damnliberal:

Your statement "Since Ralph as never 'done' anything, it is easy to say he is 'incorruptible'" reveals your extraordinary ignorance. Your conviction in your ignorance is equally extraordinary.

Do your homework.

… if they _ l i e _ about _ m e r e __ n u m b e r s,

that anyone out of grade school "could" verify,

¿ W H A T __ E L S E __ D O __ T H E Y __ L I E __ A B O U T ?

( or W H A T __ N O T __ ?? )

He outspent her 3-to-1; he had 10,000 t.v. ads; he gets away with being unspecific as to what he would actually DO; the media loves him; she allegedly can't catch up delegates-wise; she's evil and he's a hero!; he's a man and she's an evil woman... and he still LOST! By 10 points!

He is pro-military spending, pro-war, pro-corporate politics as usual, has shown ZERO leadership as a U.S. Senator; has, by his own admission, no real passion; he IS elitist; he's a MALE and she's an evil FEMALE; he wants "civility" (read: tilt rightward) - oh, yes, we MUST vote for him.

Say "NO" to the cult of Barack Obama!

Obama was warned to pay street money, it's tradition. And having lived on Long Island for five long years, I know how much East Coasters cherish their traditions. They even outdo Midwesterners on tradition.

But being that Pennsylvania voted on Sequoia touch screen machines, unbelievably easily hackable - so much so they were banned in California, but not in a number of Eastern states - I have other questions about the disparity between exit polls and official results. One of which, why is it that these disparities appear highest in the presence of electronic voting machines and why do they almost always tilt the election toward the more corporate candidate? Link below:

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/44823.html

Exit polls are a form of voter verification in every country in the world except the US. Are we the only nation in the world filled with liars? My mother told me a story of a child's parade and one child was out of step. "Oh look!" his mother said, "Everyone is out of step except my Johnny!"

Stalin was right, it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.

kathyodat

I am tempted to think that kathy might be right about machines playing a role in electing corporate candidates.

If so, this may mean that the Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton team-up could be REQUIRED for a tamper-proof margin of win over McCain. I'm not "in favor" of this and would far prefer a clean Obama win. PA may be telling us something, though.

It's too easy to blame this outcome on vote fraud.
Firstly, PA didn't vote on Sequoia systems. I know I didn't. Each county picks its own machines. So let's be factually correct here with our conspiracy theories.

Obama ran a poor campaign. He should have spent more time in his strong areas, like Philly, and less in Clinton's.

Also, his strategy of relying on the youth vote is doomed to failure. Young people are too easily distracted. They may be for him, but if there's a late night party, and they party too hard, they may not make it to the voting booth the next day. Turnout of young people was predictably poor.

It only pays to spend so much for ads. Any Madison Av. lackey can tell you that beyond a certain point, you reach saturation, and you gain nothing by putting up more ads. Obama reached that point.

Finally, he needs to put more substance into his populist message.

Hillary Clinton may have won Pennsylvania but she has completely lost the debate of ideas. The right wing chickenhawk democrats that support her will lie, cheat and smear until they can bully the democratic party into becoming another neocon alternative to the governing neocon party. People should repudiate their pro-war garbage and Hillary Clinton's odious campaign.

Everybody knows Bush and Rove did it!

Quick! Someone call the PA Truthers...We have a story here!

Mr. Lindorff wrote:

"The final figures for the vote are that Clinton won 1,258,245 votes out of 2,300,542 cast, compared to 1,042,297 for Barack Obama."

And, 1,258,245 + 1,042,297 = 2,300,542.

Mr. Lindorff, can you please post a correction? Surely every vote out of your "total votes cast" was not for either Obama or Hillary. I, for one, wrote-in Edwards, others wrote in Kucinich; some no doubt, wrote in Mickey Mouse. Please count us.

- Pittsburgh resident

The results aren't really all that depressing. Obama actually increased his support in the areas where Clinton did well in Ohio, including working class and those over the age of 45. The negativity and pettiness of the campaign as of late is not helping him, but it also isn't helping Clinton (she held on to a lead, she didn't expand it). He closed 10 points on her in a state that demographically is just much more likely to prefer her. That doesn't mean they won't vote for him in the general, and in reality most of her supporters did say they would vote for him in the general (and that figure is likely even higher than the exit polls suggest). Furthermore, unlike many of the states where Obama has done well, Pennsylvania is a closed primary where independents aren't allowed to vote.

