Obama To Spend Tues. Night in Iowa, Possibly Will Claim Victory

Barack Obama will return to Iowa Tuesday night. The New York Times says it may be to "claim victory" and declare himself the Democratic nominee. His campaign views winning a majority of 2025 pledged and unpledged delegates victory.

Will ignoring the popular vote total in Florida backfire on him? In addition to the 2.3 million who voted in Michigan and Florida, there are 17 million or so Hillary supporters who think those votes should count before we pick a nominee.

A new poll out shows Obama in third place behind McCain and Clinton among rural voters in America. They comprise 23% of the voting public.

Hillary runs even with McCain in the poll but Obama trails McCain by 9 points.

Update: Just wanted to add that the Democratic nomination is not Obama's to claim until one of two things happens: Either Hillary withdraws from the race or all the delegate votes, pledged, unpledged and superdelegate, are counted at the convention.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary Clinton on CNN's Late Edition | Obama, Iowa and Immigration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I would imagine (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by OldCoastie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:05:43 AM EST
    that the Super-D's are going to be a little bit insulted... apparently BO doesn't realize he still must go to the convention.

    how funny would it be (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    if he gave a victory speech and the supers cast their votes for hillary because they felt dissed?  just thinking about it makes me grin like a cheshire cat.  a girl can dream, right?

    O/T ... No Quarter Sez Jeremiah Wright Is (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    speaking live from Trinity Church....there is a link posted if you want to listen.

    Or, Maybe the DNC will do a bait & switch (none / 0) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    on the Republicans. Get them all ready to battle Obama, and at the last minute give Clinton the nomination to throw the Republicans off their game.

    The latest coming from the GOP (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    as I read on a blog to which I wandered by mistake is rather startling -- but may not be swiftboating on the way, because I checked some more, and it seems that it's true.

    Obama is not an African American!  Not just that he's not one by the usual definition of someone from the heritage of being held in slavery; I knew that.  But it turns out that his heritage is Arab, not African (and thus the Arab name of Barack, which is the more familiar Baruch in Hebrew, as well as the middle name which shall not be named here).  And in Kenya, the distinction is considered significant.

    And ye gods, consider what the Rebubs will do with this.  Not that it will matter to the African American community, which is sensible and well knows that its heritage is widely varied.  And it also knows that, as I knew, it's not unusual that Obama's heritage is not from slaves but from (on his mother's side) slaveholders -- as sadly, after all, many African Americans are descended from slaveholders in the South here.

    But the genealogists doing the oppo research for the Repubs also turn up that, as was typical of Arabs in Kenya and often the reason that they came there, Obama's ancestors were among those in the slave trade in Africa.  I wonder if the Repubs are planning some covert campaign in the AA conservative weeklies (and there are many).  Weird stuff.  And it suggests how much oppo research must be being prepared right now.

    Of course, the oppo research on Clinton is dog-eared by now, so they'll be ready to switch if needed.  But we've heard it before, so it would have far less impact.


    This information has been around awhile (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Obama has less than half the required percentage of African to qualify as an African American. He is Arab American by the standards. I don't think that is a big problem.

    However, FOX news did something very interesting Friday night. A quick blurb of "who are the campaign volunteers" for the two candidates. They interviewed two college youth from Hillary's camp, and two from Obama's. Obama's, though, was a young Muslim woman dressed in traditional scarf and long dress. I think they are previewing one of the avenues they plan to go down.

    Obama's Kenyan relatives will probably become a big topic. Especially since he campaigned for his cousin. They appear to be less than stellar leaders.


    LA Times Article Disputes Obama's Claim (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.

    That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

    The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends. LA Times

    Now I really wouldn't care if Obama was actually a Muslim but Obama has strongly denied that he had any connection to Islam and this disputes that claim.


    Oh oh, that explains the GOP blog (none / 0) (#238)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    excitement about him being Arab American, blah blah blah.  Getting into the statistical genealogical stuff does not a good ad make.  But combine it with this, if there really is evidence, and it's an ad.

    A stupid ad -- and I'm all for everyone learning more about all cultures and religions.  But then, a stupid ad did in Kerry's campaign.  Of course, it really was the lack of reaction to the ad, so maybe Obama's smarter campaign is ready to respond to this one.  I can't imagine how to spin it, though.


    I Would Think The LA Times Has Verified (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    this prior to publishing the story and they actually give the name of his friend. Also included in the article

    In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama briefly mentions Koranic study and describes his public school, which accepted students of all religions, as "a Muslim school."

    "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies," Obama wrote. "My mother wasn't overly concerned. 'Be respectful,' she'd say. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words."

    So again, even Obama's own words contradict previous statements he has made on his background. More to do with credibility as far as I'm concerned.


    I've lost faith in the super delegates... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    ...more likely rather than being insulted the rest of them will be tripping over themselves to get on the news and endorse Obama.

    I Agree (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    The Dem leadership is bound and determined that Obama will be the nominee even if it risks the WH.

    Fear of losing the AA community and the lust after those big bucks will be the deciding factor IMO.


    Does Anyone Agree That Perhaps The Less (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    than bright dem leaders should be considering how they are dissing the hispanic voters.  This is a huge voting bloc that should not be discounted, yet all we have heard is don't upset the AA's...we need them.  And let's not forget the working class non-color voters.

    Here is the perfect illustration (none / 0) (#231)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM EST
    of Obama's current attitude about the nomination. ENJOY!!

    P.S. Swallow before clicking link. Heh. nt (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    that they don't give a daxx about the (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    votes of the average worker, woman, boomer tells me they are not my party.

    the AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by sancho on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    is the most reliable dem. vote. this is true no matter who the dems nominate. white elites speaking for AAs and ventriloquizing their (the AA) position to threaten other whites--this is the DNC position. it is called playing the race card. hillary does not need it. obama supporters (and perhpaps obama) have made it the path to the nomination. it won't work in the general.  

    And I recently read (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    40% of Hispanics voted for Bush in 2004.  Not a given.  

    He Thinks he is NEO ~ "The One" (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    From Wikipedia: Neo

    The character Neo lives in the world of the Matrix, an illusory construct in which humans are neurally connected to a gigantic computer system (aka DailyKos) which simulates the world of the late 20th century. This system has been developed by intelligent machines to keep the human population as tools for the machines' survival - the machines use a form of fusion in addition to the bio-electrical energy of human beings. .......

    Ladies and Gentleman, I present you:

    Do You Think He Will Be Wearing This Outfit? (none / 0) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    potentially anti-climactic... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    So he declares himself the victor.

    Clinton picks up KY and more votes in other places.

    In terms of dramatic tension, it would seem that to claim the victory so far ahead of the convention...only to get kicked in the shins by more primary votes just seems to deflate the narrative.

    Also a declaration of victory when there are outstanding votes and issues (big issues) could be incredibly counter-productive.

    And they say that Clinton is weakening him... (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    ...IMHO he weakens himself by pulling stunts like these. If he is as inevitable as they would have us believe, he really doesn't have to do anything except show up at the convention. I'm not sure what they are trying to "prove" with all these PR gestures.

    When they say Clinton is weakening him (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Radical Faith on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    what they really mean is Clinton's strengths in certain remaining contests is revealing his pre-existing weaknesses.

    I agree with setting the narrative (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    "See!  I'm the nominee!  I announced and all those pundits and talking heads agreed with me!"

    "Now anyone who says that I'm not the actual, confirmed-by-delegate-vote nominee is trying to take my nomination away from me!"

    "Agents of McCain!  Clinton Operatives!  Devil's spawn!  My mighty media allies and my loyal blogging buddies will attack and harrass the disloyal traitors!  I WILL PREVAIL or take the Democratic Party down with me!"

    [the above is purely speculation and should be considered fictional]


    Gotta love this: (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    "Obviously, we don't want to wake up the morning after we become the nominee and not be prepared," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

    She IS weakening him (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    he's absolutely exhausted and can't keep up with her anymore. He is bored with the primary. This speaks, no, it screams, that he can't stay focused on anything from beginning to end.

    Wow. That's unprecedented (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by Exeter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    Even McCain waited until Mike Huckabee -- who actually had NO mathematical chance to win -- dropped out. I know I sound like a broken record, but when you feel that you can break away from the way things are always done because its a woman candidate on the other side, it's sexist. He would never do this if it were John Edwards.

    I have a feeling that if this contest were (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    between Obama and Edwards, it would be Edwards who would be the racist - Obama would be using Edwards' southern background to a fare-thee-well.  Not to mention the whole trial lawyer thing - John would no longer be the champion of the little guy hurt by the big corporation, he would be John Edwards, the opportunistic and money-hungry lawyer out for himself, compared to Mr. Community Organizer With the Low-Paying Job.

    I don't think Obama has met the person yet for whom he could not find and exploit something as a wedge - the only advantage with Clinton us that he has an extra - her gender.


    Obama bashed 'trial lawyers' & unions (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    in radio ads just before the Iowa caucus because a union 527 aired a pro-Edwards TV ad.
    Normally, campaigns tell the media when they release ads, but the Obama campaign didn't inform the media about this radio ad until it had been running for 10 days.
    Obama has run a very dirty campaign!

    come the ge, just remove clinton's name (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    and add mccain's. add a few more dog whistles and there you have obama's campaign.

    That is going to be interesting... (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM EST
    how is Obama going to justify calling on McCain to drop out of the race??



    He was born in the Canal Zone! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Radical Faith on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    He's ineligible!

    Joking, but I'm sort of afraid Obama & Company may actually pull this stunt.


