home

Will He or Won't He Declare Victory Tonight?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There are conflicting news reports on whether Barack Obama will declare victory tonight in the presidential nomination.

This morning on Good Morning America, George Stephanapoulus said he will:

"He will declare victory tonight in a moment of history," ABC News' chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulous told "Good Morning America."

Obama, D-Ill., is expected to speak shortly after 10 p.m. Eastern while the votes are still being counted in the final two primary states of Montana and South Dakota....

I think Obama's response will depend on what Hillary does. She will be speaking in New York tonight. While some media reports say she will concede the race, others say she will not and will take another day to make her case to superdelegates that she is more electable in November.

So long as Hillary remains in the race, and Barack Obama does not have 2,118 pledged delegates, I think he will avoid claiming he has won the nomination, giving Hillary the time she needs to make whatever decision she is going to make.

That certainly would be his wisest course.

< Kicking Bill Clinton To The Curb | Rezko Verdict Watch >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will He or Won't He Declare Victory Tonight? | 191 comments (191 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If she wins SD (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    She will not concede.  

    I'm not sure she will concede anyway, however, I think she's keeping the mystery alive because it's the only way she'll get any coverage of her speech. Mr. Inevitable simply needs to jump and the media asks how high.

    She will certainly not concede (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    before the results are in.  

    Parent
    I think South Dakota should (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarissa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    buy her the rest of the week.

    Parent
    I wouldn't bank on SD. (none / 0) (#4)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:27:18 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm banking on nothing (none / 0) (#90)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    I still remember IN (and yes, I think something fishy was up there that cut into Hillary's %). But I am praying, and I'm keeping the mantra going that: (1) nothing that happens tonight gives either the requisite pledged delegates to win and (2) the automatic delegates can change their mind up and until the convention.

    Parent
    Something fishy was clearly up. (none / 0) (#98)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    Lake County, specifically Gary, is famous for it.

    Parent
    the way the dels are apportioned is fishy (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    http://www.270towin.com/

    plug in her statewide wins in this map.  Plug in his. I don't quite understand how he's even with her really.

    Parent

    AP just reported (none / 0) (#102)
    by 1jane on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:06:51 AM EST
    Clinton will announce tonight that Obama has more delegates and she is ready to work hard to be certain the country has a Democratic president.

    Parent
    I wish her luck then (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    The rabid unity pony will have to leave without me though.

    Parent
    McAuliffe denied this just now on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST


    Parent
    All the AP said (none / 0) (#111)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    was this:

    "Officials say Clinton will acknowledge Tuesday night. Obama has the delegates for the nomination."

    Parent

    This would be brilliant kung-fu ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    ... counter every new TeamO Mission Sorta-Accomplished event with a Will She Concede one!

    Parent
    I hope he crowns himself president tonight. Then (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    let the backlash begin.  What gall.

    He isn't going to declare anything... (none / 0) (#12)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    until he knows what the outcome of South Dakota and Montana are....

    He may be a corrupt and divisive politician, but his handlers aren't stupid, and Axelrod would never let him declare victory and then have the SD returns come in showing that he's a loser.  

    Its a perfect opportunity for a "Dewey beats Truman"esque video mashup...

    Parent

    would you care to provide some proof? (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    I mean, you come here with this BS, but the fact is that every election cycle, there is a whole generation of people ELIGIBLE to vote -- and every four years, tons of them register to vote.

    The fact that Barack Obama was the guy who did the voter registration drive doesn't mean that he got them to register -- ANYONE could have, and would have, gotten them to register.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    All those new voters in Pennsylvania turned around and voted for Hillary. Same in WV, KY, etc., etc.

    This is just one of those ideas that get in someone's head and, despite facts to the contrary, they never let go of it.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    Bringing in lots of new voters at the expense of lots of old voters is pretty divisive in my book.

    Frankly, I have no idea what bringing in new voters has to do with being divisive at all.  Hillary has brought in piles of new voters and god, if I had a dime for every time someone called Hillary divisive.

