missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
concerned_staffer (not verified) says:
You have got to be kidding me, reporting this latest Clinton "analysis" as legitimate. Clinton's argument here is that those people whose states hold caucuses don't count? Or is it that if you happen to live in a small state you don't count?
Obama has more delegates. That is what matters. Whether your delegates are from New York and California or Idaho, Nebraska, Vermont, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Hawaii should not matter. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat, whomever he or she is, will win New York and California.
If we have someone who can put the other states in play, that seems more attractive. Therefore, the rational argument is to take the person that won those states.
Oh, and let's not forget, when all was said and done, Obama won Texas. Or does it not count because he won according to the actual rules of the Texas election, and not the rules the Clinton campaign would like to play by?
You have got to be kidding me, reporting this latest Clinton "analysis" as legitimate. Clinton's argument here is that those people whose states hold caucuses don't count? Or is it that if you happen to live in a small state you don't count?
Obama has more delegates. That is what matters. Whether your delegates are from New York and California or Idaho, Nebraska, Vermont, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Hawaii should not matter. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat, whomever he or she is, will win New York and California.
If we have someone who can put the other states in play, that seems more attractive. Therefore, the rational argument is to take the person that won those states.
Oh, and let's not forget, when all was said and done, Obama won Texas. Or does it not count because he won according to the actual rules of the Texas election, and not the rules the Clinton campaign would like to play by?