home

Breaking: Obama is Not the Official Nominee

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • 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
    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 (1.00 / 2) (#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 / 2) (#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
    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
    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
    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 bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    Dem party says Richardson will be behind Obama tonight and the Richardson will be his Sec of State...she said this on Air America radio.  So the "effectively clinched" nominee is already leaking cabinet posts.

    Richardson as Sec. of State? (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    Are you freaking kidding me?

    Ugh.

    Parent

    And where would Richardson (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    be w/o you know who?

    Parent
    What a poor choice. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    This is the guy who's been picked to start repairing the foreign policy damage done by the Bush administration?!!!

    I'm afraid to see the rest of them.  We're doomed.


    Parent

    I guess he was offended that (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    Joe Biden has yet to endorse him.  Quid pro quo...shocking from the 'change' candidate.  Not.

    Parent
    Ugh? Richardson as State is SCARY! (none / 0) (#208)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    What an incompetent boob he's proven to be. Lord, I hope this is incorrect....

    Parent
    Richardson for SoS? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    Yuk.

    I Thought Obama Was Thinking Of (none / 0) (#230)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    Lugar (R) for SoS. If I weren't totally against a Republican in that position, I would laugh my @ss off if Obama promised Richardson that position and wound up giving it to Lugar.

    Parent
    Here's something the AP can break: (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    To my knowledge, no major news organization has investigated and reported on the exact number of Democrats who've changed their voter registrations to "Unaffiliated" in recent weeks. I bet it's a lot. I bet it would be a big story.

    But given the obvious slant of the AP's coverage today, I don't think the AP would be interested in investigating this phenomenon.

    Does Obama need a Secretary (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    of State. Hasn't he said he would talk directly with everyone....

    Presumptive nominee (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by mtjohnson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    He's the presumptive nominee, no one ever becomes the nominee until the convention. Same as John McCain.

    The AP article you cited does not use the phrase "official nominee". It doesn't use the word "official" -- not once, in any context. It also does not use the word "nominee".

    The AP does say that "Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination" today. I understand a lot of people here want to deny this, but I think it is both newsworthy and correct as a point of fact.

    There is a world of nuance between having  "effectively clinched the nomination" and being the "official nominee". Of course, no one is the official nominee until they are officially nominated, and that doesn't happen until the convention.

    he will not even effectively (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    clinch the nomination (as the AP is reporting) until enough super delegates formally announce their support instead of privately whispering it in someone's ear.

    Parent
    I don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lucky leftie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    Are they trying to discourage voters from going to the polls today?  This seems like a huge blunder, like the earlier report about Clinton conceding tonight. It's as if they're trying to create confusion and chaos.  

    AP is not (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    doing this out of their own initiative. Make no mistake here.
    This is a blatant and outrageous plot to depress turnout for HRC in South Dakota and Montana. There is NOT reason for AP to be announcing this "now"  other than prevent a win for HRC in either of those states.    The Obama campaign must have some very bad polling in one of them otherwise they would announce this tonight to close on a high note. I am not naive about politics; I know both are on this to win but this ugly dirty, of the worse kind.
    No respect for anyone; most certainly not for not the voters today.

    Evidence? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    Evidence comes from Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    MO.  See Michigan primary.

    Parent
    mind reading (none / 0) (#222)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    is not evidence

    Parent
    Actions on the record don't need parsing (none / 0) (#246)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    Or mind reading.

    Deflection is also self-evident.

    Parent

    Yes INDEED! (none / 0) (#191)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    AxelRove at it again! They know he's going to lose HUGE in SD. The Clinton camp is saying she will win by 25 points.

    Parent
    Vicsan, Is this true? (none / 0) (#216)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    The whole thing is Orwellian (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    Why even hold a convention?

    The worst part is coming to understand how the Clintons came to be labeled as racists.  It shows the truly disgusting nature of the any campaign that would allow this to happen.

    When I looked at the reaction at Obama's church to the Hillary hate sermon, I shook my head in sadness to see the cultivation of hope manifested in conduct.

    Agrreing with don (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Oceandweller on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    so far until Obama says it himself, he has not clinched the magic number no claimed the nomination; loads of people here and there get all excited about absent facts
    .Iam like st thomas will believe it when I see it.
    IMHO; Sen Clinton never rejoiced at O pastor,and I never put double entendre in the muslim question nor I dont think that it enhances the O maniacs to see any call for any madman in the RFK comment. Loads of comments on both camps have been made on stricto senso hearsay without names and without confirmation, lets keep our heads cool.
    O has not claimed anything and he does not own AP
    I dont expect from any democrat to behave like foox NEWS RANTING DOGS. PLEASE.

    The magic number is still 2210 (2212 for BO) (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by dwmorris on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    Clinton has reserved her right to appeal the RBC decisions, so the magic number is still 2210.

    Since Obama currently has 4 of Clinton's delegates with half a vote each, his magic number to legitimately claim that he is the presumptive nominee (pending the August vote at the convention) is now 2212.

    Any declaration of Mission Accomplished by the Obama campaign (or its many surrogates within the DNC and MSM) before then is little more than an attempted coup d'état within the Democratic party.

