Lanny J. Davis
Former special counsel to President Clinton, and supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign
After the votes are in from Puerto Rico tomorrow and South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will be able to make a facts-based case that they represent a significant majority of grass-roots Democrats. Chances are Sens. Obama and Clinton will virtually split the more than 4,400 delegates—including Florida and Michigan—elected by more than 34 million people over the past five months.
Sen. Clinton has already won the most votes, but there is controversy over including the over 300,000 votes from Michigan, since Sen. Obama was not on the ballot (by his own choice). But if Sen. Clinton wins a substantial victory in Puerto Rico tomorrow—with an expected record turnout exceeding two million voters—she could well end up with more popular votes than Sen. Obama, even if Michigan’s primary votes are excluded.
Worst case, she could come out with a 2% deficit in elected pledged delegates. But that gap can be made up, if most of the remaining 200 or so unpledged superdelegates decide to support Sen. Clinton as the strongest candidate against John McCain—or if others committed to Sen. Obama decide to change their minds for the same reason. A number of superdelegates previously committed to Sen. Clinton later announced support for Sen. Obama, so it’s certainly possible that, when confronted with growing evidence that Sen. Clinton is stronger than Sen. McCain, they might switch back.
The final argument for Hillary comes down to three points—with points one and two leading to the third.
First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That’s just a fact.
Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the “experience” issue.
Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain’s total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama’s position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won’t challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton’s plan.
Despite the fact that Sen. Obama’s campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton’s.
Sen. Obama deserves credit for opposing military intervention in Iraq while he was running for the state senate in early 2002.
But in 2004, Sen. Obama said he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage” of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush’s position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed.
Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).
According to Gallup’s May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”
The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation’s voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama’s 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).
Gallup’s state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points—a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states—constituting 105 electoral votes—are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.
Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses—Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half—54—of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.
The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup’s findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:
*Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.
*Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.
*Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)
*North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).
*Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.
Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin—one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.
Finally, one unfortunate argument is making the rounds lately to convince superdelegates to go for Sen. Obama. That is the prediction that if Sen. Obama is not the nominee, African-American and other passionate Obama supporters will conclude that the nomination had been “stolen” and will walk out of the convention or stay at home. On the other side are the many women and others strongly committed to Sen. Clinton promising that if she is denied the nomination, they will refuse to vote for Sen. Obama.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are progressive, pro-civil rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice Democrats. Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters who care about the issues, the Supreme Court, and the need to begin withdrawing from Iraq can truly mean they will actively or passively help Sen. McCain get elected.
Threats of walkouts or stay-at-homes by good Democrats are not the answer, nor should they be a factor in superdelegate decisions.
But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008:
A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket.
Stay tuned.
Editor's Note: This essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal.
| Robert Di Liddo |
May 31st, 2008 11:13 am ET A.C. could you please tell me how in the voting process if deligates are elected to vote for HRC, then they go to cast their vote change to Obama. This is wrong. I will vote for the Democrat at the end of it all. |
|
| Gary Chandler in Canada |
May 31st, 2008 11:14 am ET As usual. a dishonest assessment! "she could well end up with more popular votes than Sen. Obama, even if Michigan’s primary votes are excluded." |
|
| Bill |
May 31st, 2008 12:06 pm ET I can only write that I find your analyses of what is taking place in the DNC race a biased attempt at promoting Hillary. |
|
| Teresa in California DEM. |
May 31st, 2008 12:40 pm ET IF you punish the Obama campaign for respecting DNC rules, the DNC might as well dissolve because it doesn't even respect its own decisions. This is the most ridiculous spectacle and embarrassing. I can't believe that this is a difficult decision. Clinton should be censored and all of the delegates for Florida and Michigan should be taken away from her for ignoring the DNC rules. I mean -COME ON!! What's the DNC good for? Hello, Backbone!! Its this kind of meandering which provides ammunition for the Republicans because Democrats are always in a quandry about the right thing to do. |
|
| JC |
May 31st, 2008 12:49 pm ET Lanny, as an undecided, registered independent, I have to say that I am deeply concerned about the future of our once great nation; after the Bush regime, I didn't think it was possible to have a worse Commander and Chief; along comes Obama and now, I'm not so sure; I'm stunned that the mainstream media, Oprah, the Chicago political machine and the selective use of race for convenience, has allowed Obama to advance this far; he has limited experience; period; no international experience; period; he has questionable friends; period; he has racist spiritual advisors; period; it's very interesting to see a candidate who wondered if America was ready to put race aside when they voted actually bring race to the forefront through racist associates and racist spiritual advisors; Hillary has shown the passion, conviction and desire to lead; I feel Hillary needs to shelf the concept of "bringing the party together" and actually distance herself from Obama; the only question that needs to be asked is "what's best for America?" In my opinion, it's crystal clear. |
|
| Kim |
May 31st, 2008 3:14 pm ET I think Donna Brazile said it very well in the DNC Rules Committee meeting earlier: changing the rules during or after the game is called cheating... The rules say that whoever has the majority of delegates, elected and unpledged, wins the nomination. I am sure that Sen Clinton would have no problem with these rules whatsoever if she were leading or winning the nomination, which I am sure everybody expected until Super Tuesday. I also believe that her management of her campaign with a strategy that seriously underestimated her opponent, did not include all 50 states in the equation and showed disastrous financial management skills, is not a good recommendation for letting her manage a country and the national budget. I believe that, come Tuesday or Wednesday, the uncommitted superdelegates will speak their minds, and I also believe that the majority of them will support Sen Obama. I do not agree, in light of what I've learned from the camapign trail, that Sen Obama should consider Sen Clinton for the VP spot. I believe she has not proven herself to be a team player. If I was in his position I would not be able to trust her to have my back in the White House without continuously pursuing her own agenda. |
|
| Debby |
May 31st, 2008 3:15 pm ET I know McCain and his camp is enjoying this circus...but Hillary is the 1 to beat McCain... |
|
| Cailin |
May 31st, 2008 3:17 pm ET Barack Obama has proven that HE DOES NOT CARE what the PEOPLE want - he only wants to win. To my mind this makes him a candidate for change to facistic domination of the people - rather than the candidate for a change in government towards honesty and integrity. He is all about TAKING AWAY the people's choices. This is demonstrated by the methods he used to usurp the will of the people in Illinois when he used technicalities to make sure that he was the ONLY candidate available to voters on the ballots in Chicago. HIS ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN THE LIES HE TELLS US WITH HIS MOUTH. Now he is attempting to neutralize his obvious losses in Michigan and Florida using the same sort of underhanded back door manipulation of the ballots he used against candidate Palmer in Chicago. Hillary did not campaign in Florida or Michigan and neither did Obama. That makes it a level playing field and HE LOST - by a wide margin - in BOTH states. The delegates should be seated AS THE PEOPLE VOTED and they should be seated IN FULL. IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT MUST BE HONORED - NOT the will of the delegates. It is clear that Hillary is the POPULAR choice and yet the Democrat party organizers are attempting to FORCE Obama on us as our ONLY choice. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY! IT IS A FARCE AND AN OFFENCE TO THE PEOPLE! Obama lacks integrity between what he SAYS he stands for and what the record and his ACTIONS PROVE he stands for and so he cannot be trusted. He frequents a church and looks for fellowship to a flock that is OBVIOUSLY FULL OF BIGOTS and HATEMONGERS and and yet he tries to pass himself off as a man of honor who would HEAL the divisions in this country and in the world. Birds of a feather flock together! He speaks different stories and agendas from each side of his mouth and is THERFORE NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE for the most influential position in this country. If the Dems put him forward as their candidate they will be ensuring that we see another 4 to 8 years of fiscal insolvency persuing a war that cannot be won and should not have been fought. Of course, perhaps that's what they're after since they call themselves democrats but are obviously neocons with a secondary agenda of helping John McCain get elected! |
|
| Gary Chandler in Canada |
May 31st, 2008 3:36 pm ET After publishing dozens of posts in these CNN BLOGS, supporting Obama, I'll tell you why I hope Clinton runs as an Independent. It would justify all my comments. On the other hand, if Bill, Hillary, Ickes,Feraro, Wolfson, and so on turn around and actively campaign for Obama, with sincerity, well I will feel guilty. |
|
| Lauren Ann Keeney |
May 31st, 2008 3:44 pm ET About the Florida and Michigan and the rules committee. Why not penalize the politicians that went against the democratic rules and not penalize the people who voted. Give the full count for the votes that were cast. |
|
| sheila |
May 31st, 2008 4:11 pm ET Hillary is the best shes better than all the rest!! Since she doesnt smoke(like Obama does smoke but has hidden that fact and the media ignores it) she will have the O2 to go all the way!!!!! |
|
| seah ohio |
May 31st, 2008 4:16 pm ET The worse thing about the whole thing is. The DNC and high powered democrats publicly got involved and sent a message to voters that they were pushing for Hillary to be out of the race. So They actually Influenced the 2008 Election In a bad way. They people are not stupid, and plainly could see this. They also could see that Obama was who pelosi and dean wanted as nominee. Putting Shame on the Democratic Party as fixing an election by publicly speaking out and pressuring super delegates, and influencing voters. So who ever wins the nominee, it will be By default and not the choice of the people. |
|
| Thomas |
May 31st, 2008 4:42 pm ET I truely wish I could turn back time and get a chance to vote again. I voted from Obama in Feb. and after the past few months I have gotten a very different impression of him. If he wins the primaries which I beleive he will. Please take one of his votes in Wisconsin and add it to the Republican hopefull. * I know its not much however I am still very dissappointed* Maybe I should go and pray while grabbing my shotgun every so tighty. |
|
| Purnell |
May 31st, 2008 4:49 pm ET Since Florida and Michigan moved their date up for the Primaries, will be going though this again in four years, or did these to states move their date back. No one has answered this question yet, has the problem of states moving their date up been fixed? |
|
| seah ohio |
May 31st, 2008 5:05 pm ET Hillary is the Stronger Candidate, would be the better nominee. She Would beat McCain. Something Obama will not be able to do. |
|
| Laura Marie |
May 31st, 2008 5:23 pm ET Lanny Davis is NOT a good source of information regarding the Democratic primary candidates as he is so completely unbiased in his remarks. I can't believe he is referred to as a "democratic strategist" whenever he is on CNN. He does always say he is a Clinton supporter but his comments are so unbiased that I cringe when I see him on CNN. I really respect the strategists who give commentary that appears more unbiased and neutral. He always sounds like he is on a job interview with Hilary if she becomes president. CNN has much better people on their panels. Some of the Hilary supporters sound absolutely ridiculous in their interpretation of data. I am not an Obama supporter by the way. |
|
| diane |
