Who won on Super Tuesday? Obama or Hillary?

Oublions les superdeleguates, oublions les Unpledged Deleguates. Ces deux la, nous les connaitrons a la convention du parti democrate.

Concentrons nous, sur les Pledge deleguates gagnés au cours des caucus et primaires du parti democrate.

Et bien sans surprise, Obama gagne plus de delegués que Hillary, Obama gagne plus d'etats que Hillary, Obama gagne plus de votes populaires que Hillary au niveau national.

Bravo Obama! Go Obama!

Alex

Lisez le New york Times qui devoile la répartition des delegues comme suit:Hillary 892 delegues Obama 716; le total des delegues requis pour gagner la nomination du parti democrate est 2025.

Oui c'est vrai le Senateur Obama a gagne beaucoup plus d'etats,mais ce n'est pas le nombre d'etats qui compte c'est de preference le nombre de delegues .Il ne faut pas non plus oublier que le gagnant d'un etat n'emporte pas tous les delegués qui sont repartis selon le pourcentage accordé aux districts de chaque etat.

Si vous vous referez aux declarations du camp du Senateur Obama; à savoir si la difference entre les nombres de delegues de chaque candidat est moins de 100 apres 'Super Tuesday"alors ce sera une victoire ;alors on ne peut pas dire que Senateur Obama a gagné.J'essaie d'etre lucide .Obama a peut-etre gagné plusieurs batailles ,mais pas la guerre.Il ne faut pas oublier Texas et Ohio ou plus de 400 delegués seront repartis entre les candidats.

Je pense ,comme le Chairman Dean, les candidats devront negocier la nomination pour eviter une dispute lors de la convention du parti.Je pense les grands delegues vont decider la nomination du candidat democrate.

San Malice, Je sais tres bien que ce n'est pas le nombre d'etats qui compte. C'est pourquoi que j'avais dit il faut enlever les Super Deleguates. Ces resultats que tu me donnes comprennent les Super deleguates. C'est ce qu'il ne faut pas confondre.

Les superdeleguates sont les officiels et les elus du parti qui peuvent changer leurs avais, faire le choix de leur gout. Il n'est pas sage que Hillary et certaines presses les incluent dans le nombre de delegues gagnes.

Negocier la nomination San Malice. Tu veux gagner un match sans affrontement. Si je te demande apres ces negociations quel serait ton choix a la tete du ticket. Je suis sur que je connais le reponse deja.

sans malice, obama won more pledged delegates, and more states tuesday. cnn took into consideration superdelegates. superdelegates are members of congress and party officials.
when conbined pledged delegates with superdelegates, clinton has more; but when it comes to pledged delegates, those earned via the primary elections, obama has more.

Obama, Clinton separated by 0.4 percent on Super Tuesday

NEW YORK (CNN) — Just how sharply are Democrats divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?


Of all the votes cast on Super Tuesday for the two candidates nationwide, they are only separated by 0.4 of a percentage point.


By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).


Most precincts had reported 100 percent of their votes by Wednesday, though some districts had yet to complete their count. Many of those votes are in in New Mexico, where CNN has yet to declare a winner, and in California, where a sizeable number of absentee votes have yet to be tallied.

The CNN results confirm the votes count of Super Tuesday.Whether you add or deduct the super delegates or not,there will not be a winner after the primaries ,according to the experts of the electoral procees.No one will have the 2025 delegates required to win the nomination.It is for this reason that the Chairman of the democratic party , Dr. Dean asks the candidates to negotiate the nomination to prevent a conflict during the convention.

I said I vote for Obama not to satisfy his admirers ;it is because I think he is more close to the people than Hllary who, despite her good will,is not appreciated by the independents and the republicans.I am convinced now that Senator Obama has a good chance to rally the independents in his camp after his performance among white males, partisans of Senator John Edward in the South who I thaught would have join the Hillary 's camp.

