkeys. :D</p>
<p>, unless it’s with a super.</p>
<p>And a female one at that.</p>