Going negative is not the answer. It won't persuade Clinton's supporters to join him. Negativity mainly helps to prevent losing your existing supporters, a problem he is less likely than Clinton to have. It also forces Obama to defend himself, which he is doing well, rather than allowing him to continue to get his message to new people. That message has been incredibly successful and he needs to get it to more people. Going negative is a defensive strategy. He needs to go back on offense and let people know why he is the personal most likely to represent all Americans as president.

"He is not running as a "black" candidate, and there is certainly the danger that if he got down into the streets and worked to generate real excitement in the projects and slums of cities like Philadelphia or Wilkes-Barre, he would simultaneously stoke the racist fears of white voters. But if he wants to win the nomination, and go on to win in November, he will clearly have to take that risk."

Which is worse?

To vote against someone only because they are of a different ethnicity than you.

or

To vote for someone only because they are of similar ethnicity?

Obama supporters: what exactly is he going to DO?? What are his positions? He keeps saying "change" and "hope" - what changes? What should we hope for? Obama is a fraud.

"Exit polls in Pennsylvania showed Obama losing by five percent, which means many people actually voted against him but didn't want to admit it to pollsters,"

Anywhere else in the world this would be taken as evidence that the election results are more crooked than a 3 dollar bill.

I really like Mr. Lindorff's comment above about relying on the 'youth vote'. This seems to be a common mistake amongst the Dims.

For example, in 2004 I kept hearing all the stories before the election talking about all the young voters that were registering for the first time and how this was going to help Kerry win. Then on election day it didn't. But, if you paid attention, you'd have noticed that all the Christian fundamentalist churches were also working hard to register all their kids. In the end, that youth vote split both ways.

The notion that all 'youth voters' are all idealistic left-wingers is a stereotype. Thinking in stereotypes is almost always wrong and a dangerous way to proceed.

No. He's running a traditional American style campaign. He knows that the media sharks backed by right-wing corporations will tear him apart if strays too far from what is (laughingly) now referred to as the "Center" of the political spectrum. Guess who gets to define that term? Dennis Kucinich talked about peace and the needs of the American people in fairly specific ways, and what he got was zero support from the Democratic Party,barred from some debates and badgered by Tim Russert about whether he believed in UFO's. Can't mention drastic reform of media, financial institutions, the Pentagon, taxing the wealthy at the level they should really be taxed, public funding of educations, single-payer health care. So, you have to talk about hope and change. Remember JFK's constant refrain in the campaign of 1960 was "we can do better!"

I try never to think in over simplistic terms, like saying this is all vote fraud. But I couldn't help pointing out the line from Mr. Lindorffs article. But it is very simplistic to blame it all on fraud, and we should be careful about that.

Nonetheless, here's a couple of points to think about.

-- I don't really care about the systems used to cast the vote. I know that's been the focus over the last few years, but I think that's a mistake. I'm much more concerned about the systems used to COUNT the votes. You could use paper ballots, but if they are tabulated by a computer program that could be rigged anyways. The only advantage with the paper ballots is that you might be able to eventually prove that it was rigged, but only with something like a full recount of all the votes. And you'll notice that in almost all cases there is a huge amount of resistance to doing such a full recount. So, even a place using paper ballots could have a rigged election.

-- You don't have to rig it everywhere to have an effect. What you typically see is something like this. A political machine will only have certain locations under its control and subject to rigging. What they'll do is delay the counting and reporting of these votes until very late in the process. Then, when they know what numbers they need and also others have already locked in to reporting their counts, they'll come in late with their rigged results to tilt the election.

-- This isn't really anything new. Everyone acts like its just in the past few years that the Republicans have been rigging elections. Yet, there is a long history of this in American politics, and from both parties. For instance, its rather credible to think that JFK won the 1960 election because of the rigging of the Illinois vote by the Daley machine in Chicago. Heck, this stuff goes back to at least Tammany Hall in NY in the 19th century.

Must be something in the water / food in N America that promotes the growth of Wing nuts of all political stripes.

