Hillary Wins South Dakota

Update: Fox News calls South Dakota for Hillary. She won it big -- by 12 points.

Polls are closed in South Dakota. Hillary is leading Obama. It looks like she will take the state.

What did it for her? Older voters, women voters and rural voters.

I'll be following the election returns here.

< Fineman: Discussions Of Obama Offer Of VP and Clinton Rejection Of It Ongoing | Here's Hillary: No Decision Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fox called South Dakota for HILLARY!!! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST

    Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:12:10 PM EST
    and some others proving that they can deliver their states.  HEH.  

    Ugh. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    Obama following in the footsteps of democratic presidential losers.

    How nice.


    Man (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:12 PM EST
    it looks like a bloodbath in Nov with these kind of results in a primary.

    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    The voters just aren't listening to the media. All the feel good stuff on the television about Barack isn't going t help.

    Jeralyn, any evidence of voter suppression? (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:50 PM EST
    Is there any indication that the false AP stories (about Hillary suspending her campaign) suppressed voter turnout?

    Axelrod is on FOX now.


    Wouldn't trust daschle and kerry to deliver (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    my lunch... :)  I am leaving kennedy out in deference to his health situation...But, check it out dawg, obama is surrounded by losers and now he even has Jimmy Carter declaring for him, which you could see coming a mile away...oh well...CONVENTION!!!  HERE COMES HILLARY....

    Hillary take it Denver!!! (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    People write to her site and tell her your thoughts.

    Comments at hillaryclinton-dot-com

    waldenpond posted comment you should put Harold Ickes on the
    subject. Do what you feel.  But write !!


    Done (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM EST
    Did this like 20 minutes ago.



    Great Paul, (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    thank you!!

    ATTN: Harold Ickes (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    Should Hillary take it to Denver?  You bet your a55 she should!!

    Hillary wins SD - That's my Candidate (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    I love it - this is historical. She did it without help - the old fashioned way...ha ha ha no one is carrying her over the finish line.
    I wrote Howard Ickes earlier - to his attention and took the opportunity to let him know how I felt deep down about Hillary and about Bill Clinton and about RBC and about the Credentials Com.

    I am so glad to hear she won another state. I'm sure the powers to be are impressed,,,,, er, worried even more.

    Politics is such a fun game.


    Your comment (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    put the image of a great political cartoon in my head....what a sorry situation this is.

    I heard Fox just called SD (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by otherlisa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:25 PM EST
    for Hillary!

    And I ask, how is it that the "presumptive nominee" is getting his butt kicked, now in a state that he was supposed to win?

    She just took SD - oh the irony (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:48 PM EST
    If only it had been SDs

    The exit poll says (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:48 PM EST
    that Hillary wins SD 54/46, roughly.

    Wheezes across finish line (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:50 PM EST
    with help of the party insiders.  

    Obama carried on a stretcher (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:59 PM EST
    The Party establishment rigged the nomination from the beginning and still had to carry him on a stretcher at the end.

    I don't care what others say: let her take it to Denver.  Even if every SD abandons her, the loss will be their responsibility and it's important to expose how corrupt and pathetic this entire nomination system is.


    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM EST
    First legit laugh out loud moment of night. Thanks!



    And he'll lose in November. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST

    For the sake of the country and the party, (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    it's my hope.

    Me too, Mark (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM EST
    First, Obama cannot win the GE so there's no point in trying to shame anyone here to vote for him.  Second, even if he somehow did it'll only guarantee that the left will be divided and conquered.  The man is no Democrat, but no Democratic "leader" will oppose him with all that imperial power Cheney will leave behind (Who else could privatize SS but Obama?).

    If he makes it to the White House (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    It'll be 4 years of disaster.  It might actually make GWB look like a better president...

    Is it possible Cheney and Rove rigged this?  



    And my prediction (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    He has an unbelievably small window into the White House.

    I really do not like (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Mrwirez on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    Obama and will NOT vote for him. PERIOD.

    IBEW local union no. 5
    Pittsburgh, PA

    I feel ripped off and cheated AGAIN!!


    Me too MarkL (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    I won't go that far... (none / 0) (#80)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    I'm definitely feeling unenthusiastic about an Obama-McCain election, but I'm not going to start rooting for McCain unless something big changes.

    I think McCain should (none / 0) (#106)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    dye his hair magenta or blue.  It'd make him look more hip.  The kids would love him.  Maybe he could get his nose pierced too.  That might make him more relevant to them, you think?

    It would certainly make the election more interesting...  


    Me, Neither (none / 0) (#123)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:09:07 PM EST
    I don't see myself ever rooting for or voting for McCain.

    I'd describe myself as ambivalent.  Which is shocking given how much I hate the GOP.

    Ah well, if Obama cannot win me over by November, there are always others.  The one time I had to deal with Cynthia McKinney she struck me as possibly crazy, but her policies aren't.  Single payer healthcare, for starters.  


    It's reality. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    I used to think we were reality-based on this side of the aisle.

    Not any more.


    This time, the DNC must have decided to (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:36 PM EST
    try to beat the Republicans at their own game. Put an unqualified candidate out there, bully the competition and just tell the voters you're right.

