I know that racism is a big issue for the election this year, and my understanding of U. S. politics is really incomplete, but from the New York Times election guide for the Democrat standings it appears that even after West Virginia, a big hurdle for Barack supporters that he is STILL WINNING. If this isn't the case please explain.
Top Rated New Comments
Newest Channel Talk Posts
1. Metropolis - Missing scenes found! (Art Talk)
2. Congress to address Bill to Blockade Iran (Worldaffairs Talk)
3. Fighter Jet chases 707 across Sydney Harbour (Downunder Talk)
4. Bored (Cinema Talk)
5. Progressive Rock - New Playlist (Rocknroll Talk)
6. George Carlin is in Heaven! (Religion Talk)
7. A knight in shining armor and a Security Gaurd. (Eia Talk)
8. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson at RNASA 2008 (Science Talk)
9. Olbermann Vids: Dead (Wtf Talk)
10. Your spore creature -self linking encouraged! (Videogames Talk)
Subscribe
Video Hosts
We accept video submissions from the below hosts. If your favorite video provider is not available, please contact us to suggest it.
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
VideoSift Friends & Partners
Useful Pages
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
Current Users
2. charliem
3. calvados
4. bluecliff
5. Croccydile
6. Octopussy
7. oxdottir
8. Sagemind
9. LeadingZero
10. jwray
11. Chaucer
12. kronosposeidon
13. gypsyrover
15. eric3579
17. vinovin
19. alien_concept
20. manfromx
21. Thylan
22. choggie
23. theaceofclubz
24. ora68
25. dakone
26. Memorare
27. critttter
28. hatsix
29. CamW
30. entr0py
31. punk225
32. mintbbb
33. Mavmike
34. Drachen_Jager
35. neuralnoise
36. DavidRaine
Long answer is that Hillary's trying to make the case that since no one will be able to reach an absolute majority of delegates with the kind you get by people voting, that the superdelegates will decide the nominee. Since superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, based on any criteria they want, all she needs to do is put together a convincing argument for them.
The arguments she's made are long and ridiculous now. Most of it hinges on Michigan and Florida, who'd been stripped of all their delegates for moving their primaries up before Feb 5th. Those states held their primaries, but no one campaigned in either state, and Obama & Edwards weren't on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary won both states by a wide margin, and insists those results stand, and be counted in their full strength. That won't happen, since it'd erase the penalty for those states, but we'll know more about those after the rules meeting on May 31st. Even if you added the delegates (or popular vote) that way, Obama still has the lead in pledged delegates, though it shrinks considerably.
She also makes electibility arguments about big states and swing states, and most recently about Obama's "problems with working class whites", with a lot of subtle and not so subtle tones of "white people won't vote for him".
She's earned a lot of ire for all of the above, though lately she seems to be coming to grips with the facts that she won't win, no matter what she says or does. Her only hope is that something totally destructive happens to Obama before the convention.
If "Presumptive Nominee" didn't have a strict definition of "the candidate who's mathematically locked up the nomination through absolute majority of delegates", we'd all be calling Obama the Presumptive Nominee, because he's 99% likely to be the nominee now.
The media is now pretty clear in saying: it's over.
BillO is referring to the fact that Clinton "won" Florida and Michigan, because the other Democrats did not campaign in those states, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. And this was because the states broke the rules by having their primaries too early in the election, and so their delegates were taken away from them.
Anyway, so, Clinton 'won' those states. And so lately, since the only way for her to possibly get the nomination now is for those votes to count, that's what everyone is harping on.
Obama/McCain '08! Now thats a winning ticket!