home

Breaking: Obama is Not the Official Nominee

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:56:00 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The AP, which still has egg on its face from this morning's false report that Hillary would concede to Obama, does it again.

The AP is sending out a breaking news report, complete with post-mortem analysis, that Obama has reached the magic number and is officially the nominee.

Votes are cast at the convention in August. Superdelegates can change their mind any time before then. If this went to an open convention, even pledged delegates would be released from their pledge after the first vote.

This does not mean it's going to the convention. It means that until one candidate drops out, there can be no winner because the number of delegates that candidate has can change any time until the convention.

Until and unless Hillary Clinton publicly suspends or ends her campaign and concedes that Obama is the nominee, there is no nominee. There is only a statement that if current delegate positions at this moment were frozen in time until August he would be the nominee.

If and when Hillary makes that determination, then Obama will be the nominee. At that point TalkLeft will congratulate him and offer him our support. We're not there yet.

Comments now closed.

< Montana And South Dakota Predictions Open Thread | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread: Running on Empty >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Breaking: Obama is Not the Official Nominee | 267 comments (267 topical)
    Jeralyn, my theory about the pressure (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    to get Hillary, and the need to steal delegates from MI, is that Obama's pledged SD support is much softer than it appears. Obama wants to get Hillary out before August on the basis of these public declarations which may not be matched by the firm intention to vote for Obama.

    You do have to wonder (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    why a SD who is going to support Obama hasn't come out yet. Obviously some wait until their state is getting ready to vote (thats over) or there are some Michigan and Florida ones who may have waited. But really? Why haven't they come out before now when all we've heard is how Obama is the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    They're waiting for the other guy, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    obviously.. or for Hillary to drop out.

    [ Parent ]
    Salon didn't wait (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Alex Koppleman frontpaged the AP headline as if Obama really has won.

    [ Parent ]
    Put the first "egg" on Politico's face. (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    I keep bringing this up because Politico is ground zero for a series of ongoing-stories that do mega damage to Hillary and the other Dem candidates who have since dropped out.

    If accountability is an issue, consider that Politico started the Hillary campaign cut-back story at 12:15 am EST on June 2nd.

    The AP's false story on Clinton's campaign suspension came out on June 3rd, about a day and a half after the initial Politico story.

    As Politico itself likes to brag, the stories start small at Politico and then other news organizations (like the AP) make them big.

    Politico is the Drudge Report of the 'creative-class'.

    [ Parent ]

    Out of respect for Hillary (3.40 / 5) (#57)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    They want to give her a chance to gracefully withdraw, rather than forcing her out.  That said, more than 13 have committed to Obama in the last 24 hours.  By the way, I give credit to those SDs for showing that respect.

    [ Parent ]
    Now they're showing respect? (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    Um, sorry, no.  Don't buy it...

    And like she's not going to find out who threw their vote to him?  

    This is a time to stand up and be counted.    

    [ Parent ]

    They don't want to p$ss off their (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    constituents who are Hillary supporters?  Makes sense to me in swing districts.

    Also many superdelegates in the south are apparently unlikely to endorse either candidate, ever, as they don't want to be tied to the national party too easily in GOP ad's about them endorsing "Liberal" Barack Obama or "Liberal" Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    They have to vote for someone (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    They don't get to vote 'present' at the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Do they have to turn up to the convention? (none / 0) (#154)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    I think alot of Bush Dog Democrats will not even be there.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they do (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    the actual reason the elected Senators and Congresspersons were given automatic superdelegate votes was to encourage more of them to participate in the convention.

    Of course, absent an actual floor fight, I suppose it doesn't make any real difference if they get to vote or not.  But like in Congress itself, I don't believe there is any proxy voting.

    [ Parent ]

    Apparently not (none / 0) (#238)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    Alcee Hastings said a few days ago that he will not go to the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you sure (none / 0) (#236)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    Have you looked at the list of SDs who haven't endorsed? Or did you just decide that southern SDs are less likely to make a choice?

