No surprises here. Hillary has co-opted Dubya's "fuzzy math." That's predictable given that she's already become a water carrier for the GOP attack machine's efforts to smear Barack. Just wait until Barack receives the nomination and she starts a legal battle in the courts.

Sent by Sweetie | 6:14 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I live in Michigan and did not understand at the time of the primary the point of making a trip to the polls to vote "uncommitted." As an Obama supporter, I stayed home and didn't vote at all. I know I'm not the only one who didn't see the point in voting if my candidate wasn't on the ballet, and I find it really annoying that Hillary Clinton wants to say that she won in this state!

Sent by Susan | 6:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Someone needs to stop her!!! She really sounds ridiculous. Why don't voters see through her? I have lost all respect for her these last few months and it is in part due to statements like the above.

Sent by jen | 6:34 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Strange: That the people who say that they are tough on crimes and strong on justice, "rule of law" and/or "law and order" as well as those clamoring for swift and sure punishment for ALL evil doers - that is, 'blind justice' - are now vehemently insisting that intentionally wayward Michigan and Florida must circumvent punishment ....

'Soft on Crime' Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 7:09 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Will someone who buys Clinton's popular vote argument tell me how there can even be a "popular vote" when some of the states have caucuses rather than vote tallies? It just seems like the category "popular vote" is an irrelevant category given the fact of caucuses. Does Iowa suddenly not matter, for example?

And, one more thing, will a Clinton supporter tell me why Florida and Michigan should be seated when Clinton, too, agreed that they would not be? What is the justification for changing the rules?

These are honest questions to which I am seeking well reasoned answers. Anyone?

Sent by Michelle | 7:27 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Why is the media giving her such a pass? This is ridiculous. As if counting votes from a state that didn't even have his name on the ballot counts! As if she didn't already agree at the beginning of this campaign to abide by the DNC rules, specifically as they related to Michigan and Florida.

Sent by Heather Cantrall | 7:35 PM ET | 04-23-2008

I hope voters wake up and realize Hillary is our only chance of the way out of the mess we are in. obama will bring all of his hate baggage with him including the very forceful dislike of American ways of his wife and minister. A man does not sleep with and sit in church and listen to this type of hate without it being a part of his soul. If he is elected - the American people will feel the force of this hate.

Sent by Sondra Campbell | 8:15 PM ET | 04-23-2008

If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be funny that corporatized media will soon be on the verge of essentially electing whomever it wants.

Go America! Nice job screwing yourselves over by letting rich, greedy, powerful interests control the media! Give yourselves a big pat on the back! You earned it!

Sent by Annon Amos | 8:29 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Trustworthy Obama? Yes to date.

Trustworthy Clinton? No... sorry I think repeatedly "misspeaking" is deceptive and constitutes lying and would be considered so by most school honor codes in this country.

We need to wake up.

Sent by A Hays | 8:37 PM ET | 04-23-2008

"I did not have sex with that popular vote tally." -- B. Clinton

Sent by Chiclettooth | 8:38 PM ET | 04-23-2008

The Clinton campaign argues that Michigan and Florida voters should be counted, but what about MY vote in Michigan when I favor Barak Obama? They are specifically DISCOUNTING my vote because both candidates agreed to abide by DNC rules, but then Clinton decided not to remove her name from the ballot. She's not keeping her word to Michigan voters because it benefits her politically.

Senator Clinton now says that she has previously written in a book about her trip to Bosnia and knew that she was making an "inaccurate" statement about coming under sniper fire that she now regrets. If she had said she ran to the waiting car when in truth she walked, if she had claimed there were a dozen shots fired instead of two, THESE would be "inaccuracies" in her story. No... her choice of words in this tale is nothing more than a bald face lie with the hopes of political gain behind them.

Clinton batters Obama at every turn because of comments made by his lifelong pastor, yet she was on the board of directors of Walmart during a time when they were expoliting the worst features of "free trade" agreements and driving GOOD paying jobs out of America. They also engaged in largely uncontested sexually discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and salary issues at the nationwide level. Walmart claims to be the biggest employer of Americans, but does so at a wage level so low that they are at the front of the drive to eliminate the American middle class. So what is the difference between Obama's association with his pastor and Clinton's position on the Walmart board? Obama choses to follow his faith conscientously and not blindly agree with every word his pastor utters yet sticks by his community in an effort to make a change for the better. Clinton chose to stick around for a paycheck at the expense of the American working class who she claims she stands up for.

Lastly, Clinton's focusing on Obama's choice of wording regarding bitter working class clinging to their religion and guns is nothing more than a page out of her husbands playbook in the worst blemish on his presidency. Can the Clintons yet tell us "what the definition of "IS" is?" Wordsmithing and spin are the worst traits of politics. Obama said voters are extremely dissatisfied about the economy, it's true. He said that people hold on to a few key issues that really matter to them when they see no other path to progress, THAT is true. Who cares if he said "bitter" or "cling", the American voter and ESPECIALLY the media should be able to see through this by now.