    Obama viral candidacy (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has shown us the future.  The viral candidacy.  It's not pretty.  It's not democratic.  It's not positive. It's not change.  
    I know, maybe tomorrow I will not be able to voice this here, but this is what Axelrod has done.  

    He created a narrative that appeals to a certain class of voter and to the MSM who is comprised of that class.  Change was change from everything that is of the old Democratic ideals.  In order to appeal to this class the message had to denounce core figures of the DNC and embrace core images of the RNC.  Meanwhile, it also created a narrative, that if you are against this, because Obama is black, you are a racist.  So, that brought in the liberal intelligentsia, who biologically, could never go against a black man.  The liberal intelligentsia, then picked up, along with the bog boyz, the attack against the core Democrats.  Telling them, you are evil and backwards.  

    Now off we go to the General Election and I am really curious what is in the playbook of these geniuses, other than, we of the Democratic core will have to do it, cause we are party types and us women are captive to our reproductive organ?  What is the playbook, to get us back and or to add some new ones to this coalition.  

    Personally, for me, I will not give one ounce of support to this "movement".  

    AP hired Murdoch and Zell (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jen on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    April, 2008:

    Murdoch and Sam Zell went on to the AP board of execs right in time to influence election news... April 14 2008

    HuffPo

    In case you forgot... Murdoch's NY Post and London Times endorsed ...Barack Obama. (and his daughter threw a huge fundraiser for O!)

    Sam Zell's Tribune company newspapers endorsed... Barack Obama.

    And Zell is a longtime Clinton hater who has called Hillary a C-word in public.
    ----------------
    In case anyone's wondering what the heck happened to AP...

    All the AP story is doing (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    is futher hardening the people who won't vote for Obama. it is not helping him clinch the actual nomination, it is not helping perception and it sure ain't helping unity.

    See (none / 0) (#237)
    by tek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    this is what makes me think the Dems MUST have some corrupt plan to get The Great One in the WH.  Otherwise they would surely be worried about ticking off the people of this country so bad, but they aren't at all.  When I read that George Soros "has a plan to defeat John McCain" that he's discussing with Obama I have to think it's the same "plan" he used to "defeat" Hillary--corruption.

    Parent
    Obama can do (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    whatever he wants.
    The question you need to ask yourself is - is it a smart move politically?
    The other question you need to ask is - do you want your candidate to win the general?
    This isn't difficult, you know.


    FWIW, these "analysis" articles (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    are often written in advance along a pretty-much standard template, much as (for example) the obituaries of prominent people are researched, written and on file while they are still alive.

    So, a possibility (not the only one, OK?) is that someone sent out the wrong article.  It's happened before.

    And, this comment makes no judgment on the intention, if any, behind why the article was sent out....

    Fox has just announced Carter to endorse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    tonight.

    Is anyone even remotely shocked by this endorsement? I mean between James Clyburn, Ralph Dawson and Jimmy Carter, I don't know which one was more of a surprised?

    Who's next? Donna Brazile?

    /snark

    Help! I'm in a shame spiral! (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    Besides the political, healing wounds reasons citied in answer, the point is:
     
    even after securing the number of delegates needed to win the nomination?

    Has he absolutely done that yet? Apparently not.

    Will of the people, baby! (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    Let's see where we stand here:

    Popular vote (from RCP)

    Clinton 17,916,838 47.9%
    Obama 17,723,337 47.4%

    Includes caucus estimates, FL and MI. If you give Obama some number of votes in MI the margin is closer, but at worst a tie for Clinton.

    Pledged delegates (from DemConWatch)

    Clinton 1624.5  48.1%
    Obama 1742    51.6%

    Superdelegates (from DemConWatch)

    Clinton 292     45.9%
    Obama 344.5   54.1%

    So in other words, thes less democratic the metric, the better Obama does. The media narrative that Obama has been way ahead since the end of February has done a very good job of preventing people from seeing how debatable his legitimacy is.

    It wouldn't even be a question (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    Clinton is much too classy.


    are you saying that as of the time the AP (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM EST
    published this report that Obama actually HAS 2118 delegates?  Did I miss all the super dels that have officially endorsed Obama today?  It must have been posted here, don't you think?

    Voter Suppression (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by notime4lies on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    It's this Obama and his cronies' idea of voter suppression.

    Claim it's over so he doesn't have to feel the sting of a loss in South Dakota.

    A logal South Dakota blogger, leftinwest predicts a surprising Hillary victory with Dem activists on the side of Hill.

    While I disagree with the AP's story (4.92 / 13) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    I also think it is time to understand Obama will be the nominee. I do hope tonight is Hillary's night.

    Obama doe snot need this night and his people made a big mistake by trying to make tonight his night.

    He can only look ungracious at this point.

    It looks like he will be (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    but he isn't now. I'm content to wait and see if happens and I think everyone else should as well.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, you are perfectly suited for your work (none / 0) (#205)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    as a criminal defense lawyer. I can imagine you in trial, representing a client who has made five videotaped confessions to murder, is completely destroyed by DNA evidence and whose alibi witness is Hannibal Lector. The jury's returned its verdict and still you'd say that it's not over until the clerk reads it.