I just heard on CNN that Mitt Romney has abandonned the race for the Republican nomination.I regret his departure because there is nobody who criticizes Georges Bush's administration and the republican pary better than Mitt Romney.I wish he could continue his criticism of geroges bush until november.(lol)

Now that we know the nominee for the Republican party who has a better chance to beat him in November ;Obama or Clinton?This is a million dollars question that nobody can answer at this moment.

did you guys hear about the e-mail sent by Mitt Romney?
in the e-mail, he says confidently that he will run in 2012. what does that suggest? after he claims that he gets out of the race so as to help mccain win the presidency in november against the supposedly defeatist democrats, romney confidently eyes for 2012. this is strange and it says much about romney's true internal opinions. eyeing for 2012 suggest at least that mccain would not be a two-term president. why would romney think so? there are two possibilities. one is that he believes that mccain will not win the general elections. in this case, his public endorsement is a sham. the second possibility is that romney believes that if mccain becomes president, mccain will be only be a one-term president. but why would romney think that? after all, elected presidents in their first term are never challenged to represent their party. that happens only when the president is deceased or incapacitated. is romney thinking that even if mccain is elected, mccain would not finish his first term? is this coming from romney's unconscious due to mccain's age or due to what he believes to be the inevitability of a democratic president in 2009?
it really begs the question!

It is very simple.First of all Mitt knows that Mac Cain is old; even if he wins the election in November it will be a continuation of Georges Bush's policies.Nothing will change.Secondly he knows that if Obama ot Hillary wins the oligarchy will do whatever to sabotage his/her administration in order to prove that a black man or a woman can not govern the country.So he is positionning himself as an alternative to the liberals and the centrists.But what he fails to remember: the Clintons' years were very prosperous.

An Hillary/Obama administration or vice versa can galvanize the people, and the coach of this team is a very intelligent politician.Mitt might have to wait for 2016,that is if the people make the right choice.

Now they are short of money, Hillary wants more debates to sell her machandises for free.

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz8VNxdoPf3DxCzAZ7DZPKc3gnBBnF2sMxWwbGBB2EPcSPw6Dr&bbParentWidgetId=B953VllswRgXzDFRfXf2MNiS


If Hillary didn't win New Hampshire, her campaign would have failed for money already. Now she loans her campaign 5 million dollars to sustain the Super Jumbo Tuesday, she reveals that facts.

However, it is a good strategy from her to insist people to contribute to her campaign, but the fear is there, may her campaign may callapse for money.

The democrats better stop demonizing Hillary Clinton;she is not the ennemy ,and she could be the nominee of the democratic party.Reading some commentaries, one has the impression that for some people it is Obama or nothing.I do not see the primaries this way.It is a contest where we exchange ideas about how we're going to govern the country for the benefits of all americans.It is not a contest to denigrate or defame our own candidates.

That is what the republicans understand:the longer the fight betwen Mitt Romney and Senator Mac Cain more damages they will do to their party to retain the white house and reconquer the Congress.Mitt Romney understands that this is not the end of his career ;he better not alienates the centrists of his party.

Even if Obama wins the primaries he will need all democrats to win the general election;thus the idea of presenting Hillary as the ennemy is ludicrous ,unless some people can not control their prejudices against her because of what her husband did to restore Aristide in power or because of racist and sexist prejudices ,which are also repugnant no matter where they are originated.

Although he did not explicitly mention Sen. John McCain, President Bush on Friday sought to unify the Republican Party behind its eventual nominee, describing the election of his successor as president as a stark ideological choice.

What is his ideleology that deserves to be conserved?The climate changes that menace the destruction of civilisation.The irrespect of international laws that proclaim the supremacy of the laws of the jungle?The mismanagement of the economy that puts the country in a recession if not a depression.A war that destruct the lives of millions of iraquis and the death of thousands of young americans?The complete destruction of whatever prestige the United States have left in the world .Are these accomplishements deserve to be conserved?May Lord Almighty have mercy on us,and spare us 4 more years of the same Bush's idiosyncrasies.

Even if Obama wins the primaries he will need all democrats to win the general election;thus the idea of presenting Hillary as the ennemy is ludicrous ,unless some people can not control their prejudices against her because of what her husband did to restore Aristide in power or because of racist and sexist prejudices ,which are also repugnant no matter where they are originated.

San Malice, if there were a foreign policy success under Bill Clinton, it would be the return of JBA. I was an anti Aristide since 1990, but I was again the Coup, and I was for his return in spite of my disagreement with him.