When something is broken, even when we don't quite know how to fix it and no one has a definite plan to fix it, N America votes for "more of the same"

I myself feel one should vote for the person who at least "admits to the world" it is broken, but with hope and by coming together we can at least look at how to fix it, rather than those who say " vote for me because i know how it works"

Truth is no one can FIX the last 40 or so yrs of greed and "everyone for them selves" society that we now have...

get to know your neighbors ..

turn off your TVs ( they gonna cost too much to run soon anyways)

do not buy anything but necessities
plant a garden if unable then
buy locally grown produce ( boycott big box outlets )

simplify.. when the shite hits the fan, and a few chunks have hit already..(oil/fuel prices credit meltdown )... Just around the corner, as evidenced by the rationing of rice and flour at some national food distributors .. food is next. then when one looks just a little further down the road.. WATER.. yup
you guessed it .. many countries are already having water problems and it is getting DIRE as we speak..

in a few short years you will be wishing you still had that plate of greens , your momma told you to eat, instead of that awful gnawing in your gut you now wake up to daily.

Our kid's kids will wonder what the heck were they thinking.. if they survive

I'm still amazed at this con the Dems are trying to run of trying to get people to support Obama not on the basis of what he'll say he'll do, but instead on the complete fiction that he'll be a secret revolutionary who'll reform everything if only we have the faith to elect him.

I know this. Wall St has poured millions into his campaign. I rather doubt that they are giving away millions to put a secret revolutionary into the White House.

Have we really sunk so low that the con the Dems are running is to try to get people to vote for their Wall St backed candidate on the mythical belief that he's really someone completely different than anything he's shown as a candidate or a senator? Absolutely amazing.

"He outspent her 3-to-1; he had 10,000 t.v. ads"

One very good rule of thumb is that the candidate with all that money is never on your side.

Here is a link to the reports from the studies commissioned by the Secretary of State of California that resulted in the decertification of Sequoia and other electronic voting machines here in California.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

I have 25+ years of experience and a Masters degree in computer technology. I am a voter tech our local county and supervise and run the voting machines (Sequoia) at a local polling station. I took the training on operating the machines, and I thought I did a decent job of anticipating the security weaknesses of the system.

I was wrong. I was really shocked and surprised to learn about all the security holes in the Sequoia voting system when I read the Secretary of State's report decertifying the Sequoia machines.

I would trust the exit polls more than results obtained using Sequoia touchscreen voting machines. Please read the report linked to above. You will understand why I doubt any vote tabulation that involves the Sequoia system after you do.

I should add that we no longer use the Sequoia machines for anything except making a private voting environment possible for the vision impaired, because the machines have an audio component. It sucks and is impossible to use, and, at the last election, at my polling place, zero votes were cast on it, but we have it there to meet accessibility requirements.

Everyone voted on paper ballots that were marked much like the answer sheets to a standardized test like the SAT.

We calibrated our own Mark-Sense automated counting machines in a complex way that eliminated the possibility of pre election rigging of the programming in the counting machines. I think our voting system here in Inyo County, California is pretty honest and reliable at this time, probably as good as when we used punch cards.

9.4 instead of 10 percent...

And this is worth writing about?

Over-the-top disciples of the New Messiah Barack Obama like Dave Lindorff are getting weirder and weirder!

9.4 instead of 10 percent!

This gives a whole new dimension to the idea of a sore loser.

But don't forget...

Obama lost!

Obama lost BIG in one of the swing states that usually decide Presidential elections, and all his disciples can say is...

9.4 instead of 10%.

clinton won fair and square....despite obama's 3 to 1 edge in money spent...that's because he HAS more money to spend....if hilliary had more money to spend...you bet she would have spent it....obama has no choice but to spend LARGE amounts of money...he's fighting bill,hilliary,the media,the right wing neo-cons....i say he STANDING UP JUST FINE

Oh, no.. Clinton >>did<< win by double digits. It is just that the digits were on opposite sides of the decimal point.

Re: quibbling about the decimal point.

If the goal was to get to "double digits" she failed... unless this we're playing horse shoes.

So Hillary beats Obama by 10% in Pennsylvania and his supporters never think of blaming him for a poor campaign.
Instead, it is Hillary`s fault that she won. Maybe Obama should have realized that just wasting enormous sums of money on ads can be overdone. People want some real ideas in a candidate, not just talk.