    I've got to hand it to you, you're indefatigable. It's truly amazing, and I mean that most respectfully.

    Incidentally, I wouldn't say that the democratic nomination is as over as my narrative above might imply, but it's close. Once the democratic party gears up for the national campaign, there is no conceivable way that the superdelegates who've come out for Obama will change their minds unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl. Any superdelegate who did so would be utterly shunned by the party. If enough did it so that the nomination actually went to Hillary, the party would be committing political suicide. A party too afraid to risk losing votes to impeachment proceedings will certainly not walk down that suicidal path.

    While you are technically correct that there is no nominee until the delegates vote in Denver, the jury foreperson has handed the envelope to the clerk, the clerk is about to read it, and only a direct meteorite strike, earthquake, or Armageddon can stop the verdict from being recorded.


    Parent

    obama, IMO, has looked ungracious during (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    this entire campaign.

    Parent
    Well, how about when he congratulated (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Hillary on her "apparent" win in IN, while the Gary mayor was sitting on the ballots. That was about as gracious as he's been.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by not the senator on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    He does need tonight. The final night of the primaries and the GOP Convention hall speech are important symbols to kicking off the Democratic the effort to beat McCain. I think he'll be gracious to Hillary and look forward to joining with her at the NYC DNC fundraiser that they both will attend on Wednesday.

    Tonight is important to starting the healing process.

    Parent

    He may WANT (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    tonight. He may NEED tonight. But he has not EARNED tonight.

    Parent
    He could have waited one damn day! (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    No. (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    There won't be any healing process.  It's too late.  There will be some Hillary supporters who will do their best to take this in stride.  Others, like me, will leave the party for good after many many years of loyalty (for me, it will be after close to 50 years).  And I and many others will not come back.  


    Parent
    Ditto (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    Word. (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    I left a comment at DK (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    saying the best thing they could for Unity is to stop talking about Clinton and her supporters completely because they can't discuss either topic respectfully.

    JMO

    Parent

    I left a couple of those too. (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by Burned on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Even the unity diaries that start off well eventually get in the little jab about how disgusted they are with Clinton.

    That absolutely HAS to be in there to mark you as a true blue Obama patriot.

    It's their own little version of a flag pin.


    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    the healing process requires he give Hillary her night. Tonight.

    Obama will have every other night from now until November at least.

    At certainly HIS REAL NIGHT will be when he accepts the nomination on the anniversary of MLK's I Have A Dream Speech.

    What he needs is for this to be Hillary's night. This is a tactical mistake by Obama.

    Parent

    Obama hasn't had to pay (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    for any of his prior tactical mistakes, so he probably assumes that he won't have to pay for this one either.

    And he may not have to...until November.

    I am extremely disappointed that this is where and how the nomination contest comes to a close.  It's going to take every forgiving bone in my body to move past it. And I'm not sure I have enough forgiving bones left.

    Parent

    Well, for one thing, the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    leased this huge arena in Minnesota.  

    P.S.  Adam Nagourney isn't convinced Obama is entitled to claim the nomination tonight.

    NYT

    Parent

    A quote from that article (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by sander60tx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    He is looking to win in both states and to pick up the 25 or so superdelegates he needs so that, combined with the delegates he will gain in Montana and South Dakota, he can claim to have the 2,118 delegates needed to be the Democratic nominee. (Or more precisely, to step back and let the media proclaim him the winner; watch for the race of political and newspaper Web sites to be first to send out the "Obama Nominated" news bulletin).

    Obviously the media couldn not wait until the polls close and he actually had 2118 delegates.  

    Parent

    Also in that article (none / 0) (#173)
    by sander60tx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    The moment the polls close in South Dakota, marking the official end of the nominating season -- at 10 p.m. Eastern -- a delegation of at least eight members of Congress who had been holding out until after the primaries will announce their support of Mr. Obama, according to Mr. Obama's aides.

    No, they're not going to let this be Clinton's night, though I think that would be the gracious thing to do.

    Parent

    Why spoil his record (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    He's come off as a bully who has little respect or regard for those that refuse to see him as the nominee. I guess we should be grateful that there wasn't an addendum that if Hillary wins SD it will be because they are low information Appalachians with race issues and any of the delegates that didn't declare for him are ingrates.

    Parent
    The good news is (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    the night he gives his speech, is the first night of college football on ESPN.  Guess my TV viewing choices just got better.

    Parent
    Is betting on your outcome tonight (none / 0) (#92)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    allowed at this site???

    Parent
    Hiillary's Night (none / 0) (#116)
    by fazel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    I get that making tonight "Hillary's Night" might contribute greatly to the healing process. My question is, what does this look like? From what I've heard, Obama is going to graciously talk about Hillary and her accomplishments, than shift to general election mode and go after McCain. In your mind, would the manifistation of his making this "Hillary's Night" be changes in this plan?

    Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with what he or Hillary says really. It will have more to do with the networks, and who get's to speak last. The latter of which Obama can control, I assume.