    Well, that is irrelevant.. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    If a child is born to an American citizen, no matter where they are born, the child is automatically an American citizen. And children born overseas to parents in service, be it military or diplomatic, are automatically registered with the Embassy as citizens, and issued a passport. Most babies travel on their mother's passport, some get their own. I remember watching my mother get all our passports out and handing them to us as we went through customs when I was a child. The current baby was on hers, but we all had our own as soon as we could walk. And to this day, I have to get a copy of my registration with the Embassy in lieu of a birth certificate since the German hospital didn't issue certificates, they gave out plates with the baby's name and birthdate on it. Mine got broken during a move, and besides, plates aren't official documents accepted by the bureaucracy. So the fact that McCain was born in the Canal Zone is irrelevant. And if Obama, supposedly a constitutional lawyer, tries to play that card it will show up his ignorance of the requirements for citizenship. Good move, proving you don't know what you are talking about. LOL

    Actually is not a matter of citizenship. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    It's a matter of being born in one of the 50 states.  For example, if you are born in PR, USVI, etc you are a citizen but you can not be president because you were not born in a state.  The thing is that children born to Military, diplomats, etc. who are stationed overseas are considered as born in whatever state the parents are residents of, sort of like absentee ballots to vote where you resided before you went overseas.  Since I registered in California in 1967 before leaving for Vietnam I was able to vote absentee in 68 had I not registered in Ca I would have still been considered a PR resident and unable to vote.  Perfect example I was born in PR both my parents were born in NY because they were not military or stationed but residing in PR when I was born I am ineligible to be president.

    Yes, but none of that applies to McCain (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    and I was addressing the citizenship question raised by the previous poster. McCain was born in the Canal Zone because his father was stationed there, not just living abroad or in a territory.

    But has "naturally born" (none / 0) (#227)
    by Exeter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    in the constitution ever been legally tested?

    Yes, it has. Not by a presidential (none / 0) (#234)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    candidate, but it has held up in court. I have heard of a couple of foreign service kids who had to go to court and prove citizenship because they were born abroad and had no US birth certificate. The courts held that the laws regarding citizenship mandated that they were citizens. That would also apply to military offspring. Besides, if he was born in the base hospital, he was legally born on US territory, not overseas.

    Congress Has Already Addressed That Issue (none / 0) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    With questions - however serious - about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

    Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously. ABC

    ha! to this voter, (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by sancho on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    edwards's support of obama right after wva confirmed the view of him as an opportunistic lawyer out for himself, one who uses people's misfortune (in this case obama's loss combined with hillary's media vulnerability) to further his own status. i never believed he was a populist candidate so much as one who recognized that was a demographic he could plausibly occupy. he sold out health care by endorsing obama. and for what? to stamp on hillary's big win and thus the possibility of realizing his alleged special interest. along with obama, edwards was the other elite voter candidate. with the latte crowd this cycle, turns out identity politics beat poverty politics. but the elite voters' gas tanks are stiull full and their insurance/health care still valid. so who cares, right?  

    What I heard, Jeralyn, is that he is going (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    to claim that he has won more than half of pledged delegates, and that no candidate who has won more than half has never not gone on to be the nominee; I guess he will allow the rest of the country to supply the "ergo" to his syllogism.

    I said this yesterday, but I think I might actually enjoy the juxtaposition of Obama trying to start a general election campaign on a night when he will lose KY, and could lose Oregon, a continuation of his losing trend for the last 2 1/2 months, his continuing decline in crucial sectors of the demograhic, and more noise than ever that significant chunks of Clinton supporters will not be voting for him if he is the nominee - I think that would take "audacious" to a new level.

    I have to think that this is just the Edwards announcement redux: on a losing night, plan an event designed to take the spotlight off Clinton's win(s) and take people's eyes off the truth.  I swear, the media is so easily distracted by the bright and shiny object that they must be the best audience ever for anyone doing magic tricks.

    Will he point out... (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by ineedalife on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    that no candidate has lost the popular vote and gone on to be the nominee? No, I don't think so either.

    Will the media point that out? No, I don't think so either.


    In a normal election year, with sane media (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    such a silly event as this would be the butt of a lot of jokes by journalists about moving goal posts to the 50 yard line -- now, wouldn't that shorten a lot of games and seasons? -- and more.

    But this is the most awful campaign I've seen, and I've seen many, in terms of its impact on the future of the country -- especially its impact on the majority of Americans, women and girls.  And that has in large part been because of media, far from the halcyon days of Murrow, Cronkite, and more.

    So Obama will get away with this stupid event of self-coronation, surrounded by the court jesters.  I will go read a good book.  I've got a long book list to work through to remain sane in months to come.


    Well The Media Hasn't Been Particurly Sane (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    for a while but I agree with the rest of your post. Maybe the comedians will do the job since the press won't.

    I have been reading the media (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    carefully, and the tone is changing. More stories about Obama's shortcomings, and more criticism of him is appearing in the MSM. They are starting the slow turn to McCain, and getting ready to eviscerate Obama. Right now, they are setting him up so that they can say, "We mentioned this earlier, and here is the rest of it". Then, if he gets the nomination, they will pour vitriol into those cracks in his armor and that will be the end of Obama. He isn't ready for the big time, and he can't stand the scrutiny he is going to get. Neither can his wife. Those two are going to be so surprised when all their "good friends" in the media turn on them and rend them limb from limb. Of course, the media will be using ammo thoughtfully provided by the Obamas. Heh.

    And at the same as the blackout (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    of coverage on Clinton . . . yep, the combination of with finally vetting Obama tells us that the general election is underway in the media, who played their part in his candidacy and now will do their usual part to tear him down and get a Republican elected.

    It will not be pretty, but it will be predictable.


    Actually, the tone on Clinton has (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    changed too, positively. It's hard to see unless you do what I do and parse the same writers over and over as they put out new stories. But even the headlines about Hillary are nicer in tone. And the pictures are getting better to. They only used to use ones that were angry looking, the ones where we know she was making a point in a speech but the media runs to "show her real self". Now there are more of her smiling, talking to people instead of giving speeches. The Obama pictures have changed too. More awkward poses, more frowns, fewer halo photos, fewer arms outstretched preacher type photos. Now Obama is being pictured like a politician with issues rather than the saintly figure the MSM pictured him to be earlier. As Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "God is in the details". And I look at the details, and they tell me that the god of elections is starting to frown on Obama. Heh.

    This Has Been SOP For The MSM (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM EST
    They decide which Dem candidate to build up and which candidates to tear down or ignore. Then once their candidate is the nominee they decide that they suddenly need to vet them and go back and pursue the stories that they ignored prior to the selection. Nothing really new here, which is why I never bought into Obama maintaining his "media darling" status after he became the nominee.

    The interesting thing is the timing (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    After WV is when it changed. That is what I find interesting.

    Why would the MSM be showing Clinton.. (none / 0) (#246)
    by AX10 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    is such positive light these days?

    Should this come to pass. (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by AX10 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    Obama and his wife would have earned every ounce of it.  Unlike Gore and Kerry, the Obama's have no problem engaging in Rovian tactics against their opponents.  I was outraged when the pile ons against Gore and Kerry happened, because they do not play that kind of dirty game.  The Obama's however, love to engage in the "Rove Game".  If the conclusions of your observations are correct, Obama is going to get what he deserves, and he won't be able to handle it.

    very interesting... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    he is going to claim that he has won more than half of pledged delegates, and that no candidate who has won more than half has never not gone on to be the nominee; I guess he will allow the rest of the country to supply the "ergo" to his syllogism.

    So even the declaration of victory--the one that's been talked about for the past week or so--will wind up being an implied argument rather than an explicit one.

    Great way to make the declaration while being able to say "I didn't actually declare myself victor...now did I?"


    Nominees and disenfranchisement (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Davidson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    When has a nominee ever depended on the disenfranchisement of two states to "win" the nomination?  And the famous "rules" allow the superdelegates to choose the strongest GE candidate if neither candidate can claim the nomination on pledged delegates alone.

    Obama is going to do what he always does when he's in trouble: distract and shame.  People will think, "Gosh, no one has ever been denied the nomination before in his position and if the Democrats do that they'll surely be racists!"

    Why is he doing this if he's so sure he's got the nomination in the bag?  The last thing he should want is to tell the GOP it's OK to start attacking him, especially when he's up against John "Maverick" McCain.


    Obama never had a 50-state strategy (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    it was more like a 50-City strategy of huge rallies. That's why he first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20 - before TX, OH, WV, KY....
    He had no intention of campaigning for blue collar and rural voters and focused on cities and liberal areas. He even dissed John Edwards 'poverty' message after he'd suspended his campaign.
    Hillary was leading in WV by large margins weeks before the primary. If Obama had been "concerned" he could have made Edwards (or another White person) an offer sooner and Edwards could have been campaigning for him in those states.
    But Obama wasn't interested in "those voters." And after his "bitter" remarks in mid-April, calling Democrats "racists" clinging to their guns and religion, I'm wondering if he was afraid to campaign in certain states.

    Josey..."Some Say" There Have Been (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    threats; but after crying "wolf" so many times by obama's camp, I don't even know whether to believe it.  If that is the case, he better borrow the pope's little bubble car if he does get the nomination, if he is that afraid.

    If Obama (5.00 / 15) (#8)
    by Makarov on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    decides to coronate himself formally, I think it will generate a more significant backlash from Clinton supporters.  There are many long time Democrats, myself and several family members among them, who are struggling with the decision to support Obama in November.  None of us will vote for John McCain, but the outrageous behavior of Obama's campaign, highlighted by the same in the media, is giving us pause when we think about casting a vote FOR the junior Senator from Illinois.

    Moving the goalposts from an already incorrect starting point (2025, instead of 2209) to a mere majority of pledged delegates, many of them from Republican states and caucuses, is just pouring salt in the wounds.  This is not the way to unify the party.  This is merely a last, desperate grab to wrest the nomination from Hillary Clinton and her large coalition representing women, senior citizens, hispanics and moderate and low income voters.

    Obama rightly fears what may happen on May 31.  Assuming the FL and MI delegations are recognized, then there will be no doubt on any scale that Hillary Clinton will be the popular vote winner of the nominating process.  Yet, I don't understand his motivation in declaring mission accomplished before the remaining votes are counted, before he reaches his own magic number of 2025.  Unless, of course, he suspects there are not enough undeclared superdelegates to push him across that threshold.

    In my view, we'd be better off deciding the nominee at the convention than declaring victory before all votes have been cast or counted.

    I wonder if some of the supers (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    are secretly hoping that Obama digs himself a hole of his obvious own making that he is completely unable to get out of.

