I'm going to agree with Olbermann, RE: Why Hillary pulled of that

[Bright Eyes]

that spectacular win.

Keith's a professional, and I'm going to believe his reason; The polls forgot the undecided voters, and thats how she won.

So, I'll give a belated congrats to Hillary supporters.

[TwilightZone]

1. The polls didn't forget them. The people interpreting the polls did.

A semantic difference, of course, but an important one.

The undecideds were always there, most people just chose to discount them.

[rodeodance]

2. and I would say that the so called media SHOULD be aware of this and bring it to light also!

[TwilightZone]

3. Definitely. Plus, there's the MOE.

Nearly everyone was looking only at the baseline numbers and "forgetting" about the MOE and the undecideds.

If the undecides are 15% and the MOE is 5%, that's a huge, huge possible swing in any race. Combined with the 18% of voters that didn't decide until primary day, it's no wonder they were way off.

[frogcycle]

4. the "media"

consist of a bunch of Barbie and Ken dolls looking to get their faces on camera. All that "thinking" stuff is for loooooosers, Analysis is what they spend their big bonus check on, not what they do for a living.

[MADem]

5. I am one of those undecideds. I don't know who I'll vote for, I do know who I will not vote for.

Bill Richardson made my decision a little easier by bowing out. If the field gets any smaller my decision will be made for me. I don't get to get up to bat until Super Tuesday.

[shance]

6. Perhaps as I was certainly an undecided voter, this rings true.

I had heard much about Keith's attack on Hillary, and it disappointed me greatly.

Its interesting. I had literally NO interest in what I perceive as a gamed upcoming election.

I believe no matter the victor, until citizens count the votes in public, we will never have a true knowledge of a legitimate victor.

This goes back of course to the election of 2000, and may return back even further in the years.

So, I was essentially disengaged from the Democratic primary, until the past week when I witnessed such a barrage of unwarranted attacks on Ms. Clinton, which held absolutely no merit, for the main reason that they are all corporatized (some would say "bought") candidates and the differences in their policy (and their advisors) are truly so few and far between.

I mean, I think we should all be honest, that until the electronic voting machines and opti-scans are out of the voting equation, there is essentially no legitimate election because the proof of the elections can so easily be assaulted and irreversibly altered.

Electronic voting machines and optiscan machines are a gross violation which are allowing privately companies by a conservative white male faction to tabulate our votes and determine our elections for everyone.

Likewise, employees of these same companies are threatening us if we dare to follow law and tabulate the ballots at the precincts, and/or videotape the election procedures which BY LAW we are allowed and are responsible to perform.

These same machines have also have overturned the Civil Rights Act, the Womens Suffrage Act and notwithstanding the Voting Rights Act, due to the privatization of our vote which is again an illegality that is being allowed for whatever reasons, which promotes the illegal secrecy of the tabulation of citizens' votes.

Back to the subject, what struck me were the irrational, manufactured attacks on Hillary Clinton, in addition to the daggers of criticisms thrown at her for anything she revealed as being human and/or God forbid, womanly.

Of course emotion, as we see continuously overlooked and blindly accepted as strength and nobility from male counterparts, is defined as "hysteria" and "drama" when women exude such characteristics, but the male candidates get a free pass when they spout off their irrational and/or hysterical remarks?

The double standard is being noted, and more than anything I hope voters will look at our own American history, and what has brought us to this point and what legitimate (note the key word here) changes which could make a difference. Be it Obama or Hillary.

I personally believe eight years as First Lady quite trumps a few years in the Senate (of which Hillary Clinton has had both), but that is for other voters to decide.

[HILLBILL]

7. agree with Olbermann

Thank you:woohoo:

[Hoof Hearted]

8. I liked his explanation. It's the sudden proliferation of tin that betrays the motive here (DU).

Yes, everyone is concerned about the machines BUT - what course of action do we have RIGHT NOW other than demanding a recount or a re-vote in EVERY election that involves optical scanners and electronic machines for both parties, no matter what the outcome, not just the ones that some of us do not like?

Does that sound practical to anybody?

Olbermann was dead on.