February 6th, 2008
09:38 AM ET
8 years ago

No rest for Clinton, Obama; 7 more contests fast approach

 Sen. Hillary Clinton celebrates with her supporters Tuesday night in New York.

Sen. Hillary Clinton celebrates with her supporters Tuesday night in New York.

(CNN) - With Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton almost even in delegate counts, the two Democratic presidential candidates will focus on several weekend contests and then a trio of primaries in the Washington area next Tuesday.

Super Tuesday delivered a split decision for the Democrats. CNN estimates showed Clinton earned a handful more delegates than Obama, who surprised observers by taking states where the senator from New York had large polling leads until recently.

The latest estimate gave Clinton 582 of the 1,681 delegates at stake Tuesday, compared with 562 for Obama. It will take time to determine the final distribution because of complicated formulas.

Full story

soundoff (574 Responses)
  1. kokori

    Yeah, someone tell me: who are these "super delegates anyway?"
    If we didn't have them, we wouldn't be doubting who won more delegates today.

    And check this out: aren't these same 'supers' mostly (though not exclusively) congress people? If we have lost faith in the Congress, which has done zit so far, how come we let them weigh in so much in who gets to be the nominee of a party?

    And, alas, I bet most them made their decision a long time ago when Hillar(ious) was the "anointed one, right? A toast to the 'establishment.'

    February 6, 2008 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  2. Anonymous

    "Note" Not all the voters for Hillary are un-educated and poor! And Obama does not hold the seat on the blue colar workers or anything else in the United States of America! I am sick of people saying they will cross isles if their candidate loses.If some of you would care to listen to the conversations taking place you might learn this. Hillary & Barrack have not gotten through Washington and some pretty exciting States coming forward. Yet, we have people who are looking for the negatives and not focusing on what is important? WHO CAN LEAD THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE BUSH ERROR!
    Experience, and the ability to do what is right in a world that sometimes goes so wrong, the ability to lead and to dicern what is needed to head the Country back into a direction of being Proud of Who we ARE and not adding to the hate that already exists in this world. Those are the qualifications that America is looking for. What really upsets me right now is all the games that people will play to try to bring their candidate to the fore front.! The expression put up or shut up comes to mind when I read all these negative things.
    Ask yourself if Hillary wins tomorrow will I support that or will I turn my back on my Party? If Obama wins tomorrow will I support this or will I turn my back and desert my party? If your answer to these questions are yes, then you are not a true democrat and you should cross over now and avoid the embarrasement when the world goes on and you stay stuck where you are.
    As Democrats we are known as the liberals, the moderates, and some other choicier names. We don't all agree but we agree to disagree. But fact is fact and if one or the other loses a true democrat rallies behind their party and supports the winner. It sounds so foolish to hear people saying I will not vote, I will cross to the other side. Are they helping or hurting this country.
    I am a Hillary supporter and I will support her along with millions of other Americans, hopefully right into the White House. I keep thinking how foolish it is to fight, haven't we had enough of that. The Republicans are talking about how there party will come together but somehow the Democrats will stay split. I do not believe this, I believe that who ever wins Hillary or Barrack the other will come out and shake hands and call it a good run,

    February 6, 2008 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  3. MJL

    In response to Johnson, saying that the people who voted for Hillary Clinton are obviously the uneducated population that have to put in more working hours and don't have time to read the paper or watch the debates. Will you please read your comments again, and then tell me you don't feel like a complete jerk. Give me a break! My husband and I do work very hard, both at our jobs and taking care of our family. We do know how to prioritize though, and the welfare of our country is on the top of our priority list. We support Hillary, not because we're not educated, but because we feel she's the best person for the incredible task she has awaiting her. She has experience not only in the political scene, but experience in getting the positive changes that this country needs actually accomplished.

    February 6, 2008 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  4. Edgardo of Los Angeles

    To those voting for Mc Cain: Here's to another 8 yrs of Iraq war, recession, deficits, and economic mess..