    The "Mission Accomplished" speech could be just the shovel he needs.

    As we know, in some states, nearly a majority of the population say that they'll either vote for McCain or stay home if he's the nominee.  Does he really think proclaiming himself the winner will make these people like him more?? (Answer:  no)  What he's doing is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, his arrogance.  


    Also (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    The reason I'm saying "some supers are [possibly] secretly hoping" is because I think many people with common sense agree with Cokie -- the Democrats haven't chosen the most electable candidate.

    the dems haven't chosen an electable (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST

    Of Course It Has To Go To The Convention (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    and it appears that obama's goal is to muddy the
    waters and make people think this is not how it is supposed to be.  Mission Accomplished...told you he is just like bush.

    Replay of Florida (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Davidson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    Obama will make it so everyone assumes the nominee so if the Democrats pick Clinton it'll look like he's been denied.  He's been doing this for a while, encouraging the media to write Clinton's chances as "stealing" the nomination from him.

    However, there's a few key differences: Bush wasn't despised by as many Republicans as Obama is by Democrats as there's a growing backlash against him and Hillary Clinton is no Al Gore who'll merely roll over to seem "nice."


    obama Does Have Playing The Victim Down To (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    a science; but I sincerely believe this isn't playing well for him as much as it did.  As for backlash, can't think of anyone who deserves it more.  Don't forget, you can fool some of the people, etc., etc., etc..

    Yup, no one wants a victim in (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    the White House. We want a winner who won't quit. Someone who exudes confidence and has the political chops to back it up.
    That isn't Obama. It's Hillary.

    FlaDemFem....You Are Soooooo Smart!! (none / 0) (#182)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    You're 100% correct and I (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Mark Woods on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    will be part of that backlash.  I will not vote for Obama under any circumstance, unless Clinton share 1/2 of his ticket or he share 1/2 of her ticket.

    He is going to be picketed and booed at with angry voters next week in FL my neighbors are promising me in Miami Beach.

    Did he really think we were going to welcome him as a conquering hero?

    Even though I've been a Democrat since 1977 I might get angry enough to actually vote for McCain in protest, too.

    Obama's surrogates keep saying the Clinton Democrats will 'get over their broken hearts' and 'come home' but they are seriously deluded, IMHO.


    Celtics led Gm6; Comeback Cavs won + forced Gm7 (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    If it were up to a very sour Donna Brazile (who was on 'Dis Weak glowering at anyone who raised criticisms about Obama), the somewhat irritated Celtics would be holding a Mission Accomplished press conference instead of showing up for the formality of Game Seven. (EC Semis Cleveland Cavs @ Boston Celtics, Sun May 18, 2008 3:00PM ET)

    (Didn't see the bobbleheads other than to check times for Cavs/Celts)

    Will it not llok a lot like... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Chesserct on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    Bush's "mission accomplished" speech when he continues to lose primaries after he claims this "victory", or has to fight for the nomination at the convention?

    I think the goal is to suppress the voter (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    turnout in Puerto Rico in hopes of limiting Hillary's popular vote.  Obama does better when fewer people vote.

    We can only hope people see the likeness (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    SNL threw the Mission Accomplished battleship photo up last night. But, I'm sure the Obama supporters have heard the comparison and found a way to put on the blinders.

    If he actually does this, it HAS to backfire.

    Should it work, this party will have no choice but to examine whether it has any remaining value in its current state.


    Many believe that the Clinton supporters will floc (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Buckeye on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    to Obama if he selects her as his VP.  Others say they will eventually come around - they would never vote for McCain.  We will see if that is true...I have my doubts.

    Obama will never select her as VP (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    Michelle won't let him. Hillary may select him as VP, if he will take the job. Frankly, it sounds like VP is the slot he is best fitted for. He can spend the term doing fundraising, giving speeches, writing another book, and being President of the Senate. That should fit his skill set very well. The grinding slog of being President just doesn't seem to be Obama's forte. It is Hillary's.

    If you had listened (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    to Steve Corbett's radio show on WILK on Friday afternoon, your doubts that many Clinton supporters will vote McCain would be far fewer.  This was a small town radio talk show host who usually spends time on the year singing parodies to polka tunes (I love it!) receiving phone calls and emails from Hillary supporters from all over the country because the day before he had said that he was "turning Obama down as a candidate". At one point he thought he was talking to a listener from Wyoming, PA and discovered she was from the state of Wyoming. The hurt and frustration from the callers was palpable.

    first, obama will never off the (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    veep to clinton. that is a personal opinion. i happen to think that the real dislike that michelle has for certain groups and hillary in particular precludes it. that it will probably doom them to losing the general doesn't meant that much to them. they want to be the first at something. now they'll have it but at what cost. and after they lose, just how is this going to help the democratic party long term. the so called young voters don't like losers. the aa voters are generally reliable. i don't see them leaving if clinton is the nominee. the older voters just might not come back at all. i see the repubs reinventing themselves AGAIN. so just what have the democrats gained? NOTHING!

    You don't understand.. (5.00 / 6) (#157)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    it's not about the Democrats, it's about Obama. If he gets the nomination, and loses to McCain, he will still be rich and famous. And in the history books as the first AA candidate to make it to the GE. He doesn't care about the Democratic party or its goals, he cares about Obama and his own goals. They have little to do, as far as I can see, with improving anything but his own stature and income.

    So if he goes down in flames, he will go write another book, make more money and the Democrats will have to dig themselves out by themselves. Even his fundraising numbers will go down hill, and I don't think he will put himself out for the party. His fees will go in his own pocket, not the DNC's. The Democrats will be left with the bill for the GE and the shattered party that Obama gave them. Obama will blame it all on Hillary or someone else. It's never his fault, right?


    He's already set for money (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by befuddled on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    if I correctly understand the value of his voter database and mailing list. Somewhere I saw it valued at $200,000,000 over its useful information life. Not bad wages for 2 years campaigning even if he isn't elected. The Dems, probably Repubs too, should take steps to keep campaigns from turning into information trolling like this.

    actually i do understand that. you are right (5.00 / 0) (#218)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    of course in your comments and thanks for adding that dimension to it. sadly it proves even more that obama doesn't give a dang about democrats of anything connected to it like you know voters.

    When does OR start to count the vote? 10:00 PM? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ineedalife on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    OR voting doesn't even close until after 10:00 IA time.  It will be hilarious if he pulls this stunt and the next morning he falls short.

    This may be part of the reason he is in Iowa (none / 0) (#120)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    KY will be called big for Clinton quickly, then OR in the PST will have to wait until most of the country is sleep. It doesn't look good.

    So he does the speech in Iowa as a counter. Not a bad move, but it is stupid to declare himself any kind of winner.


    What arrogance! (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    Not that I'm surprised - this is his SOP.

    My fantasy is he declares himself the winner, more votes come to Hillary, she suspends her campaign, more bad stuff trickles out over the summer about Obama, then at the convention, after hearing how wonderful he is for two days, and they graciously seat MI and FL, he's got his acceptance speech ready to go, and the votes start coming in off the floor, and Hillary gets the nomination - to everyone's surprise.  

    The MSM would love it because it would be a story for weeks, and it would take the shine off the Republican convention the next week.

    Game. Set. Match.

    I don't dislike Obama (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by akaEloise on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    I will vote for him, if he is the nominee.  I agree with him on most issues and I think that he has the potential to be a very good President, especially if he resists the temptation to be arrogant and chooses his Cabinet and advisors wisely and without regard to who they supported in the primary.  I don't believe that he could ever be as great a President as Hillary Clinton would be, if she were given the opportunity, but I think he could be very good.  And certainly, an Obama administration would be a million times better than a McCain one.

    So I hope that I'm not speaking completely out of partisan loyalty when I say this would be an incredibly stupid move for a smart man to make.  There is no possible advantage to declaring yourself the winner of a contest when there are still people who haven't had a chance to vote, when your opponent has not conceded, and when the official contest doesn't take place for another three months.  He's already been declared the presumptive nominee by a lot of party insiders, journalists, and talking heads, most of whom should know better.   Whatever extra momentum being the presumptive nominee will get him, he already has.  No one's mind will be changed as a result of this declaration -- at least, no one's mind will be changed in his favor.  I hope he doesn't do it.

    It's certainly true (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    that Obama would promote far better policies than McCain, and would do, in that sense, some very real short term good should he become President.

    But my problem with Obama from Day One has been his tremendous potential to become another unpopular, intensely disliked President like Jimmy Carter, who will lose his clout to continue to make good things happen, will go down in resounding defeat in 2012, and will prove to be an albatross around the neck of Democrats for many cycles to come.

    To me, the question of voting for and supporting Obama is akin to the question of whether it would be right to vote for Jimmy Carter, anticipating the damage he would do to the Democratic brand years hence. From my point of view, the certainty one might have that Obama will prove out as a very destructive President for the Democratic brand is vastly higher than it might ever have been for Jimmy Carter before he was elected.

    While I disliked the nature of Obama's appeal very much from the beginning, I hardly expected that it would be demonstrated so concretely and vividly in the Democratic nomination process. The rejection of the Reagan Democrats -- a constituency that will continue to dominate Presidential elections for decades, given their location and numbers -- has been simply stunning.

    Obama might manage to ride the now ascendant Democratic brand to the Presidency (we'll see). But his perceived elitism, and the distrust of the man by working class voters, I do not see going away. I can't think of any politician more lacking in the "common touch" than Obama. When the Republican brand starts itself to resurge -- as it will when they are no longer in power, and can do what they do best, throw firebombs at the powers that be -- Obama's inherent faults will be entirely exposed, just as Bush's were when the 9/11 effect finally subsided.

    Obama's Presidency will not end well for the Democrats. The elitist wing of the Democratic Party can't prevail in the long run, due to its own personality and character faults.