    I've looked at the list and frankly don't see it as southern.

    From 2008 Dem Convention Watch

    Senators

    Ken Salazar (CO)
    Joe Biden (DE)
    Tom Carper (DE)
    Tom Harkin (IA)
    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    Ben Cardin (MD)
    Carl Levin (MI)
    Max Baucus (MT)
    Jon Tester (MT)
    Harry Reid (NV)
    Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
    Sherrod Brown (OH)
    Ron Wyden (OR)
    Jack Reed (RI)
    Jim Webb (VA)
    Herb Kohl (WI)

    Reps

    Bud Cramer (AL)
    Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
    Nancy Pelosi (CA)
    Jerry McNerney (CA)
    Mike Honda (CA)
    Sam Farr (CA)
    Bob Filner (CA)
    Susan Davis (CA)
    Mark Udall (CO)
    John Salazar (CO)
    Allen Boyd (FL)
    Tim Mahoney (FL)
    Ron Klein (FL)
    Jim Marshall (GA)
    Rahm Emanuel (IL)
    Nancy Boyda (KS)
    Dennis Moore (KS)
    William Jefferson (LA)
    Charlie Melancon (LA)
    Don Cazayoux (LA)
    Rep. Michael Michaud (ME)
    John Sarbanes (MD)
    Steny Hoyer (MD)
    Chris Van Hollen (MD)
    Niki Tsongas (MA)
    John Tierney (MA)
    Edward Markey (MA)
    Rep. Bart Stupak (MI)
    Collin Peterson (MN)
    Gene Taylor (MS)
    Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
    Rep. Rush Holt (NJ)
    Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC)
    Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
    Rep. Tom Udall (NM)
    Charlie Wilson (OH)
    Marcia Kaptur (OH)
    Rep. Zack Space (OH)
    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
    Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
    Bob Brady (PA)
    Jason Altmire (PA)
    Tim Holden (PA)
    Rep. Mike Doyle (PA)
    Lincoln Davis (TN)
    Bart Gordon (TN)
    Nick Lampson (TX)
    Jim Matheson (UT)


    [ Parent ]

    What about (none / 0) (#239)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    all the other SD's who aren't Reps or Senators?  Did they all endorse already?

    [ Parent ]
    No, several in my state have not (none / 0) (#269)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    endorsed, declared, or done even a pretzel position yet.  This list is incomplete.

    [ Parent ]
    Add Feingold (WI) -- he still has not said (none / 0) (#266)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    anything more than that he probably voted for Obama in the primary.  I haven't seen anything in his home state press that says he endorsed, declared, etc.  If someone has seen it, I'd sure like a link.

    And please don't link to the likes of the pretender to Josh Marshall; all that said was that Feingold's cagy wording "practically qualifies as an endorsement in all but name."  That's called plausible deniability down the line.

    If this is the sort of endorsement and announcement that qualifies as a super-delegate for Obama, he does not have grounds to claim the nomination now.

    [ Parent ]

    You got me, a sweeping generalisation. (none / 0) (#270)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    However I believe I'm right that a significant number of the remaining superdelegates have not and will not endorse, and that they will tend to be conservative Democrats who are in Republican leaning districts or States.

    [ Parent ]
    SpinDoctor (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Nessuno on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    your name says it all.

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't seen a lot of respect for her (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    There is nothing ungraceful about losing. She can gracefully withdraw after Obama has enough delegates. Heck she can gracefully stay in until the convention. And no one can force her out.

    And the way Clinton has been treated during this race, her supporters are never going to believe any part of it is out of respect for her. Heck even I have a hard time believing that.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton still getting super-del's today (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    according to RealClearPolitics' tally, which I cut and paste daily to track it.