Let's see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;

Hillary Clinton;

Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

Barack Obama:

Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?

2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?

3. Do you believe either Clinton or Obama is free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?

How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when both Clinton and Obama have received more industry campaign cash than their Republican opponent? How can the Democratic Party be the "party of the people" when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.

Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable health care, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people.

What we're left with is truly the best democracy money can buy. As we all know, or should know, that's no democracy at all.

really, this discussion is pointless. 10%--9%--9.4%--who cares. Commondreams must have been hurting for articles today.

The only thing that matters is what the person sitting in the White House will do or not do for the next 4 years. By all accounts, BHO and HRC will basically do the same thing and are not different in any meaningful way in substance. In form, one's a little more "exciting" or whatever, but that is fluff and meaningless. The reality is they will do essentially the same thing in office. They've done the same thing as Senators. And that history is not that extraordinary. Neither of them have done anything significant to make the country or world a better place or faundamentally changed anything. They've maintained the status quo, gone along with the powers that be, etc. Yawn.

The only really interesting person running for Pres and who has an incredible record of actually doing something and being completely uncorruptable is Nader. That's just a fact.

The results here in in Allegheny County were stunnimgly stereotyped - following the media script exactly.

Poor black boroughs - Obama big time

Penn Hills - Pittsburgh's "official black suburb" (or alternatively, leader in white-flight) - Obama

Rich-liberal, oyuppie, or just plain rich neighborhoods - Sewickley, Fox Chapel, East End, Mt. Lebanon. - Big for Obama

Newer outer white collar-middle class suburbs - Hillary by fair margin.

Older less-well off, white former steelworker neighborhoods and the steel towns up the Mon valley - i.e deer hunter country - overwhelmingly Hillary - usually by 3:1 or more.

...

Instead of getting bogged down in the whole "I like Obama!/I like Hillary!" game once again. The one where Team O hates on Team H and vice versa. Why don't we engage with some of the interesting points COMarc has -as is his habit- brought to the discussion?

The point of the exit polls being so off of the "true" vote is especially significant. It is the regular practice of the U.S. State Department and the Coporate TV and Newspapers to use such disparity to loudly cast doubt on the legitimacy of Elections in "unofficial enemy" Nation-States such as Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). The fact that in many of these cases multiple neutral election-monitoring groups do not share these doubts is consistently downplayed.

That it is also the regular practice of the Corporate TV and Newspapers to IGNORE such occurances in U.S. elections seems to me very, very interesting.

As COMarc has also reminded us, election-rigging is nothing new. Rather it seems that almost any election of great import that one chooses to look at closely -even through the veils of time and distance- appears less and less honest and more and more fixed the more deeply it is scrutinized.

My thoughts are that in a election to what is essentially the King of America and the (now weakened) Imperial throne of a large part of the World, the stakes are simply too high, the rewards for victory and the punishment for defeat too great, for the power-hungry to NOT attempt to rig it.

So, short of massive de-centralization of the State and total de-commisioning of the apparatus of Empire, there may be no way to ensure an honest democracy utilizing secret ballots.

Perhaps it is the "secret ballot" that must go? I know many would object to this, but many of these objections seem to be similar to the arguments for the direct-election of Senators -long on Ideology and Learned History, and short on actual evidence from the World.

The point of all of this is that our Electoral System -and therefore our Republic itself- is deeply flawed, deeply corrupted, and perhaps on the edge of (or ist it over?) Collapse.

Getting bogged down in this ridiculously drawn out "race" for the Democratic candidate for King can only worsen this situation.

So please stop it! This goes for the writers and editors here -but doubly so!