    I Definitely Don't Like The Way He Seems To (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    be restructuring the party. In the aftermath of the Unitary President, I don't trust anyone to have complete control of the party's funds or marginalizing outside interest groups. Also, so far his campaign has been one of demonizing various demographics and exclusionary tactics. It is almost like the Democratic Party is being morphed into the Obama Party which is structured somewhat like a Unity08 Party but with a foundation of the Daley machine and Delay like tactics. I also have concerns about what core Democratic values will be thrown under the bus. A Republican president IMO could not privatize Social Security but a so called Democratic President might be able to accomplish this task. Also, the only way that a party could continue with a base primarily consisting of the AA community, youth vote and "creative class" is to select a minority candidate who will capture 90% of the demographic. Throwing workers under the bus makes to sense at all to me. Don't like this new revised so called Democratic Party at all.  

    We should start a campaign to have (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    the parents of the Obama followers cut off their allowances. See how enthusiastic they are when they have to get a job and be workers instead of spoiled brats who have had everything handed to them. Let's see how enthusiastic they are when they come home from an eight hour shift and their feet are so sore they can barely stand. Let's see how much money they give when they know how much work it took to earn that dollar, and it was their work that earned it. Let them be blue collar for a month or two and see what they think of Obama then. They will find out that hope tastes great if you put meringue on it, if they can afford the eggs to make the meringue.

    Speaking of eggs, let 'em try food stamps (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    that will get them powdered eggs, ugh -- since their candidate likes to talk about when his mother went on food stamps.  Because she was a student, of course, but that would harm the narrative (including that he was poor, yet her student status then would point to him being from two parents with Ph.D.'s).

    I read a more careful vetting of that claim about food stamps, and he is careful to say his mother was on food stamps, as so many students are -- and he is careful in how he says it because those were the years -- most of his young years -- when he was not with her but was being raised by his well-off grandparents.

    I don't get why he keeps painting these deceptive  self-portrayals.  There is a good spin he could put on this story, an explanation of the good that the food-stamp program does in providing for many of us among the temporary poor, i.e., students, and an explanation of the importance of more programs to get more Americans educated -- and get more of those who have benefited from education and thus better lives to then see the worth of helping others.  But instead, it's another distorted narrative.  I don't get it.


    so many ifs. you'll vote on if's? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM EST
    so far he hasn't come through on anything. take a look at his paper thin resume. he doesn't represent hope and change anymore or the end of racial division. please define why you would vote for someone who has put racial division to such levels? he doesn't promote anything for the american people such as health coverage. hillary does. i am truly wondering. thanks

    And you find reason to hope? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by miriam on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    You say: if he resists the temptation to be arrogant and chooses his Cabinet and advisors wisely.

    What evidence do we have that he is capable of either? We have plenty of evidence that he is not, or does not care to.  He has displayed arrogance over and over and I, for one, doubt the word humility is in his vocabulary.  He does not seem able to admit mistakes or take responsibility for them. He whines about racism when he loses and has a highly disturbing habit of blaming everyone but himself. (Whom does this characteristic remind you of?)  

    As for choosing advisors wisely, we have more than enough reasons to be terrified of this potential: Reverend Wright, Rezko, Auchi, William Ayers, Michelle Obama---these are the people he has chosen to surround himself with.  Optimism is one thing; delusionary wishful thinking is quite another.


    The Unity Pony Galloping Into IA To (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    declare that he is "The One."

    Why do I think that Obama doesn't really care how many Clinton supporters he ticks off? He must believe that Democratic voters are sheep that will meekly fall in line between now and November. For someone who has never promoted party loyalty, this would be quite an assumption.

    Well I'm glad that I'm an Independent now and I don't have to consider party loyalty.

    It's what happens when you live (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    in a bubble.  When in doubt, you ask a rabid "operative".  They'll tell you the the "truth" that you want to hear.

    The surprise will come in November.


    If Iowans fall for this, too, then (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:41:01 AM EST
    I really will have to revise my opinion of them -- as I'm from a family of former Iowans.  

    I begin to see why my forebears left for brighter pastures.  


    Lots of farmers in Iowa.. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    and farmers know what comes out of ponies. And while it is great for growing roses, it isn't so great for growing votes. Heh.

    Maybe he's come to the realization (3.00 / 0) (#33)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:28:02 AM EST
    that responsible progressive voters won't vote to make McCain president, and that as for other Hillary voters, there's nothing he could do, including putting her on the ticket, that would change their minds anyway.  

    Oooh (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    "Responsible progressives" vote for Obama, now.  LOL!  So did they find that the Roe threat wasn't working, so now they'll insult people this way into voting?

    Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#44)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    have ADA ratings of between 95 and 100

    McCain is hard-pressed to hit 20 in a good year

    Yeah, responsible progressives


    Responsible progressives (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    Care about legitimate elections.  Winning on a technicality isn't winning.

    "responsible progressives" don't (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    support a basically unelectable candidate in the primary as he defeats the ones who could have beaten McCain. People who don't support Obama in the general might be irresponsible, but so is anyone who supported him in the primary.

    Responsible progressives: (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    1.  Question the candidates credentials.
    2.  Do not fall in like with a marketing campaign.
    3.  Do not fall for accusations of racism that are not valid.
    4.  Insist on all voters having a vote and not allowing the DNC to silence millions of voters.
    5.  They do not blindly believe any candidate who spews language of idealization and fanaticism.
    6.  They don't fall for viral campaign tricks orchestrated by the premier Astro Turf firm, Axelrod.
    7.  They don't demonize one person and sanctify another.  
    8.  They don't lie to themselves by convincing themselves that a male child's experience in a foreign country is equal in any way shape or form to an adult woman's eight year experience as a first lady that was involved and engaged.  

    By the way, my list is not complete but I don't want to sit here for an hour.  

    I guess (none / 0) (#147)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    you fall into the "other" category

    Are you trying to pick (none / 0) (#155)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    a snit?

    When'd Obama and Fauxgressive OBoiz get feminist? (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    Sweetie, when did this conversion occur? Between sending guy-crush missives to Roberts, fawning over the ideas of the no-choice Reagan admin, or tooling around PA with Fertilized Egg "pro" life deadbeat Sen Casey Jr?

    SCOTUS is on your head. Don't you dare pre-blame women for something the Dems failed to stand up for during the Bush era, including when they had the opportunity in Jan '06. (Didn't see it at the top of their agenda the first 100 days.)

    It's actually cheaper, more attainable, and more legally and medically possible to make illegal abortion safer than rely on the Dems (and especially Obama Dems) to do SFA about liberalizing the courts.


    Well If Obama Is Counting On Just Progressive (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    voters, he just might have a GE problem. The Democratic party is not made up of just progressive voters. Moderate and conservative voters make up a large portion of the Democratic Party. Obama already has a problem with conservative Dem voters who do not have a problem voting Republican when it suits them. Any campaign that gives voters a reason to vote against their candidate is living dangerously IMO. A sane campaign objective should be to add new voters without losing the existing base.  

    So now anyone who does not vote (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    for Obama in the GE, if he is the nominee, is irresponsible.  This ranks right up there with "Bitter and Clinging" as how not to get people to vote for your candidate.  It's remarks like this that make my voting for Obama in the GE, should he be the candidate, a probability and not a certainty.

    Told you so! (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    I knew they'd pull this on us.  

    Which is to say, I saw it coming, am unsurprised it's here and it's not. going. to. work. on me.


    John McCain (none / 0) (#150)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    and Pastor Hagee appreciate your support

    You forgot the Green Party. (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    I'm a Gore gal.  If Obama wants a third party, he may well get it only to find out he's not in charge of it.

    Matt Gonzalez for VP (none / 0) (#188)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST

    The Jane Abortions in Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Kathy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    Perfectly safe, no fatalities, no lasting problems.

    You are so right.


    Liberal Guilt, part deux (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    That's one of the new memes now that the attack of the Politeness Trolls failed. Now we have Responsibilty Trolls. They imply that we are not acting like "responsible progressives" unless we vote for Obama. More shaming. Doesn't work on me. I'm too old to be guilted into anything.

    Even the Lie Back'n Think of Roe trolls are (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    ... preferable to the Self-Help trolls who drop by to offer Psycho-Caca guaranteed to cure Sen Clinton's voters of the derangement behind supporting her.

    • I can tell you're angry!
    • Indeed, your feelings are 'bruised' (The 'bruised' talking point galumphed through the MSM.)
    • Sweetie, someday, another @sshole will pretend to appreciate you even more than I'm doing now.

    YMMV but I like the imperious bossy ones that line up on a fence like a row of cans to knock off with those handy Annie Oakley six shooters. (HRC should sell buttons with crossed pistols and the slogan: Anything (t)he(y) can do I can do better!)  

    Post Guilt (none / 0) (#201)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:06:27 PM EST
     One of the most wonderful gifts of menopause is the death of guilt as an emotion.  I guess it could be just wisdom.  

    Responsible maybe (3.00 / 2) (#152)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    progressive, no

    Ummm... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST

    Look...I'd really suggest that you reel back the judgmentalism when it comes to determining who is and is not...

    a progressive

    It does you few favors...and it looks a lot like you are trying to pick a fight.


    Cold hard facts and reality (none / 0) (#162)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    I was a Kennedy supporter in 1980, and along with a lot of other disillusioned Dems, did not vote for Carter in the GE.  Eight years of  Reagan taught me not to vote for the next "Reagan Republican."

    Regardless... (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    Your judgmental opinion...belongs to you alone.

    The votes must be earned...not assumed. Especially when you have folks like Brazile out there saying that base votes aren't needed.

    And so far as I can tell, condescension and judgmentalism re: "I'm more progressive and more responsible than you are" really aren't going to do the trick when it comes to trying to persuade voters into your camp.


    If they are more progressive than me (none / 0) (#169)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    then I hope they come around

    Should their votes be EARNED (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    by the nominee, we'll see.

    Thus far, the candidate who seems to think that he's the nominee doesn't appear to be doing all that great when it comes to earning those votes.


    You have no right to demand voter justifications (5.00 / 7) (#173)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    This is a democracy. No one has to explain or justify his or her vote to you. Who the hell are you anyway? Some pointless cog in the Obama machine?

    You're out of line using these guilt and pressure tactics that aren't just morally indefensible, but a clear indication that TeamObama is more about returning to the Boss political machine that we DO NOT need to revisit.