    Parent

    omg, you really think that patronizing (none / 0) (#277)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    Clinton, as done by Obama, makes it her night?

    Look, he's not just taking it away from her by taking the spotlight; he's taking it from all of us.  And a lot of us have seen guys do that to us before.

    Parent

    BTD You are (none / 0) (#158)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    SOOOOO correct on this one.

    He also needs to create the unity ticket.... but that won't happen either.

    Every time he does these "mistakes" it makes it harder to unify the party. And it makes it harder for Dems to promote the unity knowing that he is going to be elite in his actions.

    I would love to see the party unite for the sake of NOV.

    Parent

    There is no healing process. (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    Most of the Hillary supporters I blog with have no intentions of voting for BO. You couldn't pay me a million bucks to vote for him. I'd cut off my left arm first.

    He doesn't have the required PLEDGED DELEGATES. He is NOT the nominee until August.

    Parent

    Oh grow up already (3.00 / 2) (#170)
    by lynnebrad on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    Are you people nuts? This is about winning the election. It is his moment if he gets the number of delegates tonight. Every other primary EVER the nominee has declared victory when he/she has crossed the mark. It doesn't matter if it is not OFFICIAL until the convention. It is HIS moment not hers. It is HISTORIC...an African American nominee!!! And if she had won, I would say the same for her.

    Anyone who is a Dem and pro-choice is NUTS to say they won't vote for BO. Do you really want McCain in office? He will take away the rest of our rights that Bush hasn't already.

    And this nonsense about disrespect and honor. This is politics we are talking about, not some religious seminary. Politics is rough and tumble and mean. Both HC and BO have fought hard with everything they have and BO is going to win. That's it. That's all it is. You don't get into politics unless you are ready to rumble and deal with the dirty side of it.

    They both have acted nobly and both have done questionable things. You all make it seem like HC is this angel who has never done anything wrong and BO is this horrible person. Get real already.
     

    Parent

    it would be more helpful (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    If you could direct your remarks to specific posters, instead of addressing some unknown collective here, as in:

    Are you people nuts?

    Parent

    the point was.... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    that for this to be her night, the super dels should WAIT until Wed to put him over the top.  And certainly the media shouldn't be adding super dels to his total that haven't announced anything yet.

    This is the same crap they pulled when they came out with the Edwards endorsement to take the news cycle away from her.

    Parent

    Pro-Choice, registered Democrat since 1973 (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by vicsan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    and I will NEVER vote for ANYONE black, blue, green, orange or purple who paints Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists just to win this nomination.

    Does BO have 2118 PLEDGED DELEGATES? If not, he is NOT the nominee until August, so TONIGHT IS NOT HIS NIGHT! SORRY. You can say it is as much as you want, but that does not make it true.

    Parent

    Enjoy it while you can, because (5.00 / 3) (#233)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    the giddiness is going to be short-lived.

    Thanks, by the way, for calling people who cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama "nuts;" I guess this is an example of the  nobility that has marked the entire Obama campaign.

    What you fail to recognize is the effort that Obama has put into making this happen tonight - with him being unable to get to whatever the magic number is after today's primaries, he could have allowed the primary season to end, allowed Hillary her night in the spotlight, and planned his victory party for another day and another time when he might, in fact, make some headway with Clinton supporters.  He could have told his alleged superdelegates, "look - this is the end, I will have the nomination, so let's just back off, and allow my opponent to have the stage to herself tonight - it's not going to hurt me to do that."

    But, no - that's not the Obama Style.  It is, though, apparently emblematic of the change some of you have been looking for, so have at it.

    Just don't come looking for sympathy when you discover that the rough and tumble workd of politics eats Obama for lunch.

    Parent

    Don't call people names (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    or your comment will be deleted.

    Parent
    You are not listening. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    No one is saying Hillary Clinton is an angel.  What we are saying is that we see her as being the best president for the USA.  And there are some of us who are also saying that we consider Barack Obama too flawed, too inexperienced, too divisive to be president.  If Obama is handed the nomination, and since I revere my country more than any party, I will likely vote for MCain as the lesser of two evils.  McCain has not insulted and demeaned my candidate or her supporters. He has a long history of honoring America and all of its citizens.  Obama does not.

    I have the right to cast my vote for whom I determine as most fit to handle presidential responsibilities. Why is this so hard for Obama supporters to grasp?  

    Parent

    Wow. The Roe v Wade threat (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    from an Obama supporter.  Who saw that coming?  

    Parent
    Thanks sick (5.00 / 1) (#282)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    my first LOL of the day!

    Parent
    The Roe-o-Meter (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    Someone needs to develop an online widget that counts how many words appear in Obama supporters' posts before they mention Roe or "pro-choice".

    Parent
    for a million bucks (none / 0) (#188)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    I'd move to a RED state and vote for him (ditto for keeping my left arm)

    Parent
    Great idea! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    Start the healing process by trying to muscle Hillary out of the news on the last night of the primaries!

    You are mouthing talking points you apparently don't even comprehend the meaning of.