    HILLARY has the momentum now, she won in Blue states which will carry her to the WHITE HOUSE and that is what counts. This means that she will definitely be strong in Democratic states. Obama won in Republican states, it will not matter since at the end of the day, those people will vote for Mc Cain. I guess, endorsements and biased pundits did not

    To the people of VIRGINIA, LA, TX, WA, HI, ME etc. - Unite and vote for HILLARY! You will be vindicated at the end! HILLARY for PRESIDENT!

    February 6, 2008 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  5. Jay

    I cant stand you Obama supporters trying to say that Clinton lost because she didnt win by large margins in the North East! The fact is she STILL WON THOSE STATES!!! (both did equally well in various areas)

    And why does it matter which Dem. won Red States vs. Blue States. In the Dem primary only "blue" people voted.

    Your main point about Obama is that he is a "uniter" blah blah. Well he only won 50% +- the Democratic vote. If he cant unite the Democrats, really how is he going to Unite with the Republicans?

    It just makes sense, HRC is the best canidate we have.
    Also, what is the problem with superdelegates? We are lucky that we even have the chance to vote in primaries, in most other countries, the political parties decide their leader, not the people. Tony Blair was never voted on by England, the party leaders chose him

    February 6, 2008 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  6. Blu

    The dynamics of the caucuses places many voters (that would otherwise had voted for Clinton) in the position where they feel they must move to the Obama camp. Whether to avoid being perceived by their friends and neighbors as being racist, a feeling of guilt for past racial injustice or whether they are over compensating for personal biases I’m not sure. I am sure that the outcome would be different if these people were voting behind the privacy of a curtain.

    Obama won 7 of the 8 Caucuses for a total of 145 of the 223 Delegates up for grabs.

    Percentage of Delegates as it stands now:
    52% for Clinton
    48% for Obama

    Percentage of the Delegates not including the Caucuses:
    56% for Clinton
    44% for Obama

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  7. Get over it James

    Get real on your reasoning. Do you really think Obama has a greater chance? I noticed the reference to coat-tails; do we really need a president who has to ride on other coat-tails, as Obama has with the Kennedy's?

    Hillary Clinton won the most important states last night, which is very critical in order to go up against a republican.

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  8. Carl

    So Obama is getting the elitist adult vote and the college student elitist vote? I thought the goal was to change the focus from an elitist govt back to one for the people.

    What happened to this election? All of a sudden the average person just doesn't matter anymore. I'm not seeing the change.

    Why are Obama supporters calling those that vote for Clinton stupid and old? Why are they disparaging the hispanic vote? What is the matter with you people? I was excited about voting this time around. Not anymore.

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  9. jds Pennsylvania

    You have to remember that all politician are trying to say what they think we want to hear most of it wishfull thinking.
    At least Hillary has experience inher year's in the white house. She has spent most of her career defending african american's civil rights it seems that instead of remembering that fact it's always about race. If Hillary does lose it's because there is more prejudice towards women then an african american male.

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  10. Manuel, Pearland, TX

    James, the Midwest already gave us 8 years of Bush, so I'm not really too impressed that they will not vote for Hillary.

    Also, McCain is not very popular with the Republican conservative base. A percentage of that base will simply not vote.

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  11. James

    The latest polls showed Obama slamming Clinton in CA – NOT happening.

    Do the math as there are still a great number of delegates not given out yet (about 600). Also overall actual votes were in Clinton's favor.

    Wait till all delegates are distributed as I do not think it will be so close delegate wise after all is said and done.

    February 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  12. Dayle

    Obama may have a problem in MI, he wasn't on the MI ballot by choice, refused write-ins. He claimed DNC rules prohibited his being on MI ballot, however he was on the FL ballot. Wouldn't DNC rules apply to both MI and FL? MI and FL voters backed Clinton. Obama continues to insult MI and FL with "do not count will not count, should not count". CHANGE?? Doesn't Obama speak of political change and that status quo is harmful ? Yet staus-quo is rewarded and change punished. One more example of talk not walk.