    Parent

    Divisive.... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:25 AM EST
    it's so Rovian.

    Who has split the Party when 6 months ago most of us were saying Any Democrat 08?!

    Rove always blames the opposition for doing what he himself is doing.

    Parent

    Perhaps you are correct (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    Stupid might be a better description.  Bringing new voters is good but alienating important core groups of the Democratic base at the same time is stupid.  That mentality will hurt the Democrats and cost them the general election in the fall.  

    Parent
    Why did he even schedule this for tonight? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    Why not wait until tomorrow when all the results are in?  If these were east coast primaries, I could maybe see it.

    Parent
    He needs his fans cause he can't perform without (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    them.  He's a rock star, doncha know?

    Parent
    To upstage HER!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    Look at me!!!!!!

    Parent
    he does it tonight (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:53:14 AM EST
    to depress hillary voter tunrout and stamp on any positive story she may have. i want to say that obama has been masterful at controlling the news cycle--but i think the news cycle has been using obama to further its story. an unholy alliance.

    Parent
    my guess (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    is that hillary has brought in more voters than obama has. women's votes has been the untold story of this election. the republican women crossover vote for hillary in the GE would be, i think, huge. one reason why so many people--including obama (who hardly strikes me as a feminist)--don't want to see her as the nominee.

    Parent
    Exactly -- if he brought in "so many" (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    "new voters" where are they? He is limping along to the finish line, bleeding money.

    Parent
    He cannot get over the finish (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    line by himself. The fact that she keeps catching him so he puffs harder only to fall behind again.

    Parent
    The point is... (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    with all the RBC horses and the DNC men, Obama cannot put the party together again. IMO, of course.

    Parent
    Look, (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Binx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    You can say a lot of one-sided things here because this is a site that supports Clinton pure and simple. I know the rules and participate accordingly. But saying that Obama is "bleeding money" or saying money is his weakness is ridiculous. His is not the campaign with tens of millins of dollars worth of debt. He has the money and he's spending the money. That's the way it works.  And he has the money because he's organized a successful online effort which has harnessed many, many small dollar contributors. If Hillary had the money she'd be spending it just as fast as Obama is.

    Parent
    Learn how to read, then correct me (none / 0) (#160)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM EST
    He has had to outspend Hillary by at least 2 to 1 in order to stay tied. That is bleeding money. Nowhere did I say he anything about how much money he has or has raised yadda yadda yadda compared to her.

    Parent
    Come on... (3.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Binx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    Excuse me but since when is "learn how to read" an appropriate response? I was/am refuting your use of "bleeding money" as a pejorative re: Obama. I read you correctly.

    Parent
    Obviously you didn't read me correctly (none / 0) (#172)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    as you are insisting on mis-reading my statement even after I explain it. Stop being a blogclogger.

    Parent
    Obviously you didn't read me correctly (none / 0) (#174)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    as you are insisting on mis-reading my statement even after I explain it again! Stop being a blogclogger.

    Parent
    I am not a "blog-clogger" (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Binx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    And not everyone who disagrees with you is one either.

    THIS is what I am responding to:

    Exactly -- if he brought in "so many" (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    "new voters" where are they? He is limping along to the finish line, bleeding money.

    I responded specifically to your use of the phrase "bleeding money".
    I said, "But saying that Obama is "bleeding money" or saying money is his weakness is ridiculous. His is not the campaign with tens of millins of dollars worth of debt. He has the money and he's spending the money. That's the way it works.  And he has the money because he's organized a successful online effort which has harnessed many, many small dollar contributors. If Hillary had the money she'd be spending it just as fast as Obama is."

    Discussing campaign debt as it relates to a candidate's viability, especially when that candidate has contributed/loaned their campaign millions of dollars, is in no way "naive"

    Parent

    its an appropriate response... (none / 0) (#189)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    where the commenter clearly has problems with reading comprehension skills, and reads a simple declarative statement as if its a comparative statement.

    Parent
    The youth who have just come of age to vote (none / 0) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    registered early enough to vote in the primary. Then they barely showed up as a voting demographic in PA.