    Man, you guys are going to go down so hard in November if The One actually manages to get the nomination.

    Parent

    If Obama Thinks This Is The Way To Start (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    the healing process, he is tone deaf.

    Parent
    Yeah, start my healing (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    by ripping out my stitches BEFORE
    the wound heals!   LOL!

    Parent
    Heh (4.71 / 14) (#48)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    I just love the people who think the healing process is unilateral.

    Parent
    good to know (1.00 / 1) (#234)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    so what efforts are Clinton supporters making in the healing process?

    does gleefully threatening to vote for McCain count as "healing" ?

    does bragging about switching party registration count as "healing" ?

    does spreading rumors about mysterious video tapes count as "healing" ?

    how about accusing Obama of "stealing" delegates that didn't belong to anybody in the first place count as "healing" ?

    help me out here. i'd love to give Obama some advice on this, the next time i send him some cash. maybe he could meet Clinton supporters half-way - though i'm not sure where the half-way point is between "i'm gonna get my whole family to vote for McCain and that'll teach you evil Obamarats !!!" and "let's work together to try to undo the part eight years of damage".

    Parent

    Uh, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    My point is that healing does not happen merely because one side decrees that it's time for the other side to heal.

    You want to know what would help?  An end to snotty comments like yours, for one.  Not that that day will ever come.

    Parent

    awww (none / 0) (#258)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    My point is that healing does not happen merely because one side decrees that it's time for the other side to heal.

    "decree" ? who decreed such a thing?

    You want to know what would help? An end to snotty comments like yours, for one.  Not that that day will ever come.

    what an ironically snotty thing to say...

    Parent

    It's because of people like you (none / 0) (#262)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    that I've decided I'm not going to waste one more second of my life trying to get Obama elected.

    I'll vote for him and do my duty as a Democrat, and that's it.

    You're a bunch of jerks.  Go win your own friggin' election.

    Parent

    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    I think the point is, Hillary supporters don't NEED to do healing.  They have no reason to try and heal with Obama supporters unless the want him to win (which many don't).  Obama needs to do the healing because he needs their votes.  Hillary only needs votes if she gets the nomination - unlikely at this point.  I imagine if Hillary did win they would begin reaching out to Obama supporters, or at least they should if they wanted to win.

    Parent
    reason (none / 0) (#273)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    They have no reason to try and heal with Obama supporters unless the want him to win (which many don't).

    of course they have a reason: the future of the country is the reason. it's the reason for the entire election. the choice is more than just McCain v the-guy-who-beat-your-preferred-candidate : it's between a President who is an ally to a (hopefully) Dem Congress and a President who would keep that Congress playing defense for the next four years.

    this is bigger than Hillary or Obama.

    Parent

    umm (none / 0) (#276)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    What exactly do they have to "heal" in order for the dems to win in november?  Themselves???  My point is, they have no reason to heal with Obama supporters.  Obama supporters are already voting for Obama.

    It is bigger than Hillary or Obama.  But you are mocking Hillary supporters for refusing to heal, when the mocking is what prevents the healing.

    Parent

    healing (none / 0) (#293)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    What exactly do they have to "heal" in order for the dems to win in november?

    they need to "heal" whatever it is that makes them think a Republican is going to be better for the country than a Democrat. or not - it's their decision after all. i just hope it's made rationally.

    My point is, they have no reason to heal with Obama supporters.

    well, sure. his supporters are irrelevant - nobody is voting for them.

    It is bigger than Hillary or Obama.

    much bigger.

    But you are mocking Hillary supporters for refusing to heal, when the mocking is what prevents the healing.

    little ol me ? with a couple of comments on one blog ? i respectfully doubt it.

    Parent

    Who's "threatening?" (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    Obama and his unrealistic supporters are about to learn that a "threat" is different from an actuality.  The die is cast, the Rubicon has been crossed, etc., etc., etc.  Last Saturday's undemocratic, elitist, biased sham by the Rules Committee (and I use the word rules lightly) sealed the deal for me.  Obama to me will always be an illegitimate nominee.

    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#278)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    since you can't vote until November, for the next five months, it really is just a "threat".

    once you actually cast your lot with the GOP, you can claim it's an "actuality".

    Parent

    Here's a bit of advice for Obama (none / 0) (#259)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    Tell him to turn on his time machine and run a campaign in which he doesn't use character assassination to hide the fact that he has no clothes.  

    Other than that, I'm sticking with my intention to vote for the only candidate with integrity (who coincidentally was once the victim of a smear campaign).

    Parent

    as you wish (none / 0) (#275)
    by cleek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    but i hope you won't blame the Dems if they have trouble getting anything passed for the next four years.

    Parent
    BTD, your type between does (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    and not is very, very telling...like a little kid with his nose running.

    Parent
    Primary info (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    I can't even find info on what is going on in MT and SD.

    I am very disappointed in what his campaign is doing today.  This is not just AP.  Garrett is with the Obama campaign and can not quit talking about this.

    Interesting typo.  :)

    Parent

    msnbc has a chiron (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    on now saying SD is a very close race.

