Obama cuts into Clinton's superdelegate lead »
Posted By Aidenag 6 months, 1 week ago in NewsShe trails him in fundraising and in pledged delegates. Now her superdelegate edge has shrunk to 30, from 87 in February. Even some who back her say they might reconsider.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
Submitted By:
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment. If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 237
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.43 Replies
-

tchef6 months, 1 week ago
I think that the Clinton machine is running out of steam. She just doesn't have the popular support. With out that she's doomed.
As this primary drags out people have been reminded of the scandals and polarizing nature of the Clinton's. We just don't want it again. That is not what this country needs.
Reply-

rightfromwrong6 months, 1 week ago
If Obama wins it will be a refreshing change for America.This preacher did a lot of harm and Obama should not be held accountable for what he says.The preacher was likely correct in calling America evil as more and more proof indicated the the Administration was at least complicit in the 9-11 attacks and were able to use the right wing media to justify a war which we know is an out right invasion and occupation. Saddam was not affiliated with Al Qaeda and there were WMD. American corporations supplied Iraq with poisonous gas to use on Iran in their war because Iran was going to win. Saddam was their alley against fundamentalism
Reply-

libsRfunny6 months, 1 week ago
"The preacher was likely correct in calling America evil as more and more proof indicated the the Administration was at least complicit in the 9-11 attacks and were able to use the right wing media to justify a war which we know is an out right invasion and occupation."
Someone's been gulping serious quantities of Kool-Aid. What an idiotic statement! Clearly, you do not know right from wrong.
Reply -

newbie04206 months, 1 week ago
Lemme get this traight, the big bad government was evil enough to let 9/11 happen but not evil enough to plant some WMD's in Iraq to justify the war.
Or is the government only evil when you want it to be?
Reply -

Blackacereturn6 months, 1 week ago
-
-
-

THOMNH626 months, 1 week ago
lets start a poll of our own here. I would like to hear what Liberals would think if the Superdelegates were to vote Hillary into the winners circle even if Obama had the popular vote and the most delegats. Remember it will be a very close race but right now it looks like this would be the only way she could win. What would you think of the Clinton's and your party in general if this happens.
Reply-

not2needy6 months, 1 week ago
-

ZiegfeldGirl6 months, 1 week ago
That wasn't the question, lol!
I, as a Republican currently supporting Obama, will be thoroughly disgusted and will do everything within my power to make sure that witch loses, even if it means supporting McLame.
(I feel nauseas at the thought!)
Reply
-
-

NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
-

MonkeyBiz6 months, 1 week ago
"...even if Obama had the popular vote and the most delegats."
Not likely to happen. If somehow the wheels came completely off Obama's campaign (getting caught in the men's room in Minneapolis with a wide stance for instance) the supers would most likely "do what's best for the party."
As things stand now, with Hillary hopelessly behind, and Obama with more delegates and more of the popular vote, the supers would "do what's best for the party" and nominate Obama.
Hillary seems to come up with a different angle every day, but the supers are not stupid.
We are the DEMOCRATIC party, not the authoritarian repugs. We still believe in democracy, not this nonsense about a non-democratic "representative republic."
The superdelegates know that going against the popular will, as expressed by the voting, is not an option, nor would most of them want that as an option (a few rabid supporters of Hillary excepted).
Reply-

Mdiar6 months, 1 week ago
We are the DEMOCRATIC party, not the authoritarian repugs. We still believe in democracy, not this nonsense about a non-democratic "representative republic."
Whoa... I often agree with you. However, we are a Republic... I believe even Franklin said we were a Republic. If we were a Democracy we wouldn't have a Senate or a House. Everything would be decided by a vote of the people. We would lack representatives. In addition to this the Democratic Party even had the term "Republican" in it, placed there by none other then Thomas Jefferson. He knew we were a Republican and not a true Democracy.
"The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(...
Reply
-
-