    February 6, 2008 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  13. Colin

    I think Johnson's earlier comment was quite despicable. In this country we have a problem with poverty and an unfair distribution of income. Obama often speaks of how he cares about the poor and will change things for them, yet the income group which supports him the most are those making 150,000 to 200,000 dollars a year. The income group which most supports Hillary is those making uder 15,000 dollars per year. I find it disgusting that Johnson, and others, are so willing to dismiss the opinions of the poor Obama claims to represent. Last time I checked, this was a democracy OF the people and BY the people and FOR the people. Half of Americans make under 35,000 dollars per year; most of these Americans support Hillary Clinton. I don't think we need the candidate of the top five percent (Obama) telling the poor what is best for them. I think they can, and have, made up their minds for themselves.

    February 6, 2008 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  14. benvictor

    My prediction. Republicans have the time now to unite for November. Democrats are terribly fractured. If Hillary wins, blacks will sit home in November. If BO wins, white voters will support Michael Bloomberg is he runs as an independent. If not, white voters will support John McCain, Vietnam hero, who is a moderate with views white voters will support. I am a democrat and this is how I will vote in November. While I have spoken here of blacks and whites, I believe Asian Americans will support Bloomberg or McCain. Latinos, I fear, will feel disenfranchised by a Hillary loss and disinterested in the November election.

    February 6, 2008 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  15. Confused in Midwest

    I am confused, people keep calling the elections biased because 80% of the black voters voted for Obama. I am sorry, do our votes not count? Should we go back to our votes counting for 2/3 of a person? Obama won CT, ND, UT, all states with little on no minority population, this is no about race, it is not about gender, this is about a candidate who has the ability to cross racial lines. In somes states he got as much if not more female vote than Clinton! Clinton supporters and Republicans keep making this about race, but if you haven't noticed, you are the only ones who are doing it. Obama hardly ever mentions his race, it's his ideas that are important. Remeber: So we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.
    Stop making a mockery out of my race and gender and and accept that both blacks and women vote!

    February 6, 2008 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  16. Tim Walters

    katharine Hardwick, I don't know how old you are mybe you can't remember as far as the Bill Clinton adminastration the economy was better than it had ever been and he balanced the budjet and left the country with a surplus the Bush's and Reagan are the ones that put this country down Bill straightened it up and I beleive Hillary can do the same and the media just reports what they want to because they are not impartial they want Obama to win because they know the Republicans have a better chance of beating him than thy do Hillary why do you think the Republican's say they would rather run against Her they are trying to get the Dems to vote for Obama so they can take the white house and by the way I am a republican and if Hillary win's the nomination I am going to vote for her in November.

    February 6, 2008 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  17. Jay

    I cannot agree more with the comment that Hillary has won this Super Tuesday through just very hard work. I also would like to see all the hype that the MEDIA is giving Obama laid to rest and let the AMERICAN people decide our nominee instead of the media trying to pursuade a vote. Pay attention and it is clearly visible. Hillary clearly is the most experienced and has my vote. Obama needs to stop preaching and start debating the issues. GO HILLARY!

    February 6, 2008 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  18. Virgil Warren

    Why do people continue to say; Obama has not enough experience?

    He has done alot in his short time in Washington and is a straight forward honest leader who posses great judgement. These are qualities the other candidates do not have. Hillary has experience meaning more time or quantity in Washington; but she is less effective when it comes to good judgement; which you would think she should have obtained over time with experience. I do not see it.

    Example: 1) Voted for the War, (She said she voted for the Inspectors to get the facts.)
    2) Voted not have President Bush report all the facts before going to War.

    Is this the kind of experience she plans to bring to the White House?

