Just in from the Clinton campaign:

"Senator Clinton will be hosting an event in Washington, DC to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity. This event will be held on Saturday to accommodate more of Senator Clinton's supporters who want to attend."

I understand the notion that the nominee must have the freedom to choose a nominee he is comfortable but there is a certain reality that is just being ignored about this contest. Obama barely won. By any measure. Even by the flawed pledged delegate count, and including the Edwards delegates, Obama won 51.4% of the pledged delegates. Clinton won 47.7% of the pledged delegates. On the popular vote, by the BEST measure for Obama, he won by 0.4%. This was NOT a landslide.

As Jay Cost writes:

The New York Times reports Hillary Clinton will drop out of the Presidential race on Friday.

This Times report says she will both drop out and endorse Barack Obama.

If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

There was never any question whether I would support the ultimate Democratic nominee. I always said I would. With only one candidate in the race, Obama is the nominee -- on Friday.

Comments closed

According to a new CBS poll:

A majority of Democratic primary voters - 59 percent - say Obama should choose Clinton as his running mate. Clinton supporters are more enthusiastic about the prospect than Obama supporters, who are evenly split on the question of Clinton as a vice presidential pick.

By Big Tent Democrat

Bump and Update: My long thoughts on the relevance of Rezko's conviction are below:

Earlier: Guilty on 16 of 24 counts.

Here's the blank verdict form (pdf)listing the counts.

The Rezko verdict will be announced in five minutes.

I have been thinking about the strategy Hillary Clinton has adopted in light of the declaration that Barack Obama is the Presidential nominee. I think it does mean she wants to be the Vice Presidential nominee. Let me explain my thinking.

Clinton has kept her supporters committed to her by demonstrating her fire and toughness - her commitment to playing the political game on her terms. I have stated my own preference that she take a more conciliatory tack and acknowledge what seems to be. But let's face it, the Media and her enemies were ready to dance on her political grave and declare her an irrelevancy. In order to put herself in play for VP, against seeming resistance from Obama's circle and the Media, she needed to flex her political muscles.

More . . .

A Party's Leader should lead. I agree with dday:

Barack Obama could put an end to [the Dems' attempt to capitulate on FISA] today if he wanted. He could tell his colleagues in the House and the Senate that they should not work so hard to codify into law what his opponent is calling for - the ability for an executive to secretly spy on Americans.

. . . Senator Obama has the power to end this. . . . This is . . . an excellent opportunity for Obama to show his leadership skills and where he stands on civil liberties and Constitutional issues. We know that McCain is a mirror of Bush on that score. Senator Obama, you are the party's leader. Do something about this. Today.

Indeed.

What happens after an innocent man is set free? He becomes "a power of one." As should we all.

Sen. Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential selection team is now in place. It includes Former Deputy U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, Caroline Kennedy and "Democratic insider" Jim Johnson.

Obama said today he'd be speaking with Hillary over the next few weeks, but didn't mention whether the VP slot would be one of the topics.

CNN asks, can he afford not to offer her the position if she wants it? I don't know if she wants it or not. If she wants it, I'm all for her having it.

What happens if it's disclosed she wanted it and wasn't offered it? I imagine many of her 18 million supporters would be quite displeased.

Do her supporters have options other than sitting out the election or switching to Obama or McCain? [More...]

As TalkLeft recently observed, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that invalidated the groundless seizure of 468 children and the subsequent separation of most of those kids from their parents. This editorial wisely echoes Jeralyn's sentiments: "It's time to return these children to their parents." (more ...)

One of the ironies of this campaign is the role some prominent players and issues in the current drama played in the past. We have heard about the fact that Harold Ickes was the primary champion of caucuses and proportional allocation of delegates. As Chris Bowers notes, the most important reason Barack Obama won (not Iraq, though I wish it was and am willing to help create that myth) was the brilliant plan the Obama campaign executed in caucuses in Red States. And credit to the Obama campaign and discredit to the Clinton campaign for that.

Now I am not as old as some, but the biggest upset in political history I can remember was not Obama's win, despite that new myth, but George McGovern's win in 1972. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the 1972 race and convention and some interesting name, themes and issues pop up:

There's no doubt about this:

Manhattan attorney Bernice Leber, named president of the 74,000-member [New York State Bar] association on Monday, says that for every wrongful conviction that surfaces, unknown numbers of others remain unfairly resolved.

That's because most wrongful convictions have been uncovered by advances in DNA technology, while most crimes do not involve DNA evidence. Those who minimize the problem of wrongful convictions, claiming that "only" 200 exonerations have occurred (as of April) fail to grasp that fact.

Kudos, then, to the NY State Bar Association for establishing a task force to "analyze New York cases that led to wrongful convictions and hold hearings." Those states that have not done so should conduct their own studies to suggest means of assuring that their criminal justice systems do not convict the innocent.