WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Barack Obama swept Saturday's Democratic contests, giving him considerable momentum heading into Sunday's Maine caucuses and three primaries Tuesday.
John McCain, however, was handed a starkly different message from the GOP, as voters in Louisiana and Kansas indicated they weren't ready to support the Arizona senator. Washington, however, backed the Republican front-runner over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, according to state party officials.
McCain's camp congratulated Huckabee on the victories but with an air of confidence, saying that Huckabee threatened only to chip away at McCain's substantial lead in the GOP race for the presidential nomination.
"The reality is that John McCain is the presumptive nominee of our party," said campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "We'll campaign in these upcoming states as long as Gov. Huckabee is in the race, but our main focus is on uniting the Republican Party for victory in November."
Though CNN calculations estimate that Huckabee would need to snare hundreds more delegates to catch McCain, the Democrats are in a much tighter race.
If the voters give it to Obama, but the superdelegates hand it to Clinton, the Democratic Party is going to have to answer to a lot of unhappy members!
Abolish the Electoral College. Eliminate superdelegates. Let THE PEOPLE elect their President.
CNN is making an error by including Super Delegates to the candidates' totals. Whether a Super Delegate endorsed a candidate initially is now irrelevant. No Super Delegate is bound at the convention to vote one way or another. For instance, how do the two senators from the State of Washington, who earlier endorsed Clinton, now vote for Clinton, after Democrats in their state overwhelmingly voted for Obama? They'll vote for Obama, or else deal with a backlash from their constituents.
Therefore, counting pledged delegates only, Obama did not "catch up" this weekend, but rather increased his lead. You would better serve you viewers by not portraying Super Delegates as "sown up" by either candidate. You're giving a false impression.
Further, when a campaign changes its director, it is almost always a sign that the campaign is in trouble. Your presentation of the Clinton campaign director change as perhaps bad news for the Obama campaign is ridiculous. By your efforts to be fair, and not influence voting, you're being inaccurate.
lets get all under one idea, win in november, Hilary endorce Obama and finish with the sofering.
Kev, thanks for your clarifications from on high. Can you please tell us the number of times in history a super delegate has changed their vote after promising to vote for a candidate? I presume that you can't, and I'm really certain you don't have the expertise to make the claims in your comment here.