    They would have registered to vote anyway. He just brought the forms to the colleges and took the credit.

    This group of supporters on the internet won't get far with the republicans when they go to their blogs and start using their "uniting" techniques.

    Pattern.


    Parent

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#157)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    Do you not comprehend what I wrote? He claims to have brought in all these "new voters," yet they don't seem to be voting for him because he has had to spend money like a drunken sailor to be in a virtual tie with Hillary. I didn't say anything about his $ compared to hers (and, btw, she has more banked for the GE then he does). Furthermore, claims about her "campaign debt" as if that is very meaningful are not only besides my point, but shows how politically naive you are.

    Parent
    Is there an issue with how the money is spent? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    spend money like a drunken sailor


    Parent
    You people really are thick (none / 0) (#176)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    you honestly don't see the problem with having to outspend your opponent in some cases as much as 3-1 and still not be able to close the deal, do you? You have no concept of how much more money he will have to spend to lose to McCain who, unlike Hillary, is also beloved by the msm.

    Parent
    Close the deal is just a talking point (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    Senator Clinton had the greatest political name recognition, the largest war chest, an air of invincibility, as well as the press touting her nomination as a done deal. The Clintons have been courting and building relationships within the party for over 20 years.  There wasn't a bigger name in the Democratic Party (apart from Kennedy, perhaps) and she still hasn't clinch it. Unfortunately the Clinton's campaign leadership ran based on her inevitability. Her campaign managers were so short sighted and inept that they went bankrupt.  They did not (and do not) have the broad based small donation support that Obama has.  

    Once she lost Iowa she as well as her campaign faltered before it regrouped.  Because of that, and probably because of the agism and sexism expressed in the media and on blogs, we now see an emerging movement that I hope won't be lost if or when Hillary loses the nomination.  

    Parent

    Since you don't understand what I am writing (none / 0) (#187)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    and insist on changing the subject instead of acknowledging that your guy is the one who is outspending her and still only tied, I'm don't responding to you. You are a waste of my time.

    Parent
    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Binx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    and your choice is the one who has spent all her money and is losing.

    I for one, prefer the "lots of money in the bank and winning" scenario to the $20 million dollars in debt and NOT winning scenario.

    But that's just me; declaratively or comparatively speaking.

    Parent

    Again, you make no sense (none / 0) (#188)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    so I'm done with responding to you.

    Parent
    If he's (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    brought in more new voters than anyone in history, then why hasn't he managed to win long before now?

    Parent
    at this point (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    i've seen enough of the Talking Points and seen enough of th ereality to know you are blowing smoke.

    The New Voters are first time voters.  18-22 year olds.

    However Obama has alienated a large swathe of long term Dems that i personally know in California. A large number of cross over GOP who will only consider clinton as an alternative to McCain are also alienated by Obama.

    Parent

    Get used to the "tough love" (none / 0) (#152)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    response from some Hillary supports who are not "hooked" on Obama's personality.

    Maybe a loss in November is the only "intervention" the Obama addicts will understand.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    the bright side could be that when he is decimated in November, that will be the end of Nancy Pelosi since she couldn't deliver a Dem in a year that a cat with a "D" next to its name should have been able to win.

    Parent
    The wisest course (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by vcmvo2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:27:32 AM EST
    Doesn't always seem to be what informs Obama's decisions. If he declares victory tonight it will be just another "Mission Accomplished" non-moment.

    He seems to be a politician with very poor political instincts. We shall see.

    If he got a SuperD every Mission Accomplished ... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    ... announcement he'd not only be the nominee but George Bush would be handing over the Jughead Crown personally.

    Parent
    Should he claim victory, it will be (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:34 AM EST
    as false as the reports of his 500 superdelegates just waiting to endorse him...just around the corner...wait for it...coming really soon...

    LOL!

    It's like a stutter (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    Obama is doing it again.  His speech is timed for before the SD and MT polls are closed, just like his Iowa speech on OR's voting day.

    He doesn't dare declare victory, but if he is allowing Hillary to give her speech first, he might twist her words to pull another attempt at illusionary success.