    Remember last weeks Super Bowl with the Giants and Patriots, The Patriots won in New York in week 17 (38-35); but should have lost; so no one gave them a chance in Super Bowl XLII . Eli Manning had (0) experience in playing in a Super Bowl versus Brady's (4) ; but, he showed that experience does not guarantee success to get the job done.
    But, what he showed on that final drive was his determination, good judgement and
    leadership to lead his team to victory. OBAMA is Eli Manning and Hillary is Tom Brady.

    This shows that experience has no weight without good judgement and leadership; which Obama clearly has over all candidates running for President.


    OBAMA 08'

    February 6, 2008 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  19. dev

    Go hillary go we are with you and we love you ,you are the best
    same on "MEDIA AS ALL TIME TALKING ABOUT OBAMA LIKE HIM AND NOT BRINGING TRUTH TO PEOPLE,so yesterday was real victory because people listened their heart and voted for you ,not the way MEDIA TOLD THEM AND NOW THEY SEARCHING FOR EXCUSES'

    February 6, 2008 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  20. J Vazquez

    I hear Obama over and over "Our time has come. Our movement is real, and change is coming to America." However I see how that so called change is coming on the backs of blacks voting for him just because he is black and the majority of them want to show white America that they can get their guy in.

    If you really interview many of the blacks who are in some cases voting for the first time what he is really about they do not know. Is this how we want change in our country?

    Why are they not hearing Michell Obama who said they did not want the votes of blacks who just voted for him because of his color and on the other hand why is Michelle Obama not calling them out on it? Could it be because they will take it any way possible?

    February 6, 2008 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  21. pam,s.c.

    i think it would be great if a woman was elected president however, not this woman. hillary is part of the problem and the republicans have a share also. the congress has a high disapproval with the american people. even though obama is in the senate the fact that he has only been there 2-3 yrs. to me adds to his electability. it is time this country moves ahead and stops focusing on the past. we are in dire straits and it is going to take someone who is census builder to move us forward.

    February 6, 2008 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  22. pk

    What is up with CNN and the Obama hype? How much money are they getting from the Obama campaign to keep talking about him. Should we talk about the fact that Hillary is for the people and Obama for CNN and the stars....do we really want the rich to keep getting richer. Go Hillary!!

    February 6, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  23. londonadguy

    Ok just a few questions that I thought of last night watching coverage of the poll results?

    Can Obama really claim any real victory considering the huge super-delegate advantage that Hillary will carry with her?

    Even though I consider myself liberal, should anyone really pick or not pick the leader of the most powerful nation in the world based on their sex?

    Are Hispanics offended that the analysts say they only pick their candidate based on liking the candidates spouse? I mean can't we give them credit for making an intelligent decision based on facts too?

    Why is it surprising that white men support an U.S. Senator and lawyer from Illinois? Is this 1860 or are we really surprised that people don't just vote based on sex and skin color?

    Didn't Wolf Blitzer sound a bit boring and unprepared to announce the real-time results?

    February 6, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  24. glen

    My heart goes out to Sen. Clinton. not only does she have to battle the GOP, and Sen. Obama, but she also has to battle the cable media. During the two elections where Bush was named the winner, you never said a thing about what he did and said wrong. Now, if you show a story on Hillary, it is something negative, or as the case of her remark about MLK, which was in no way racial, you put your little pointed heads together and came up with a lie, which Obama then jumped up to split any black followers Sen.Clinton had.You know the Clintons are not raciest in any way. If one didn/ know better, you would think there was only one candidate running. By the way, this was confirmed on a story on MSNBC. I think the media is trying to control our elections. And to top that off we have to listen to grouchy old Jack.

    February 6, 2008 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  25. keep your dogma off my government

    To all Democrats and Independants: I am not a huge fan of Obama, but I will vote for whoever wins the nomination because I dont want 4 or 8 more years of republicans ruining this country. Are some of you so short sighted that you would allow this to happen because "your" candidate didnt get the nomination? Where is the outrage at the current state of the country that I have been hearing for the last year? We all want change, but voting for repubs just because "your" candidate didnt win is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    February 6, 2008 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23