May 31st, 2008 5:30 pm ET It is so reassuring that Senator Obama can reach beyond those elitist tendencies and "make Concession" to those Florida voters and allow them to count for 1/2 a person. I am so moved.. Perhaps the DNC panel will consider the possiblity of political embarassment if they do not exceed a past error of representation in our country's history where some people counted as 3/5 of a person. Therefore, my prediction is they will choose the middle of the 2 offers. Floridians you are 3/4 of a person. Not whole but closer. May your voices be heard loud and clear November. |
|
| Tom C., Pasadena |
May 31st, 2008 5:35 pm ET I'm sitting here watcing the RBC meeting and getting the feeling there's a lot of closed door shenanigans going on. So much for an open session. Howard Dean and the rest ought to be ashamed of themselves. They can't even get their own party in order – how could we expect them to run the goverment? I'm a Democrat, but I'm switching to Independent – and it has nothing to do with Lou Dobbs. I'm losing faith in the Dems – and I'm especially fed up with the Clintons, who think they "own" America. It's not about the party, it's about the nation. And this is the example we set for the rest of the world? |
|
| Noella Maehl |
May 31st, 2008 5:56 pm ET Now we all know who Hillary Clinton is all about... POWER and CHAOS. Do we want this woman leading our country? We have had enough chaos and power with the Bush Administration. Let's go on with this primary because voters are getting frustrated. If she's nominated many of us will vote independent and we'll have another Republican Admistration, Ugh! Noel |
|
| Maria |
May 31st, 2008 5:56 pm ET Sen Clinton is the one to beat McCain in Nov. She has won the big states, most women votes, Jews, Catholics, blue collar workers, etc. 17 million voters. Obama can't win w/o them. Obama won most red states that vote Repubs. They just voted for him but it was more a vote agianst Hillary because they think Hillary is the one that can beat McCain. In NOv. those who voted for Obama will vote for McCain. They may not like him, but they rather have McCain than someone they don't trust. Most of them think Obama is a muslim and they don't like his questionable friends with their racist agenda while Obama is running as a uniter. Thanks. |
|
| Ann |
May 31st, 2008 5:57 pm ET It doesn't matter how you look at this....Obama can NOT win against McCain and she is the most electable. The superdelegates know this. Besides, too much underhanded stuff with Obama. Just like when he ran for office 12 years ago and found a way to get the other names off the ballot....he is nothing more than a snake in the grass. If everybody thinks this country is in bad shape now because of Bush (and they're right), get someone like him in our White House and everyone who has voted for him will be saying "What have we done!" His mentality can not measure up to Hillary Clinton's. And as far as her being on his ticket...NO...she needs to run as an Independent and we won't have to hear anymore about him. He and his supporters can go to Wright's church and enjoy each other's company and go on hating whites. The applause from that congregation when Pfleger was hollering his idiotic crap was appalling. But yet, this is another long time friend of Obama's. Go figure! |
|
| Rick |
May 31st, 2008 6:01 pm ET I cannot understand how the Trinity Church in Chicago can allow the priests to disrespect white people the way they do. If this language and rhetoric were used in a white church. Jesse and the crew would be picketing and calling us racists. Why does no one address this...what a double standard. This is one of the reasons the country is not ready for a black president. I have no quarrel with balck, hispanic or white, but common this is horrible and the people in the church applauding this....now who is racist!!!!!!! |
|
| Spencer King |
May 31st, 2008 6:03 pm ET Mr. Davis certainly will never find a job as a math teacher, however he may find one as a massuer of numbers. Hillary has a 60% negative polling figure Nationally, 55% of the country does not trust her. Like Donna Brazile said change the rules in the middle of the game is cheating(sic) ..... I don;t like Hillary but I would vote for her if she were the nominee... However as much as I don't like her the people I really don't like are her undereducated supporters. Mr Davis IS a rare educated suporter the problem with his dribble is that it lacks balance and balance is the key to credibility. |
|
| Larry |
May 31st, 2008 6:04 pm ET I guess it all comes down to whether or not becoming the nominee is more important to the two camps, or if it is winning the presidency.. |
|
| Carolyn Anderson |
May 31st, 2008 6:06 pm ET I'm not buying it...any of it. I once admired Senator Clinton second only to her husband former President Bill Clinton (and administration) his entire presidency and championed her run and election for senator or any other office she desired, until they both ignored the hundreds of thousands, mostly democrats, who heartedly protested the war in Iraq, looking and waiting for our strongest representatives, although surragates, to speak for them. As we all know, just the opposite happened. The 2004 election that included those disaffected voters, is being used as a basis for the argument that those "red" states are at issue that Senator Clinton will likely win in the general election...it doesn't take into consideration those who stayed home in protest...maybe a different election year would be more appropriate. The argument also ignores the fact that this primary election has brought out many many more democrats who plan to vote in the general election, that have never voted before and the "new" democrats, republicans and independents who are discouraged with the republican party. What also is ignored is that a relatively unknow (Obama) is competing on equal footing with two giant figures in American politics (and their top surrogates). It is Senator Clinton's experience that is the issue here. I for one felt betrayed by both Clintons; not understanding why they would support this war and the President continually, even at the start of the primaries when so many lives were affected. A Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket might win the election; but if Obama is president, will the two "experienced" Clintons run the White House and policies? Probably. Memphis TN |
|
| Elena Lawless |
May 31st, 2008 6:36 pm ET I am amased at the lack of knowledge of the commentators in CNN Alive on Sen. Obama's "separation" from "his new pastor", a great supporter of Farrakhan. Sen. Obama himself expresses his great support for Farrakan in several instances and circumstance on his life according to his book "Dreams from my Father". Mr. Obama is an extremist black, unloyal individual that does not represent blacks of whites and will do anything for his ego....of maybe for his true cause....Farrakhan's far left views? It seems he represents the new so called leaders of Latin America who came to power with "charismatic" new ideas, and when in power, bring out their real colors. Example. Chavez, Morales, and wasn't Castro supported by the US at the beginning for his "new ideas"..and then he showed his true colors. Please read a little bit. Thanks. |
|
| Evelyn York |
May 31st, 2008 8:16 pm ET I don't have the elequent words that some have to express my opinion, but to have such a thing as delegates and super delegates is most undemocratic. What makes these people think they are so much smarter than the voter. The only truly democratic way is to let all the people in all the states vote and the one with the most votes win. So simple. |
|
| Jef Petitpren |
May 31st, 2008 8:28 pm ET Dear Anderson: After watching the fiasco of the DNC meeting on Saturday, all I could do was shake my head. The only thing more ridiculous was the Democrats talking about how they will unite and come together – I'd give better odds to George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad throwing their arms around each other and breaking out in a rousing rendition of Kumbyia!! When are the American people going to take back their rights and quit letting professional politicians tell us "that they know what is best for us". Mark my word, this will backfire and John McCain will be elected... |
|
| Jim Hyser |
May 31st, 2008 8:33 pm ET Anderson, Harold Ickes represents the old time politics that the Clintons display. If they are that divisive and polarizing within their own political party, how will Mrs. Clinton reach across the aisle to get things done? It seems to me her philosophy is win at any cost, includung destroying the part. If I were Obama, I would wear full body armor including a special helmet. I wouldn't put anything beyond the Clintons. What is your feel for Ickes despicable act. I am an EX-Hilary supporter. |
|
| Ken - Kentucky |
May 31st, 2008 8:48 pm ET This year's Democratic presidential campaign has been awesome as any during my lifetime. It has more twist and turns as any race day including Nascar and IRL. People are really passionate about their beliefs and which candidate they feel will be a better president. That being said, there's something I feel we all need to be reminded of. The dispute over the legitimate votes casted in Michigan and Florida is pretty simple to alot of people. Since we are a people of rules and limits, didn't the Democratic presidential candidates agree to the primary changes because of the rules those states representatives for the party hadn't broken? Although each candidate had a choice whether to place their name on the ballot or not after the rule(s) were broken, the rule to exclude the count was agreed to by the committee. To correct the problem for all involved, which every vote should count, the result as agreed to today (Saturday, May 31, 2008) seems to me is fair and just. If the candidates and their supporters really want unity within the democratic party and show the undecided voters across america they are the party to vote for in November, then show it. Show unity and not keep talking about it. Examples should be sent as well as spoken. |
|
| Eileen Zoladz |
May 31st, 2008 8:48 pm ET The "Clintons" are extremely devisive to the Democratic party! Hilary's speech in Florida enflamed the people with her talk of "every vote must count; you took time out of your work day to vote."...and asking people to sign a petition on her website. All the while, she was not thinking of the voters in Florida and Michigan. Instead, she wanted the popular vote and therefore, the Rules Committee was forced to make concessions. If she was winning, would she have bothered to help the people of Florida and Michigan??? I think not!! |
|
| Phyllis Lindblade |
May 31st, 2008 9:20 pm ET A Clilnton-Obama ticket makes perfect sense. The ticket gets elected, gets our country back on a good footing in the next 8 years and then has 8 more years with Obama as President. This way, everyone wins – even the Republicans, who would get all the benefits of better leadership for our country and for the world. In sixteen years, the Republicans will have had enough years of good government to learn that they can't govern just for the wealthy and the corporations if they ever want to get elected again. It would definitely be a win-win for everyone. |
|
| Charlotte D |
May 31st, 2008 9:42 pm ET This is one woman who says dream on. |
|
| Jeff Kao |
May 31st, 2008 9:54 pm ET I am officially changing party from Democrat to |
|
| Conservative Sam |
May 31st, 2008 10:17 pm ET Lanny and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves. I'm a life-long Republican who planned to vote for Sen. Obama; however, after this Sen. Clinton stunt – I'm can't vote for Democrats. Sen. Clinton knew she was trying to break the rules and the DEMS allowed her to disrupt the party because of Bill Clinton. Shameful – Sen. Clinton is a LIAR and doesn't care about the party – just the Clinton name. It's sad. |
|
| Jean |
May 31st, 2008 10:18 pm ET I am an AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN and am deeply offended, as Lanny is at the direction this whole thing has taken. To realize that Martin Luther King fought for this moment, just to realize that even if it means "using a black man" ...the "good ole boy establishment of the democratic party" would go this far.... I am not disillusioned by any of the tactics that have been used. Lanny, me, and everyone else knows that Barack Obama has an embarrarssingly thin resume compared to Hllary Clinton. I am deeply offended as a woman (a hard working professional who has had the sobering experience of watching someone be brought in and essentially have others create a resume for them, when that person knows they are no where close to meeting the critera. I am even more offended as an African American that we have fought for this for years, just to have one of our "own" be willing to be used for his own personal gain! I can't speak for other women and other African Americans, but I won't be voting for Barack Obama in the fall after this fiasco. Shame on the democratic party. All of my family and me have been democrats for years, but I don't know Hillary was not done right by the black community AND the democratic party. Count me out, I am going either independent or republican. And shame on African Americans.... for simply voting based on skin color.... after all the bloodshed. The nerve of the democratic partic to write everything off as "oh, those Hllary voters are just women, they'll get over it by November. " Well, I'll say this for them... they may just be in for the shock of their lives when they realize that "WOMEN" are not going to be bought, shoved off, and manipulated out of this election..... not from the beginning and not after this stupid Florida Michigan vote fiasco that occurred today on May 31st either. Blog note – Please do not display my email address . THANK YOU! |
|
| lorraine |
May 31st, 2008 10:18 pm ET Cooper, |
|
| lorraine |
May 31st, 2008 10:21 pm ET Cooper |
|
| molly |