    If Obama's sincere about Unity Hope and Change, he'd be promoting what's right and not deployoing astro-bullies using people's inalienable constitutional protections for extortion.


    Not asking for justifications from anyone (none / 0) (#178)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    but, in humble opinion,  anyone who thinks that McCain is some type of liberal, or that there won't be any consequences to choosing one over the other is not facing up to reality.

    Then tell TeamObama to stop courting the rad right (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    And put SCOTUS and an endangered Roe v. Wade on Obama supporters' heads.

    Please, post a diary on dKos or one of the other sites and let everyone know whether Obama stops courting the conservative, evangelical, no-choice vote.

    Supporting a weak candidate in the GE will endanger the courts. Obama likely also has a glass floor: it's doubtful his supporters will vote for Dems down ticket, where it matters more for SCOTUS and reproductive rights incl. abortion rights.

    Sen Clinton's supporters are more likely to vote in other Democrats.

    Now go educate Obama's newbie multitudes of what they NEED to do with their votes!


    Votes must be earned... (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    They should not be assumed to be there for the candidate.

    Additionally, you don't earn those votes by being condescending to the voter. You also do not earn those votes by implying that people are potentially "irresponsible" because they do not believe that their votes have been earned by a candidate.

    Donna Brazile has been on TV announcing that they don't need x, y, and z voter groups--each of these groups contains a multitude of progressives--and that the base should stay home.

    I am not in either camp...and I'm almost an Independent thanks to much of the weirdness going on.

    You earn my vote. I do not hand it to you on a silver platter.


    so irresponsible progressives? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    i assume you mean the 50% or so that voted for clinton or edwards? you know insulting the votes you HAVE TO GAIN in order to win the ge isn't the way to go. so far obama and his campaign don't seem to understand that. frankly, if they including brazile don't understand what it really take to win a campaign, i have to assume the following that the can't run the country would be right. that sure was true with bush.

    A responsible progressive? (none / 0) (#220)
    by cawaltz on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    Heh. He doesn't get my default vote. If that makes me irresponsible and not progressive in the eyes of those that drink Kool aid so be it.

    I Can't Tell If obama Is Dumb As A Door Knob, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    arrogant beyond belief, or is just pure evil.

    Why not all three? (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    Think big!!!

    I Can Live With That... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Narcissistic Personality Disorder (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    explains a lot with that guy. He is egocentric beyond belief and he definitely seems to me to have some sociopathic tendencies goin' on.

    He's a guy with no accomplishments to his name (other than winning elections) running an incredibly destructive, divisive campaign (and blaming it on the opposition) for the Democratic nomination based on the idea that he's a unity candidate who is post-partisan and will bring us all together.

    I'll tell you what - If you had asked me, before Obama came along, to tell you what a narcissistic personality disorder candidate's campaign would look like, my answer would have been pretty much the above.

    It's to the Democratic party's credit that so many of us are rejecting him. And while the OFB think that the people who are rejecting Obama are doing so because they are middle-aged women like Hillary, the truth of the matter is that we're rejecting him as completely as we are because we recognize what kind of person he is. If this was John Kerry managing to hang in there against Clinton till the very end, I wouldn't be refusing to vote in the election if Kerry was the nominee. Obama's narcissism is why he doesn't back away from his supporters' misogyny. He's willing to use it as a bonding mechanism - something most Dems would be innately horrified by.


    I agree with the last part. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:52:17 AM EST
    The whole internet diagnosis thing doesn't interest me except in predicting future behavior.  

    While I have no problem with either candidate gaming the system to win, I do have a problem with the attitude that blatant sexism is excusable and possibly acceptable as long as it hurts Clinton more than Obama.  (And it's hurting Obama too.)


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    I started noticing this back in January. He's just like Richard Nixon. I wasn't even a Clinton supporter then. Nixon was a narcissist and so is Barack.

    He's even more like Reagan. (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    naw, reagan had a sunny persona. (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    obama doesn't. go watch that video where he gives hillary the bird. reagan would never have done that. reagan also did fairly well in the debates which surprised me. obama doesn't.

    Reagan was horrendous in debates. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    in fact, in his first debate against Mondale, he wasn't even lucid. In Tony Coelho's deathless words, he did everything but drool. He was arrogant and mean quite freqently. Go back to his rhetoric and actions against college students who, quite understandably, didn't want to be drafted. There is nothing sunny in his demeanor there. He used to joke about taking money away from welfare mothers - he displayed what a creep he was in public quite a lot. He was more than willing to pick on people who couldn't defend themselves.

    i don't disagree w/you about reagan. (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    but the truth is he had a sunny persoana. actually persona is how one appears and it doesn't mean anything about their policies. reagan did do better in debates that i thought he would. before old age and disease put him out of touch, reagan also was a very good speaker. after all he was a movie star for years and spoke on the lecture curcuit for decades. know your opponents and know them well.

    yeah right and that laugh at carter! (none / 0) (#212)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM EST
    he won the debate with that. i suppose the public likes droolers as you put it.

    Well, it's a step up from GWB (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    With GWB it was a choice between:
    Ignorant, Stupid and Evil.

    With Obama, we know he's not stupid, "intellectually incurious" is a possibility, and he's hardly humble.


    I don't think he's dumb. (none / 0) (#37)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    i think michelle probably thinks it is a grand (none / 0) (#86)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    idea. but that's me.

    How about the will of your constituents (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    Obama did not carry my district, or my state, and if one of my Reps or Senators, such as Bob Casey Jr. are still going to vote for Obama, I am honestly going to vote against them in the next cycle. The will of the people seems to get lost with the O camp. Out of 67 counties, Obama won 5.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Foxx on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    I have told Binghaman that I will never vote for him or for anyone who supports or endorses Obama.

    Ditto re my Governor and Congresswoman (4.85 / 7) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    both of whom back Obama, and for the dumbest reasons, from what they have said.  They will not get my donations or votes again.

    Next week, I will be donating at the first event for a contender for the gubernatorial spot in my state -- a Clinton supporter who has given clear and cogent reasons for that.  So that is where my money and energy will be going.  That and my garden and books and research into better days of yore, so as to keep my sanity through this campaign summer.


    This Cheesehead (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    will not donate any time or money to Governor Doyle again. Sadly for me my Congresscritter is Paul Ryan so he never got one "red" cent from me or my vote.

    As for other Democrats, now that I'm an Independent, after being a Democrat for 40 years, I'll vote for who I damn well please and not just any clown with a "D" after his/her name.  I always voted and I always voted straight Democratic ticket. Those days are gone and the Democratic Party has only themselves to blame.


    Bad Form (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    It would be really bad form when the "Math" the number to win is in dispute and not to be settled till May 31.  Obviously no one wins until the convention where the votes are actually cast.  

    What is he doing?  Obvious.  He is setting up the narrative that if anything changes it was stolen from him.  That story fanaticizes his base.  The notion that the nomination is his and Hillary stole it, when all that would happen is the process will be played out.  

    Twisted Rovian maneuvers that lack any integrity or honor.  The new politics of Obama are in my opinion way worse than the old politics.   It's Rove on steroids and I tell you Axelrod and Obama are destroying the Democratic party.  They will build in resentment that will last generations.  

    It will be just another (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM EST
    way that the REAL Rovian machine can morph Obama into Mayor Daley.

    The more Obama does this Rovian crap, the easier it will be.


    TeamO doesn't have the chops (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    That whole appeasement debacle was such a doofus error. No individual was named.

    Obama should have defended DEMS. He chose to take it as personally insulting, skulked around like Hamlet while HRC and McCain took him to school.

    Someone else pointed out (forget who or I'd attribute) that this was the political equivalent of yelling, "Hey MORON!" in a crowd and Obama's the only one who turns around and says, "What?"

    He's toast in the GE.


    it would seem to me that a large part of (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    obama's campaign for the general would be a series of dog whistles and speeches in front of supporters talking about how he is being picked on. that sure won't win you much.

    Really! 'I promise 2/B the most miffed Prez evah!' (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    After following Sens. Clinton and McCain's statements about appeasement, Obama had to tweak it a second time and STILL flubbed it by saying he just wanted "to get that off my chest, Guys!"

    Gack: not only was that a mis-step

    (a) in front of a hand-picked backdrop of mostly Problematic Older Typical White Racist Womwn, whom TeamO just went to great lengths to lure back and

    (b) that showed the ineptness of Mr. Foreign Policy, who's too busy being personally miffed to denounce Bush's most egregious insult to Israel. Jeez, Supreme @sshole Bush just used a sombre reference to WWII and the Holocaust as a slimy opportunity to take a partisan shot at the opposition PARTY in the US.

    A real leader would have gotten over himself for a moment or two and addressed THAT. Obama chose to discuss how it insulted his ego. Bleccch.


    Obama is using it as the only current tool he has (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    to show that he has been universally annointed as the Democratic nominee and he's campaining for the GE with it.

    I heard on one news program yesterday that they thought he had already milked it dry, but he was showing no signs of letting go. HAH!!

    He really is the mirror image of GWB. GWB has an Ivy League degree, too.


    aw c'mon - give Obama a break (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    he was only trying to prop up his foreign policy cred - and bash Hillary and McCain as being the "old way."
    To distract from his shallow and substance-less campaign, Obama's main strategies have been promoting Hate and race-baiting.

    If you scramble the spelling of "unite," (5.00 / 12) (#57)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    you get "untie," something my scrambled fingers often type by mistake.

    I think, in this case, maybe it's what's really happening: Obama isn't uniting - tieing together - the party, he is untieing it in a very systematic way: he first sorts us into our various groups by gender and race and class/economics - and then he pits us against each other.  Then he promotes himself as the only one who can bring us together, the whole time hoping that no one notices that he's the one who has pulled us apart.

    Unfortunately for Obama, he's got the pulling-us-apart thing down cold, but he does not have what it takes to put it all back together again - these divisions, which people have spent decades trying to narrow, will, as a result of one man's massive ego and the complicity of the media, be wider than ever and will stay that way for a long, long time.