Bill Clinton is not responsible for JBA's failure, I took the appropriate action at that time.

However, I will never forgive Bill Clinton over the genecide in Rwanda, He was also too soft on Al Qaida after the first bombing of the world trade center, Clinton did't fight to avoid a repetition of such acts, I am also unhappy the way he dealt with Bosnia.

Alex

I disagree with your assessement of Bill Clintons'foreign policy.To say the only foreign policy success of the Clintons'administration is the return of Aristide in power in haiti is ludicrous.What about the arms treaty agreement with the Soviet Union, what about the success of the camp David agreement between Arafat and Rabbin?The United States states was not involved in a war.

We critisize the President of the United States for intervening in the affairs of other countries-saying that the americans should not be the police of the world;but when a tragedy happened in other countries in africa or in Europe we blame the United States. Why the countries of the African Union did not intervene to prevent the genocide in Rwanda?To say that Bill Clinton tolerated Al queda is a distortion of the facts.What should he do?invade Saudi Arabia,Egypt , Syria ,libya and Lebanon?because the members of al Queda who kill the people in the tragedy of the World trade center came from Saudi Arabia?They did not come from Iraq or Iran?

Bill Clinton understood that the root of the problem is the Israelo-Palestininan conflict that is the reason he was trying to solve this conflict.It is unfortunate that Al Gore did not win the election in 2000.I am convinced had Al Gore won the presidency the tragedy of 9/11 would not occur.Perhaps I am naive ,but it is my opinion.Bill Clinton believes in diplomacy before using military forces.Al queda is not a country.we have to arrest them ,use intelligence to locate the heads of the movement and at the same time show our conviction to resolve the conflict between the jews and the palestinanians.

We should not align ourselves with any dictator who oppresses their people under the pretext of protecting our interests.Our interest is the liberty and the well being of all the people of the world.The friend of my ennemy is my ennemy we have to understand that.When other governments are oppressing their own people we have to denounce them.We should not be the friends of oppressors if we are defending democracy and human rights in the world.

San Malice,
Don't twist my words my friends. I don't say he tolerated Al Qaida, I said he was soft on Al Qaida. Because the man was simply weak when it came to foreign policy

Regarding Rwanda, there is no excuse of comparing US as the world marshall. But he intervene in Kosovo, Bosnia why not Africa? Were they not the say human being?

He intervened in Haiti, Why not in Rwanda. There is a different between wage a war and protecting hopeless people.

You talk about the Israelo-Palestinian agreement, where is it at now? I am deeply leaning on result not trials

I can't blame Bill Clinton for what happened in Rwanda.The United States of America can not take care of every crisis in the world.Where were Nelson Mandella and the countries of the The African Union;where were Jacques Chirac and the countries of the European Union ?Where was Putin, The Chinese? the Canadians;Where were the United Nations?

You can't blame the americans when they intervene and also blame them when they don't.They don't have infinite ressources;they intervene to defend their interests.Are you going to blame Georges Bush for what is happening in Congo and in Dafur?Yes Bill Clinton intervened in haiti to restore democracy because he did not want the boat people to invade Florida.You can not expect them to resolve every conflict in the world ;this is the role of the United Nations.

To say that Bill Clinton was weak on foreign policy is a distortion of the facts.Was he weak because he did not invade a foreing country by lying?I am not a pacifist ,but every dispute can not be resolved only by the law of the jungle or the cow boy mentality.

you said:Where is the result?you could not see the result because his successor abandoned the process and a new leader took over in Israel after the assassination of Rabbin.Sharon was the architect of the prolongation of the conflict.Had Georges Bush been as convincing as he is right now about promoting two independent states in the region I am certain that 9/11 could have been prevented.By abandoning Bill Clinton's policy in the beginning of his mandate he exacerbated the bitterness of the radicals in the region who regard the friend of their ennemy as their ennemy.It was a mistake to say he does not want to be involved.

As Senator Oama said in his book:"The audacity of hope.""A government that truly represents these americans-that truly serves the Americans-will require a different kind of politics.These politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived."If we said in our constitution that all men are created equal then we can not deny other people the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the pretext of defending the jews.