May 31st, 2008 10:28 pm ET i. experience in the "ways of Washington" isn't necessarily a good thing as we have learned from the McClellan revelation. ii. a federal mandate doesn't sit well with most people; even liberals get uncomfortable when you tell them that they have to buy something or else get fined. iii. Obama is the only one of the three candidates running today that warned of the terrible consequences of this war... that is a pretty good argument to make against McCain. Obama was the only one with the forthrightness and foresight to come out and warn the American people of the dangers of preemptive war, and to implore the President to rethink his decision. iv. you make your case based on the premise of "popular vote" which is a complete fallacy considering some states don't release the actual number of people who showed up to vote; those states only allocate delegates based on the percentage of votes each candidate earned. Therefore, it is entirely impossible to know that Clinton has earned the "most votes." Additionally, this case is silly because as we all know popular votes don't determine elections. Electoral votes do. The democratic party remembers when they put forth a candidate that could win the popular vote, and guess what we got... Bush with more electoral votes. We don't want that again. We need to have a nominee that can win the most electoral votes. v. Sen. Clinton is a worthy adversary, there is no doubt in my mind that she is a strong political opponent. That is why I am happy that she will campaign for Sen. Obama in the general election. |
|
| TMill |
May 31st, 2008 10:35 pm ET Lanny..read our lips....no Clinton(s) in the White House, again. Twice |
|
| Beverly - NYC |
May 31st, 2008 11:09 pm ET Lanny, nice to see you still believe in fairy tales. FL & MI are settled. Obama is closer to the magic number even with concessions to your ungrateful candidate. Take the fight to the convention as Ickes threatened to do. Implode her career and Bill legacy. She still has a Senate election in NY in a few years and I will not forget this election. |
|
| M.C. |
May 31st, 2008 11:18 pm ET Hillary Democrats will NEVER give up. We are the Centrists, who would prefer McCain over the liberalism and questionable associations of Obama and his wife. We are the "Reagan Democrats" who want to come back to the party, but ONLY if Hillary is the nominee!!! Why would ANY delegate from Michigan or Florida pledge to Obama when he fought to throw them out??? |
|
| Beverly |
May 31st, 2008 11:22 pm ET Dear Anderson, Beverly |
|
| PinoyAko |
June 1st, 2008 12:12 am ET If we cannot rally behind whoever the party's nominee will be, then it only shows that the party's interest is not the utmost for us. Both candidates have already vowed to support whoever will grab the nomination, so why can't we? It is the time for unity... GO DEMS! |
|
| Donna LaPan |
June 1st, 2008 12:40 am ET Though I am only half a citizen now, I am going to give you my whole opinion. I, along with thousands of Democrats can clearly see where this Obama/Clinton saga is leading. Unlike other commenters, some of us are still able to remain calm and make rational decisions. First, I would like to say that I am a Hillary supporter. I am one of those citizens who is weary of his experience-especially in this time in history. I feel it is going to take someone more experienced than Obama. I would like to point out that I am NOT racist. I simply and honestly do not feel he is ready for Presidency. I guess what it all boils down to is this: Hillary makes me feel safe. I have children and grandchildren to think about. Safety comes first to me. Our Democratic party is so divided right now that I fear that many of us will ultimately leave our party affilliation and take a good hard look at the Independent party. I want to help unite our party – I honestly do. I just do not feel the same level of safety with Obama. Many of my family and friends feel the same. Maybe in a few years- Maybe after we get to know him better. Maybe after he proves himself. I have done everything a good citizen is supposed to do. I have even done research to find out more about Obama. Because of his voting record-(voting only "present" so many times) I'm just not clear on his positions. I take voting very seriously. I will NOT vote for someone because he or she is a good speaker, because they are good looking, because of the media pressure, because they are white, black, or other. They have to be intelligent, professional, and knowledgable of the world in general, etc.,etc. Our lives and our children's future depend on us making the right choices. So please understand that those of us who are refusing to vote for Obama are not doing it because of Hillary Clinton- even though we do feel cheated- We will not vote for him because our conscience tells us he is not ready. Furthermore, while everybody was running around making up all of these so called rules, many citizens were working hard to provide for their families and to pay for the rising costs of fuel- we took the time to go to the voting booths and we voted (even though we have been told by many throughout the years that our votes don't count anyways) expecting that our votes would count. Every election- local, state or national- I would hold up the figures in front of my children and show them the numbers. I would tell them it would have been one less if I had not taken the time to go and vote. And "yes" our votes DO count and don't ever let anyone convince you otherwise. Well, I certainly have egg on my face. I certainly don't have all of the answers- but I believe that the only way to unite this party will be for the candidates themselves to unite with one another. If both candidates are not on the ticket I fear the rejection of the other supporters will cost the Democrats the White House. In fact I will even go so far as to predict a civil war. People are frightened. People are angry, People are hurt. People feel betrayed. But when people become so divided- May God help us all! Sincerely, half of a citizen in Michigan -Donna |
|
| Dianne Paterson |
June 1st, 2008 3:03 am ET This is a copy of my email to the DNC: Prior to this, this committee, Nancy Pelosi and others brought the spotlight to you, so you have been watched and names have been noted. Before today ever happened, many Democrats had already made decisions...since you chose your presidential candidate for whatever advanced your interests, we will never know what they are, months ago, and shoved everyone else out, .I will not be voting in November. You think that "fixing up" Obama by putting a pin in his lapel and having him leave his church,i.e. his beliefs of 20 years,his wife's shame of this country in her own words, will fix that ....what an insult to the intelligence of the American people. |
|
| Barbara |
June 1st, 2008 3:26 am ET As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument for Clinton. I honestly believe her only real supporters are the ones that want to put a woman in the White House and those who are prejudice. When it comes down to it, people will vote for Obama over McCain. All the so called swing states she has won will have to decide whether they want 4 more years of Bush, that's what they will get with McCain or if they would rather have a President that has listened to the people and is prepared to change our Country and the way politics has been done, that's what they will get with Obama. I believe the swing states have the biggest economic problems, due largely inpart to the republicans, therefore they would be foolish to vote for McCain. The only group of Clinton supporters that may go to McCain are those who are prejudice. It is my belief that this group is small, they are small enough, where they won't have an impact, they actually don't deserve to have their voices heard. |
|
| Shirley Armstrong |
June 1st, 2008 3:46 am ET I was very disappointed in the election process WHAT IS THE SINCE IN VOTING OUR VOTES DO NO COUNT. Obama has no experince and as it looks like now he will be the nominee Well you think Bush was a bad president wait until Obama if elected president the country will be so divided instead of going forward we will be going backward He has no expericene I will now be voting for John McCaan |
|
| Rob -BC Canada |
June 1st, 2008 4:11 am ET I said it months ago, that this woman would take this to the US Supreme Court if she had too.That said and seeing the conduct of the people who support her just show clearly her real lack of regard for democracy the democratic party and the true self serving motivation she harbors.King and Queen Clinton once again.No one dare stand in her way.I wouldn't take that Bobby Kennedy statement to lightly either.I believe she will literally stop at nothing .God knows what she will try if all else fails. |
|
| RON A.K.A (A TRUE DEMOCRAT) PHL |
June 1st, 2008 5:22 am ET I believe the DNC did the the could to make everyone happy. You break the rules, your going have some kind of penalty. If your gonna jump ship and go Rep., this means your not a true Dem. If we lose, I now know who the blam; (Michigan) your not a team player. At least |
|
| Scarlett Dubois |
June 1st, 2008 5:24 am ET Senator Obama has won fair and square, while the Clinton Camp is being a bunch of sore losers as was evident today after the Committee's decision on Florida and Michigan. I do believe they are out to destroy the party. They better watch out or they will get what they wish for (and yelled out in the meeting)....McCain in '08. As far as an Obama/Clinton ticket goes....I sincerely hope not. After the vituperative comments the Clinton's have been saying I honestly don't think that ticket would work on any level. Obama would do well to pick Senator Chuck Hagel and have a true unity ticket. Then all the Clinton supporters can go ahead and vote for McCain, and it won't matter because Hagel will pick up Republicans that don't want another 4 years of McBush. |
|
| Boaz |
June 1st, 2008 5:36 am ET Attention Clinton supporters who will support McCain if Obama is nominated: Attention Clinton supporters who will support Clinton running on an Independent ticket if Obama is nominated: Attention Cynthia Ruccia, organizer of a national group called Clinton Supporters Count, Too has said, "If Hillary Clinton isn't going to be our nominee, then we are going to actively campaign against (the Democratic Party) and vote for John McCain." : Who do you all think Hillary Clinton is going to vote for if Obama is nominated? Do you think that she as a Democratic candidate wants to see a Republican in the White House? Do you think the Democratic Party is going to help Clinton fund a run against their own nominee to help a Republican win the presidency? One final question is for Hillary Clinton: Why aren't you strongly taking the position against your supporters who threaten a Democrat becoming the next President? |
|
| Kent Fitzsimmons,Illinois |
June 1st, 2008 7:00 am ET I'm glad the DNC has settled the dispute over Florida and Michigan. Davis has a right to his personal opinion. But, the whole idea of Hillary somehow being the nominee is a complete fantasy. People can work the numbers in their favor however they want to. But, they will not be able to change the inevitability of this debate. And, that is that Obama will be the nominee. Obama/Clinton?..........................It would be an unstoppable team. But, it is not the only way Obama can win..................... |
|
| Cecil Jones |
June 1st, 2008 8:39 am ET You can't call Lanny Davis unbiased or objective when it comes to politics. He has been one of the sycophants defending the Clintons since impeachment. This is exactly what's wrong with out politics. Some place loyalty to the man above this Nation. We have all suffered due to this type of "Blind Obedience" on both sides of the isle. It's time to close this chapter in our sad political history and it's time to start holding politicians accountable again instead of creating Kings and Queens. Will Hillary decide to be a "Lieberwoman?" Does she care about Chelesea's future as a Democrat? |
|
| clevin (cleve-N) |
June 1st, 2008 8:57 am ET All of this drama to position yourself to argue bout the popular vote. Ms. Drama, we don’t choose the president by popular vote. You have no business playing the game before you learn the rules..and follow them. |
|
| antwine |
June 1st, 2008 10:07 am ET I can't understand how or why in 2008 prejudice still exist. what a country. |
|
| James Dylan |
June 1st, 2008 10:20 am ET Mr.Davis; After reading your article I have found our views to be virtually identical and have previously posted a comment here, on the CNN blog, roughly expressing so. At least in regard to the apparent strength and weakness of the two candidates in the general election. I must admit that it is not my intent to write to you, but to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. I ask and wish, if you are able, for you to pass on my following words to the two candidates. Recently I've viewed a film on the life of Thomas Jefferson. It showed his greatness with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, views on liberty and justice. Also his hypocrisy in regard to the owning and trading of slaves. I noticed a particular relevant portion in the film which can be equated to our present time and situation. It was a time of our nations infancy and fragility. The time when Jefferson and Hamilton put aside their contempt for each other for the continuation of the growth of our nation. The election for our third president ended in a tie between Jefferson and Burr. It was to be decided by the House; and it was Hamilton's eventual persuasion of his own party and against it, because of Hamiltons even greater dislike of Burr, that gave Jefferson the Presidency. This was done among threats of civil war. "I believe the views of both of you to be pure and well meant. I have a great regard for you both and ardently wish that some line can be marked out by which both of you can walk." I repeat the words George Washington once told his two favorite lieutenants to my two favorite. Only with each other can you bring this nation, in the midst of it's adolescence, together like it has never been before. The white men, black men, and women want and must be brought together in this turbulent time. Hope is nothing but a torment without action and I beg you both it is time to act, not to divorce. Your nation, children, are calling for you to stay together. Do not make them choose whom they want to live with. The chance of them saying neither is too great. Alone you each may win the election. But, I do not believe it to be an accident that Thomas Jefferson died with hypocrisy, of still owning slaves, on the forth of July, having never completed the building of his own home. Although you may not be able to fully complete this home, a nation which always under construction, you most assuredly can put up a few more, unbreakable, walls, ensuring and giving us a little more independence and liberty. "I will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without a hope that light and liberty are on steady advance." Thomas Jefferson. With my greatest love and respect, |