    Hillary's speech tonight will not be a concession. She is going to explain her next phase of the campaign tonight, and that's all.

    He does not have the pledged delegates, period.

    Parent

    Real winners don't need to 'declare' it (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    Obama hasn't won a substantial contest in months.

    The confusion of pundits and even his supporters over what he'll do pretty much speaks for itself.

    Were they better informed about how much money it costs his campaign to keep wheezing forward after gaming the system early on, they wouldn't be flailing around.

    There's only one question here: Why can't he close this out?

    Agreed.... (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:32:50 AM EST
    Not once has John McCain declared victory. He has won according to the Republican nomination rules.

    Obama hasn't won according to the Democratic nomination rules.

    It's as simple as that.

    Parent

    he's been overturning the election results (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    great facts with figures here that Superdelegates should see: clearly delegate totals can be manipulated later - if I were a Super, to break this tie, I would simply look at her against McCain, her swing states.

    The delegate count is as ridiculous now as what happened on Saturday, where the smokefilled room was

    (as Anglachel nails it this morning:)

    a big F*** U: So?

    Parent

    Declaring victory = "I'm the decider" (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Exeter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:41 AM EST
    If you are the winner, you don't need to declare it, it is self-evident.

    If it is wiser for him not to (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    then you can bet the farm that he will. No one reaches 2118 until the convention (if that number is still the magic number then) & after two more months of Mr. uh, uh, uh being in the spotlight. Rise Hillary Rise.

    btw... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    under the rules of the Democratic party, the number is still 2025, because the votes were taken after a secret meeting was held on saturday.

    The afternoon session was supposed to begin at 3:15.  THE PUBLIC which has a right to attend business meetings of official party committees, were told to BE IN THEIR SEATS at 3:15.  And we, the rest of the public who were participants in the meeting via C-Span, were also IN OUR SEATS.

    Neither Roosevelt, Herman, nor Germond, the three party officials responsible for recovening the meeting AS SCHEDULED AND ANNOUNCED showed up to do so.  Instead, they sat in a "back room" discussing "party business" for two more hours, until they had the votes to railroad through three resolutions woth no real discussion.

    The committee had ONE HOUR -- the lunch break -- to broker their deal.  After that, NO business that was before the committee should have been discussed behind closed doors.

    So the votes are void.  The number is still 2025, and all that was accomplished is that we now know that Barack Obama is contemptuous of Jewish voters, Latino voters, Female voters, and older voters -- all of whom turned out in record number to support Hillary Clinton and give her a huge delegate advantage in Florida, that Barack Obama wanted to cut in half by treating them as less worthy of being counted than the founders thought slaves were worthy of being counted.

     

    Parent

    Would Harold Ickes be a part (none / 0) (#29)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:44:39 AM EST
    of the secret meeting and so, in essence, Hillary would know about it (she probably would know about it anyway!duh!)

    Parent
    yes, Ickes was part of the meeting... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    ...and yes, Clinton knows about it.

    And if a 'deal' had been reached, then everyone would be happy, and there would be nothing to complain about.  

    And while Ickes should not have stayed in that meeting, he had no choice -- The CO-CHAIRS and the PARTY SECRETARY allowed the "illegal" meeting to occur, and that meant that Ickes and everyone else had to be there (I mean, I'd love to slam Brazile for it, but I can't.  The people responsible are those in charge)

    Parent

    I emailed Donna B about it and (none / 0) (#69)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    she did not respond to confirm the meeting. I thought at least she's email back a 'no' to my inquiry or none of your business or something, but nothing.

    Parent
    Just a thought, what if Hillary (none / 0) (#72)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    went public (smartly public) with it!!!

    Parent
    please post that email address (none / 0) (#89)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:01:47 AM EST
    thks

    Parent
    Donna B's email is: (none / 0) (#110)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    info@brazileassociates.com  

    Parent
    Doesn't Matter (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    No one will get a nomination until the superdelegates select one in Denver in August.