In my opinion Senator Clinton embodies the worst traits of both her husband and the Bush administration. Like President Bush, she's above the rules that govern the rest of us so long as the comments can't be "proved" wrong and they help her political position.

Sent by Aaron | 8:39 PM ET | 04-23-2008

She is a fool.

Sent by anonymous | 8:49 PM ET | 04-23-2008

As a Clinton supporter living in Florida, I can tell you several reasons why we should count the popular vote from my state. The DNC controls only the delegates seated at the convention; it has no control over- or effect on- the actual voter turnout, which was a level playing field ( except that Obama had TV advertising in Florida prior to 1/29). The vote is what it is, regardless of delegates allocated or seated. If Obama wins the nomination by refusing to seat Florida,let's hope he doesn't need our electoral votes because he surely won't get them.He has had every possible advantage, from the 98% media support to Republicans and Independents helping him to win in open primary states. And he still can't win without superdelegates pushing him over. Go figure. He is an empty suit, a mile wide and an inch deep and his big- mouth supporters remind me of all the nasty Bush wingnuts I have had to listen to for the last 8 years.In 32 years I have never voted Republican but if Obama is the Dem nominee, I will. And there are many upper income,well educated (college faculty member) women like myself who will do the same. He cannot, will not win Florida.

Sent by D Roberts | 8:54 PM ET | 04-23-2008

She is helping to make the party look bad in the eyes of independents with this balderdash. She's losing the fall election, and it's not even May.

Sent by P. Shears | 8:57 PM ET | 04-23-2008

MIchelle:
Unlike Susan, I voted uncommitted, in the MIchigan Primary. Since I started voting, Later in life than I should have, I have never missed a chance to do the one thing the government gives you. The Michigan legislature is trying to ride on the coattails of the dislike of Bush. And The Gov. Is a strong Hillary Supporter. In short, I have accepted the ruling that the delegates should not be seated. if they split every delegate down the middle in both states, I might agree to that. But that will never happen.
MIchigan has been in a one state
recession for a few years now with the implosion of the auto industry. We don't have the resources. I would go as far to say That our legislatures thought that a lot of out-of-state money would be flowing in. spike our economy. it backfired and they are being punished. You can not change the past. And remember, Michigan and FLorida do count in the general election, so Disgruntled Michiganders and Foridians Can feel there vote can count. Don't forget that.

Sent by Tim, Michigan | 10:45 PM ET | 04-23-2008

The Clintons have always been pathological brazen liars. We've known this for some time now. Why blame a leopard for it's spots?

Anyway I posted this before:
It seems that Obama's popular vote lead might actually be concentrated in one very small area of the country; Cook County Illinois; his neighbors.

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/7783-The-Power-of-Cook-County,-Illinois.html
"That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide."

So reallty when you look at it, his popular vote lead really isn't really representative of the primaries as a whole.

Sent by deek | 11:41 PM ET | 04-23-2008

BTW, I have never been so entertained on a daily basis than watching this primary.

Pure Vonnegutian delight!

Sent by deek | 11:48 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Clinton proves again that she will say anything, mis-represent facts, lie, just to be elected. I guess that is why she is the candidate of the "uneducated." I for one am proud to be a supporter of Obama.

Sent by Paul | 12:51 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Statements like Hillary's, which are intended to confuse and misrepresent the facts, make me question if I want to be called a Democrat. Do politicians give up the American values of truth and fair play? How can our party survive when it's leaders are no longer role models for decency? McCain appears to have more integrity and decency than Hillary Clinton. As a life-long educator, I am appalled but not surprised any more at this behavior--and that is really sad. And, yes, I will vote for McCain before I would ever vote for Hillary.

Sent by Karen Dew | 1:41 AM ET | 04-24-2008

In every state where Clinton was polling ahead by double digits, Obama was able to close the gap by getting up close and personal during that state's primary. So the percentages in Florida may have been much closer. Regarding Michigan, there is no way to replicate what the voters may have done. It is possible John Edwards may have come away with the most votes in Michigan. Also many ballots were spoiled and not counted if the voter wrote in a name and some absentee balloters did just that. So in Michigan according to Hillary's popular tally rules, Obama registered no votes? Incredible!

Sent by Carri | 6:48 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Once again I cannot believe the spin and lies that Hillary has put on the number of votes. I too live in Michigan, and the primary meant nothing. How she has the gall to look people in the eye and say she won all those votes in Michigan is scary -- she better not make it to the White House or we are in for a lot more lies.

Sent by Hudsonville, Michigan | 7:27 AM ET | 04-24-2008

I appreciate the responses, but I still haven't heard a clear, well reasoned argument. First, (re: D Roberts) if your argument is that Florida and Michigan should count in the popular vote, that's assuming the notion of a "popular vote" is a viable category for measuring the winner. But how can there be a popular vote when we have a primary-caucus system?