    Parent
    so that means HRC is winning, right? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    [p.s., thanks again for running such great site--it's one of the only vestiges of sanity out there)

    Parent
    an understanding (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    we come to either simultaneously or otherwise with the understanding he's the wrong choice.

    Bummer.  Seriously.  Wrong choices are lame.

    Parent

    At this point? I think he's looked ungracious (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by derridog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    since he began campaigning.

    Parent
    Breaking: Sky-Earth separation on horizen! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    BTD buries lede:

    He can only look ungracious at this point.

    Fess up, are you working inside knowledge of a new blog award understatement of the year?

    Parent

    Jesus, he is ungracious. (4.76 / 17) (#10)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    Deal with it.  This is who Obama is.  He's a sore winner.

    Parent
    He's been ungracious from the (4.62 / 8) (#70)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    beginning.

    I spoke over the weekend with someone I know who had been supporting Hillary, and has switched to the Obama campaign. He knows the Clintons personally, so this was a "difficult call." He wanted to know if he could talk to me about how to heal the rifts between Hillary and Obama supporters.

    I told him that it was primarily Obama's job to heal the rifts, that Hillary herself would support him but that he shouldn't expect that everyone would just fall in line without considerable effort from Obama.  He said, "We know, we know." I told him that the Obama campaign did not seem to know. He shrugged and said, "Give it time."

    It did not give me a good feeling.

    Parent

    Tell him it's not gonna happen. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by derridog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    you could have told him.... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    that one sure way to BEGIN the healing would be to throw Donna Brazile under the bus and guarantee that he will NEVER support her to lead the DNC.

    The next step would be to get another bus and throw the likes of DailyKos and AnericaBlog under it for the tone they have allowed their bloggers and commenters to maintain througout the campaign.

    Parent

    BTD, he wining is (none / 0) (#125)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    NOT what the AP report is about today.  Braking news during the day? Please. Wait till  the evening news.

    Parent
    I agree it's over (none / 0) (#143)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    but I disagree about tonight making it his night. The first AA to gain the presidential nomination for a major political party is a moment of such historical consequence, and there should be so much media attention upon his speech tonight, that it would be foolhardy to pass the opportunity up, even for Hillary Clinton's feelings.

    Parent
    They would depend on (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    whether it is enough to be the first AA nominee, or if he wants to be the first AA President.

    Parent
    Ahem, It is a historic night for 51% of us (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    too, y'know, including more than a few that Obama will need to actually win in the end.  And now he has just moved that goal farther away, with yet another example of his hubris.

    He already will have the AA vote, so was this slap in the face of voters he still will need worth it?  That is the question.  And the answer is that, once again, he shows that he probably doesn't have what it takes to win: women.

    Parent

    It's an historic night for everybody (none / 0) (#250)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I wish there were a way that both candidates could have broken the glass ceiling. If it had been Hillary, it would have been every bit as historic, and I would have been every bit as happy for our nation about that as I am about Obama.

    I appreciate the level of deep disappointment and grief among many here. But please remember that through this process we've moved our nation and our society a little closer to the ideal that people are not being judged by the color of their skin, or the nature of their genitalia, but by the content of their character.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#260)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    I sure wish the state of race relations in this country improved just because the media tells us they have.

    From where I sit, I always saw Obama as a candidate with great potential, and it's hard to accept that the first African-American nominee got there by playing the same brand of divisive racial politics that I used to see growing up in Detroit.  Winning by smearing Bill and Hillary Clinton as race-baiters does not, in my mind, represent anything but a setback for race relations.

    It didn't have to be this way.  Obama won in Iowa without any of that crap.  I have no idea why they chose to go down that road.

    Parent

    It would be great (none / 0) (#285)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    if we could have a serious conversation about how race and gender played into this campaign without being called racist or race-baiters. (Or sexists or misogynists) In MA Patrick ran against a woman, too, but she was a Republican and although there was some paternalism, it never got so bad that women got their hackles up.  We already had had a female governor so her candidacy was not "historic". When middle-aged insomnia hits, I like to imagine how this campaign might have been different if Axelrod had been planning Hillary's campaign instead.  When you let your mind go there, the places where race and gender reared their heads become more apparent. For example, how would Axelrod have energized women to become the voting block that the AAs were for Obama? If 90% of women were backing Hillary, we would all be at the beach today instead of on the phone with voters in SD and MT.  I think it would be an interesting conversation to have, but we probably aren't post-racial or post-feminist enough to have it.

    Parent
    BTD, Let Me Get This Correct..... (none / 0) (#153)
    by HsLdyAngl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST
    So Hillary, in your opinion, should have her night tonite, over the historic event of Obama becoming the first presumptive Democratic AA nominee for President in our nation's history.

    So if Hillary does not concede, nor suspend her campaign, according to you, Hillary is still entitled to her nite in the national limelight.

    Since when does a nation focus on the loser, rather than on the winner, when the goalpost has been passed?