-matti.

i find it somewhat ironic that the guy who wrote a book entitled "the case for impeachment" supports a candidate who has done nothing to impeach bush. oh, that's right, it's "off the table." why are you giving BHO (or HRC) your vote for free? what have you gotten in return? at least demand that they impeach in exchange for your vote. threaten to vote for someone else unless they start doing something. that might get their attention. if you pay attention to where the candidates go and what groups they cater to, you'll notice that they go to the areas where people are undecided or swing voters and cater their rhetoric to those voters...not to the voters who have already given them their support. and why would they give a damn about the people who are going to vote for them no matter what. if impeachment is important enough to you to write a book about it, shouldn't you at least refuse to vote for a candidate who will not impeach? if you were negotiating for anything else, you wouldn't give away your only bargaining chip (your vote, in this case) before you made a deal to get something in return. but, that's exactly what you, and many, many other progressives, liberals, etc. have done in supporting either BHO or HRC. amazingly bad strategy. amazingly poor negotiating. if you botght a car this way (agreed to pay before you got what you wanted) or settled a lawsuit this way (told the other side you will settle no matter what they do), you would be called foolish, stupid, etc.

matti, I agree with you in part. But I think we need secret ballots, and transparent counting.

I also think many uncommitted super delegates privately want to commit to Hillary, but don't dare while Obama is the front runner. They sit back and watch her destroy him so they can sanctimoniously come forward and pledge to her because she has made him unelectable. They could stop this carnage any time they want by telling her to get off it or they will stop it by committing to him, but they don't want to. That's my opinion. In that, COMarc is quite right about this Democratic Party. Corrupt beyond redemption. I don't think Obama is corrupt, but I think those running the show are.

If that is how it plays out, I'm headed to the Greens or Nader. Obviously the public needs to experience more pain to get involved and I will get out of the way.

kathyodat

Dave,
Do you really believe Obama is going to do ANYTHING you suggest? You want him to be things he cannot be. Obama is just another corporate Democrat. Just like Clinton. They're political twins.

Obama could easily win this thing by running as an actual progressive. But he's not; so he won't. And in fact, if Obama had run as a progressive he never would have gotten the first 100 million to run his campaign and never received all that adoring media treatment (he'd have been treated like the actual progressive, John Edwards---mostly negative coverage when he was covered at all, according to documented research).

Obama is a middle of the roader just like Hillary and since they have all the same policies: free trade, death penalty, muscular foreign policy, increase troop levels and defense spending, HMO run health insurance, etc., etc. the only way to distinguish himself is to activate the personal qualities default option in the voters' minds---instead of considering him based on the issues.

One area where Obama could blow away Hillary and completely clean up is on health insurance. The public overwhelming favors single payer. So do doctors. So do nurses. But not Obama. Being not a leader on the issue, he can't even follow. He's in the way. Both he and his twin, Hillary, favor having HMOs run the show. Status quo from the guy who going to bring you real change.

The idea that if only he would do this or that, he'd win is wishful thinking. He might win, but we're not going to.

Here's one way to look at it: Election of Obama is necessary but not at all sufficient to ensure some progressive change on critical issues (war, healthcare, global warming, economy). Mere election of Obama is likely in fact to hold back meaningful solutions to those problems. Election of Obama plus organized, disciplined mass political mobilization is necessary and may be sufficient. Election of HRC however is neither necessary nor sufficient. Her election in fact is a guarantee of 4 to 8 years of Clintonism, a political strategy that does nothing except empower, promote and flatter some Clinton or other and no doubt will provide some sort of coronation for young Chelsea. To summarize: With Obama, a small vanishing chance for progressive change; with HRC, no chance at all. Add to this that HRC has not beaten Mad Dog McCain in ANY poll taken since the start of the campaign season. So, what's it going to be? We should always vote strategically. Voting is never the way to get what we want. It's only the way to try to prevent that which we fear and loath most. Two (very unlikely) things have to happen here:

1. Elected Dems must do something materially beneficial for some very large constituency RIGHT AWAY, and

2. Dem voters and interested fellow travellers must mobilize to apply unrelenting pressure for #1 and more.

If those two things happen, there may be progressive change. If not there won't.

A couple of points. One--someone said "nobody criticizes Obama's campaign", but in fact that's exactly what I did in this piece.

As for supporting Obama, it's not so much that I support him as that I really oppose Clinton, whom I see as a Neolib Democratic version of McCain--a woman who would threaten to "obliterate" Iran, who voted for the Iraq War and then a few months ago voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "global terror" organization, thus handing Bush a perfect excuse to extend his "war on terror" to include all of Iran.

I believe if Clinton gets the White House, we will go to war with Iraq as surely--maybe more surely--than if McCain wins, since she, unlike McCain, will feel the need to prove she's tough.