    Hillary's movement - not just a campaign - is developing organically over these last months, and it should continue over the summer.

    Obama can say whatever he wants - but he has no nomination until August 27.

    I'm not tired of a process that could halt the train wreck of a nomination coming at the Dems.  Are you?

    I am bitterly (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    clinging to the hopes that HRC can save the Party from itself. :-)

    Parent
    Save Ourselves (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST
    I'm very serious about this:  there has been no moment in American political history when women began to see themselves so clearly as a distinct force in the body politic.

    We are in high-consciousness-raising mode now - with many women accelerating their feminist sympathies through the lens of the Clinton campaign and its treatment.

    We will never soon again have this kind of phenomenon before us.  That's why I don't want Hillary to quit now - when there is no nominee and her support is actually growing.

    This is a process that needs to continue - it's larger than Hillary - women must begin to recognize their political self-interests in a manner that other groups have.

    Parent

    and there are plenty of men (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:43:31 AM EST
    joining you ladies in this. Millions of blue collar working men can't be wrong.:)

    Parent
    Yes Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    Which I completely welcome and celebrate.  I have no doubt that many men have been awakened to gender issues through this campaign - some to great hostility - but others to great sympathy and solidarity.  And I see those men here.  

    Parent
    MY mom was a bit of a feminist (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    so I've watched this whole process with horror. Trust me. You women are not alone in your thinking.

    Parent
    Good and strong men have always been our (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    allies from as far back as Wyoming. :). Gimme a man who is unafraid of viewing strong women as his equal and partner in this "great experiment" anyday.

    Parent
    Sing it sister! (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    I agree 100% and I am ready to burn the village to save it.

    Parent
    I absolutely agree. (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM EST
    I am not sure where to take it from here, but Hillary has surely awakened me - and my fellow true blue diehard FDR Democrats of all shapes and sizes - as to the fact that the Party elites do not care about my interests.

    I am seriously wondering how to make my voice heard if HRC is not 44.

    I like the idea of women uniting, but I don't think it's just us! I certainly don't want to leave anyone out.

    Maybe a Labor Party?

    Parent

    I'm making my voice heard by being silent. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
    I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  I will not contribute another dime to the Democratic party because I have declared myself to be independent of any party affiliation.  Silence can speak volumes.

    Parent
    I'm with you (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:55:46 AM EST
    What do we do? How do we channel it?  People said Clinton's campaign would energize the right. Well, it has ended up energizing women (and men) who aren't afraid to call themselves feminists.

    I remember after 2000, people were pi**ed off and everyone wanted election reform and were hoping that Gore would lead the way.  Same thing happened again in 2004, I hoped Kerry would lead the way toward making it easier for everyone to vote and getting us out of Iraq.  We got nothing.  (Gore made significant progress on  other issues; we got nothing from Kerry, IMO.)

    What do we do with all this energy to make sure it doesn't dissipate? I want people a generation from now to be talking and writing about how a large group of people found their voices through an unconventional candidate and formed a movement that got something done. How do we take the energy of all these individuals and build a force to be reckoned with?

    Parent

    Thank you for the lecture (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    But I'm not buying it. Many people don't view the election as having been fair and square. If it were, people wouldn't be complaining. People protested at the RBC because they took delegates that had been won by Clinton and gave them to Obama. That's not anti-feminist, but it sure is vote-stealing.

    Don't belittle the strong reaction of many of her supporters as "stamping our feet." No one is demanding special treatment. Clinton doesn't need special treatment; She is clearly head and shoulders above Obama on policy. Where feminism does come in is in recognizing that women have to be twice as good to get half as far in a male-dominated field like politics.

    Parent

    And just how old are you (none / 0) (#193)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    Ms Feminist?

    Personally, I know a lot of younger women who claim to be feminists who support Obama. They also don't see any misogyny that happened in this campaign and think that the bully boy behaviour and treatment of Mrs Clinton was justified. Of course, they also shriek about the unfair sexist treatment of Michelle Obama.