|
| Pat Goin |
June 1st, 2008 11:24 am ET I have voted democrat my entire life in every election. Regardless of what happens, I cannot vote for Obama under any circumstance because of his Islamic connections with his family and because of his church beliefs; even though he did quit his church, he was there for 20 years and that tells me he shared in their views. I am generally open-minded and accepting, but after hearing any of those racist comments in ANY church, I would not go back to that church. Obama having stayed there shows he did share their views or was there strictly for political gain, either are immoral and shows bad judgement for a presidential nominee. I have learned about his Chicago ties and dealings. However, my own personal morals would not allow me to vote for Obama under any circumstance, regardless of the outcome; even if it means the Republicans win. I can go so far as saying I will vote for McCain just to help make sure Obama does not win. |
|
| Boaz |
June 1st, 2008 12:06 pm ET Now why aren't the party leaders decrying Clinton's supporters’ divisiness and decrying the fact Clinton is silent about them? |
|
| Jim |
June 1st, 2008 3:23 pm ET Harold Ickes was correct yesterday when he said that it "took real Chutzpa" to give undeclared votes to Barack Obama from the Michigan Primary. What are they going to do next, give Obama credit for votes of those registered democrats in Michigan and Florida who could have voted but didn't? Since the rules committee was hell-bent to change the facts to fit their preferred outcome, I think its time for Hillary to change things up! Since she has a lead in the popular vote and has real strength among those Democrats most likely to vote in November, IN STATES THAT DEMOCRATS NEED TO WIN, she should make the decision to run as an Independent. It would obviously take political courage. It is exactly what Joe Lieberman did in CT, when much of this party ran from him. Does she have the courage? If not, then should she really be president? I think close to 18 million Americans have answered that question. It's time for Hillary Clinton to thumb her nose at the Democratic party; Howard Dean and much of the so-called "news" media, all of whom want to hand the nomination to Obama...and the presidency to McCain! |
|
| Jackie Alfaro |
June 1st, 2008 3:25 pm ET Would somebody bring up in the conversation with the pundents that the superdelegates who transferred their votes to Barack Obama can just as easily change their mind and tranfer votes back to Hilary Clinton. She doesn't just have the ear of the undecided superdelegates but has the opportunity to call on all superdelegates. No one is locked in. If they are please let the public know that as well. |
|
| Ken |
June 1st, 2008 3:27 pm ET The vote count in Puerto Rico should not be used in the popular vote because they cannot vote in the general election. Besides it's really stupid to have them vote in the Primary when they can't vote in the General. |
|
| JimV |
June 1st, 2008 3:27 pm ET Hillary Clinton supporters will not support Senator Obama because on the issues, they have no confidence in his ability to actually resolve any of the important issues. He has not demonstrated that he even fully understands them in a way that will benefit them. The Hillary supporters understand that who is President is not a popularity contest. This is not American Idol. We need a leader who is knowledgable and trustworthy and someone who is not afraid to defend the rights of the people and who will make America stronger. Senator Obama does not demonstrate any leadership ability. He has only proved he might be able to run a good campaign. At the end of the day, Hillary supporters want a strong leader who values the American people. If the choice is between McCain and Obama – - the only clear choice is McCain because there is no doubt he loves this country and respects its people. The Democratic leaders are foolish to believe Hillary supporters will follow and support Obama – even if she were to ask them to. |
|
| Bruce Bushong |
June 1st, 2008 3:29 pm ET If every vote is supposed to count, why don't you guys ever include the votes that were cast for candidates other than Obama and Clinton? It seems that if you actually count every vote cast Mrs. Clinton's arguement that she the most votes fades alittle. If she can't get the majority of the votes how can she argue that she is the best candidate? It appears that the candidate "Someone Other Than Hillary" is getting the most votes. Also, I would like to know the count of the poular vote if you allowcate the votes for those who have left the race to the cadidate that those former candidates have endorsed. Could you please give us that number? |
|
| JacklynD |
June 1st, 2008 3:33 pm ET It is so frustrating to listen to your advisors be so damn sure of themselves that Hillary's supporters will fall in line behind Obama if he is given the nomination. How can you ignore the popular vote? The very people that have been the heart and sole of the Democratic party are going to walk away. We are white women with money who have supported the underdog for years. There is talk about our issues being the same as Obama. Personally, I don't think its that big of a deal anymore. The only common ground that affects me personally is the war and abortion. I've never been on welfare or collected social security. My support for these programs over the years is based on a social conscious. Watching black people turn away from the Clintons in droves has been a real eye opener. Talk about racism. They don't care, well guess what neither do I from now on. I can easily vote for McCain. How naive to think we won't do just that. Keep in mind that the Republican party will be delighted to have us. It may help stop them from having to pander to the religious faction of their party. |
|
| Cyndi from Colo |
June 1st, 2008 3:35 pm ET I find it interesting that Hilary and most of CNN's hosts considered Florida and Michigan votes critical – that thier votes must count. But now that adding them didn't help Hilary, you're talking popular vote, but let's not count any of the states that use caucuses. This is a perfect example of why Hilarys trust value is in the toilet. She can't manage her campaign funds – she's in debt – if she dcan't win according to the rules, she'll keep changing the rules until she can. |
|
| L. Allen |
June 1st, 2008 3:40 pm ET Ref: DNC decision to count Florida votes. I believe that the decision that the DNC made Saturday was another slap in the face to the American public. How fair is it to change the rules in the middle of the game. That's exactly what they did. What's it say's to me is that there are no rules. If there was an issue with how & why Florida moved their primary elections up, that should have been resolved on a indiviual state level. They were given the rules, and failed to abide by them. The people of Florida & Michigan needs to blame their own state officials. If we want to argue every vote counting, then it should have be argued when the rules were layed out. Not because your candidate is behind in the race. Hillary knew the rules before she entered the race. If Obama had won Florida & Michicgan would she still be arguing the votes being counted. I would assume not ! Therefore, it was very unfair to the Obama campaign. The DNC have now allowed her a fighting chance to Win the Democratic nomination. I pretty much don't care what happens at this point. Anything can change. |
|
| kathy santiago |
June 1st, 2008 3:42 pm ET they keep saying that hillarys most popular votes dont count because he has more delegates votes so myself and many more of my friends here in tampa say the same thing.LET THE DELAGATES VOTE IN NOV [WERE NOT] once again the people dont count. kathy from tampa |
|
| Aram |
June 1st, 2008 3:44 pm ET Anderson please stop giving time to the argument that HIllary Clinton should be given the all the delegates in Michingan. Fact _ Obama was not on the ballot...there should be no further discussion. I do not get it I do not get the outrage. These are selfish self serving people who do not care about democracy or equity. Fact Florida – Obama did not campaign in Florida...while I believe the votes should not have been counted..this is a compromise Obama gave in. The issue should be closed. CNN by promoting this illogical debate because it makes news is bad for the country. We need to stop this. The republicans of which I am one unfortunately want war and profit at all costs.. Clinton wants to "obliterate iran" as if Iran is a government. Obama something different...But this disgusting coverage of Clinton and her Husbands tyrates is ridiculous. And there is far more racism in this country than people know or want to admit. Help this country grow. Your power Anderson is to focus the discussions on important issues. |
|
| Hill Wins |
June 1st, 2008 3:48 pm ET TERRY MCCAULIFFE – speaking from Puerto Rico on CNN at 3:35pm today – was CORRECT, CORRECT, CORRECT in speaking about the outrage that Hillary supporters feel. It was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, for the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee, IN VIOLATION OF THE DNC's CHARTER, to arbitrarily assign 59 UNCOMMITTED MICHIGAN DELEGATES TO OBAMA AND STEAL 4 OF HILLARY'S PLEDGED DELEGATES AND HAND THEM OVER TO OBAMA. OUTRAGEOUS!!! The DNC and spineless pro-Obama Democratic leaders are handing the White House over to the Republicans again in Nov. 2008, by failing to support the STRONGEST DEM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE – HILLARY. And, by the way, how outrageous that CNN gives so much conflict of interest face time to Donna Brazile – who's been in Obama's tank thoughout the campaigns – WITHOUT HAVING A PRO HILLARY COMMENTATOR TO BALANCE OFF BRAZILE. |
|
| Susan |
June 1st, 2008 3:48 pm ET Anderson is Donna brazil serious, yesterdays vote was wrong they stoled delegates from Hillary just like Al Gore lost to the Supreme Court, I have been a democratic for 50yrs and will mail my registration form tomorrow to register as an Independent I can't stand this party any longer how dare they consider exit polls just who do they think they are kidding. Senator Clintons supporters will not vote for Obama, and she should put her name on the ballott in Nov. as an Independent. Tell Donna to shut up the process in Michigan wasn't flawed, just how was it flaud, because Obama took his name off the ballott. What about the voters who voted for Hillary, you all acted just like they did in 2000. |
|
| Ricki Blustein |
June 1st, 2008 3:49 pm ET I would like to tell Roland that using polls to estimate the results of an election are far different than using exit polls from an election which took place with a legitimate status of "undeclared" to distribute delegates to the candidates in the Democratic Party. |
|
| Sharron |
June 1st, 2008 3:50 pm ET The American people will not be forgiving in the national election if the DNC is allowed to take their votes and give them away to other than whom they voted for. Where has the common sense gone? Why do the DNC rules committee members think that they can speak for the voters? It is absolutely appalling to think that they can take votes and do what they want with them. This ensures a Republican victory in November, A revote is the only fair answer. I will never vote for someone that stole the nomination or was handed the nomination through back room deals. If Obama was not smart enough to even put his name on the Michigan ballet can we really feel good about him running the most powerful government in the World? |
|
| Tom |
June 1st, 2008 3:53 pm ET Why is there no mention of the crossover Republican vote? The figure I remember from the day after the Texas primary was 17% of the vote was crossover and 75% of those were for Clinton. Some of these were votes cast to cause trouble and they will not be there in November. I think the majority of the crossover cast for Obama will be there for him in November. |
|
| Darrell Wayne |
June 1st, 2008 3:54 pm ET Why haven't we seen a full map oi the US with all the counties won by each candidate. Instead of showing by state, show by county. lets the full US Map. |
|
| Rita Vautour |
June 1st, 2008 3:56 pm ET The voting they had yesterday for the delegates is a scam .. It's stolen like it was for Gore, even if it's the democrats.. it 's still in the same mode they had for Gore. Jeffrey Tobin is a Obama supporter, and Roland and Miss Malveaux, it's so visible, it's terrible. Before the pole was out for Puerto Rico, they were saying that it was counting for the primaries but not for the elections in november. That was understood. But as soon as they seen that she, Hillary , had won , Puerto Rico, with a sweeping victory, now it's not valid for the count of delegates cause they are not allowed to vote in the november election. They'll go at no means , to come out and get the win for Borak Obama, and Cnn, is bias as it comes for equal television time for the two candidates. We never hear talking about Hillary, only about Obama, so it's very visible. I'm a canadian , and have nothing to do with you election, but I thought Id let you know what we can see from your media. Rita Vautour |
|
| Edwin Morales (Virginia) |
June 1st, 2008 3:58 pm ET How Hillary Clinton campaign claim that the DMC hijacked 4 delegates? They never had them. At that time it was 0 delegates for Mi. So you can not take what you do not have... Hillary is a great candidate but if the Dems loose in 08 is her fault. And trust me it will be her fault again in 2012. |
|
| Aaron |
June 1st, 2008 3:59 pm ET Thanks Lanny for an excellent review. To me , I see another point which she has far exceeded in my expectations. That is "The Ultimate Fighter" , the one who never gives up inspite of all adversities: taunted by her collegues, mauled by the press and left by people whose careeres were nourished by her husband and her. Could you ever imagine a woman can ever do it ? I applaud her for it. She has taught me how to fight and I take her example in encouraging my 11 year daughter – never to bend down in life. |
|
| Edwin Morales (Virginia) |
June 1st, 2008 3:59 pm ET Ups sorry the DNC.... Ed |
|
| Edwin Morales (Virginia) |
