I remember when Democrats thought that whoever got the most votes should win.

Now, that no longer seems to matter. I wonder why?

Obama got the most votes. He won. I understand why Hillary wants to sell the "I got more votes" thing- it's like her husband saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

But it does no good- and possibly irreparable harm for her to keep telling people this fairy tale.

Updated On: 6/4/08 at 11:57 AM

I believe that you must include the totals for all 57 states and territories. Caucuses have been estimated.

So, the question hinges on whether or not you accept the idea of giving Obama the uncommitted votes in Michigan. If you don't, Hillary won the popular vote by 176,465.

But if you do (as I do), Obama won the popular vote by 61,703.

I think caucuses should be done away with as they disenfranchise voters. What happened in Florida and Michigan must never happen again.

But that's the system that was in place and the result was clearly for Obama.

So, we need to come together as support Obama.

We need to do that even if you think Clinton should have won this.

It's time to unify.

---

The problems in MI & FL weren't because of caucuses. But I agree, let's get it fixed ASAP.

To clarify: Hillary's math only works if you only count "voters" i.e. people who indicated their preference by casting a ballot. Many states still choose presidential candidates through a process called "Caucusing" which means you indicate your preference by attending a meeting and verbally stating your choice. It is a cumbersome process and certainly imperfect, but to say that voters who indicate their choices this way be disregarded is completely ridiculous.

Updated On: 6/4/08 at 12:33 PM

Obama got the most votes. He won.

Only if you don't count all the votes, he did. I also remember when Democrats were insistent that every vote count.

So where does my vote count? I am an Obama supporter who lives and voted in Michigan. I couldn't vote for my candidate of choice and we were told that if we attempted to write in a name the ballot would not count. Our only choice was to select "uncommitted" which I did. Pretending that I didn't vote tacitly for Obama with my uncommitted vote to claim a popular vote "win" doesn't seem to treat my vote with much respect...

We need to move past all this, lick our respective wounds and focus on winning in November.

Don't take the bait of the "Republicans" (heh, yeah right) on the board.

They're master-baiters and will do anything they can to keep everyone in a tizzy. (Not to be confused with Tazzy.)

The Real Clear Politics chart makes my head hurt. They didn't count the Washington Primary, only the "estimated" caucus totals? But they took the Texas Primary and ignored the Caucuses?

In the spirit of party unity I'll agree to a tie, how's that?

I remember the days of the first Mayor Daley when you did vote early and often. Jersey City was the same as was Boston, Detroit, and parts of our own NYC!

Leave it to Philly to be the sort-of-exception. In the 20s-30s and maybe into the 40s, Philadelphia had a Republican machine, the only big city GOP machine I know of at least since Reconstruction.

Democrats, Unite. Barack Obama will be the nominee for President of the United States and will be a formidible candidate.

He will also be the next President.

Snap out of it, get over it, and work to make this man President. And I voted for Clinton.

---

I wasn't trying to be rude- but it did read as flippant. I'm sorry.

My point is, you have a chart that picks and chooses to come up with a "Best case" scenario to say that Clinton got more votes. When in actuality you have three things that are hard to reconcile-
Votes directly for a candidate: I cast my vote in the Illinois Primary for Barack Obama. (Even though in most states this election is called a "Beauty Contest" because it has no effect on who becomes the nominee- it is the most widely reported on cable news however!)

Then you have delegates to vote for: I vote for my local slate of Brarack Obama Delegates who will go to the party convention and help to choose a candidate.

Then you have Caucuses to select a nominee: I go to Mrs. Browns house to express my preference for Obama and the state party tallies the votes.

Some states have one, some have all three "votes." And sometimes the results vary: You can win the "popular vote" but get less delegates- or vice versa.

What Real Clear Politics has done is pick whichever "vote" is beneficial to Clinton. They aren't comparing apples to oranges, they are comparing apples to Feng Shui. More people have expressed a desire for Obama to be the nominee- through votes, caucuses, delegates, donations, whatever- and he is. It was very close, but he has prevailed. Clinton had a strategy of claiming that although she was losing, she had the support of the electorate. At various times she's claimed proof of this by excluding all caucuses, by including some caucuses, by looking at only battleground states, by looking at "bellwether" states, by using the rules of the other party... The Democratic process is cumbersome, indeed, but the electorate has spoken and chosen Barack Obama.

When there is a tight election, there are always hard feelings. One of the things that I respect about Al Gore is that he took his "loss" with tremendous dignity. He could have called for riots, he could have contested the results in the senate, he could have made huge trouble for Bush & the country, but he didn't. He said I have too much respect for the process, for the supreme court, for the electoral college to reject their decisions. Congratulations, President Bush.

Hillary needs to do the same. The will of the people was that Obama be the nominee- Real Clear Politics has polling data on it's site right now reinforcing that- Obama 51%, Clinton 42%.

If Clinton really truly believes she was robbed then she doesn't need to ask people what to do: Go into that convention and change the nomination process: A one day national primary with a popular vote that selects the nominee.

Updated On: 6/4/08 at 02:27 PM

Whether she won the popular vote or not, she still got a hell of a lot of votes. Instead of writing off these popular vote proclamations as trumpeting, the Obama campaign and supporters need to see them as a reminder not to alienate those who did vote for Clinton.

Obama supporters still need us, regardless of whether they want to concede any point to Hillary. Now, personally, it never occurred to me to not vote for Obama in the general election. I'll even be happy to, not begrudging. But apparently it's not that way for every Hillary supporter, especially those more centrist than I.