It seems to me like "released" is the wrong word in this case. The records haven't really been released, reporters have been given limited access to them. Released implies they have been made generally available.

Posted at May 23, 2008 10:05 AM in response to McCain's Doctors, Medical Records Say He Is In Good Health

Indeed, if we had winner take all there would be 181 pledged delegates difference instead of 162 that there is now, not much difference. It is the superdelegates that keep this thing alive.

Posted at March 24, 2008 2:25 PM in response to The Democrats' Procedural Problem: Josh Gets it Half-Right

I agree with you, JohnDoe, I should have been more clear, I was only responding to the question of why Texas had such different results.

I don't think you would see this big an effect on results in a state which held only a caucus or a primary. I think caucuses still reflect a bit more commitment, but if it is your only chance to cast your vote there is already a good incentive to get there. In Nevada, 1/3 of the registered democrats voted in the caucus and the caucus results were pretty close to the polling data.

Posted at March 13, 2008 7:28 PM in response to Hillary Wins Nomination via SuperDelegates

The Texas primary is a great example. About 3 million people voted by ballot and Clinton won by 3-4 points. Results from the caucus in Texas gave Obama a large win but only about a million people participated in it. Which is the will of the people?

Of course they both are, the first measure is people who feel strongly enough to vote, the second is a measure of how many feel strongly enough to dedicate a few hours.

Posted at March 13, 2008 5:32 PM in response to Hillary Wins Nomination via SuperDelegates

I think a particular problem the party faces now is Obama has won it, by the rules that were in place when the whole thing started. It's over and Obama won, or to be more specific will have come closer to winning then anyone else in the democratic party. Some don't like this, and so they propose changing the rules.

Now it is very tempting if you candidate did badly in caucuses to say caucuses ought not count (Hillary and her supporters say that all the time). Even more, why not be a bit clever and say, lets not go by delegates, lets go by popular vote, but we wont count the caucus vote in the popular vote. Don't say that last part too loudly or it will be obvious what you are doing.

The only real hope for the loser is to really damage the winner and so the party has no real choice but to go with the second place for their choice. The only real hope for the party is if the loser could lose gracefully.

Posted at March 8, 2008 3:00 PM in response to Do Obama Supporters Really Believe???

I simply refuse to believe she would endorse a republican as more qualified then her democratic opponent. I believe what she was referring to was the gold standard of commander and chiefs, George Washington himself, who was 43 years old when he assumed the Commander and Chief duties for the continental army and served in that capacity till he was 51, he then served again as first president and peacetime commander and cheif from age 61-65. This sets the optimal age for a commander and chief for american leaders at 43-51 and acceptable range for most americans would probably be 35-65.

Hillary was simply pointing out that McCain will be 72 when he takes office, has crossed this threshold (age 35-65) that americans expect their commander and chief's age to be in. Indeed she could have even said McCain is well beyond the threshold of commander and chief. It is odd, she also feels she crossed the threshold (since she would only be 61, but she knows her own abilities better then I and if she feels she crossed the threshold who am I to argue). That leave Barack Obama as the only viable alternative. (Of course she'll likely realize her mistake and correct her statement to say she is coming up on the threshold of top age for a commander and chief but hasn't reached it yet tomorrow.)

Posted at March 8, 2008 1:46 AM in response to History in the Making

In the exit polls, Obama beats Hillary by huge margins 2 to 1 in Ohio and 3 to 1 in Wisconsin. And he had a lot of young people out there stumping for him (I got visited by two just before the caucus here). And they did a good job, he is almost certain to finish the race with a substantial lead in pledged delegates.

I'd happily support Hillary in the general election, I'd happily support Obama. Obama seems to have captured the moment by the rules that were in play when we started this thing, but not the nomination. Super delegates are there to keep the party faithful to it's core beliefs, I suspect, that telling a generation that their beliefs are not the core beliefs of the party, is not the very best way to keep them as lifetime voters.

Posted at March 6, 2008 3:51 PM in response to The First of Many “Thirds” – Youth Organizing Beyond 2008

Doesn't everyone who is alive bring a lifetime experience to anything they do?

I'd happily vote for Clinton over McCain, but I would have thought even Clinton supporters might see this as a nice gift to the McCain camp should she lose.

I'd have to assume the Clinton supporters are correct and she is just saying she would be a better opponent to McCain, but it was, at a minimum, stated awkwardly.

Posted at March 4, 2008 10:19 AM in response to Disloyal Democrat: Hillary Clinton picks John McCain over Barack Obama

For me, and I think for many, a more appropriate title might be, "People who supported the war need not apply". I don't think this translates into we hate strong women, its possibly more difficult to take a stance against something like this.

Posted at February 28, 2008 12:48 AM in response to Women Need Not Apply