She's also a crook and a greedhead.

For those who spout the media and Republican and Clintonian line that Obama has no positions--just "Change" and "Hope", go to his website. He does have positions, whether you like them or not (I don't like all of them and manyh are inadequate).

What I do think is that Obama, because he's getting the bulk of his money (80%) from small donors, and because he is rejecting Washington PAC money, and especially because he is being supported by a genuine movement that is largely independent of him and his campaign, could end up, like FDR in 1932 (who was not running as a New Deal radical, but as the candidate of the New York banks), being pushed by his backers to be much more progressive than he himself is. Norman Solomon just wrote a similar essay saying the same thing. What it requires is that the movement that is propelling Obama has to keep his feet to the fire after he wins office.

It's a frail reed upon which to rest one's hopes, but it sure beats the alternatives.

Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net

By the way, the numbers are from the PA Secretary of State's Office, and represent 99% of the votes counted. I've seen a later tally that shows the gap as 9.3 percent.

The point is, .6 or .7 percent may seem trivial, but the pundits, before this vote, were saying that in order to stay in the race, Clinton needed a "double digit" win, and clearly, she didn't make it. She got a single-digit win.

The media should report this fact honestly. I think Chris Matthews has it nailed: the media are keeping this race going even though Clinton cannot win, because it's great for ratings. But the truth is, the race is over.

Obama's real problem is that he has stayed on the defensive. He could have countered all of the pseudo-scandals advanced by the Hillarites not only by addressing them head-on, but by pointing out Clinton's dark past. If serving on the Wal-Mart board and screwing workers, small businesses and American workers isn't elitist, if attending a highly secretive, invitation-only, lilly-white, high-income religious group isn't elitist, and if financing your campaign from well-heeled lobbyists isn't elitist, I don't know what is. If serving on the board of a community group with an ex-Weather Underground member is a stain on Obama, how about Hillary's voluntary defense work for violent radicals in her youth, right after their crimes? Why does she get a free pass posing as an expert on healthcare reform when she so badly screwed up her much-promised effort during her husband's tenure with her high-handed, in-your-face style?

KATHY ODAT: I was thinking the same thing (as in your 6:42 posting.

CHLAMOR: Excellent posting.

scratch that in my earlier posts and below.....where i said obama lost 1000 votes when the totals went from 99% counted to 100%.. but i see that he gained 3 thousand and hillary 2000 from last nite and from this person's math... so obama had gained 1000 votes over hillary so instead of her winning by 9.4% its more like 9.3%..

now this showing on 100% counted is not thru yet.... the philadelphia county is the only county that don't show 100% counted and it shows 99%.. and this is where obama won by 30%.. so 4 or 5 thousand votes could still be yet to be counted and from that... obama may gain 1 or 2 thousand more votes to bring down the winning percent to 9.2 or 9.1 percent..

so any way you look at this.. hillary did not win by double digits but by single digits and the media should put it correctly as a 9 % win not a 10% since she won by less than 9.5 %..

suspicious vote counting........

last nite on cnn.com their county results showed all countys at 100% reporting except 2... one philadelphia which showed 97% counted which was going for obama by 30 points and the very next one also showing 97% counted and which was going for obama by 10%...

the philly county had about 450,000 voting so 3 percent left would make around 13 or 14 thousand votes left to count...

now at this time all the sites was showing that 99% of the total vote has been counted and this with all the other counties showing 100% counted.. this should mean more votes than obama over clinton coming....

now i have checked the vote totals and they show 100% counted and not the 99% as last nite... now one would think obama would gain a few thousand votes since the 2 counties that had only 97% of their votes counted the biggest went 30 points for obama... so low and behold when i checked tonight it shows hillay gaining 2 thousand votes and get this Obams LOSING 1000 votes... how could he lose votes when 13 or 14 thousand votes were still uncounted and they are from where he was winning by 30 points...

very suspicious stuff... the clintons and their people all have been PROVEN already as corrupt as any politician ever.. so one would logic look in that direction ..

now the big deal ..thing is did hillary win by double digits or single digits....

its extremely important for hillary to look like she won by double digits not single digits...so this would be suspicious stuff on them or their supporters..