    That is like focusing on the losing team on Super Bowl Sunday, right after the game.  :::shakes head in astonishment:::

    Parent

    You guys really do get your daily talking points (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by otherlisa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    Is it any coincidence that two pro-Obama commenters here come in a row with the same line, about why should Clinton get a night "over the historic event of Obama becoming the first presumptive Democratic AA nominee for President in our nation's history"?

    I wish this "historic event" was something I could celebrate, but the mere fact that Obama is African American isn't going to cut it.

    Parent

    If there is a talking point distribution network (none / 0) (#228)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    I'd like to know about it. But what happened here is mere coincidence, unless the poster below me copied my idea, which I seriously doubt.

    Parent
    Besides, isn't Obama (none / 0) (#264)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    the "Post-Racial" candidate? I guess that's only when convenient.

    Parent
    Your historically delegitimized candidate (none / 0) (#279)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    is all he will be in the history books.  You'll see.

    Parent
    It really does appear to be (none / 0) (#286)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    beyond your comprehension. It would require human qualifies beyond being meager, stingy and insufficient.  Sad that life is such a mystery to so many BO fans.

    As I stated back in January, many will be learning lessons from this primary - some lessons are going to be very painful as it strikes at the very souls of some.

    Parent

    It really does appear to be (none / 0) (#287)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    beyond your comprehension. It would require human qualifies beyond being meager, stingy and insufficient.  Sad that life is such a mystery to so many BO fans.

    As I stated back in January, many will be learning lessons from this primary - some lessons are going to be very painful as it strikes at the very souls of some.

    Parent

    It really does appear to be (none / 0) (#288)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    beyond your comprehension. It would require human qualities beyond being meager, stingy and insufficient.  Sad that life is such a mystery to so many BO fans.

    As I stated back in January, many will be learning lessons from this primary - some lessons are going to be very painful as it strikes at the very souls of some.

    Parent

    It really does appear to be (none / 0) (#292)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    beyond your comprehension. It would require human qualities beyond being meager, stingy and insufficient.  Sad that life is such a mystery to so many BO fans.

    As I stated back in January, many will be learning lessons from this primary - some lessons are going to be very painful as it strikes at the very souls of some.

    Hillary has not lost. Nor will she lose from this primary. Comparatively, her legacy is stellar now.

    Parent

    HA! (4.70 / 10) (#9)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    From the link:

    Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

    The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments.

    "Private commitments"?  In other words, we're supposed to take their word for it?

    There's another description for this:  FAILURE.  Obama won't get enough SDs today to put him over the top, so the press has to cover his ass!! WHOOPEEEEE!!!

    DENVER!  DENVER!  DENVER!!!!

    Private Committments?? (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by katiebird on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    What the heck does that mean?  

    (whisper) Hey Senator Obama, if you can make it through South Dakota, I'm all yours....

    That's not an endorsement.

    Parent

    "private commitment" (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    are part of the "whisper that started in Springfield"  sweet nothings.  Like the DNC finding intent in the votes of MI.  Yikes...I tell you this is scary, our democracy is going further down the toilet.  

    Parent
    "private commitments" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    I know several couples who were married in a private civil ceremony but didn't tell anyone they were married.  

    Parent
    hah (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    a private commitment & $4 gets you a grande latte.

    Parent
    Or a gallon of gas (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    ...if you're lucky.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    I mean it isn't like they haven't printed anything factually incorrect lately? Oh wait.

    Disregard that man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful Oz.

    Parent

    Yes, I commented on this upthread (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    Private commitments TO THE AP.  As in "Pssst, AP, we're going to support Obama, but don't use our names...."

    It's shameful.

    Parent

    or as in... (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    "Psst, AP: please print this 'scoop' for us."

    Parent
    it is just a matter of time (3.00 / 2) (#133)
    by whecht on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    Does everyone remember when people like Limbaugh and Hannity were dumping all over McCain?

    Now they hate Obama and Clinton and love McCain.

    In order to win in November we will need to rally around Obama.

    Do you really want McCain to appoint the replacement to Stevens and, maybe, Ginsburg?

    What's this 'we', kemosabe? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    Quite a number of us have left the Democratic party. Have fun rallying around the vestiges of your party.

    Considering how Obama was all for Roberts until he was talked out of it due to political expediency, I don't want him to appoint the replacement for Stevens or Ginsburg either.

    Parent

    I'm Working Class, Too Old, Uneducated, (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    and a typical white woman. The NEW Democratic Party has already said it doesn't need me. As Obama has said: "Words do matter." Therefore, I plan to take them at their word. So rally to your heart's content but you will do it without me.

    Parent
    Too soon (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Laertes on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    It's way too soon to be pushing the Hillary supporters to get aboard the Obama bandwagon.  That's like hitting on a widow at her husband's wake.

    The GE campaign begins tonight.  Once the intramural slap-fight is over and we get down to serious Dem-on-Gooper campaigning, everyone will get a big rude reminder about just why we're Democrats in the first place.

    And, of course, since Hillary comes from the conservative wing of the party, some of her supporters, when faced with the choice of the more-liberal Obama or the arch-conservative McCain, will remember that they weren't actually Democrats in the first place, and will return to the party where they belong.