Moreover, I understand that Florida and Michigan voters WANT their votes to count, and I'm not saying I agree with the DNC decision. But that WAS the decision, and all the candidates agreed to it. Shouldn't the anger be directed at the state party officials for moving the dates? Or at least at the DNC?

I honestly don't see how voters can hold Obama responsible for this, and I certainly don't see how voters can hold the nation responsible for it by flipping from supporting Iraq withdrawal and universal healthcare to supporting McCain. The issues are so big. (I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination, despite my frustration with her right now.)

When the election started, Obama's campaign looked at the system: primaries AND caucuses, Florida's and Michigan's delegates won't count, pledged delegates determine the winner (not the popular vote). And, given those rules, he organized his campaign very successfully and is winning based on those measures. Now, the superdelegates are another question, and they can go either way. And I know that a main reason Clinton is spinning these numbers is to appeal to the superdelegates. But I just don't see how her argument is truly viable. You can't reinvent the rules for caucuses, stripped delegates, and the popular vote half way through the game. It feels like there is a new criteria every day.

Sent by Michelle | 7:58 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Good for Hillary fighting for her supporters in Michigan and Florida! Someone has to fight for them since they seem very disadvantaged in this situation...keep in mind, the Obama campaign prevented a redo in these states...come November, if he is the nominee, he will most likely regret denying these voters a voice in the outcome...as for the rhetoric being "spun" that Obama will win the states that Clinton has won because all Democrats will herd together to support Obama....please...the voting political culture is not what it use to be...it's so interesting that Obama's Campaign speaks of "no politics as usual" and "improving the way Washington works" yet,is using these "old" principles to support the logic that he doesn't have to show he can win the "big states" because traditionally (as was the way of "old politics") Democrats close ranks behind whoever the Nominee is...time to WAKE UP and understand that the voting public is more complex and there are people that are more loyal to their convictions than to a certain political party...I think Hillary is smart to continue her battle for the bridled voices of the voters of Florida and Michigan...hopefully the battle will end in victory for these states.

PS: Regarding the Michigan votes...I do not include the uncommitted in these groups, although, Hillary's battle if victorious, will benefit them as well...a really true victory!

Sent by ard | 9:54 AM ET | 04-24-2008

As a life-long Independent who votes his conscience on political issues, I think I'm beginning to understand, and maybe even sympathize a little with Republicans on how much they hate the Clintons. With Hillary saying and doing literally anything she can to win this nomination, she's basically shown that she cares more about power, and winning political games than about real people.

To me, she looks worse than a Rick Santorum or a Trent Lott right now.

I think Democrats should seriously think about what it would mean if they elected someone who makes her choices based on what her 'handlers' and pollsters decide is right. I don't get the sense that Clinton has an opinion of her own, let alone a spine of her own. I just can't see her making sound, rational decisions in the White House, when she clearly can't make them right now.

This is without even mentioning that her overly negative campaign antics, benefiting from crony-ism in the ABC debates, and refusal to concede is giving McCain weeks, and maybe even months to campaign ahead of the Democratic candidate. And that basically makes Democrats look stupid, weak, and divided to the rest of America.

Not a good thing, if we want to even so much as pretend to have a healthy, functioning democracy.

Sent by Annon Amos | 11:37 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Actually this is a pretty darn good tactic. She is inside Obama's OODA loop and playing him pretty good right now. This is the stuff that makes "the movement" and him crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

Sent by deek | 12:06 PM ET | 04-24-2008

"one very small area of the country; Cook County Illinois"

i get it. so chicago is like the new san francisco whch was the new boston.

only every time i fly to san francisco i fly "over" Illinois. doesn't that make it flyover country? these shorthand code geographics are so darn confusing.

Sent by tim in exile | 2:58 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Hey D Roberts,

Are you saying that your anger at Obama because he is obeying DNC rules like he said and Hillary is not is enough to make you vote for a Republican despite all the substantive policy difference on the economy, Iraq, judicial appointments between Republicans and Democrats. Are you really that spiteful or just mad right now? If McCain wins Florida with your vote and the election, will it trouble you in the slightest when the Supreme Court continues to tilt to the right, as troops stay in Irag for another 4 to 8 years, when tax cut addiction sends the economy furhter into a hole? Or will you be happy that you showed that damned Obama just exactly what you think.

I simply do not understand some people's priorities.

Sent by glenn | 3:52 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Glenn, how does bringing more money into government coffers help the private economy?

Sent by deek | 4:36 PM ET | 04-24-2008

if you really want the picture just look at the following table

this is one of those rare gems -- a conservative institution that lives http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htmlup to its name "real clear" unlike the "fair (ly mentally un)balanced" folks at the Folderol Obfuscation Xtremists.

Sent by tim in exile | 6:42 PM ET | 04-24-2008