    Just the fact that you're deriding other women who were protesting at the RBC meeting shows me that you dont know what you're talking about. Now protesting is not a feminist pursuit? Pray tell, what is then?

    And Mrs Clinton has not lost the primary election yet. Mr Obama also has not WON it. In fact, no one has. Now what were you saying about reality testing?

    Parent

    How about a million march on July 4? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    Reaffirming the Declaration of Independence and the Spirit of '76?

    Parent
    riverdaughter, this morning has a terrific image (none / 0) (#99)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    for this Part Unity My Ass power: our new PUMA logo


    Parent
    All ready got that up as my desktop. (none / 0) (#181)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:54:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Right on Athena (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    Despite Obama, the DNC & the talking heads to the contrary, too much democracy cannot harm democracy.

    Parent
    Obama can do what he wants, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    and I will do what I want. Anyone notice how Michelle hasn't been around. Chances are she'll be around tonight but she's been absent.

    They can't hide her forever (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    Disaster waiting to happen.

    Parent
    She (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM EST
    was giving a speech in MT yesterday and saying that we shouldn't trust bloggers because they lie.

    "The way this campaign has been run is the way we need to be forever," Obama said. "Don't trust bloggers or someone else's opinion, because people lie."

    Teh Billings Gazette

    Parent

    See... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    he will not change. He will never change.

    We can "hope" all we want, but this Unity Pony is a Trojan Horse.

    Parent

    She must be reading (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    that guy who kidnapped Josh Marshall.

    Parent
    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Gabriel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    that's what Republicans used to say about Hillary in 1992. Remember the 'stay home and bake cookies' flap?

    I guess the more things change the more they stay the same!

    :)

    Parent

    Yes I do remember that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    Hillary made it possible for Michelle to be any kind of a first lady she wants, if she makes it that far.

    Parent
    Man (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST
    The media is just salivating for it, aren't they?

    Kill the .......... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    They want her dead, figuratively.  They have been trying to kill her, figuratively, for months.  The inner Norman Bates has not had his payoff yet.

    We are engaged in meta-psychological theater now. That's why a civil nomination process has metastasized into the war fervor evident everywhere.

    Parent

    It is not all about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    That is definitely a part of it, but the members of the media seem to be as caught up in the pro-Obama thrill ride as anyone.  They can't wait till he delivers yet another historic speech that we will tell our grandkids about.

    Parent
    Do It Again (none / 0) (#53)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    True - it's a CC version of thrill-seeking.

    Parent
    They are in the tank for McCain. (none / 0) (#88)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    Sorry. They don't ACTUALLY like Obama. They want him to be the nominee so that McCain has a shot at the WH.

    That, plus HDS, gets you the latte you're looking for. :-)

    Parent

    no, I think this is deeper (none / 0) (#143)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    Obama is actually a better puppet than McCain.

    Sure, McCain loves him some nuke power, like Obama, but he can be just a little wayward and balky on the "clean coal". Real Oligarchies don't like any resistance.

    This whole Unity bipartisan Trogan Horse is how the Rethugs get their will enacted without having to run on that tarnished brand anymore.

    Obamanation is the oiligarchy rebranded perfectly.

    Parent

    Obama's a perfect vehicle for renewing .... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    ...the Grand Project of American imperial power.  When he orders bombing runs, you can't call the Yanks a bunch of racists anymore can you?
    The argument's got an elegant genius.

    However once in a while Barnacle and other pundits slip up and they show that they know Obama is a candidate who will be the easiest of the Dem field for McCain to beat.

    Matthews wants to be Obama's press sacatary. I don't know what is in it for Olbermann.

    Parent

    Has Obama said anything (none / 0) (#177)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    that would make you think he'll order bomging runs?  Do you have a link for reference?

    When he orders bombing runs


    Parent
    but true: (none / 0) (#145)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM EST
    McCain is a secondbest choice

    Parent
    You know, he can be the presumptive (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    nominee all summer.  But, I for one, will be extremely disappointed if after all this, Hillary's delegates don't get a chance to vote for her at the convention.  If she withdraws the delegates are released, correct?  That would be terrible.