June 1st, 2008 4:05 pm ET By the way I am Puertorican and the vote in PR is just a beauty pageant. the Clinton campaign spent more time in PR and their name is more recognized. That is all. I would not put an ounce of trust in that vote at all... Edwin |
|
| James |
June 1st, 2008 4:09 pm ET Sen. Clinton is asking the Super Delegates to vote for her because she has won more of the popular vote than Sen. Obama. This argument is only as good as the data being used to support it. Like it or not, the data they are using for Florida and Michigan is in question. The votes from Porta Rico are accurate but have no revelance when it comes to November. The caucas states have no idea how many voters are for Clinton or Obama. Excluding all of the above, who has the most popular votes of the remaining states? |
|
| Cindy from Exton PA |
June 1st, 2008 4:11 pm ET Dear Mr Cooper, After watching the circus yesterday with the Democrats, I will not be a Democrat any longer if they do not nominate Hillary Clinton! She is the best candidate to run against John McCain come November! |
|
| Edwin Morales (Virginia) |
June 1st, 2008 4:11 pm ET I like a Obama, Webb or Obama, Wesley Clark ticket better |
|
| Susan Widmeyer |
June 1st, 2008 4:14 pm ET After all this debate, I think it all comes down to judgement by the Democratic party. It was a bad idea for the DNC rules committee to penalize Florida and Michigan by threatening to lose their votes. They should have come up with some other way to discourage states from moving up their primary. How could the Democratic party ever think it wise to discount votes even if it didn't matter so critically? A vote always matters. Did the DNC forget Gore in 2000? or the basic definition of democracy? It is a time to reflect on past decisions. Just like people want their elected officials to admit that the Iraq war showed bad judgement, so too should the Democratic party by admitting that discounting the Florida and Michigan votes was a bad rule made by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. On another note, if the Democrats didn't want the nomination to come down to the super delegates, too late. The superdelegates have decide the nomination. If John McCain was a more conservitive Republican, the Democrats could possibly unite on the Democratic nominee. However, McCain can appeal to many conservative Democrats especially those who are upset that the Democrats apparently forgot that votes MUST be counted. I'm a loyal Democrat who, for the first time, will vote Republican because the Democratic party leaders have lost their ability to lead. |
|
| Albert Kral |
June 1st, 2008 4:14 pm ET We saw at the DNC meeting yesterday to solve Florida and Michigan a political process in motion that should worry Americans of all parties. |
|
| Elaine Burns |
June 1st, 2008 4:14 pm ET As an "Older Woman Hillary Clinton Supporter"; if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee in November, I will be writing in Hillary Clinton on my ballot in the General Election. I encourage all others to do the same instead of not voting at all or voting for McCain or Obama. Let us send a clear message that we will not let sexism in America over shadow the best candidate to be President of these United States. |
|
| Rachel |
June 1st, 2008 4:14 pm ET WOW! |
|
| Jerry Sherman |
June 1st, 2008 4:15 pm ET Clinton surrogates should not be allowed to get away with disingenious contention that she "lost 4 delegates" because of the rules committee actions. The truth is, because the primaries were flawed (in violation of the rules) nobody had ANY delegates. Because she had zero delegates, she had none to be taken away. Because the primaries did not count (Clinton so stated on NPR) the rules committee made a "gift" of delegates to Clinton and Obama. Finally, why do Ickes and his ilk seem to get away with not directly answering the questions about Mrs. Clinton stating on NPR that, of course, everyone knows the primary won't count? |
|
| Albert Kral |
June 1st, 2008 4:17 pm ET Imagine Hillary be the President of the United States and her personal agenda woulkd drive us to war, into a crisis, into a recession because she lacks the wisdom and integrity to do what is right and in the best interest of the many other people who depend on her judgement. |
|
| Elizabeth |
June 1st, 2008 4:20 pm ET Dear Mr. Cooper: Why should the voters of FL and MI be punished at all? We don't punish kids of illegal aliens. When they were borned in this country, they were given full citizenship, not 1/2 citizenship, because we don't punish the people who did not commit an offense. Why should the voters in FL and MI be punished at all for the decision they had no control of? Under democracy, every vote should be counted. DNC should either hold new primaries to resolve the issue, or they should count every vote as full vote. Short of that is not fair. People who are against revote are people who are afraid to lose. What kind of politician will suppress votes in order to win the election? The dictators! |
|
| Albert Kral |
June 1st, 2008 4:23 pm ET Don't believe that presidential candidates run for this position to serve the country FIRST. My statement is based upon the following: "any candidate who would be a servant to the country and able to recognize its true needs and defiencies would also be able to recognize strengths in opposing candidates. They would be able to recognize and demonstrate that certain solutions are based upon certain assumprions and or facts. Any combination of those, combined with a defined solution and a certain degree of belief in what would and would not work, could then be demonstrated to the voters; indicating that each approach, in its own context, makes sense. Changing any of the ingrediences prior to a concluding solution would, by this very process produce a different solution. |
|
| seah |
June 1st, 2008 4:26 pm ET Hillary should stay the distance to the convention. She is The one Candidate who can beat McCain. She has gone this far with plenty of support, from loyal true democrats. A race is never over until it is over. Someone can always trip on their shoe laces. |
|
| Don Binnie |
June 1st, 2008 4:26 pm ET I am a 70 year old republican who is completely disgusted with George Bush and his administration. I intend to vote for Borack Obama unless Hillary Clinton is placed on the ticket. I think that I share that feeling with many other republicans. She and Bubba would be Borack's worst nightmare. Also, what is all the hype about the Puerto Rico vote? I thoght that the residents of Puerto Rico were not eligible to vote in the general election. Don Binnie Grafton, Ohio |
|
| Albert Kral |
June 1st, 2008 4:29 pm ET It got to be scary for Americans to have a self serving President as Hillary Clinton demonstrates every day, she would be! I pitty you. Even rules she supported and agreed have no chance of survival. |
|
| kathreen panah |
June 1st, 2008 4:29 pm ET I'm sick and tired of CNN's negative position towards Hillary Clinton. You have put six, seven Obama's supported to make negative comments about Hillary as she is still wining with much wider votes than Obama. I'm sick of listing to that Gloria who just seems to be the biggest looser herself, and can't stand to see a woman in power such as Hillary. Not sure what she is doing in politics. As I'm listing to Obama in South Dakota; it is sicking to listen to the same speach over and over again. I can actullay tell the next words as what he is just about to say. The e exact same speach from the previous ones. Is this the person you want to go agaist John Mccain?? Wasn't the past two elections wasn't a learned lesson for you guys?? What happended to CNN's intelligence??? |
|
| Luisa Cleaves |
June 1st, 2008 4:31 pm ET Thank you to Cnn for working so hard to back Senator Obama on this race. Congratulations, your hard work has been aknowledged As Senator Obama becomes our nominee we will have a hard time winning the November elections. I hope you assume the responsibility that has helped divide the Democratic party ! |
|
| giuseppe |
June 1st, 2008 4:31 pm ET Considering what is happening within the DNC party and this weekend decision for Michigan and Florida and the fact that Senator Clinton is by far the best suitable candidate to lead this Nation into the future, why she does not take a bold action and divide from her party and move out from Democrat forming finally a third newly and needed party in USA? giuseppe |
|
| S. Comer |
June 1st, 2008 4:51 pm ET Why was a decision necessary for Michigan and Florida? Both states |
|
| L. Bruce |
June 1st, 2008 4:56 pm ET If the table were turned, in other words if Hillary had the lead in delegates and Barack had a high popular vote count, would Hillary not have pinned her candidacy on a delegate lead and not the popular vote? |
|
| Jeleanoro |
June 1st, 2008 5:32 pm ET That's a great post Lannie, the facts really tell the true story. The rest of the TRUE story is that many of Hillary supporters, feel that Hillary was treated unfairly...Obama was shoved down our throats, by the Media and the DNC. Anyone watching the DNC Rules Committee travesty, yesterday, knows the truth!!! When has it ever been democratic to take delegates away from one candidate that did nothing to be punished for, and give them to another candidate? The DNC ruled that it was prudent to steal votes, and didn't even do it behind closed doors, they actually had the audacity to do this in front of the world...they obviously didn't care about UNITY. Clinton Democrats that weren't angry before... sure as hell are now! Hillary has won the majority of the votes...Obama has too many questionable associates, showing a serious lack of judgement, to be President of the United States. If Hillary doesn't win the top of the ticket...we will feel that the election was stolen just like those measly 4 delegates!!! |
|
| santos |
June 1st, 2008 5:39 pm ET This is increadeble a presidential canditate who is not only out of touch with the Puerto Rican community, but who in her recent visit to Puerto Rico, pretent to drink a local beer, please tell her not to insult the other 3,000,000 + of voters . Hillary did not only insult us by making promeses she will not be able to keep, but clearly outright confused us with our neighbor island Dominican Republic by drinking their beers and campaining in the Colony of Puerto Rcio. |
|
| bstein |
June 1st, 2008 5:40 pm ET I am so surprised . . . watch CNN all the time, so sorry that Barack had to leave his church, but my question is what chuch does Hillary belong to? What church does John McCailn belong to? Where are their pastors? What is their faith? Why is this not covered???? A Republican Voting for Obama. Beth Stein |
|
| KINH |
June 1st, 2008 5:44 pm ET Obama is another fake uniter like George Bush. He is dividing Democratic Party already. Taking delegate from well earned by Clinton in Michigan. Obama is anathor fake leader who said he can change thing. HOW CAN HE SAID HE CHANGE CHANGE THE AMERICA AND THE WORLD. Democratic party and Howard Dean, Forget about my vote and donation !!!!!! |
|
| Tom roberts |
June 1st, 2008 5:46 pm ET On Michigan: One thing that never seems to get mentioned is that Obama's name WAS on the ballot in Michigan and he CHOSE to remove it. why then should the votes be spread evenly when he made the concious decision to exclude himself from it. |
|
| irma garcia |
June 1st, 2008 5:48 pm ET I listened to Obama today when he spoke at the rally in Mitchell, SD. |
|
| Mary Dieterle |
June 1st, 2008 5:55 pm ET Has anyone taken a look at how Obama got elected in Chicago to get to the senate? It was shown in the middle of the night on one of the stations...not a pretty sight!!! Take a look at that... We are giving this election to John McCain...Obama cannot win! The people that I speak with will not vote for Obama...so there it goes. Four more years and trillions of dollars down the drain. No one would have worked harder for our nation than Hillary!!!! |
|
| AV, Beverly Hills |
June 1st, 2008 5:57 pm ET Hey Anderson, |
|
| james ross |
June 1st, 2008 6:03 pm ET enough enough the only reason she gettin votes is because of her husband |
|
| Elizabeth Antonucci |
June 1st, 2008 6:03 pm ET Dear Anderson, |
|
| Joshua |
June 1st, 2008 6:06 pm ET OK……..YES WE MAY HAVE A DEMOCRATIC CANIDATE………… Why are there no demands from the AMERICAN people to their congress……(That is Democratically controlled)…..To promote constitutional reform for the Presidential election process. It is sad……….It’s been seven years since that election; The democrats have controlled congress for almost two years; and still NOTHING has been done. When will the legislators pull their noses out of pointless amendments that limit the people of this country rather than giving them more power. Someone, If you’re listening, stop this insanity. |
|
| Lisa |
June 1st, 2008 6:10 pm ET I continuously hear comments made by Clinton supporters that they would not vote for Obama if he was the candidate, most have said they wouldn't vote at all. This is absurd! It is your duty as American citizens to cast your vote on that great election day! And, what about the flip side? I am an Obama supporter and I tell you now that Clinton in office is a scary thought to me, yet I wouldn't give up my right to vote because of it. It is just a continuation of the past years in politics; Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again? This is just the same old politics we've had, that ultimately have not "fixed" our nation. In all actuality, she should have conceded weeks ago and the fact that the DNC has let her drag this on and further divide the party is irresponsible. She had her time in office when she served as first lady, does she really need another stint in the White House? |
|
| BOB OCHIENG |
June 1st, 2008 6:16 pm ET A lot of the time I feel that the press and unfortunately CNN is out to make the case why Hilary Clinton should stay in the race more than she herself does. I am confused as to what the DNC rules are in term of their nomination for President is. Is it the number of delegates or is the popular vote that CNN appears to be pushing. In recent months CNN has in their Balot Bowl given Senator Clinton more positive coverage than Senator Obama. CNN has always been the place for me to go to watch fair coverage but I feel recently you have been more tilted towards Clinton. I do not watch MSNBC that also just gives favourable coverage to Obama for these same reasons. I think you should go back to what you do best by covering news fairly. |