now even tho the totals now show 100% counted still the philadelphia county shows 99% counted which could mean still 4 or 5 thousand votes not counted yet this county is where obama won by 30%..all other countys show 100% counted.

now even with obama LOSING 1000 votes from when the totals said 99% counted and today 100% counted even with this.. the margin for hillary over obama is 9.2 or 9.3 % and with this one has to say hillary won by 9% and not 10% a single digit win not a double digit win...

some people are really corrupt and the history of the clintons and their supporters are really scary for america.... hitlers can be easily elected with how their voters seem to care nothing for truth and real value...their voters really are voting for their very worst enemy in the clintons.. but they have been so brainwashed that they don't care.... This is what elects hitlers and brings destruction for the whole country...

those debates are nonsense and just trying to help the corporate candidate to help keep slavery on americans.... saying there was no significant differences in the candidates.... really....

how bout one voting yes to this war and the other saying NO.. the biggest difference in the world for 90% of americans cause this war for the robber barons for oil has hurt 90% of americans.. and then the other that has hurt 90% of americans nafta and gatt.. which the clintons brought to this country to help the robber barons rob from the people....

the moderators had 2 big big issues to ask about it was THESE 2 issues.. and they did not...

in fact rhe vote for the war was also a vote to tell the world we are a fraud on democracy when we went against world democracy the UN when they voted NO.... so this issue was very very important to talk about in the debate.. cause world hate on america harms these 90% in a million different ways..

america is in very very serious trouble.... just watching the response to hillary shows this... shows how a hitler could be elected very easily and destruction coming for the whole country.

the authors totals now are updated.... add 1,963 for hillary and add 3,147 for obama..it shows 100% counted BUT in philadelphia the only county that does not show 100% counted... it shows 99% counted which went for obama by 30% so another 4 thousand votes may be left to count and this could give an extra thousand or so over what hillary gets...

so the bottem line is hillary won by 9.2% or 9.1 % or 9.0%.. and this is regarded as a 9% difference when rounding off ...

so any media that is reporting 10% or double digits is a media trying to distort and up to NO GOOD !!!

Common_Cracker comments, "The only really interesting person running for Pres and who has an incredible record of actually doing something and being completely uncorruptable (sic) is Nader."

Nader's only incredible record is that he runs for President every year, and that the 90,000 dolts who could, like him, not see a difference between Gore and Bush put the worst president in the history of the United States into office. Since Ralph as never "done" anything, it is easy to say he is "incorruptible."

But come on, Cracker, give up some money for your hero. Then you can be on par with the million+ supporters of Obama.

Chlamor, You know those are figures from Senate Campaigns.

Hill is throwing her lot in with the poorly educated, old, racist, not very bright part of the population. Obama with the smarter, more modern understanding of the world. The city educates people and makes them smarter. People who do not make contact with others as one does in cities, miss out on understanding much about the world.

City vs. countryside : the forever struggle

best for 90% of americans to flee to canada...especially families and go to a conservative province... the voters who voted for hillary proves too many people in america has been dumded down so much that there will be always the corp robber barons making slaves out of we the people
..
seeing that hillary got that many votes speaks volumns.. there is no HOPE in this corporate controlled system of brainwashing to make slaves out of americans...and america is a magnet to draw the worlds most corrupt and greedy to come here and make the slaves in more misery so they can also get rich... america is fast becoming a third world country..

the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...

the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!! and their voters are the types that would elect hitler even after knowing what hitler has done.. they are brainwashed so strongly by the corp evil.. that there is no hope here ... destruction will be the ONLY way that solves this problem.. so best to get away and maybe come back AFTER the destruction..

Dave Lindorff keeps talking about how Obama's "supporters" are going to make him more progressive after he gets elected, but it's "supporters" like Dave Lindorff with his ludicrous hate speech about Hillary Clinton that turned a lot of us against the Obama campaign.

"She's also a crook and a greedhead."

Where does Mr. Lindorff get off with his miserable hate speech about a Democratic Senator from New York and the first viable woman candidate for President?

What exactly is the point of having a party to confront the Bush McCain express, if Hillary norphs it into a Karl Rovian wet dream?

The Democrats winning the presidency by becoming the Republicans under Clinton is a LOSS.