    Maybe if he declares himself the nominee the (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    republicans will start the attack machine; then the supers can change their minds between now and August and make the correct decision, that Hillary can win and will make the best president.  

    He will (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:44:19 AM EST
    By the time the MT and SD returns come in (unless they are both blow outs and can be called right on time), it will be after most people in the east are headed for bed or asleep or don't care and will be watching something else.  The returns will be footnotes on tomorrow's news - the headline will be that the Wicked Witch of the East is finally dead.

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    didn't the Wicked Witch of the East die in the first scene?

    Parent
    Actually she dies in Munchkinland (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    and all the little people sing and celebrate, and the heroine is showered with flowers and lollypops and love. She is their hero!!!

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    But they sang songs and had an impromptu parade for the conqueror of the WWE (Dorothy) and proclaimed her name.  She was written down in the annals of Munchkinland history because what you didn't see in the movie, was that the WWE had tormented them for years before.

    Parent
    Well then (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    What am I in this analogy?  One of those bat-creatures?

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    a "Flying Monkey"? That would be so cool....

    Parent
    As long (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    as I'm not one of those monkeys that fly out of people's butts when something unlikely happens.

    Parent
    Flying monkeys (none / 0) (#78)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:05 AM EST


    Parent
    2118 and the number (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lambert on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    Why is 2118 claimed to be the number, and what's the reasoning behind arguing that it isn't?

    Is it because 2209 was the number, and 2118 was the number after the RBC clusterf*ck on MI and FL, but that number is open to a credentials challenge?

    And I thought this was interesting (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    Arlen Specter is considering holding hearings on the MI debacle.  Apparently when states pay for primaries, the party can't just decide unilaterally to re-alot voters.

    Here's a link to an article about this -- warning, it's on townhall.com.

    Link

    Parent

    It's interesting, but Spector (none / 0) (#95)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    is in the minority and why should the majority want to spotlight the party in a negative way. Good thought, tho'

    Parent
    He can (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    still hold hearings, even if they're in the basement.

    The Democrats did it all the time.

    Parent

    2118 is the number (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    because the Obama campaign sent an email to the media after the RBC meeting saying "okay, 2118 is the number now."

    I don't know that this happened, of course, but you can sort of deduce it from the fact that the media's narrative regarding the delegate race has always been the exact same as the Obama campaign's position of the week.

    Parent

    2118 is the number because - (none / 0) (#185)
    by minordomo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    - it is 50% +1 of the number of all available delegates (pledged and super) once the delegates for Florida and Michigan are included according to the RBC decision.

    2209 has not been the number ever since Florida and Michigan were stripped of 100% of their delegates back in 2007. From that point on, the number was 2025 (again, 50% +1 of the number of all available delegates).

    I don't know what the reasoning behind arguing that 2118 is not "the number" might be. At this point, there are a set number of delegates that will be seated at the convention.

    There may be a challenge to the credentials committee at the convention (though I doubt it), and if they agree to seat, for example, Florida and Michigan at 100%, then the number would change again - but the odds of that happening (1. Clinton taking it to the credentials committee, and 2. the credentials committee deciding to seat FL and MI at 100%) are extremely small.

    Parent

    Obama's been (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    declaring victory for months.  (yawn)

    How many are actually needed? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    To get to the just state delegate votes without the Supers? It better be a very large number because close points out the stolen Michigan delegates he just got. With Hillary, I hope her speech says we are taking it to the convention.

    The media is all salivating to hear him say those words. They will think they have won. They will exhault Obama for winning the battle, but we know that the war will be lost in the GE. Besides, we have a on/off button on our TV's.

    Anyone check out Bob Herbert in the NYTimes (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    today?  A load of crap.  Said Obama has been the nominee for the "longest time" and that the Clintons are responsible for all the "bittnerness" in the Democratic party.  I sent him an email but I'm sure it will go straight to the delete box.

    I sent an email to the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    yesterday asking when I could expect my free delegates from MI since I wasn't on the ballot either. These people keep re-writing history r