    No thanks - I'm not sure I can be part of that project.


    humpty dumpty! that which you destroy, (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    is not that easy to put back together if at all. these short term thinkers don't consider that.

    And bad manners (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    and such displays of discourtesy do not look presidential to me.  Diplomacy is key for any administration, and never more than at this time, after the presidency we have endured.

    And whether diplomacy in foreign affairs or domestic, an administration needs the support of Congress.  Yet this is the way Obama treats another Senator?  The others will be watching, and there are many who hold nothing more sacred than respect for the institution.  He will pay for this, whether in the White House or back in the Senate.


    Manners and common sense (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    Two things that have been chucked as irrelevant in this high information age.  

    Stellaaa (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Kathy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    I really think it'll backfire--don't you?  He doesn't have Edwards to pull out of his pocket in order to take the narrative away from her numbers in KY.  It'll come off as so arrogant.  And, why is he doing this in IA and not OR?  It seems he would have his "victory" in the place he was most recently victorious.  MT or another upcoming state would make more sense than IA.  Or is he harkening back to the good ol' days?

    I keep saying this: the supers are waiting for something.


    "Where the dream started" (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    and giving the heartland an ego boost.  Think of this as an advertising campaign from now on.  Remember his speech with "the whisper in Springfield".  Now will come up with some hokey stuff about the " talk in Iowa"  that will become the echo in the country.  

    If he had the SDs, why are they not flocking?   Unless he comes up with some stunt of a bunch of SDs behind him in Iowa.  

    Kathy, I have reached the point that I truly think his presidency is dangerous.  I really trust my gut feelings on things like this.  


    Maybe Gore is going to be there with him (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    selling the fuel from corn idea.

    i hope gore stays completely out of it. (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    This is my fear (none / 0) (#143)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    Unfortunately, if he pulls Gore out, the rest of the super D's will flood to him. This is the rabbit I fear is hiding in the hat.

    Highly improbable. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    The stark difference between Obama and Gore is that Gore doesn't believe in burning any bridges or alienating any constituency.  For Obama, dissing one group in order to woo another is his standard MO.

    Reps, Senators and Governors (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    are about to find out a whole new element of trust they will need to earn will be injected into their own campaigns:

    will this person make a good Superdelegate?


    Bingo. A benefit of this long campaign (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    includes education of the voters in all that they vote for when they mark a ballot, pull a lever, etc.

    I knew this, being raised by a party official -- but it has been interesting to see others who jumped on the diss-the-supers bandwagon have to answer as I talked and posted again and again that these are (a) the local, state, and national officials you elected, folks, plus (b) the party officials you supported by supporting the Dem party.  (Another reason I am so enjoying my recent conversion to Independent status.)


    Well I know what they plan to do for the GE (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    they will pull the SCOTUS card and the any Democrat is better than a Republican card.  I've seen it done here even by Clinton supporters they call it the Unity theme.  My guess, It might work with some people, but will it work with enough people?  Obama's problem IMO is that Independents who were once touted as being one of his strengths are becoming one of his weaknesses specially if you are going after McBush come the GE.  We are hoping people will tie McCain with Bush but that may not play out specially with the maverick meme by the MSM.  A lower than expected Democratic turnout in key states, a higher that expected defection of disillusioned voters, and the MSM love blitz for McBush make a Democrat win in 2008 an uphill battle.  And this was supposed to be an election that any Democrat would win.

    There is so little left of Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    in so many states, since court rulings that it's up to the states -- and the next president cannot appoint enough new justices to overturn those rulings that eviscerated Roe v. Wade.  So I refuse to be blackmailed by it anymore.  

    In my so-called "progressive" state of Wisconsin, Roe v. Wade barely exists; we get an F in "report cards" on reproductive rights, such as the one from NARAL.  And when even NARAL traduces us, I'm done defending the movement or the clinics.

    The Republicans need the remnants of Roe v. Wade -- as that's all it is, anymore -- as a rallying cry far more than the Democrats do.  We have seen that a court decision can be ground down into nothing.

    I will work for an ERA, for Constitutional protection of our equality in medical decisions and more, and that's it.  If the movement that made NARAL and the faux feminists I've seen support Obama wants me back, that's what it will take.  It will take no more from me, after what it took from the Clinton campaign -- and my hopes that all these decades of defending the movement and clinics and so much more, at such great cost.


    Add to that , IMO and I think I am not alone, (4.25 / 4) (#83)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    some of Obama's statements on Choice and his courting of evangelicals leave me doubting about his sincerity on this matter.  That is why even though I will probably vote for him, if G forbid he is the nominee, I won't say it with certainty as I may still change my mind and leave the space blank or write-in her name.

    If you (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by sas on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    vote for him that is tacit approval of his methodoligies, and his views.

    I'm hopeful all voters who plan to (none / 0) (#230)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    vote for McCain or not vote for Pres., or write in Clinton, do so with the full knowledge of McCain's solid record against reproductive rights of women.

    Orange alert (none / 0) (#242)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:25:14 PM EST
    I'm a 53 year old woman so I'm not (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    to worried for myself but when you look at Obama's record on choice issues, despite what NARAL and Plannned Parenthood say, there are some definite warning signs. Not so with Clinton. Any young feminist who is supporting Obama and is buying the NARAL endorsement is doing damage to her own cause. I won't vote for someone who is a misogynist and whom I don't trust to appoint appropriate judges. I just won't.

    So, everyone is forewarned. And forewarned is forearmed.


    Gonna take a special kind of delusion (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    for people not to realize that McCain is not Bush.  With his long term reputation, painting him as Bush is not going to work.  But it's all Obama's got so they will have to try it.

    i think obama will get desperate in the ge (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    just like he did in the primaries. he'll drag out his old time favorites racism, age. he'll cry that he is being mistreated in front of his followers. who is he trying to scare into voting for him this time? the more he tries these old canards, they more they'll backfire on him. he can't campaign on being the "one" to end racism and a different kind of politics, though he might try for old times sake.

    the only thing he has going for him is the public's dislike of bush. what the democratic leadership is missing is how much they don't like the democratic leadership. their poll numbers are worse than bush. the repubs know that. do these lemmings going over the cliff not know that. frankly, at the very least they are ignoring it and hoping we will also.


    I hope does it (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    He can't divide the party any more than he already has.

    I hope he does it too (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:55:49 AM EST
    it might be the last straw and the cover that allows just one super to leave him. I truly believe that all it will take is one to switch from Obama to Clinton to start a flood. All they need is cover.

    I have already written and made it clear I hope his coattails disappear, if they ever really existed in the first place.

    Not only will I not vote for Obama but I will not vote for any downticket dem who supported or endorsed him.


    And prove for all to see (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    that he needs a refresher course in U.S. geography (world geography later) and arithmetic.

    Rev Wright (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Wright to speak at Trinity NOW!

    Trinity Church

    Oh, God (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    I would say he's a bad penny, but he's not even worth that much.

    Hurrying to Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by hlr on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    another reason -- you know that whole "BO will win Iowa in a walk" meme? Rasmussen recently released a new Iowa poll -- it's a dead heat (BO +2).

    He NEVER Finishes what he starts (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    This premature declaration will just cap his premature withdrawal from campaigning because the primary isn't over.

    Obama never finishes anything before he moves on to his next ambition. This is his history and I've believed, and said, for weeks that Obama's goal is to achieve the $50M per book mark that Bill Clinton is getting.

    FOX News this morning had a piece that clearly showed Obama as using a strategy of having already won, speaking of Clinton in the past tense, and campaigning as though he's in the GE. They said outright what he is doing, but his followers don't watch FOX.

    It's another Obama brush of the shoulders, scrape of the shoes.  

    I won! I'm going to Disney (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    Yesterday My 82 year old mother said that Obama is "a baby - he's running away." She also says he doesn't have enough energy to be president. That's why he's declaring victory - he needs another vacation.

    And why didn't he do this sooner? (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    Heck, it's just spin, so why not spin it sooner?  What is so significant about half of the delegates?  Why wasn't there a rally when he reached, say, a fourth of the delegates?  And/or, then a third of the delegates?

    Let's play where-will-the-rally-be when he reaches three-fourths of the pledged delegates?  Or, heck, he bores easily, so there could be an interim rally when he reaches five-eighths of the delegates.

    The possibilities are endless for this ploy -- and he really is in trouble with rural voters, so I think it's just a fine idea for him to hold "got to another fractional if fast-moving goalpost" rallies in cornfields everywhere. . . .

    Of course, this one won't be in a cornfield.  He will manage, I am sure, to find one of the few urban areas in Iowa.  But he'll talk big about rural folks, jest you wait and see.  Maybe pose on a tractor while wearing a tie again.  That one cracked me up. :-)


    More guts (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    The weakening of the dem brand with anti-choice, anti-gay candidates, the acceptance of sexism, etc, etc, etc...they no longer speak for me.

    I would add the ploy of demonizing and minimizing the working classes along with regionalist hate talk, has really made me reconsider the Democratic party.  I will never abide by a party that purposefully divided the working class and the poor along racial lines with no effort to unite.  This was our chance to stop the idiocy of racially dividing America's classes.  As far as I am concerned that was the wound that needed to be healed and he cut a big gash into it and along with DNC operatives, poured salt in the wound.  

    You're almost certainly correct (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    that he won't be president.  However, I agree with Stellaa that an Obama presidency would be dangerous and potentially disastrous for the country.

    I see a creeping American fascism in him and his adoring herds.  Sen McCain is a far better choice in my opinion.

    Rise, Hillary Rise

    So, if he does wind up on the top of the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    the dilemma becomes how to vote downticket.

    Do we risk Obama winning and let him have a democratic congress that doesn't provide a barrier to his incompetence? -or-

    Do we risk Obama winning and work toward making him reach across that aisle he claims he's so good at doing and give him a Republican congress to start with?


    If he won (none / 0) (#142)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    Obama would be impeached within one year.

    No he won't (none / 0) (#203)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    Pelosi will move that table down the street.

    He needs to learn humlity... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    ...and fast. Voter's do not vote for blatantly arrogant leaders. They vote for men time and again who are incredibly arrogant, but these men always mask their pride in humility, giving the people an out.