    Now, why would super-delegates still be publicly declaring for Clinton today, if the Obama/media narrative is to be believed?  It is not believable; he is desperately spinning the narrative, as are you, Spin Doc.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe because they support her (1.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    novel concept huh? Hillary has supporters among the SD's. The problem is that Obama has a lot more support. In a few months he's gone from over 100 down to now over 50 up.

    [ Parent ]
    Now that (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    is a laugher.  They haven't shown respect for Hillary for a minute.  Can you say Wexler?  Many other examples that I won't mention

    [ Parent ]
    spindoctor....the only people you give respect (4.20 / 5) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    to are your cronies on here, who lurk and uprate you and yours.  Please don't think for a minute that we take anything you say at face value.  We are trying to have a legitimate debate on here without people coming on just to stir the pot.  There are many other places where you can do that.
    How about you show us some respect?

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    How have I disrespected you?  By supporting a different candidate than you?

    I have uprated many Hillary supporters as I have downrated Obama trolls.  I rate based upon what I perceive to be an honest and fair statement, without regard to partisanship.  Armando and I have vehemently disagreed on some matters, yet we have agreed on others so I am not clear what your point is.

    [ Parent ]

    Utterly unnecessary (2.33 / 3) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    personal attack.  

    [ Parent ]
    And look who flew out of lurking mode... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    Look most of us here know what is true and what is not, so please do not bother.  We look forward to many more of your down ratings.

    [ Parent ]
    More than a little ironic (2.33 / 3) (#215)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    that you, of all people, would complain about down rating others.  You are, BY FAR, the biggest down rater of my comments.  You grossly violate the policy of what the ratings are supposed to do.  

    [ Parent ]
    down rating (none / 0) (#256)
    by manish on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    dude..you've troll rated every comment I've made on this blog..kettle, this is black do you read me over.

    [ Parent ]
    Feel free to make things up (none / 0) (#281)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    Checking all the ratings I have ever given people I found a total of zero ratings of any of your posts.

    So unless you are a sock puppet for someone else, you are just making garbage up.

    If I troll rate one post a day that's a lot.  

    [ Parent ]

    I Concur...... (2.00 / 0) (#91)
    by HsLdyAngl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    that the Super delegates are giving deference to Hillary at this time by not coming out and endorsing Obama.  It is out of respect for her that they are not declaring.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Some SDs Will Never Endorse Either (none / 0) (#245)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    in one theory I read somewhere. In the pragmatic (re-election) interests of distancing themselves from the national party and either Obama or Clinton.

    This was suggested of SDs in the deep south.

    [ Parent ]

    I just read that and came here to post it (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    The AP article has an air of finality about it, and yet it says this:

    The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 15 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

    Public declarations plus anonymous declarations made to the AP?  And THAT'S the basis of reporting that the nomination has been CLINCHED?

    [ Parent ]

    30% of the vote??? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    Could the bar be any lower? That's a KY/WV threshold!

    [ Parent ]
    Give me a few days, (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    and I could get 30% of the vote in SD.

    [ Parent ]
    I nder whatever happened to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    the swagger of the spreadpoint sheet that had them winning it by 11 and 15 points respectively. LOL

    [ Parent ]
    Your are arguing against a straw man here. (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    This is not Obama setting low expectations,  this is the AP saying that even if he only got 30% of the vote, he would still get enough pledged delegates to get the magic number.

    [ Parent ]
    Wake Up!! (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    He will never have enough Pledged Delegates to reach the Magic Number.  That is the point and why all these stories are 100% misleading.

    [ Parent ]
    ok, thanks. (none / 0) (#203)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    That is completely not the point.  The point is that all this "clinching" the nomination talk is totally false.  Superdelegates can change up through August at the convention.  This "Magic" number we keep hearing about is not a solid number.  It could change at any time.  But whatever, there is no getting through to people at this point, I fear.

    [ Parent ]
    Bogus Methodology (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Spike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    This isn't news. AP is just trying to grab headlines for being first on something inevitable. No one -- including the Obama campaign -- counts undeclared SDs in their delegate count.

