My Response to Politico.com and their "Whiny Babies" Slam Headline against Hillary Clinton.

Quote from (Roger Simon) article...

"The Clinton campaign had nobody on the payroll to call superdelegates in March 2007. People didn't know about superdelegates, a high-ranking Clinton staff member said. Nobody figured it out. They thought it was all about winning states and not delegates."

If Barack Obama was doing such a better job at calling and getting super delegates, how come Hillary Clinton had over a one hundred super delegate lead at the beginning of the race? How can we trust your journalistic intelligence in deciding what quotes to use and therefore validate, and what quotes not to use, when you use questionable quotes in your articles?

Just because a "staffer" says it, doesn't make it an accurate statement, but you quote and cite statistically inaccurate comments about super delegates as fact. There is also no mention made of "donations" made to some of these super delegates (and pledged delegates) by the Barack Obama camp, especially the ones that changed their vote to Barack Obama even though Hillary Clinton won their congressional district or state.

Quote from the article...

We were the earliest to staff up and open offices there, and the first six states we staffed were caucus states. That was a strategic decision. The Obama campaign liked caucus states, which place a high value on organization."

This is another amazingly misleading quote. We can interpret the above quote to mean, "Why try and earn more votes from the masses when we can get a better overall deal from the caucuses and the much lower voter turnout? For you to complement this caucus strategy as being "superior" to Hillary Clinton's method of going for the most overall voters is why there is a disconnect between Barack Obama and 30% of the Clinton voters.

The Barack Obama camp placed high value on the caucus states because the risk reward was in their favor. Caucuses produce lower voter turnout percentages that are as much as 88% lower than the primaries. Translation, it is easier to win a disproportionate amount of delegates in the caucus states than it is in the primaries because of the volatility of lower numbers of voters.

Did you consider that some people aren't impressed by "Amazing Race" and "Survivor" style of politicking? Guess what, some of us actually like and respect a candidate that wants to win as many votes as possible while staying on message, aka Hillary Clinton.

Quote from the article...

"The Obama campaign, it should be pointed out, did not actually foresee the future; it merely prepared for it."

When Hillary Clinton was leading in the super delegate race by over a hundred delegates, Dan Abrams of MSNBC floated out the idea that super delegates shouldn't decide the race. So on the one hand, Barack Obama's camp did not forsee the future, yet the media still made the case that it would be unfair if Hillary Clinton won the race via the super delegate vote, she could not win via Florida and Michigan because she agreed not to count them, and you seem intent on saying Clinton blew it in the caucus states and that 1.1 million voters supercede the results of over 35 million voters. Hillary Clinton actually won MORE pledged delegates from all the primary states, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted! Claiming that Hillary Clinton ran a poor race is silly when she actually won more pledged delegates than Barack Obama did from the primary states (even when Florida and Michigan are not counted).

Someone at Politico.com chose to come up with the "Whiny Babies" headline. which camouflages what your article is about. Your article makes a case for winning the democratic battle even if it weakens the case for winning the Presidential war. It is YOUR OPINION that winning the democratic battle even if it weakens the chances of winning the presidential war is a superior campaign plan. 30% of Hillary Clinton supporters wholeheartedly disagree that winning the battle matters more than winning the war.

Ever heard of "Fair Reflection"?

Don't be surprised if Barack Obama wins the democratic battle but loses the presidential war...and don't blame Hillary Clinton supporters if Barack Obama loses this fall when all Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to win was the candidate that ran a more straight forward campaign, something that you seem to think of as being old school.

Barack Obama's side has been clever, and they may have even crossed the line legality in the caucus states. Being clever at the expense of 18 million voters makes me wonder just how clever Barack Obama really was.

Quote from the article...

"Some caucus states were outside of Hillary’s political orbit. They were in the West, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Hillary’s strength tended to be more East Coast and West Coast.”

I can't even fathom how to respond to such an absurd comment. Hillary Clinton won contiguous states that touch each other all the way across the country from the South Western coast (California) all the way to the North Eastern coast (New York) including virtually ALL the swing states, plus Florida, Michigan and South Dakota. Barack Obama did not win contiguous states that span across the entire country, lol, because Hillary Clinton DID! Look at the map below.


"Some caucus states were outside of Hillary’s political orbit. They were in the West, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Hillary’s strength tended to be more East Coast and West Coast.”

Notice how Mr. Simon changes the topic from the real issue, which is that older folks have more built in responsibilities and some physical limitation and as a result can't travel as far or at a specific time of day, especially in the MIDDLE OF WINTER.

As you can see from the map, Hillary's popularity spanned across the entire country, not just east and west, as Mr. Simon implies. All of those great plains and Rocky Mountain caucus "victories" for Barack Obama had polls taken just prior to their caucuses and Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading against Barack Obama. Fair Reflection, what is Fair Reflection?

-Alessandro Machi

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.

Caucuses have been underscrutinized in this years democratic political process. It's pretty obvious that bullying and other tactics that favored the younger crowd went on in many if not all of the caucuses. The News Media's failure to investigate and expose this travesty of the voting process has just been one more hurdle Hillary Clinton has had to unfairly face.

The biggest problem with the caucuses is that they require voters to be at a certain place and time to have their voice possibly heard, assuming the voter isn't being harrassed or misinformed by someone "in charge". This voting method, called caucusing, (or caca cussing), is not used in November to elect our president, and therein lies my concern.

In the actual presidential election, a voter has all day to vote, a full 12 hour period if I am not mistaken. When I tabulate the delegate counts in all states that allowed their citizens a full day to vote, aka primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton has 1,325 delegates, Barrack Obama has 1,305.

This is not counting MICHIGAN or FLORIDA!

The lead in the electoral college vote among states that actually allow their constituents all day to vote is close to a hundred Electoral College votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, 219 to 128, and this again is without counting Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania! This is a landslide of epic porportions that NOBODY in the media will address.

If Hillary Clinton makes this fact known, that she is clobbering Barrack Obama when a state's constituents actually get all day to vote, the media will once again accuse Hillary Clinton of trying to change how the votes are counted even though this is the exact method that will be used in November to elect our president! So how come the media can't do a better job of analyzing what really matters? How come the news media has done next to nothing reporting about the inequities that go along with caca cussing? Chris Matthews, care to address this?

I'm proud of americans that caucus and wear their political beliefs on their shoulders for everyone to see, and bump into. But at some point, what I really value MORE is the vote that happens in the privacy of the voting booth and in the comfort zone of a full days chance to exercise that vote. In that scenario, Hillary wins every which way the numbers are counted, and that's the exact same way the votes get counted in November, no caca cussing allowed.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up.

Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida.

Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama?

I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference.

If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage.

That seems like media bias to me.

Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it!

Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency?

And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state.

Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states.

That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.