Since when did the "number of states won" EVER count for anything in the primaries or national elections? It's only delegates and the Electoral College numbers, respectively, that matter. Is this new 'news' to all the "Anyone-but-Hillary" media-wonks? The media needs to do less spinning-in-favor-of-their-candidate and more basic reporting. Number of states is a non-starter, folks.

Sent by Gregory Sills | 9:09 AM ET | 02-06-2008

According to Obama camp sources he actually won more delegates last night. Is this true? Why do I see a different delegate total on every news site I go to? What is the *real* delegate total? Does anyone know for sure? Who does the "official" count? Are the super delagates that are "pledged" tied to the candidate permanently or can they "change their mind" if the primary vote shows the nation leaning in an opposite way to the super delegate pledge? This delegate count has me completely confused!

Sent by heather | 9:29 AM ET | 02-06-2008

Thanks NPR for succinct factual news, as always.

I'd like to see news blogs on two things:
(1) I am a relatively young (36) voter who voted for Clinton, along with a number of friends. Much of the election news coverage focuses on dividing the country in to little "camps" and telling us how we'll vote. As a Clinton supporter, I hear myself placed in the "geezer" camp, the "over 40" camp, and so forth. Is this segregation merely an unfortunate side effect of the need to predict?

(2) I'm a radio listener, but yesterday I watched more television than I usually do all year. Pundits were amazed at the "unprecedented" voter turnouts yesterday, citing the country's readiness for change as the single factor. I didn't hear any comments on the fact that holding primaries and caucuses earlier probably just made a lot more people feel as if their vote counted. It was the first time in my life that my primary vote counted for anything at all (in a presidential race). Of course, pundits rarely take the prosaic explanation, but it seems obvious to me that there would be record turnout this year.

Thanks again, everyone at NPR, for all your work and professionalism. My day of TV made me appreciate you all the more!

Sent by Rachelle Ankney | 9:53 AM ET | 02-06-2008

I completely agree with the idea that moving the date of the primary felt like our votes would have more impact which I believe helped voter turnout. Frequently I just tune out all of the pundits because I get really tired of the media sway and trying to tell us what we should think or how to interpret what the candidates are saying. In fact, when I watch the debates, I turn off the tv right after the debate. I don't believe that people need someone else to tell them what the candidates said when we just heard them speak themselves. We are an intelligent enough nation to be able to understand what the candidates are saying when they are saying it and not to have to have a 2 hour program afterwards to have someone else analyze and feed to us what we should feel about it.

Sent by rosemary walsh | 10:18 AM ET | 02-06-2008

I really have to say that experience counts. Is 3 more years in the Senate significant? Of course it is. I think that the younger voters are naive to think that Obama can promise them anything more than Clinton can, and Clinton will debate the pants off of McCain! Maybe finally, someone will stand up for the fact that WE WERE LIED TO in regards to the connection between Bin Laden (who has said he couldn't stand Hussein), and 9-11. I'm sure that had she known the facts, she would've voted differently about the war--BUT THE FACTS WERE NOT GIVEN. Lies were. Obama's opinion did not serve anything at the time, as he was not a member of congress. He may have had Different ideas if he were--we will never know, so it is immaterial to the cause.

Back when Hillary addressed the whole scandal when her husband was in office--it occurred to me that she would make a great president. The media was interested in what she had to say then--finally we got to see her up close and personal. (Inspite of it being because of the juicy times.)

When Obama made his famous speech after the Republicans stole the election, I had similar thoughts. If Hillary wasn't running, I would vote for him. I thought that I was going to vote for him this time until I heard the content of what their plans for the future of our country were during the debates. Obama speaks like a motivational speaker. I have seen many of them--I can spot charisma like anyone, but I am also listening to what they are saying. If Obama was not running, I would still vote for Hillary on the basis of her stand for universal healthcare, the economy, and the war. We have to believe that healthcare is her priority. I know wealthier people that cannot get ANY healthcare, due to their previous year's earnings, but as we see these days, we cannot count on job/income stability from year to year. This is why EVERYONE deserves healthcare. So what if someone made $200, 000 last year. If they didn't make it this year, with the housing market as it is: they can't even sell their house to pay for catastrophic coverage in the even of an unforeseen emergency. Many people have taken on that second mortgage to pay for healthcare that their jobs no longer help them with while CEOs make record profits.

Listen, I adore Obama, but he's not ready and black is not different or better. It's just different, and if he wins, I predict that he will adopt many of her ideas anyway--because they ARE better. Then, we will have another guy who has usurped the power of another great woman. THIS IS NOT A CHANGE.

Sent by M. L. Wallman | 12:10 PM ET | 02-06-2008

I honestly feel that Hillary does not have the experience she says that she has. She fouled up terribly when her husband was in office on the health plan. She was pushed back and came out when the investigation began. Her experience is fighting for her husband's reputation and not legislation experience. BILL DID NOT GIVE HER LEGISLATIVE WORK TO DO AFTER SHE FOULED UP THE HEALTH PLAN. The work she did while a Senator, was small and not the type you can say, I AM QUALIFIED TO RUN THIS COUNTRY! She voted for the war and sides with Bush on most things. Yes, Obama did vote to finance the war for the troops because it was the right thing to do! They were over there against his vote, yet he did not hold it to the troops but supported their being there against most of their will. Hillary needs to explain her health plan TRUTHFULLY! She will force by garnishment and penalize those who will not sign up for it. Anyone can be ready on day one - just show up but not everyone can be RIGHT! She is truly banking on every word and decision her husband will make coming from behind the curtain and through the phone. She TRULY does not have the experience she says she has and will lie about it until she die. Bill was about the same age Obama was when he took office. If it wasn't for the little work he did (other than missing to kill Ben Liden), he would have been impeached because of his lies and affair. Please people, she and Bill wants to snub at the Bushes by getting back at the helm of this country.

Sent by Lois Pierce | 2:42 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Let's have the stright facts. Why is NPF tying so hard to hide the fact that Clinton won the deligate count by close to 4%. Is Obama so much the establishment candidate that even NPR trys to hide that fact. Ill bet if Obama pulls ahead in the next round where Clinton is not as strong it will make the headlines.

Sent by Chuck Yale | 10:41 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Last night while watching the results of super Tuesday I was so disgusted with the propaganda and slant towards CNN's choice candidates-Obama and McCain.
It was so obvious that when Clinton was making her speech the sound wasn't synched with the video. At one point when Wolf made reference to her he said "the junior senator" and in the next breath referred to Obama as simply senator! Emphasis was continually made when Obama won a state but when Clinton won one...well "it was "by a narrow margin." I finally switched to Fox news to get "unslanted" coverage (that's a joke). I guess the good ol boys at CNN can't stand the idea of a woman becoming president! I immediately sent Ms. Clinton $100. And I know she will make a great President!

Sent by C. Kline | 2:13 AM ET | 02-07-2008

If you look at the MCNBC site, they have Obama at 861 and Clinton at 855. The Clintons like to claim all the super delegates as their own, but remember these are just politicians who will shift with the wind. The nominee will not be decided by super delegates as Mr. Dean explained yesterday.

Sent by Bumsteer | 8:23 AM ET | 02-08-2008