    [ Parent ]
    BO news cud: Can't win straight up, can't close (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    Don't the media and O'bloggers ever get tired of slapping exciting new headlines and burying the lede under the same warmed over loaf of mystery meat?

    Every "new" development is supposed to deflect from the reality but it strikes me as only pressing rancid old dreck into people's faces.

    He's not making new fans with this mess.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly, you also have to ask (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by derridog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    why the MSM is pushing him like they did the Iraq War. Who is behind this and what do they have to gain with Obama as President and the Clintons pushed out?

    To imagine that the AP does this out of ignorance or incompetence is a little much for me to believe.  Especially since they've been doing this same song and dance since Iowa.

    [ Parent ]

    The right knows that Hillary can win. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    The media has rigged the reporting to get her out of the race.   I want her to stay in until the he has the magic number, if he does.

    If he gets the nominatin, and he is a smart as others thik he is, he will put Hillary on he ticket.     My opinion is that he will lose without her.

    [ Parent ]

    WS: Some Superdelegate May Delay Endorse (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    ments until Denver, even if he gets the magic number.

    Yesterday's WSJ:

    Dozens of superdelegates may throw their support behind Barack Obama after polls close in Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday, possibly settling the nomination within days. But other superdelegates may see no advantage in taking sides just yet, and some even say they may arrive at the August convention uncommitted.

    That is unlikely to alter the outcome of the Democrats' presidential nomination race, but it shows that at least some superdelegates --
    despite continuing pressure from the campaigns -- aren't eager to resolve the nomination when the voters themselves remain closely split.

    Sen. Obama led Sen. Hillary Clinton by 2,074 ...[remaining article firewall-protected]



    [ Parent ]
    I agree -- see my comment on Feingold (none / 0) (#271)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    downthread.  He has not endorsed, declared, etc., as far as I have seen, and I been watching.  Yet all the lists and no doubt the tallies count him in Obama's column.  I think it must be very soft.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone at AP care about their brand name? (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    Is there really no actual news that they can report?  Have they turned into a creative writing site and forgotten to tell everyone?  Those are my questions for now.

    The AP included "private" commitments (5.00 / 15) (#29)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    and delegates not even won yet.

    I'm surprised the AP didn't do an RBC and move some of Hillary's delegates to Obama's total.

    [ Parent ]

    How do we know they didn't? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    When people won't talk in public, the press can make anything up.

    [ Parent ]
    The AP reporter that reported the (none / 0) (#96)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    Hillary will concede is an Obama supporter. At least that's what I just read on another site. I wonder if it's the same person reporting this? Now they have the AP in their pocket too?

    This is sick. No one has the required Pledged Delegates to clinch the nomination, so now they spin in the SDs to count toward the 2118???

    The MSM should be ashamed.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the same spin they did in 2000 in Florida, (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by derridog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:34:52 PM EST
    when Bush's cousin called Florida for Fox News before the issue had been settled.  Once the meme was set that Bush had won Florida, the Rethugs had won half the battle. Gore was then a "sore loserman".  

    They are just trying to do the same thing to Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]

    You're wrong, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Jim J on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    AP is the officially-sanctioned voice of the corporate media, our equivalent of state-owned outlets like Pravda or Xinhua. The fix was always in, and today they have spoken to confirm it.

    As is apparent now, Obama's been groomed for president since long before he took the Senate oath of office. Axelrod's dry run was Deval Patrick.

    The shameful behavior of AP today is just them following the script a little too literally.

    OK time to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    break out the tin foil hats.

    [ Parent ]
    Please go look at Deval Patricks (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    numbers today. I believe, I could be wrong, he's not very popular right now.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it's not. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    We didn't realize "change we can believe in" was bringing the Chicago machine to the bay state.

    [ Parent ]
    And Now, Of Course (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    the intention is to bring the Chicago machine to Washington, DC.