    Some of Obama's supporter's write this off as mere racism, the equivalent of white people saying "How dare this uppity black person act like he's as good as me?".  But it has nothing to do with race. It's part of an anti-elitism in our nation that has applied to leaders for a long time, if not always. It's why Presidential candidates roll up their sleeves (literally) and "act" like common people (i.e. bowling, eating hot dogs at country fairs, chopping wood). Obama has been so busy acting "Presidential" that he seems to have overlooked the need to act "common". He wants to take the title of Democratic nominee instead of letting the mantle fall on his shoulders gracefully.

    Unfortunately, Obama is trapped by a problem that ensnares many young leaders. He can't let his record stand on it's own, because it won't. He has to constantly tell people how good he is, and that he deserves the leadership position he craves. He comes off as arrogant, boastful, proud. Clinton suffered some of the same, but her age and time in the limelight, combined with the reality that she has been "taken down a notch" so many times it's amazing she can stand up, provided some insulation.

    Obama's attitude should be "I'm running a campaign, and every vote should and will be counted, and the best person will win. I believe that I am better qualified than my competition, but the voter's will decide". He should throw in a few comments about how Democracy can be complicated, but it's the best system in the world and he has complete faith in it. Then, when he wins, he can stand with stars in his eyes and convincingly shake his head in wonder that a mere mortal like he should be thus honored. Instead, he is looking for opportunities to seemingly force himself on the voter's as their candidate.  He seems to think that the Presidency is his due.  But voter's will reject that attitude. Heck, they have rejected that attitude. in droves. I doubt that the word "uppity" will enter into it (although it was used to describe Kerry), because of it's racial connotations, but the equivalents (Patronizing, arrogant, elitist) are already being thrown around.

    We're not seeing the rolled-up sleeves (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    as much anymore -- that was a ploy to keep him out of a suitcoat with lapels.  But now, after explaining why he wouldn't so pander, he's buttoned the cuffs and is wearing a suitcoat again, so he'll have lapels to show off his shiny flag pin.

    Seriously, I noticed a deep drop in the rolled-up-sleeves poses and finally figured out why.  Jeesh.  


    Election and espec. re-election (none / 0) (#233)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM EST
    of George W. Bush seem to belie your theory.  

    He does plan to declare victory. (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    He said as much yesterday in Portland.

    Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would "put us over the top."

    "We will be able to say we have won a majority," he said. "But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."

    He said to win in November would require a unified Democratic Party, adding: "That means all of you have to be nice to Clinton supporters."


    you have to be nice to Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    heh, nice of him to notice the crap going on and not mention it until now . . .

    Awww, good. Did that stop (none / 0) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    them booing at the mere mention of another candidate?

    Maybe it's OT but (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    But when they started talking of Obama as a uniter I immediately thought of that other UNITER (GWB).

    Bzzz... (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    Credibility lost.  Comparing any Democrat to Bush instantly loses your credibility. It's like comparing people to Hitler -- it instantly shows that your biases are greater than your reason.

    NO it shows you are willing to accept (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    anything from your candidate.  He admires Reagan and Bush the father,  He criticizes Carter and Clinton and blames our problems on the Clinton administration of the 90's these are the kinds of things you would expect from someone like Bush not a real Democrat he is the one with no credibility if he compares the Clinton years to the present administration and assigns equal blame to them for our present situation and he has.  Sorry but you are the one who has no credibility with me if you are blind to the damage your candidate has done to your Party.

    Admiration (1.00 / 0) (#193)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    Actually I hate Reagan's social politics, but I think his administration was genius.  Probably the most influential president since FDR.  You shouldn't be so blinded by ideology that you can't see brilliant political maneuvering.

    Regarding Clinton, he made a lot of mistakes.  DMCA is arguably the worst bill passed in my lifetime (along with the Patriot Act).  Clinton did absolutely nothing to try to stop it.  And the Welfare Reform Act was a hideous example of pandering.  

    I'm sorry we don't share the same vision of what makes good politics.


    PSST (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Comparing any Democrat to Bush instantly loses your credibility

    Obama compares the Clinton administration to the Bush administration actually he equates them so I guess you agree Obama has no credibility.


    Give proof... (none / 0) (#199)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    She me where Obama compares Clinton to Bush.  Note, not an issue, like the Gas Tax, where they did have the same position.  But where he says that electing Clinton would be like electing Bush.  Or that there's no difference between Clinton and Bush.  You won't be able to find it, because he's never done it.  

    I'm extremely opposed to Bill and Hillary, and I won't even say that they're like Bush.  


    candidate's speeches so I won't continue this discussion with you.  If your comments on Reagan are to be believed you have no knowledge of what happened in those years so I will refrain from trying to enlighten you..  If you you have not listened enough to your candidate to remember the speeches prior to the Pa primary then I guess you ./..... need to

    ALSO (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    Actually I hate Reagan's social politics, but I think his administration was genius.  Probably the most influential president since FDR.  You shouldn't be so blinded by ideology that you can't see brilliant political maneuvering.

    so prolonging the Iran Hostage crisis in order to win an election.  And then following it up with providing weapons to the Iranians once you are president is something to be Admired>>???

    WOW you really should vote Obama


    I am assuming you are a Democrat. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    link to Denver Post.com (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by margph on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    Using the link to the Denver Post.com in your post is one more example of how the media has pushed the inevitabtility of the Democratic nomination:  "...the poll results were "just the latest evidence" that Clinton is the strongest candidate, the pollsters did not include her in many questions because it appears she will not win the nomination."  

    That one line of itself is unbelievable.  Who owns the Denver Post?

    Wow, that's one for the history books (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    and the journalism textbooks.  A breathtakingly paradoxical statement . . . that will go right past too many media and in the public.  Thanks for it, though, as I will pass it along to many a history teacher and journalism teacher I know.  We collect such funnies. :-)

    "Be nice to Clinton supporters" (5.00 / 0) (#241)
    by zebedee on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    If Obama declares victory on Tuesday he will probably spend a lot of his declaration saying nice things about Hillary and give a rousing speech rallying the party against the republicans. And it will be reported as another great speech and a magnanimous gesture towards Hillary and her supporters.

    The hypocrisy behind this would be breath-taking. And I find his statement asking everyone to "be nice to Clinton supporters" nauseating. After putting up with (and in some ways encouraging) the character assassination of Hillary and her supporters, now that he realizes that he can't take them for granted, we get all this condescension.

    I hope folks like you (2.00 / 4) (#16)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    come back into the Dem fold when Obama is running for reelection in 2012.

    HA HA! (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    You think he'd actually beat McCain???

    McCain, whose already smacked him down once with just a letter??

    Good one!


    The GOP Is Salivating Over The Fact That (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    obama could be the nominee...easier to beat in the GE.

    Are the Obama-supporters already calling (4.83 / 6) (#98)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    for McCain to drop out?

    Comment du Jour! (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    You should bookmark that for later reference.

    Depends (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Are we going to have four more years of Hillary bashing?

    That would put me and KEEP me far, far away from the Democrats.  If the Dems rush to circle the wagons any time a big...strong...man gets attacked by meanies, and stand with hands deep in pockets and a "Who, me?" expression on their faces when Clinton gets attacked, what conclusion should we draw?


    now that is a real dream. it won't happen. (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    If by some miracle McCain implodes... (none / 0) (#154)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    ...and Obama wins, then I guarantee that by 2010 his current supporter's on the left will be calling for impeachment on the grounds that he isn't keep the promises he made to them. He is implying that he will be all things to all people - nobody can live up to that kind of campaign.

    Oh, Obama Will Keep His Own 30%ers (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    if he wins just like W. They have invested too much of their own ego to ever admit that he was anything other than truly awesome.

    Subdued (none / 0) (#18)
    by nellre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    MSM article yesterday called Clinton rally subdued.
    Have any readers here attended a rally since Edwards threw his support to Obama? How's the mood? Because if HRC supporters are disheartened by all the false claims of Obama victory, it could reduce HRC turnout on Tuesday.

    They also reported (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ineedalife on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    that her victory rally in WV was held in a closet in the "bowels" of the convention center.

    The adjectives they choose tell you more about the reporter than the event they are describing.


    Rural South Dakota IS subdued (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    and just about empty of population at any time, for pity's sake.  

    What a joke of a story that was -- and pulling the trick of posting it from Oregon, with that dateline, to make it seem like that's where the event was . . . well, as one who has taught journalism, you can trust me in saying that a look at this reporter's transcript and grades could be revealing.

    Or not.  A lot of j-schools aren't doing their jobs either, lately.  And you see the result.


    2025 is the magic number (none / 0) (#23)
    by JohnRove on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM EST
    If Obama gets to 2025 isn't that the number that both parties(Clinton Obama) agreed would win the nomination.  

    Seems like he should accept the title of presumptive nominee and start going after McCain.  I guess Hillary Clinton could try a third part candidacy at that point, but by the rules of the Democratic nominating process she has lost that nomination.  

    Howard Dean himself has said that he will (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    accept no "math" that excludes the Florida and Michigan delegates.  Last time I checked he was the head of the DNC.

    The ROOLZ!!!! (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    Thanks, we never hear about those around here, you know.

    Presumptive Nominee presumes too much (2210 is it) (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Ellie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
    A premature self-annointing would turn off not only Sen. Clinton's supporters, but all those right wing Repugs Obama has promised to Unite with -- and needs in his corner -- to win in all those GOP strongholds he gamed to fake his "insurmountable" lead in this race.

    If he isn't toast by the convention, he'll go down in history for following the worst admin ever with the most expensive landslide loss evah. (One woman's opinion.)


    Magic numbers don't apply... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ineedalife on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    in a situation where everybody involved can change their minds. Even the "pledged" delegates aren't pledged. Obama poached one of Hillary's last week.

    The only number that counts is the number balloted at the convention in August.

    Ted Kennedy, one of Obama's mentors, went all the way to the convention against Carter with a huge delegate deficit. (Best wishes to Ted by the way). So you know, if the shoe were on the other foot, Obama would be forcing this all the way to the convention as well.