|
| Elaine |
June 1st, 2008 7:02 pm ET Obama does better in white rural states than Hillary because there is more sexism than racism in this country especially in these states. They would rather vote for a black man than see a woman president. It is no different than when black men were given the right to vote well before women were. History always repeats itself unfortunately. I say that neither sex nor race should ever be a factor. It should be "who" is the best candidate. |
|
| Louisiana |
June 1st, 2008 7:20 pm ET It seems as if Hillary has the inside track of the outcome of the Democratic National Convention. A black man will never become President of the United States of America. The politicians are playing a game with Obama and Americia. The game is called "Psych". America is being fooled that there is a possibility for an African American President. Hillary will get as many delegates as she can and will take it to the convention floor. Once there, "all of a sudden", the superdelegates who are committed to Obama, will move to Hillary's camp because they "finally" see her arguement. They will use the popular vote as the excuse to change their votes. A fool can see what is going on, The Ultimate Conspiracy. We have been PIMPED. Don't let it happen America!!!!!! |
|
| Rob -BC Canada |
June 1st, 2008 7:54 pm ET Hillary Clinton is like the mistake your cat made in the storage closet.You can smell the stink.You can see where the mess is, but you still have to put everything out of the way to finally get at it.The last 2 primaries are the last things to get out of the way,then the cats smelly mess is finally gone. |
|
| Fred |
June 1st, 2008 9:32 pm ET Last time I checked we only had 50 states. Puerto Rico, should not, does not matter. If they would become a state, but they don't want to, then they could have a say, but since they are not a state I do not see why what they may want, or who they want for president even matters. |
|
| Valerie |
June 1st, 2008 9:32 pm ET CNN seems to be a long, political advertisement for Barack Obama. Senator Obama gets more positive coverage than Senator Clinton. I think news organizations should not favor one candidate over the other. Senator Obama is a good man and we have a chance of seeing a black American in the White House which is good, but Senator Clinton is a good, smart, capable woman and we have an equally good chance of seeing a woman in the White House. Give her a chance. And by the way, the campaign is not over. |
|
| Joseph Castillo |
June 1st, 2008 10:12 pm ET Mr. Davis makes a strong argument for why his candidate should be the nominee. However, Mr. Davis seems to base a large part of his argument on a) the primary popular vote, and b) current polls. Mr. Davis seems to ignore the fact that Senator Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates as well as a majority of the committed super-delegates. Also, Mr. Davis would have us believe that current polls provide an accurate prediction of the outcome of the general election. Surely Mr. Davis is aware that the DNC rules – which I believe all candidates have already agreed to – provide a process for nominee selection through a majority of the delegates. Is Mr. Davis suggesting that the delegate count is irrelevant, and that the DNC rules should be ignored? Secondly, surely Mr. Davis is aware of the fact that polls in May are terribly unreliable for predicting the general election outcome in November. Is Mr. Davis suggesting that current polls inferring outcome for the electoral college be the guiding light for determining the Democrat nominee? Would not Mr. Davis better serve his party by being realistic and honest with himself over these issues? |
|
| Rob |
June 1st, 2008 10:58 pm ET Why is no one talking about the fact that Clinton has easily won more delegates in the primary states, 300 MORE, while Obama has won more in the caucus states, 420 MORE, which more than explains his current pledged delegate advantage. Indeed, Idaho and Hawaii alone give hime more than the current 120 delegate lead he has today (May 31). the democrats should think about electability from this viewpoint – who can win primaries, not who can win caucusses. The caucusses favored Obama's core groups (wealthy and students), and made it harder for the working poor to participate. I am really perplexxed this has not entered the discussion and argument made to the superdelegates, and should scare the democratic party that they are on the verge of choosing a candidate that is getting beaten badly in primary contests. |
|
| Lee |
June 1st, 2008 11:20 pm ET As we are at a critical juncture in an precedented election, we ought to have the Floridians and Michiganians re-cast their ballots. No matter how the democratic party diced it, the election would not be a fair representation of people's will. I personally feel that I do not know who "Obama" is or represents eventhough I follow the news religiously. I would like to appeal to the media to find out more about "Obama" before it is too late. Obama has mentioned over and over again, his ability to make the right decision. However, only after 20 years or so, he now decides to dissociate himself from his church and pastor. It does not sound like a man who routinely makes the right decision. |
|
| Lydia Haug, Nebraska |
June 2nd, 2008 12:27 am ET AC 260: Let's get thos 40 delegates from Michigan back from Obama. . . if he can't with without those "highjacked, stolen" delegates. . . and what kind of a Rules Committee have. . . who are these people who think acts like this will encourage anyone to vote for any Democrat. . . let's take Hillary clear into the Convention, and let the entire delegation decide if the want a "phoney" black man to be President of the United States, or a genuine woman like Hillary. . . |
|
| Jeff from NY |
June 2nd, 2008 2:51 am ET Well, Well, once again we hear about your facts, Lanny. |
|
| Jeff from NY |
June 2nd, 2008 3:07 am ET Hey Lanny, |
|
| Orlando |
June 2nd, 2008 4:47 am ET Changes of rules 'on the fly' make for great rapes. Let's just change the criteria altogether by putting Mr. Bill Clinton back in office; atleast we know which leg he's limping on. |
|
| GPW |
June 2nd, 2008 9:06 am ET Hillary signed on to support the DNC decision in the beging and now has gone in a different direction. Her supporters think it's cool? She has gone from being a very confident candidate to a win at all cost person. No matter what you say about Obama, if all finger pointing and name calling didn't start, this would be a blowout for him. Can't we see what's happening? All of what you see from Hillary is the stuff we have in Bush. Selfserving, Pride, close minded, narrow view and not connected to the greater good. Forget about all of her mistakes and Obama's. Hillary signed the agreement that put her in this situation. She should finish up tomorrow and get ready in 8 years. Hopefully she'll learn form this and get better at being Hillary. Finally, what are the superdelegates waiting for? they can fix this today. I am now considering becoming an independent. |
|
| Elizabeth Moore |
June 2nd, 2008 10:00 am ET Here is the million dollar question, how did Obama get any delagates in MI when he wasn't even on the ballot? He chose to take himself off of the ballot, so why give him any delagates. I'm with the rest of the people who will not vote for Obama if he is on the ticket. |
|
| Debbie, NJ |
June 2nd, 2008 11:31 am ET Lanny you are either a natural born liar or you have been around Hillary too long. Obama has won more states than Hillary. Which ones aren't you counting? He is in the lead with popular votes, again which states votes aren't you counting, and has passed her in the delegate lead. First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama you say. So is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and McCain. But old politics and no wisdom and judgment (which Hillary has proven thru this over 1 year of campaigning that she does not have) will not change our situation in this country. Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain you say. Well Lanny health care which is Hillary's strength nor national security which is McCain's strength solves the many problem we have in this country. We need a well rounded President. One that knows how to choose leaders in the areas where he is lacking in order to complete a task. Hillary couldn't even run her campaign, she can't even control her husband so how is she going to run this country? Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate). What I want to say to you Lanny and all of the other Hillary supporters. |
|
| Jennifer Robinson |
June 2nd, 2008 11:59 am ET Thank you for an excellent blog. This is my first time on 360 blog and I am excited about visiting often. Happy Birthday to Anderson Cooper! |
|
| Maritza |
June 2nd, 2008 12:00 pm ET Lanny, Thank you for your post, Hillary's constant come back and determination in this election proves what she says to voters , Don't count her out for any reason , she has thr right to make the ultimate decision, her critics have tried to discredit her legitimate run for the nomination, the media has played a huge role in writing her off , still she remains focused. The latest attack came again by Obama's church ,( Pflager) he has now supposedly left , but he still supports their message, politically for sake of convenience he walks away from them , but no doubt he believes in the philosophy of this church, and they have stated the will continue to support him , the whole history of his church and the contriversial Rev Wright, guest speaker Pflager, leave to many questions about why Obama was an active member for some twenty years , the Anti America rhetoric that came from Rev Wright's mouth will not erace the damage to the image of Obama in any way , he can denounce tham all he wants, Again we heard a message of hate directed at Hillary from Pflager, so much hate from a so called man of God, As a conservative my view is more objective, and coming from someone on the right , Hillary has been delt one unfair blow after another, from what we've seen by her, evidenced by her commitment to this race, she not going anywhere, and rightly so. Maritza |
|
| Treceda |
June 2nd, 2008 12:00 pm ET I was just wondering where she thinks she has all the experience hidden at, being a JUNIOR senator and all. Does she expect Bill to run the show, or is she just taking credit for his term in office? I can't imagine being the first lady and touring sites-dodging imaginary bullets- and all gives her the experience she so desperately desires. And I also wonder why is she so het up over healthcare? Is it because her husband ruined our insurace carriers by scaring them into HMO's in the 90's? Oh wow, half of what you have to get done at the doctors office anymore isn't even covered by those HMO's. When my son broke two bones in his right arm during Clinton's administration, the insurance company would not cover the bill because it said it could have been done in an out patient setting. He was 5 and had to be put in surgury to set the bones. Yeah, come on Clintons-give us some more of this crap. |
|
| Kim |
June 2nd, 2008 12:01 pm ET Donna Brazile said it very well in the DNC Rules Committee meeting earlier: changing the rules during or after the game is called cheating… The rules say that whoever has the majority of delegates, elected and unpledged, wins the nomination. I am sure that Sen Clinton would have no problem with these rules whatsoever if she were leading or winning the nomination, which I am sure everybody expected until Super Tuesday. I also believe that her management of her campaign with a strategy that seriously underestimated her opponent, did not include all 50 states in the equation and showed disastrous financial management skills, is not a good recommendation for letting her manage a country and the national budget. I believe that, come Tuesday or Wednesday, the uncommitted superdelegates will speak their minds, and I also believe that the majority of them will support Sen Obama. I do not agree, in light of what I’ve learned from the camapign trail, that Sen Obama should consider Sen Clinton for the VP spot. I believe she has not proven herself to be a team player. If I was in his position I would not be able to trust her to have my back in the White House without continuously pursuing her own agenda. |
|
| Eileen Richards |
June 2nd, 2008 12:37 pm ET What is wrong with the Democrats in the US? As I watch the nomination contest unfold there is so much antagonism towards the 'other' delegate in the race. You have 2 good candidates.....Clinton and Obama. Whoever gets the nomination.get behind her/him. Do you want another Republican in the White House? I can't understand why everyone is getting so uptight.If you are a Democrat, surely it is obvious that you should vote for the Democrat who is nominated at your convention? All this petty........"I'll vote for the Republicans if Hillary doesn't get the nomination" and I'll put Hillary's name on my ballot paper no matter who the nominee is", is so bizarre! Don't you want a Democratic President in the White House???Surely as a Democrat you are aligning yourselves to the POLICIES of the party and not only a personality? |
|
| Maggie |
June 2nd, 2008 12:54 pm ET It doesn't matter what voter votes now. The DNC has had their mind made up a long time ago. It is sad to think we have the right to vote, but the DNC will be the decision maker. It makes one feel as if they should not even bother to vote. I am discussted by the last two Presidential Democratic Primaries. We are forced to pick from what the DNC decides. So much for a Democracy. You have the right to vote, but we are gonna tell you who to vote for. Sad, Sad times for America. |
|
| Sharon from Indy |
June 2nd, 2008 1:13 pm ET Mr. Davis: |
|
| nanabelle |
June 2nd, 2008 1:15 pm ET I don't see how BO can get any Michigan votes when he removed hisname from theballot. What is the DNC trying to pull. The voice of the people must be heard. Clinton won the popular vote. Obama has too many unsavory friends. The superdelegates must do the math and let the popular vote prevail. |
|
| Brian from California |