    My fear remains that this empty suit of a candidate, should he win in November, will prove to be about as popular -- and successful legislatively -- as Patrick seems to have proven to be.  "Change" is not a policy, and when things don't start getting much better, real fast, the American public is quick to turn against those they have just elected.  Go look at the numbers for Congress.  Granted, those low ratings can't be pinned entirely on the Democrats, but if Obama thinks the Red Sea is going to part wide for him, he ought to take a peek at how things have gone in Massachusetts for Gov. Patrick.

    [ Parent ]

    But after they got Patrick (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    into to office, they didn't stick around to teach him how to govern.  Patrick has been stomped on by the "Boston machine", in particular our Speaker of the House who could be a character in a mob boss movie. (I love to follow his machinations.) I think Axelrod was practicing to get Obama elected, but he didn't practice what comes next. Will Axelrod be hanging around if Obama gets elected, or will Pelosi get to stomp on Obama the way Sal DiMasi stomps on Deval?

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama's (none / 0) (#221)
    by tek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    elected, we know who will be running things and it ain't him.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#107)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    Please go read about the Massachusetts state government and its history before deciding that if you've seen on Axelrod candidate (and out of politeness I'll leave it at that) you've seen them all.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    You think it's racial but you're going to be polite and not say so.  We get it.  It's not actually polite.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he has any numbers today (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:28 PM EST
    He had some a while ago that showed he was unpopular.

    I would love for someone to tell me, in concrete terms, exactly what their problem with Deval Patrick is.  And please, don't list polling information talking about how people don't like him and he's bad for Obama.  I am asking WHY not IF people don't like him.

    Me, I have no real problem with Patrick.  He made a mess of the casino thing, but other than that, he's done a pretty good job.  To support this claim, I will point out that the economy in MA is growing (yes growing) 5 times faster than the national economy.  Teacher pay is up.  Violent crime is down.  And frankly, we're weathering this recession pretty well.  He's helped pass important economic stimulus bills.

    [ Parent ]

    The Speaker of the House (none / 0) (#186)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    is in charge in Massachusetts. Patrick gets to cut the ribbons at ground breaking ceremonies. As long as he doesn't get in the way, he can have some of the credit for what gets done.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't argue with that (none / 0) (#196)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    There just seems to be an irrational amount of Patrick hate.  I am happy with a governer who won't veto the good bills ala Romney.   Plus, the biggest issue to me is one of the first things he did was help increase funding for BYCC.  This program keeps kids alive over the summer.  And Romney repeatedly cut funding for it.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as I want what Sal wants, (none / 0) (#272)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:36:22 PM EST
    the fact that Patrick is a weak governor doesn't bother me, but when I don't want what Sal wants, and neither does Patrick, I wish Patrick had some executive level skills. I think his low approval ratings reflect that not everyone wants want Sal wants as much as you and I do.  My issue with Obama's being Patrick 2.0 is that I don't know who "Sal" is going to be.

    [ Parent ]
    I always thought it would be Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#280)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    Now, I don't know so much.  That is a tough one.  I also don't see Obama as a Deval 2.0 though.  Their campaign style was somewhat similar, but other than that, there is no reason to believe they will be the same.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops -- it's Jeralyn that's wrong (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jim J on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    sorry, BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    Radio Wars... Competing "Auras" today... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    Radio Wars...
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/radio-wars/

    Radio Wars...or is that Radio Whores?

    I got radio whiplash this morning from competing "auras"...

    Usually I listen to the BBC World Service or Radio Australia when I get up, but the reception wasn't as good as usual today. So, I skipped the radio until I had to go to the dentist.

    My oldies station was going to the news as I took off. They carry "ABC Now," one of the most uninformative, chatty, gossipy, waste of time "news" breaks I have ever encountered, and the first thing out of the dulcet-toned "newsreader" was:

        Barack Obama woke up feeling good today. He's (sic) in reach of gaining the Democratic presidential nominee. Primaries in South Dakato and Montana...