    It'd be a funny old world if we were all alike.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Conservative Democrats aren't Democrats.  The always-popular blog argument that ensures political irrelevance.  God save us if this is the Obama party line.

    Parent
    The perception of Obama as a liberal (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by otherlisa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    is the biggest con of this race. I will never understand it.

    Parent
    Conservative wing? Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    Blessing in disguise (1.00 / 7) (#58)
    by bdub78 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    The AP article is a blessing in disguise.  It will give Clinton supporters one more excuse for losing.


    What a Relief (1.00 / 5) (#124)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    As an Edwards supporter, your words give me hope.  Edwards can still get Clinton's and Obama's pledged delegates and declared super delegates to change their minds and vote for him to be the nominee.

    I hadn't been audacious enough to hope for that until now.

    Den-ver, Den-ver!!

    Apparently it's not just the AP... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sander60tx on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    Check out various videos here.  I think maybe CBS-Chicago has got it about right. In that report, CBC's Chief Political Editor, Mike Flannery states that this is part of the delegate negotiations and elaborate stage craft in the final days of the campaign  The Obama camp has been maneuvering... Sen. Clair McCaskill has been saying that by the time the polls close tonight Obama will have enough superdelegates combined with the ones he's going to win in South Dakota and Montana to claim the nomination.  But some superdelegates in deference to Clinton, may wait to announce until after she concedes.  Clinton will probably not make a formal concession tonight, but may acknowledge that Obama has the nomination just about wrapped up.  Clinton will have a celebration of the campaign tonight with supporters, staff, donors, etc.

    saw this posted on TM (none / 0) (#142)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    (very interesting, assuming it's true):

    CNBC Caruso Caberrra reports she got lots of trader emails when the ap STORY CROSSED oops, with them saying the sell off is due to the news Obama had the nomination

    down 110 right now...

    ==============

    I wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    This is a relatively recent development.  Early in the campaign, Wall Street was actually very high on Obama.  Lately there do seem to be predictable sell-offs that correspond with his good news.

    Parent
    No Clinton campaign conference call (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    today?  Why not?

    I don't get the (none / 0) (#160)
    by phatpay on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    this is "her night" aspect.
    Aren't these 2 groundbreaking politicos that have slugged it out for well over a year?
    Don't they both have large organizations that might be looking forward to some modicum of normalcy for a few weeks?
    I think the AP story is very deceiving. I'm not arguing anything on that. But I do believe that both candidates have a right to throw themselves a giant party tonight.
    I wish they were throwing it together.

    Well, if Obama had the (none / 0) (#200)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    number of pledged delegates necessary to win, there wouldn't be any question. As of right now Obama doesn't have that number. So we wait.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Thank You (none / 0) (#207)
    by tek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    Over at TM all he** is breaking loose, can't tell what's going on.

    CNN just said (none / 0) (#268)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Hillary told lwmakers that she would accept VP spot.... but hwo know if it true.

    Also President Carter just endorsed Obama

    Parent

    Presumptive Nominee? (none / 0) (#241)
    by Moga on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    Asking for a point of information about this from the top: "Until and unless Hillary Clinton publicly suspends or ends her campaign and concedes that Obama is the nominee, there is no nominee."

    There's no nominee until the delegates vote in Denver, right? There's a "presumptive nominee" until after the ballot(s).

    Can Hillary insist that her named be placed in nomination (setting aside whether it would be wise for her to do so)?

    Presumptive Nominee? (none / 0) (#242)
    by Moga on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    Asking for a point of information about this from the top: "Until and unless Hillary Clinton publicly suspends or ends her campaign and concedes that Obama is the nominee, there is no nominee."

    There's no nominee until the delegates vote in Denver, right? There's a "presumptive nominee" until after the ballot(s).

    Can Hillary insist that her name be placed in nomination (setting aside whether it would be wise for her to do so)?

    Huff Post headline: (none / 0) (#255)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    "Tonight's the Night"

    Now he is (none / 0) (#261)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    only 27 delegates away.  Lobby the SD's to wait until tomorrow!  

    Super (none / 0) (#274)
    by PaulDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    Great.  So I get to spend the next two months reading loony Obama supporters bashing Clinton and loony Clinton supporters bashing Obama.  I'm frankly getting sick of all the fighting and just want to focus on beating McCain instead of beating each other.

    If this goes on much longer I'm going to start agitating for a Gore nomination at a brokered convention where we can put the adults back in charge.

    Hey! Hey! Hey! Let my people vote! (none / 0) (#284)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:53:45 PM EST
    Darned AP is all over the place in South Dakota with the It's Over mantra.  

    THE most exciting primary in SD history probably and they want it over by noon!

    Tell you what, my friends, if that's the way they want to play with our votes then I've got 22 Dem, progressive, prochoice women running for legislature in SD and an abortion ban on the ballot we can put right up their nose this fall and I'd bet a few other states are right with us on that one (eh, Colorado?).  

    Honestly! If the only way Daschle can save face in SD is to change the subject and turn his back on the home-state voters it'll be darned scary with Paul Tewes as DNC chair and Hildebrand manhandling the message of progressive groups.