June 2nd, 2008 1:26 pm ET I believe Hillary is the stronger candidate and if the Democrats would do a rewind and run the primaries again with the knowledge they now have about Barack Hussein, he wouldn't be ahead in delegates. She blew it by not taking the caucus states seriously enough and not getting her MOJO till after February. Since then she has proven to be the more capable and intelligent choice for President. I really think the Democrats blew it this time and they have to sleep in the bed they've made, and guess what, they will likely lose in the Fall with Barack Hussein. He can barely win the base of the democratic party and he will likely not win the independent moderates, who do care about their pocketbooks and taxes. |
|
| carmen |
June 2nd, 2008 1:34 pm ET Lanny, so now it has to be a "significant majority"??? That unless Obama has a "significant" majority, your candidate who has "the minority" should be crowned the winner? Democracy, fairness, ethics, morality, decency – none of these come to mind when I think of your candidate's campaign. You make me sick, but I don't suppose that matters to psycopaths. |
|
| Liane |
June 2nd, 2008 1:34 pm ET I am from Michigan. I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter. I can tell you the analysts are wrong. I know many people that will not "GET OVER IT" by November. Even if I were not for Hillary, I feel Obama is being shoved down the throats of the American citizens. The DNC "went through the motions" of seeming fair and equitable, but it was all a performance. They would have done nothing, to include the actual votes of Michigan and certainly nothing that would have changed the outcome as they wanted it to be. I am so disgusted with the Democratic way of thinking.............I am joining Lou Dobbs to be an independent. Now do you need to ask if I will vote for Obama in November? I am sure there will be many with similar thoughts. |
|
| Rob |
June 2nd, 2008 1:52 pm ET time to take a vacation Lanny but I'm sure it won't be Fantasyland since it seems you've taken up permanent residence there. |
|
| Be honest |
June 2nd, 2008 2:21 pm ET If the roles were in reverse Sen. Obama would have been asked to bow out a long time ago...more than likely if he has lost 11 contest in a row the party would have approached him then. L Daniel, Loganville, Ga. |
|
| Larry |
June 2nd, 2008 3:39 pm ET What's with Canadian posters trying to tell us who to vote for? We don't tell Canadians who to vote for; if we did we'd be told its not our business. |
|
| Monica Borjas |
June 2nd, 2008 3:50 pm ET 17+ million voters want Hillary Clinton for President! If the DNC continues to support an undemocratic process for their nomination, can Hillary Clinton run as an independent....please!!!! 17+ million voters are supporting her now! I will take a second job to work for donations!!! Anybody want to hire me for campaign donations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live in LA, CA. |
|
| Delphine, EU |
June 2nd, 2008 4:31 pm ET Hillary has no right to question Obama.Her time is over, so i suggest stop whining about it.She is full of lies and lacks leadership.I bet the world is better of without her. |
|
| Charlotte from Michigan |
June 2nd, 2008 4:49 pm ET There are a lot of us Michiganders who are still very angry with the outcome of our primary voting--our state has been sinking for years and now our voices will not be heard as we had voted - instead the results have been hijacked by a small group of people-any you call this a "democracy"?! I will stay home if Hillary is not on the ticket come November ! |
|
| Susan |
June 2nd, 2008 5:05 pm ET Lanny: All the candidates names were on the ballot in MI, except Senator Obama. I would think that it would not be rocket science to figure out who got the uncomitted vote. Since there was not going to be a re-do, the DNC rules committee did the only fair thing it could do. In my opinion this whole idea of needing delegates ( and now superdelegates ) to receive the nommination is very undemocratic. You call yourselves the Democratic Party. NOT!!!! Susan |
|
| katrina s |
June 2nd, 2008 5:33 pm ET I am sick of the whole damn thing! The truth of the matter is they are going to try to take the nomination away from obama, I was a Clinton supporter right now I am going to be a Mcclain voter. Rev Davis is ritght she feels that she is entitled because she is Bill's wife and she is white. Sorry its in poor taste but I am a white woman expressing my opinon katrina in 1 |
|
| Don Johnson |
June 2nd, 2008 5:57 pm ET While it is refreshing to see Lanny Davis make a superficial effort to write something that appears to be "balanced" it is even more encouraging to see him and his cronies preparing to get off the stage. One can only hope that we've heard the last of these "cry babies" and "sore loosers" for a long while. |
|
| linda from indy |
June 2nd, 2008 6:06 pm ET Lenny, |
|
| Carol |
June 2nd, 2008 6:09 pm ET I am so sick of hearing - "It's not fair." "I can't get anywhere because I'm __________ " (fill in the blank): black, white, female, gay, fat, short, tall, obnoxious, stupid.... whatever. Everyone has to be a victim lately. No one can accept responsibility. She LOST – it's done – accept it – grow up. |
|
| Chris - Hemet, Ca. |
June 2nd, 2008 6:13 pm ET Is this the final "final argument" or just the next of a long line of final arguments!?! |
|
| JudyAnn |
June 2nd, 2008 6:31 pm ET I am here to ask a question that I have yet to have heard ask. Why does the DNC have the right to tell any state when they can hold thier elections. Sure we need rules but this should not be one of them. All americans have the right to vote and no one has the right to take that away from them. If the DNC is trying to show America how strong they are they have failed and really look rather bad in the eyes of most voters. I hope that in the future this helps to weaken thier influence on the voters. It is not thier place to tell a candidate to quit running for office so the party can be united. Forget that one. Its not going to happen if Obama gets the nomination. There will be more Independent voters then democrats after this election. Thats a promise not threat. Just listen the the voters around you. There are some really upset people out there. |
|
| jana/NY |
June 2nd, 2008 6:38 pm ET So what does Ms Clinton want. from us? Is it to give her the election based on popular votes. It will not and canot happen. He seems very angry on a constant basis |
|
| Angie Beaudion |
June 2nd, 2008 6:47 pm ET I think it is wrong to let pledge delegates and superdelegates decide who ends up the Democratic nominee for President. By leting the delegates put their votes to any candidate trying to win the nomination it makes it to where the american peoples votes do not count. You say how does the american peoples vote not count by not forcing the delegates to put the votes to where the people voted for the candidate of thier choice and the one who won in each state. Futhermore, I think the american system for electing a president should be simply this way let any person who wants to run for president do so and let the american people have one time of voting and count up all the votes and the one who got the most votes should be the winner and get to be president. Also electoral college is wrong also because it lets them put their votes where ever they choose and not with how the people voted. Let the american people decide the next president. Thanks |
|
| Emma |
June 2nd, 2008 6:57 pm ET This sounds like the 2000 general election all over again. The candidate with the most votes doesn’t win. So much for “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The dumb democrats will be sorry that they bought into the Obama charade come November. They are too dull to see that ever since the media started treating Obama the same way they have treated Clinton for months, Obama’s favorability and appeal has dropped remarkably. And now he sure looks like every other politician, even though he claims he is different. Hmm, started wearing a flag pin & left his church, only after they became issues for him in the election. That sounds like the same old politics to me – what a sell out Obama. Good luck dems, you will need it. Here is hoping Hillary sticks around for a while, cuz they just might come crawling back to her before November, after the next Obama firestorm breaks…. |
|
| Sherry Milligan |
June 2nd, 2008 7:12 pm ET Without a Democratic doubt in my Democratic mind, Hillary Clinton is the ONE AND ONLY ONE who can beat John McCain for the Presidency! Barack is not wanted by the majority of the people. He isn't wanted by the popular vote. He's only wanted by "Super Delegates" who want jobs when Barack Obama is elected President! |
|
| CE Chamberlain |
June 2nd, 2008 7:13 pm ET It's not surprising that those in most positions of power would be nervous that a woman could be calling the shots in the highest office in the US. The status quo seems very threatened. After all, it would be terribly embarrassing if our new president were a person that actually could guide our country to new levels of success without it always being a "my stream can flow farther" contest. It's not new news that most women have a different method of resolving problems and implementing solutions. I believe our DNA stats would reveal that a good deal of the time male solutions include destroy and conquer while female solutions tend to lean more toward resolution through contemplation and negotiation. It would be a shame if our fears keep us from having the most competent president. CE Chamberlain, registered Independent |
|
| Debra Yannelli |
June 2nd, 2008 7:34 pm ET "The Obama Factor" It is a movement simular to the Hippie revolution of the 60"s Peace Love & Obama |
|
| Uma |
June 2nd, 2008 7:34 pm ET Hope she announces, she is going run as an Independent candidate. Never give up your supporters, we will back you as long as you keep fighting. |
|
| martin ohalete |
June 2nd, 2008 9:00 pm ET As a foreigner in America,am so much bemused by the level of hypocrisy in a country that prides itself in the freedom of expression. Expressionisms as a mainstay of American ideal spells out things the way it is . there are overtly jobs that has very few blacks as intakes -simply based on the idea that their personae doesn't fit into an ideal worker status ,some white folks just won't hire a black guy -vice versa. similarly ,some whites can't even stand the idea of a man of color dating their daughters , there is simply all kinds of discrimination , yet when this glaring truth that walks the street is being put on the spot light , in the way wright and some other tough talk uncompromising whites do, people act surprised and create an air of unfamiliarity. Can someone stop using electablity crab as an excuse and spell it out blantantly- OBAMA I CANT VOTE FOR YOU |
|
| Martha |
June 2nd, 2008 9:02 pm ET There is no way I’m voting for Obama . Anyone who can sit in a church for 20 years and listen to hateful raciest comments must at least agree with it somewhat. Also his church of 20 years thinks Farrakhan is a great man, he is a raciest Muslim. Martin Luther King was a great man not Farrakhan, Martin Luther King had a dream, this was not Farrakhan dream. Obama also supports Farrakhan that is why I can not support Obama. God help us if Obama wins. Count another vote for McCain |
|
| Steve, Du Quoin, IL |
June 2nd, 2008 9:03 pm ET Lanny, Do us all a favor and quit whining about Clinton. She ran a bad campaign and lost. Listen to Donna Brazille. She's wiser than a dozen Clintons and the woman I want to see in the White House. (After Obama finishes his second term.) |
|
| Chuck |
June 2nd, 2008 9:16 pm ET what i find disturbing is 1. Hillary entered this race knowing that it's on a delegate system, not a popular vote system, but when she lost her lead...wants to change that rule I also find it disturbing that the die hard Clinton supporters know this and yet still wanna cry foul. and they are saying that Obama cheated. |
|
| Tess |
June 2nd, 2008 9:27 pm ET When given the opportunity to state my opinion, as to who would be the better vice president, if Senator Obama were to become the nominee, my first thought was Jim Webb, whose credentials are off the charts! Then, I began to think: "What would be the honorable choice?" "Who is already a known quantity to all the people in every state of our Nation?" "Who has given a new meaning to formidable opponent?" Who has worked her heart out to become the presidential nominee and pledges to do the same for the prevailing nominee?" It is my sincere opinion that Hillary Clinton should be on the ticket as vice president. Goals of equality and life-long dreams are being manifested in this campaign. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton... we need both! I feel privileged to experience the evolvement of this phenomenal history in my lifetime! HALLELUJAH! (Let us praise). |
|
| T.L. Beasley |
June 2nd, 2008 10:24 pm ET I understand what Lanny Davis is attempting to do here with this message. Hilliary did not get the number of votes everyone thought she would get so her having more popular votes is simply not going to happen. I strongly believe all her attempts to discredit Obama was an attempt to strong arm her way onto the demo ticket. Initially I would have supported that, but at this point I don't think it will work because she or no one else can control President Bill Clinton. The republicans know how to get next to him by talking about his affairs and his marriage, and in some intances his wife. As usual he will blow-up and cause the ticket to loose. Hilliary needs to announce that she is quiting and that she stands firmly behind Obama. Otherwise, the democratics stand to loose all the black votes in November! |
|
| Linda |
June 2nd, 2008 10:30 pm ET Try a nightmare....... |
|
| Melissa |
June 2nd, 2008 10:33 pm ET Even if Hillary is on the ticket for V.P. I will never vote for Obama. I am an avid supporter of her but I cannot vote for Obama no matter what. I will be voting for a Republican president for the first time in my life. I laugh when I listen to your pundits saying we will all come together for the November election. They are completely out of touch to the way people are feeling. We have got to change the way we elect our President. The superdelegates is such an undemocratic process thanks to Dean and the rest of his cronies. I think having Donna Brazille on your panel was not fair. Everyone knew who she was going to vote for. |