    MORE

    ...so glad Talk Left is reminding the AP that they're idiots....they're only ones as my blogpost indicates...

    Near as I can tell, the article never (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by sarissa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    claims that Obama is "officially the nominee," only that he has "effectively clinched" the nomination.

    And they have been saying that for a very (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    long time...who can believe the msm?

    [ Parent ]
    They want voters in Montana and SD (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    to stay home and not vote. That's what they're doing!

    Sickening.

    [ Parent ]

    yes they did (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    Here's there quote, they said it.

    Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.


    [ Parent ]
    It's written like a valedictory, (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    or an obituary ("Obama's triumph was built on prodigious fund-raising....")

    I feel like that peasant in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" who keeps saying "I'm not dead yet...."

    [ Parent ]

    About That Fundraising (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    It's prodigious, to be sure, perhaps because some chunk of it was through improperly recorded donations.  I personally know several big Obama supporters whose donations well above the $2300 primary limit were not recorded as being for the general election only.  I can't say whether this means that Obama's campaign has extensively been spending money they're not permitted to use, but it's not exactly the sort of thing to make one believe in the super-clean, ethical nature of the campaign staff.  I don't necessarily think this has been done with deliberate malice, but is more likely a reflection of sloppiness in their recordkeeping.  I suspect we may start hearing a fair bit about this kind of thing over the next few months.

    [ Parent ]
    Timing... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    So how heavy is the turn out in So. Dakota??? One wonders....

    Must be HUGE (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    is my guess. I hope this ticks off the voters in those 2 states and they vote in DROVES. I am so mad right now I could spit nails.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm... (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by gmo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Nowhere in that AP article does it address the most obvious point: that he hasn't reached the delegate threshold yet.  

    Nor does it make any mention of how he magically achieved the "delegate number" through the final allocation of superdelegates, and which ones have endorsed him today which would put him (even just theoretically, until August votes at the convention) over the top.  And a quick check on endorsements today (and even Obama's own website) doesn't seem to have that majority listed yet, either.

    This is just embarrassing for the AP.

    Not only are they using private committments (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    but they are adding in their estimates of how many delegates he will win tonight, or gain even if he loses. Delegates they say he is 'guaranteed' either way.

    WTF does that mean? How can they get away with this and why is Mark Halperin screaming it fron his front page like it's true?!!?

    [ Parent ]

    That's our media. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    They make Pravda look legit and I am not exaggerating when I say that. They are pathetic.

    NEITHER candidate can reach the 2118 PLEDGED Delegates before the convention. SDs don't cast their votes until AUGUST at the convention, so NEITHER candidate can win until August. SDsmean NOTHING at this point in time...they are twisting facts and numbers and rules to fit their agenda. They want Hillary out NOW before BO IMPLODES tomorrow.

    If Hillary wants to take this to the convention, she certainly CAN with a legitimate argument to make. She has the popular vote and she CRUSHES McCain in a GE match up winning a huge electoral vote. McCain CRUSHES BO in a GE match up.

    OUR MEDIA SUCKS!!!!!! To put it mildly. :(

    [ Parent ]

    We cannot be surprised (none / 0) (#226)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    by how terrible our media is.

    They have been all about Republicans since the time of Carter. No Democrat has ever gotten a fair shake from them...especially not any Democrat with the last name of Clinton.

    Obama has gotten the fake-out, which, should he actually ever EARN the nomination at any point, will be revealed in short order.

    The right-wing scream machine is salivating over the possibility of Obama as the nominee. They will begin bashing him the second he reaches that delegate count...IF he does.

    [ Parent ]

    50-2-2 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    Then he has gotten it with 48 - ur, 46 - states.  Two states vote tonight.

    AP (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by anon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    Is this not voter suppression with 2 states now voting?