    No. Get a calculator. Do even a little (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    research into the total number of delegates from all states, territories, etc.  Or just use archives here, only the click of a mouse away.  It's not hard to do your own math and thus resist the media and campaign propaganda by being an informed citizen.

    that's been discussed here (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    over and over. Please read the archives.

    Apparently, you have your own set of rules (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    There is no presumptive nominee until that person achieves 2209 or 2210 delegate votes.

    Although, Obama clearly doesn't play by the rules, so it's reasonable to expect his message is easily sold to his followers.


    Fox is going with Obama's meme (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    Fox:  Obama will have a blow out in OR, Clinton will have a bigger blow out in KY.  Even if Clinton won both, she could not catch him in the pledged delegates.  Obama may reach the magic number of 2026 on Tuesday.  The superdelegates will decide this one.  Obama's job is to now walk and talk like the nominee and get voters behind him.  Obama has already been talking about Clinton and the primary campaign in the past.

    CNN: Edwards on 'negotiating -v- appeasing' for Obama.

    Wolf: Monday you didn't endorse, Wed you did why?  I decided when I voted, I came to the conclusion 24 hrs before that it was time to speak out.  Eliz announced months ago she would not make an endorsement.  She admires both candidate, her focus is on health care.

    Wolf: your plan was closer to Clinton's plan than Obama's.  Edwards: Obama is totally committed to UHC.  (Edwards is watching himself criticize Obama.)  Edwards: it was a tough race, fighting challenging like gentlemen?  Admire and impressed with Clinton. (Did he say she's grown?) She's a fine human being, extraordinary leader.  Need a change agent.

    Wolf: Effusive over Clinton will that unite the party?  What about a joint ticket?  Edwards: I would not be presumptuous... she would have to decide if she wanted to do that...  (I missed this part, I'd be interested in his comments.)

    Looks to me like the media is going along with Obama and his Tuesday plan.

    Pledged delegates are different than SD's (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    Even if he reached a combined total of 2026 on Tuesday, the number needed is 2209 (+/-), and the SD's can change their mind. It wouldn't be a solid enough win to merit claiming he will actually win at the convention.

    I'm even more disappointed in Edwards - both (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    of them - than I was the other day, especailly after reading these two passges:

    Eliz announced months ago she would not make an endorsement.
    I could have sworn John said the same thing - over and over again.

    And this:

    Edwards: Obama is totally committed to UHC.

    He's totally sold out if he's saying this publicly, because it is obvious from Obama's plan and his comments and the Harry and Louise ads, that Obama is in no way, shape or form committed to universal health care.

    And I would bet my last dollar that Elizabeth Edwards knows that, but I guess she cares more about her gig at the Center for American Progress and her husband's own fortunes than she does about advocating for the one candidate who actually is committed to UHC.

    Everyone's got their price.


    Be fair (none / 0) (#223)
    by cawaltz on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    ELIZABETH didn't endorse. Her husband is a grown man and capable of making hs own decisions and while Elizabeth may have sway over him, he certainly can do as he wishes. Let's not blame her for him backing down on the decision to not endorse.

    I'm not blaming her for her husband's (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    endorsement; I'm expressing my disappointment that she spoke favorably about Clinton's health care plan, got herself a nice gig at the Center for American Progress to work on health care issues, and now seems to be taking a back seat to her husband's totally odious pronouncement that Obama is "totally committed" to UHC.

    It just strikes me that the weaker voice - John - has been allowed to speak in an effort to promote the weaker candidate - Obama - who will not work for UHC, and the stronger one - Elizabeth - who has all the credibility to advocate for the stronger candidate - Clinton - who will work her a$$ off for UHC, is remaining silent.

    It's disappointing, but God knows we could not have another strong woman showing up Barack Obama now, could we?


    Wouldn't he need a large number of SDs (none / 0) (#125)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    to come out between now and Tuesday to hit that number? From everything I have seen he would need over 100 SDs to come out to hit that number (even if we assume MI and FL are left out).

    So what am I missing?


    He needs, by some tallies (none / 0) (#221)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    such as at realclearpolitics.com, about 25 delegates to reach 1627 delegates, which is the halfway mark of the total of 3253 delegates.  That's about the best I can figure out for the timing of this.  

    With the switch of several of Edwards' pledged delegates in recent days, Obama will -- with Oregon and some Kentucky votes -- get 25-plus more pledged delegates this Tuesday.  And he'll get some more super-delegates in the daily dribble of them, too.

    But unless there's a flood of super-delegates -- and if so, then why not sooner? -- the basic margin of difference between Obama and Clinton will remain about the same, it seems . . . or maybe narrow a bit.  Oregon and Kentucky have about the same number so will about cancel each other out this Tuesday.  Then he will get most of the red-state votes from Montana and S. Dakota.  But she probably will get most of the Puerto Rico votes, with more delegates, to cancel out his gains in barely-populated Montana and S. Dakota.  

    She may even narrow the margin with PR votes, as it has so many more than Montana and S. Dakota put together.  But unless, again, there's a flood of super-dels to one or the other soon or sometime this summer, it still goes to the convention.

    He's trying to make that not happen by declaring victory first -- and on a premise for which I can't find evidence, that half of the delegates always means victory in the end -- to make the super-dels move.  It may be brilliant.  It may not.  Only time and super-dels will tell, as best I can do the math.

    Then again, there always is more than math involved, as anyone with a map and a history book knows.  So who knows?


    Sorry, to be clear: (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    amend first paragaph with to say he now needs "about 25 delegates to reach 1627 pledged delegates, which is the halfway mark of the total of 3253 delegates."

    You're not missing anything (none / 0) (#225)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:42:45 PM EST
    Obama is currently at 1897.  Obama could tie in OR and get 26 dels and lose KY by 30 pts and get 18 dels, that puts him at..1941.  He would need 84 superdeez to hit 2025.  His campaign keeps saying they have the superdeez.  If superdeez are expected in OH, his declaration will come then.  I imagine, at the very least, several big names will come out Tuesday to knock Clinton's win out of the media.  Then there are 11 days before PR for them to come out.  I read an article where superdeez said behind the scenes that they are holding back out of respect for Clinton and won't endorse until the voting is done.

    Biden today said, Clinton is the most powerful woman in American politics.  She's getting quite effusive praise from her peers.  Whether that's to gather in her supporters (telling that Obama has to say at an event that his supporters need to be nice to Clinton supporters) or if he might support her for VP.


    Jeralyn: a correction? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    His campaign views winning a majority of 2025 pledged delegates victory.

    That is not entirely correct. I'm sure Obama's campaign agrees with this, but, right now, Demconwatch (an objective source by most standards) and virtually all media sources agree this is the number.

    Agree that 2025 is the number? (none / 0) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    I'm seeing most media moving to anything from 2206 to 2210 as the number. Many are saying both numbers as their acknowledgement the number has to go above 2025 once MI and FL are seating.

    Which media? (none / 0) (#179)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST
    Which major media outlets are now saying that 2206 is the number?

    Location (none / 0) (#122)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    Why isn't he going to have his celebration in the state of Washington? Why Iowa?

    That's where his victory started (none / 0) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    Not his campaign? n/t (none / 0) (#138)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    His campaign started too close to Kentucky (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    as it started in Springfield, capital of Illinois.  And he doesn't want to talk about Kentucky this Tuesday now, does he?  (Even though he said yesterday that Clinton will win it because it's close to Arkansas -- as he tried to move Kentucky from bordering his own state of Illinois.:-)

    And it can't be Oregon, where he will win -- but an evening event in the West Coast time zone is too late for the rest of the country. And we don't want either event in Chicago, as that just might wake up people and the media to the point that his popular vote lead nationwide is almost entirely from votes from Chicago. . . .  Plus, candidates  commonly do such events from the front porch at  home, and we don't want to remind people about the problematic purchase of his mansion, now, do we?  (I would add, in fairness, that it is not a good time of year to further upset the schedules of school-age daughters -- nor of his neighbors.)

    And another logical and common site for such pseudoevents would be D.C., the steps of the Capitol . . . but we don't want to remind people that the anti-Washington candidate is part of Washington, nor do we wish to point up how many times he has not been there for votes (with one of the worst voting attendance records in the Senate).

    That's how I see the brainstorming session of Axelrove, et al., in trying to figure out where to stage such an event -- by ruling out all the other logical sites.  It must have been a hoot of a meeting, as state after state in the so-called "50-state strategy" had to be taken off the map.


    The popular vote in primaries is irrelevant.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Laureola on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    .....and it's meaningless unless one factors in the caucus states with some sort of representative equation.

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    I think caucus states are SOL, mainly because there is NO WAY to figure out what the real vote would have been. That's what you get when you have caucuses. Its easy to manipulate, and its not representative.

    Hey, at least Sen Obama got the skewed delegates from the caucus states. He just has to live with losing the popular vote (which is a direct result of the non proportional caucus process).


    You've said that before... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    How exactly do you count votes in a caucus situation where it's really hard to keep track of the amoeba like movements of the groups?

    My understanding is that it runs on percentiles and not necessarily exact vote counts...unless the vote is a tally style vote.

    But I'm still wondering what the "Inevitability" in your bio is about.


    The whole issue of PV is irrelevant....... (1.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Laureola on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    ......but if you insist on clinging to it, you can't toss out the caucus states.

    Since you are talking about a hypothetical PV victory, you can easily hypothesize a representative number of votes for each caucus state.  

    For example, Obama beat Clinton in Iowa by 38% to 29%.  Iowa has about 600,000 Democratic voters, so Obama's win represents 228,000, and Clinton 174,000.  If you similarly calculate all the caucus states, Obama's popular vote crushes Clinton.  


    Also.... (1.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Laureola on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    Edwards got about 175,000 votes in Iowa, which should now be counted for Obama.

    Yes, that's silly, but I'm just trying to keep up with the Clinton logic.


    How about Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#158)
    by Saul on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    They vote on June 1st don't they?

    The MI FL claim (none / 0) (#247)
    by scatcat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:34:15 PM EST

    Please go back and read this article carefully, folks: