She gained 50 delegates. He gained 49 delegates last night.

[dogindia]

Sounds pretty even to me. And this Iran nuke thing. Really what is happening to us? It seems very nutty. I almost can't look at it any more.


So SORRY FOR mistake in numbers. I took them from a nyt page. It is being continually updated. As of 2:47 it is 64/63.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

[EFerrari]

1. I mute her now, just like I mute Bush and his whole gang.

She's unwatchable.

[Hepburn]

5. Glad to hear someone else does the same as I do.

I consider her just the same as * and McCain. :hi:

[City Lights]

10. Me too!

Ditto for Bill.

Both of them turn my stomach.

[EFerrari]

14. It feels weird to mute two people I defended for years.

But, I cannot listen to them. :(

[City Lights]

21. I know. I sometimes wonder if my eyes have finally opened where

they are concerned, of if they've changed. Or maybe it's a bit of both. Feels strange though.

[movonne]

29. I have those same feeling....I joined Move On just to help them..now

I can't stand either of them...It is really hard to give up on someone I really admired..I guess they were always this way but it took time to realize this fact..

[greguganus]

23. I mute her too. It's like watching Dr. Jekyll turn into Mrs. Hyde. n/t

[Justitia]

33. LOL! Me too - that's funny we are all having the same response as w/Bush. -eom

[madwivoter]

34. Same here...she's always spewing the same thing

I can tell what she's saying by the look on her face. If she laughs, then I know she was asked a tough question that she doesn't want to and won't answer. I mute her just so I don't hear the laugh :eyes:

[carolinayellowdog]

39. Feeling your pain

As soon as Bush stole the White House, I became unable to bear the sound of his voice and ran for the remote whenever he appeared. Had never had such a reaction to a politician before or since. Until recently; Hill and Bill are now evoking the same disgust/horror as Bush. Which is a shock to someone who like you defended them for the last twenty years.

[PetraPooh]

42. I have to change the channel, can't even stand to see her.

[Kittycat]

2. We want to Impeach Cheney over his actions and similar threats... Yet.

Clinton is right on the mark?!?!?

It's bizarro world in the Clinton camp. I don't get it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. What's bizarro is the number of Obama supporters

who refuse to even acknowldge that Clinton was ASKED what she would do IF IRAN ATTACKED ISREAL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Go ahead and tell me that an Obama Administration, under that scenario, would ask for a UN Security Council resolution censoring Iran for wiping out Tel Aviv with an atomic bomb as an alternate response.

[Usrename]

19. I liked her marginally better when she didn't answer such questions.

As she used to explain, as if to school children, words have meaning.

[EFerrari]

26. Why should that be a problem? And according to Herself,

a president should be very careful about talking in sweeping terms about a military response.

(Not to mention, there is a spectrum of possible replies between "UN resolution" and "Obliterate", as you well know.)

[americanstranger]

28. Tom, I enjoy your posts but I have to point something out.

Does it really matter that she was asked that question? The whole scenario is so far off the scale as to be absolutely absurd.

You have to assume a whole lot of things for that scenario to even make the remotest bit of sense, like:

1. Iran does develop nukes in the next 4-8 years.
2. That there would be absolutely no one in Iran who would object to sending this hypothetical nuke into another country in the immediate region, which would risk killing even a few Iranians, if the wind was blowing the right way.
3. That they would be so careless as to risk retaliation by Israel, who really does have nukes and would use them.

I guess if you consider the goofy aspect of the question, then Hillary's equally goofy answer makes a dumb kind of sense.

But to escalate the rhetoric to the point where the term 'obliteration' is used in relation to another sovereign country is way over the top in my book. I mean, wasn't the term 'massive retaliation' that she used in the debate sufficent any more?

And the swipe about Obama calling for a resolution at the UN is unacceptable. It reminds me a little too much of Bush's statement that Kerry would 'file suit' against Al Qaeda.

- as

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. My point of course was that Obama would not do that

On an internal Democratic message board I wasn't worrying about the electorate mistaking that piece of parody as serious.

If the outrage being expressed toward Hillary over this was confined to complaints that she unecessarily used an overly harsh word with "obliterate" when she could have said something else like "in that scenario Iran would face certain nuclear retaliation from the United States", I could easily understand it.

Instead there are ridiculous threads popping up claiming Clinton is now threatening to attack Iran, including some that intentionally cut off her quote to leave out the part about "If Iran used nuclear weapons against Isreal" to make it seem like she is a demented warmonger.

[americanstranger]

45. Accusing her of wanting to attack Iran is just as dumb

as the rest of this hypothetical if you ask me.

But the word 'obliterate' isn't in the popular diplomatic lexicon (if there even is such a thing) for a reason. If you use that word to start a diplomatic exchange, it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for re-definition.

- as

[hedgehog]

38. How would the situation be improved with two glowing holes in the

Middle East instead of just one? I suspect that Jerusalem is not the only Moslem holy site in the state of Isreal. Why is everyone so certain that Iran is itching to bomb the place?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. the official PA results will be up at 4 today, some counties left out

the results will be more like Hillary winning with 8 points, not 10.

The remaining counties favor Obama.

[helderheid]

4. Excellent. Thanks!

[zanne]

15. Do you know where the official results will be posted, Will? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. PA SOS Site here:

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

[zanne]

24. Thanks much! nt

[NC_Nurse]

6. 1 delegate? Your kidding me! All this spin for ONE DELEGATE?????

UNBELIEVABLE. :o

[niyad]

7. so who did the other delegates go to? how many does PA have?

[joehack]

8. HOPE

lets just hope it comes out okay

[Oreo]

11. Not true

Go http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/">here to see how the different sources are dividing the delegates.

Where did you see 50-49?

[zanne]

13. I went to the site, but all I saw was projections. nt

[Oreo]

18. So where are you seeing 50-49?

All you're going to get is delegate projections no matter where you look.

Nothing's finalized until the state convention as far as I know for PA.

[mmonk]

17. That shows Clinton with a 200,000 + popular vote lead.

So how did she go from 800k down to 200k up?

[Oreo]

20. That's just for last night

[mmonk]

32. Oh yeah, how stupid of me.

I do remember the numbers from PA. Never mind (and don't tell anybody);) Embarrassing.:blush:

[Oreo]

48. No problem

There are so many numbers flying around it's easy to get confused

[Az_lefty]

12. but the media say's it's a BIG WIN for HILLARY!!!!

their bias is just sickening.

[Radio_Lady]

22. Radio Lady: We need a unity ticket. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5645362

[juajen]

25. Perhaps you haven't heard yet. She has raised 10,000,000 since last night.

This was as of noon today. She's winning a lot more than delegates. Go Hillary Go!!!!

[americanstranger]

31. No, look at what McAuliffe actually said.

He said she was 'on track to raise 10 million by the end of the day today' - not that it had been raised by noon today.

News outlets are putting the amount raised as closer to $3 million.

- as

[Cheap_Trick]

41. yay, now she can pay off the 10,000,000 she owes

Go Hillary, please, just go. Don't go away mad, just go away.

[cbayer]

27. You really need to source this.

DCW shows Clinton 80, Obama 68.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

And what's with all you people that just gobble up this number without verifying it?

[godai]

36. NYT: 64/63 Kind of shocking isn't it?

There was no convincing victory yesterday, only one less state for voting. Even if Hillary picked up 12 delgates by your count, it's not enough. If Obama wins Indiana, it's over.

[cbayer]

46. Do you have a link to NYT numbers?

What's shocking is that there are such widely varying numbers being floated around.

It's over when one of them concedes or one of them reaches 2025.

[TheDoorbellRang]

37. DCW primary source is TheGreenPapers, which shows 84-74

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html

That ten point spread may not stand, since they still haven't reported the full results for Philadelphia County -- 40 districts still out.

[dogindia]

30. I updated my mistake in numbers and sourced the info.

[Oreo]

35. There's a reason DCW doesn't use NYT

for their delegate info... they suck.

You didn't make a mistake you just believed a shitty source.
No matter who you support I would think you'd want to know the truth instead of just bad reporting.

[jackson_dem]

40. She gained 12-16 even despite Obama districts tended to have greater weight (up to 3x more)

[godai]

47. Looks like, at most, 10 n/t

[jackson_dem]

49. Different outlets are reporting different thing. The max she can get is 16

[Aloha Spirit]

44. Rieux at DKos is by far the most on top of the numbers...84/74.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/22/11912/6533/642/500733