    YES. It is. (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    I am convinced Hillary would have won SD.  Otherwise why the shenanigans?  Now she probably won't.  Voter suppression works.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds pretty defeatist to me....shouldn't (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    we give the people of SD a little credit?  We should assume they are smart enough not to get bamboozled, hoodwinked or okie doked.

    [ Parent ]
    I assume most people vote (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    before and after work.  The AP story broke in the afternoon, and hopefully those voting after work have now found out that she's NOT conceding.  I think any HRC supporter has long been ignoring the media and wants to vote for her.  Period.  

    I'm hoping this suppresses his turnout!

    [ Parent ]

    A person in SD with caller ID (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    called me back to ask me if she still needed to vote.  I said "Absolutely".

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone know what the voter (none / 0) (#62)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    turnout is today?

    [ Parent ]
    It makes no sense (3.66 / 3) (#63)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    Obama is projected to win both states. Why, of all people, would he want to supress the vote?  If anything, he would want a record turnout so as to put to rest the entire popular vote meme.

    [ Parent ]
    Record turn out has always (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    favored Hill.

    [ Parent ]
    Sigh... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Lena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    he's trying to suppress HER voters, not HIS.

    [ Parent ]
    the polls have favored her (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    in SD.  ARG came out with one last night and in Montana they were very close.

    Primary day voter suppression is just one of the many dirty tricks they use religiously without fail every single damn time.

    The DNC, RBC, MSM and the "formidable" campaign AGAINST her has not worked.

    I just heard on the radio "he will be the nominee" tonight.  And there are still TV scrolls asking "will she concede"... and I find them Un-American.  I sent MSNBC yet another email with my opinion... sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    This is the kind of discourse that happens here (1.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    Obama did not write the damn story. If Obama saved a hundred orphans from certain death he would be criticized for it here.

    [ Parent ]
    That's because he'd only do it (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    if it was timed to interrupt a major policy speech Hillary was giving.  

    [ Parent ]
    He's also wrapping up the nom tonight (none / 0) (#167)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    Surely he has a right to make his own speech. Who wraps up a nomination and does not claim victory? Obama has his own supporters too you know. They've worked hard for 6 months or longer. Many of them have been engaged heart and soul. Surely you understand that he has to speak to them.

    [ Parent ]
    He hasn't wrapped anything up. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    Will he have 2118 PLEDGED DELEGATES tonight? Just answer that question.

    [ Parent ]
    According to who? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    When the requisite number of Superdelegates declare in public, I will call him the presumptive nominee,  Not until. If he marches them on stage with him tonight, great.

    [ Parent ]
    Good luck (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    working hard if you think he won.  Get your self a good pair of shoes and start knocking on doors and showing some humility.  Cause are all sitting around trying to look, as Michelle said:  about your tone and your policies.  To date, neither has been very impressive.  

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of working (none / 0) (#198)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Your time spent here berating Obama might have been better spent helping Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Even as an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#235)
    by ChiGator on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    I have to admit, that was darn funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. Poor picked on BO. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    He's only had the MSM kissing his behind since this campaign started. The DNC and the DC elites kissing his feet and stealing votes from Hillary to hand him the nomination, but it's poor, poor picked on BO. Puhleeeze stop with the exaggerations.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong. He is going to LOSE SD. (none / 0) (#157)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    That's why he's trying to suppress the votes AGAIN. He's so slimy. Mr. Hope? Ha! I'm not buying.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. He's not going to win them both. (none / 0) (#162)
    by derridog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, no, no (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    You haven't been paying attention.  This allows him to say his margin doesn't matter because everybody knew the race was over and his imaginary voters stayed home.  It's Michigan redux.

    [ Parent ]
    She will still win (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    If anything this will make her voters mad, like we are and they will make sure they vote.

    [ Parent ]
    When do the last 8 states (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    select their delegates? After tonight we'll only be at 50, right?

    He doesn't need them (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    as they're filled with low-information red-neck racists. And part of Appalachia.

    [ Parent ]
    BHO evidently got the memo (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    If you say it enough enough people will believe it -- but it's a long way to August.  Godspeed Hillary!

    I guess this is the MSM version of (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Frist!

    And they wonder why their credibility is poor.

    I thought news organizations ... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    dreamed of an exciting convention?

    Why are they so quick to kill their dream?

    Convention, Yes (none / 0) (#189)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    and a lot of them are probably still hoping for some sort of fireworks in Denver, though it's doubtful that even a challenge before the Credentials Committee would have enough impact to change things.  Maybe they're hoping for angry mobs of Clinton voters outside the Convention hall or a walkout by some of her delegates.  Something to stir things up.

    But my guess is that most of the political reporters and editors are simply tired out at this point and want a nice long break to "recharge" before the fall campaign get underway in earnest.  From their perspective, they've been covering the race pretty much non-stop for six months or more -- far, far longer than any of them expected -- and they're just desperate for it all to be over.  (As one who's been sent off for work-related travel that extended for three times as long as anticipated, I understand this mentality.  Since I believe in professionalism no matter what, I don't agree with it, but I know where it's coming from.)

    [ Parent ]

    Dewey Defeats Truman (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    anyone????

    And for irony (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    it was a CHICAGO newspaper that printed this.

    Man, why are Chicagoans SO quick to jump the gun????

    [ Parent ]

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    they have inferiority complexes. I lived there for four years and all they ever do is strut around trying to remind everyone how they're much better than anyone else, particularly those pesky New Yorkers.

    They're not the Second City for nothing.

    (I have friends there but honestly, from the moment I put my feet down on the ground, all I heard was how elitist, snotty and mean New Yorkers were. Before I'd even made any such comment)

    [ Parent ]

    I think this means Hillary is winning South Dakota (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by jfung79 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    The Obama-backing media is doing pre-spin because they've got a hold of some signs on the ground today that Hillary is winning South Dakota and they want to make sure their story tonight is still "Obama wins nomination" even if he loses South Dakota significantly.  That's my theory.

    Also, the AP article is ridiculous.  Over a dozen private commitments?  Obama is not only a dozen delegates away from clinching even if all the superdelegate commitments are set in stone.  For one thing, which many people seem to have forgotten, the Texas pledged delegates from the caucuses are not even allocated yet.  The state convention (which either Hillary or Bill Clinton will be at, per Garry Mauro) is this weekend.

     

    What is with the AP? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Lena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    They seem intent on destroying their reputation as a credible news source, all in the name of coronating Obama.

    It makes no sense. What do they get out of jumping the gun again and again? Why do they love Obama so, even at the cost of their reputation? And why was someone on the other thread defending their writer Bethy Fouhy (or whatever her name is) again and again, mainly, it seems, because she is a woman?

    I guess if you like HRC, you gotta defend all women everywhere, even this Beth Fouhy person. Ha.

    TAken (none / 0) (#227)
    by tek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    a look at the Democratic Party lately?  Talk about ruining your rep to crown The One!

    [ Parent ]
    What a travesty of journalism (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    LINK

    I think this was the AP getting back at the Clinton camp for refuting their story this morning.

    that's the same article I linked to in my post (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#120)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    I am having trouble getting anything I click on today to work...it's weird.

    [ Parent ]
    The "flood" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    looks real.  I hope Obama chooses Hillary as his VP.  There is no one more tenecious.  I need health insurance.

    It's the same as leading in the polls (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Exeter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    Yes, he is currently leading among super delegates, but super delegates-- like any individual voter -- can and do change their mind. Yes, if the election were held today, Obama would win, but the election for Democratic nominee is not being held today.

    I just sent her (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    another $50.

    Rise, Hilary, Rise!

    Some woman with the New Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by