|
| Donald A. Baumann |
June 2nd, 2008 10:49 pm ET Mr. Anderson Your crew does a wonderful job on keeping the public up to date on what is happening, and what you are thinking. Thank you for a job well done |
|
| Jacpak |
June 2nd, 2008 10:52 pm ET I have been disgusted by the way the press has reacted to Senator Clinton. Early on in the primary process I watched a debate on CNN. I lost all respect for one of the debate moderators, an international CNN reporter, who continually bated Senator Clinton in comparison to how other candidates were treated. Later, after the Indiana primary, one pundit made comments related to her attendance at Wellesley, something to the effect that her beer-drinking behavior was not what one would expect from a Wellesley graduate. I think this has been a disgraceful attitute towards a woman running for the president, particularly when I have not heard similar gender-biased remarks about the male candidates. Initially I was not a supporter of Senator Clinton, but as I listened to her responses to question after question I judged that her answers had the most substance and that she had the strongest grasp of the issues that the US faces in these desperate times. I think the Democratic Party is making a serious mistake by nominating Barack Obama. As a voter I do not feel he has a record of service that defines him as a presidential candidate. In my first presidential election I voted for Hubert Humphrey and have voted Democratic in every subsequent election, even in the popular Reagan years. This year I will break with the Democratic Party and vote for John McCain. I feel I have better long-range knowlege to predict McCain as a president than I have to make predictions about Obama as a president. My greatest wish regarding this presidential contest is that Hillary Clinton would also break with the Democrats and run as an independent candidate. I know that I would contribute the maximum amount allowed for an individual to her campaign if such an event occurred. |
|
| Ash |
June 2nd, 2008 11:13 pm ET The more that the media reports all the negative comments about the Clintons the more I feel I will never consider voting for Obama. All this about Bill Clinton. What about Michele Obama and her past comments. Give them a break already. Enough is enough. She has won the popular vote. But the democratic party already made their decision and they will never vote her in and I will never vote for them. |
|
| John |
June 2nd, 2008 11:16 pm ET I hope Hllary Clinton will run as an independent. |
|
| Gina |
June 2nd, 2008 11:22 pm ET Mr. Cooper, |
|
| Cuban Avenger |
June 2nd, 2008 11:30 pm ET I think Hillary is very selfish. She is creating a big racial stink. Obama would be an awesome leader! Not only that, but he would be good for this country. We need to allow black people to have some glory for all the pain and hardship the white americans and latinos have created. As a female latina, I say Hillary should step down and support BarraK Obama. I hate her. Hate her and if she wins the nomination, I am voting for McCain. |
|
| Elliott Holleman |
June 2nd, 2008 11:38 pm ET I am a Hillary supportor and there is NO WAY I would vote for Barack Obama and not for John McCain either. Again, we seem to be not electing the right person for the job. Does the country have blinders on? |
|
| Ben Funk |
June 2nd, 2008 11:42 pm ET Keep in mind that Pfleger and Wright are not part of Obama's campaign and he has denounced their ridiculous preachings. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has Sandy Berger as her foreign policy advisor. He is a criminal who has stolen and destroyed documents from the National Archives and been accused of on charges of conflict of interest when selling oil stocks in which he paid over $20000 settlement. Both him and Bill Clinton have proven themselve arrogant, above the law, and willing to lie to help themselves at the expense of the American people. The pastors will not have a say if Obama is in the White House. However, Bill and Sandy will play a direct roll. Who should we really be worried about?! Why aren't the networks concerned with her associations? |
|
| Chris |
June 2nd, 2008 11:53 pm ET Anderson- respect your show-just tuned in and there was Bay Buchanan, commenting "if she got rid of that husband of hers which is emotional baggage- hello!!!-that husband of hers , just happend to be one of the best presidents we have had in recent history-This is why there is such a devide in the democratic party. We don't need comments like this from some tacky broad with a bad face lift. Oh did I say that!!!-oops!!-doesn't feel so good when it turned around , does it Bay. |
|
| PTull |
June 3rd, 2008 12:12 am ET Mrs Clinton needs to admit she lost. There's no way to change that now. She needs to be a good Democrat and do whats good for the party. She will get over her bruised ego. |
|
| AnnMarie |
June 3rd, 2008 1:10 am ET I hope Hillary will not consider the VP if offered, she is the "Madame President"! Also, I continue to be flabbergasted that Obama's church affiliation is treated as virtually a non issue! A person usually joins a church to commune with people who share the same values/ beliefs, don't tell me that does not affect a person, it should.! 20 years of being mentored by "leaders" such as Rev Wright , and now add Pfleger to this, are you kidding me, lets talk about that Judgement issue!!! I am deeply offended by Rev Wright's, and Pfleger's words, add to this Obama's lack of proven experience, and there is nothing more to be said. |
|
| jan benson |
June 3rd, 2008 1:44 am ET I agree with the article I just read. I do wish that the DNC would support Hillary for President & am very disappointed, as are many of her supporters. I do feel she has been treated poorly by the DNC as well as the media. I do feel Obama has been given much less scrutiny. If Hillary had attended a church such as his for the past 20 years she would have been given much more negative press. Although race & gender ate not suppose to be part of the discussion it seems that Obama has been treated with more consideration. The most recent pastor problem is totally unexceptable & even though Obama has now resigned from the church it is going to be a problem for him if he is selected to be the nominee. The whole primary process has seemed suspect with the way super delegates have been doled out in what seems to be a very staged & planned process. When Hillary wins by 30 to 40 percentage points it hardly recieves any press. When Obama carries only 26 % of the vote that too seems to be easily explained & dismissed by many pundits & party leaders. I understand people want change, but my concern is that many young & perhaps idealistic voters have unrealistic expectations based on emotion created by the rhetoric of Obama. I I remember his speech at the last convention & was impressed, but I am not sure I am ready to support him at this time. I think his wife has pros & cons but we don't hear about that. We hear about concerns of how to control Bill. What about Michelle? When asked if she would support Hillary if HIllary were the candidate she reportedly said she would have to think about that. Comments such as that cause problems in my mind if Democrats want "party unity." For all of the people that have been speculating on when Hillary should pull out & inferring that staying in the race could fracture the party, I think the group responsible for any break are the DNC leaders themselves. I think they should have thrown their support behind Hillary at the beginning. I think they should have worked to keep Obama out of the picture. He says it is his time. I disagree. He hasn't completed even 1 term in the Senate. She has & has been re-elected. She has worked harder. She has worked longer. She has been good for minorities & others. This should have been her time, not his. I see his actions as being self serving. I see him as being opportunistic. I see him as being disrepectful. If both the DNC & Obama had given their support to Hillary at the beginning they wouldn[t have to be wondering if they can beat McCain. It isn't Hillary that has caused any breaks in the party. She has worked long & hard for the party. It is the DNC leadership, Obama, & the constant media speculation that has caused the problem. Sorry to go on & on but I am just very frustrated & disappointed. This could have been a great year for the Democrats. Now I'm not so sure. If we lose we deserve to lose but I will never blame Hillary. |
|
| Leslie George |
June 3rd, 2008 2:03 am ET Robert Zimmerman doesn't know what he is talking about. People are enraged about the undemocratic and unjust process that took place in the campaign. I have lost all respect for the democratic party. Penalizing 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan and candidate Hillary Clinton was absurd especially since it was because of the acts of state legislatures and party leaders. Read the blogs on the Hillary Clinton web site and you'll see all the people who have changed their party affiliation to Independent and plan to vote for John McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee. The democratic party and superdelegates will find that they will lose this election just as they have done in the past. Do you really think the party will be able to carry Michigan and Florida in November if Hillary isn't the candidate? And don't expect that Hillary will be able to bring her flock back into the party for Obama because it "ain't going to happen!" And don't think sticking her in as VP when she is the one who should be the presidential candidate will help the ticket. Because it won't! A lot of those 17 million people are going to turn away in disgust and vote for the maverick McCain simply because he is an experienced, competent, trusted leader regardless of the issues. Hey, he can change the direction the country is going, too. Hillary Clinton can win in November and Obama cannot. She is the experienced, qualified candidate. What is wrong with the superdelegates? Voters in the general election are simply not going to vote for an inexperienced ultra liberal. Go Hillary! If you don't win this thing, I'm going to be another one of these new Independents! Leslie in Denver |
|
| nancy |
June 3rd, 2008 2:27 am ET i want to know what obma ties to ayers davis and wirght that are the communist party i won't vote for him i think he has baggage rev wright . and all that other stuff. that come up if you type up communist obamo so that is why he hate the u.s. a and his wife too i will be voting for mccain . if hillary was the winner she would have got my vote at least i know what she stand on !!!!!!!!!! |
|
| neecee |
June 3rd, 2008 2:39 am ET While I do not have a PhD in mathematics, I am floored at the way HRC supporters 'spin' the math in her favor. For all his inexperience the young senator has certainly lead a very successful campaign as the underdog and the 'under privileged' in this race. HRC with the support of her husband and all her years of experience did not. Is she experienced? Perhaps. Does she deserve to be in the white house just because she is experienced? NO. I sometimes wonder how all those people shouting for the DNC to seat delegates in her favor could miss the point. HRC did, did, did agree to the DNC's decision regarding Florida and Michigan but changed her mind in the middle of the play when things were not in her favor. This is being DISINGENOUS. |
|
| CC |
June 3rd, 2008 3:59 am ET Lanny...Your blatant spinning is an insult to intelligent Americans who actually do exist outside the beltway. The twisting and turning of facts, the denials of playing the race card, the repeated changing of the "real measure of who is winning" etc., the negative smears against Obama.., the separate "unauthorized" committees buying ads for Clinton and the mysterious blanket emails that imply he is Muslim... all have completed the picture of Clinton which lost her support she could have had and no fancy verbal footwork will change that. |
|
| Audrey |
June 3rd, 2008 6:36 am ET Obama plus 3 others removed their name from the ballot because the DNC said it would not be recongnized and so did Hillary Clinton. So you are not telling the whole truth. Hillary should not get any votes. She had no opponent. But the DNC did the best and fairest way possible. |
|
| anna |
June 3rd, 2008 6:49 am ET Donna La Pam – You did mention God, so put your trust in him – no candidate can keep you safe. Kim – You speak very intelligently and I agree with most of your comments. Obama/Clinton ticket? Although I didn't think this to be a wise idea at first, if it must happen to bring party unity, then I think it would be a good thing. However, Hillary can also be offered some other top post which she may be able to handle. A good example of Hillary's attitude and disposition is evident with the Florida/Michigan situation. All of the candidates agreed to the rules as put forth by the DNC, but when Hillary seemed to be behing in votes she wanted those rules ignored, thus the situation on Saturday, May 31st of which I think the decision was fair – both candidates received some of the votes which was better than not seating the delegates at all. On the other hand, I think the Vice President 's post should be offered to a well qualified and experienced male who would be in a better position to perform as such. Condeleza Rice is Secretary of State – but I don't think she did a great enough job as could have been expected of someone in that post. Some jobs were designed for men and some for women and when a women tries to perform in an area that's simply not her calling – it is evident. |
|
|
Comments have been closed for this article |
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
We search the news each day to show you what’s on our radar and what we’re planning for the show each night.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Real-life effects of reform getting lost in the noise
- Evening Buzz: Buying Health Care Reform Votes
- Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 12/21/09
- U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
- FAQs about health care reform
- Interactive: Brittany Murphy’s acting career
- Senate health care reform bill
- House health care reform bill
- Interactive: The top 10 Health-Care-Reform Players
- Video: Child custody battle continues
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2005