I've been a committeeperson in Bucks County for fifteen years and this past Tuesday for the first time, I talked to a lot of new and YOUNG voters. It was refreshing! In the past, all my voters were over the age of 30.

If the "Party" becomes the deciding factor in who will face McCain, then, Why are we even voting?? Obama is leading in the popular vote and with delegates. Just stop this talk about the "leaders" deciding our candidate.

Who are these pea brains who are being annointed as deciding the D candidate? No Way! There's only one choice to make if the voters' selection in these primaries is taken away from them. It is to not vote AT ALL in November. Or take to the streets. Leaving the country is not the answer, it would deplete the nation of all the thinkers and doers: You and me. Leaving all the sheep to be led around by the pea brains who as I write this, are doing all they can to flush this country down the toilet.

If these 2 debate again, and one of these overpaid newsjerks asks about Rev. Wright or the flag or some other dumbfrak question, I hope Obama pauses and says, "Listen, I'm not going to continue talking about that issue anymore." If Hillary tries to push the point he should turn to her and challenge her to explain her paedophile pastor and remind her that Rev. Wright counselled her husband during the crumbling days of her marriage.

Aggressive is the key word. Obama appeared extremely tired at that Philly debate and missed a grand opportunity to finally put a piece of duct tape on that woman's mouth. I'm sure, by all that has been written since that debate about how horrible it was, that if he had confronted her about the boogeymen in her closet, the American people would have stood up and cheered in their living rooms instead of screaming at Gibson and Steph.

As for the counts being strange, our county has the Danaher machine which has no verifiable paper trail. Activists here have been pounding our elected officials every chance we get about these horrid machines. This machine has been kicked out of several counties already for its inconsistencies. I don't trust them and it wouldn't surprise me if in some places across PA they were tampered with.

I agree he should have campaigned more in Philly. I was at that Friday nite rally and it was proof that no matter where he would have gone across the city, the crowds would have come out to greet him.

City vs. countryside : the forever struggle
______________________________

lizard:
Go out yonder, peace in the valley
Come downtown, got to rumble in the alley
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

-- The Band, "The Shape I'm In"
________________________________

I believe if Clinton gets the White House, we will go to war with Iraq

Dave: You meant "Iran", I think.

I've done my own analysis of the PA primary and have arrived at the following conclusions.

The PA primary took place shortly after a debate rigged by the Clintons courtesy of ABC. The timing was no mistake. Even though this deceptive charade was very obvious, not everyone could see that, including (unfortunately) a number of Pennsylvanians. The truth is that the Clintons are just as slimy as your average Republican when it comes to campaigning, and you've got to give them credit for staging a good show. But it was just a show – very little meaningful dialogue was triggered.

Then there was Hillary visiting PA bars and bowling alleys using her acting skills to try to convince people she's a regular Joe. The only thing she didn't do to try to fit in with the crowd was to belch the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and light her own farts. I heard she actually got a skull and crossbones tattoo for the occasion and initially planned to wear a halter top and hot pants, but Bill disapproved. The whole thing was a pretty obvious deception, but not everyone could see that.

I have been to Pennsylvania a few times in my life and the people there struck me as folks of average intelligence. But I must have missed the kinds of places in Pennsylvania out of which comes the gun slingin', beer drinkin', wife beatin', minority hatin' lower class white crowd ("white Trash") that Hillary tends to draw. Apparently there are a number of these folks in the Keystone State.

Bottom line, Hillary would do or say anything if it would get her an extra vote, whereas Obama is consistently Obama and he there are just things he won't do . I believe that's called "integrity", a term which the Clinton clan does not comprehend.

Egads! The Save Obama people are grasping at this point for points to be supposedly made. It is getting down to 99.103% nonsense, or would that be 498/ 500 % silliness instead?
-----------------------------------------
'Now granted, if you use the convention of rounding up numbers 5 or above and rounding down numbers below 4 and below, you get 55 percent for Clinton and 45 percent for Obama. But if you take the actual numbers, 54.71 and 45.31, and calculate the difference, it works out to 9.40 percent. And that is a number closer to 9 than to 10.

That is to say, it is more correct to say either that Clinton won by 9.4 percent, or, if you want to round the answer, 9 percent. Either way, it's not a "double-digit" win. It's a single-digit win.'