    It has worked for the past two GE's. This sure has looked like bush's 3rd run.


    It seems (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:16:30 PM EST
    like a large portion of the party has a huge problem with Obama. I don't expect that to change over the course of the next few months. Does anyone else?

    No. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST

    (At least you can't accuse me of blogclogging with an excessively long comment.)  LOL



    It would be an entirely (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:29:04 PM EST
    different story if Clinton's opponent had been a fierce competitor but respectful.

    It's not the loss that gets me.  It's the blatant disrespect and the DNC's glaring incompetence that does it.

    IMO:  Obama figured that the misogyny would hurt Clinton more than it hurt him.  He may have been right about the relative damage, but it is indeed hurting him in a very important demographic to boot.


    exactly!! (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST
    >>>different story if Clinton's opponent had been a fierce competitor but respectful

    But Obama's Empty Suit couldn't compete with Hillary's substance so he went the character assassination route, assisted by Obamedia and the Establishment.


    Or even if the opponent (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Evie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:31 PM EST
    were the unequivocal choice of the Democratic voters.

    But it seems as if the choice of the most actual voters will be denied the nomination due to the DNC's manipulations of the votes.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:02 PM EST
    No.  For a lot of us, the problem with Obama was the lack of experience.  

    That's something he can't fix.  Yeah, they could try to fluff up his resume by adding his name to bills now going through the Senate, but those of us who pay attention would know, so that really wouldn't work.  

    So, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why I should accept this candidate over another one who has a ton more experience?  


    Nope (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:37 PM EST
    And, the media and the party leaders refuse to listen to why the party cannot be fully reunited. They think we're all just mad our candidate isn't the winner.

    They don't understand we know Obama isn't the winner, and being played like fools on top of all the other problems with the way this primary played out is hardly the right way to start the apology.


    CNN is obviously (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    holding off on the SD Projection for Hillary. Very obvious.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#23)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:55 PM EST
    The two biggest counties - Pennington and Minnehaha - haven't really reported much yet.  Probably waiting until significant returns come in from thre

    Oh, but they won't actually vote for (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    Obama if it goes to November. That is why she must concede.

    cause (none / 0) (#25)
    by Monda on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:03 PM EST
    that's not breaking news ;)

    First real upset (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:18:39 PM EST
    This is the first real upset of the race in quite some time.  First time the person expected to win did not (unless you also count Indiana)

    Yep, they always had it in his column (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    Hell yeah. I count Indiana. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:56 PM EST
    He expected to win it.

    Will buyer's remorse set in? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    Why do superdelegates jump the gun?

    If they are going to be part of the process in the future, the rules should require them to wait until enough pledged delegates have put a candidate over the top.

    Nothing stops them from jumping again. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    Something needs to be put in place (none / 0) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:58 PM EST
    to keep them silent until convention. The media and the DNC really took advantage of them this time.

    Theirs should be secret ballots even at convention. That way they have to vote their conscience and no fingers can be pointed at the individuals.


    Mara Liasson on NPR said the SDs were jumping in (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    bcz black voters are the "most important voting block" in the Democratic Party. (Take that, women!)

    In August, any delegates can change their minds.


    OMG...she did not? Mara hasn't been on the (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    right side of anything in a very long time.  Tell me again, how much of the electorate across the U.S. is AA?  lmao

    And maybe someone should inform her that SD's can
    change their minds every other day if they like...


    SD jumped the gun because they were told (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Prabhata on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:42:39 PM EST
    The real power brokers in the Democratic Party, the Pelosi and company swayed the SD to vote for Obama.  The fix has been in since last year.  That's why FL and MI lost their votes 100 percent when the rules said they would lose 50 percent.  Figure it out people.

    The "nominee" of the Democratic Party (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    loses the primary that puts him over.  


    An 8-point margin... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    in the exit polls seems premature for calling it. But who knows? CBS was ultimately right about Indiana, though it looked touch-and-go for a bit.

    David Axelrod just made the best Freudian slip (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by carmel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    I've ever heard on national television, he just called Obama the "punitive nominee", I mean the "presumptive nominee". I'm so proud of Hillary and the campaign she has run against the "punitive nominee".

    I thought that was just me, I heard the same (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by tnjen on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    that's exactly what he is -- punitive. At any rate, there is no nominee* and this staging is pathetic. I feel like I'm in Baghdad waiting for Saddam's election results to come in. Obama hasn't earned anything and the media is now outright lying.

    I think the word was not (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    "punitive," but "putative."

    Means more or less the same thing as "presumptive."


    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    A good lawyer word.  Sort of confusing among non-lawyers.

    Axelrod wanted to (none / 0) (#90)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:50:30 PM EST
    take the "presumption" out of "presumptive". However, putative has a litigious ring to it.

    The lady in the pantsuit says: "I WILL BE MAKING NO DECISIONS TONIGHT"!


    I'm glad she won it. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    She deserves this. I hope she brings it up to all the SDs. She won on his supposed turf at least twice and has won the swing states. I hope she points out that they are likely headed over a cliff with their choice.

    The Obama spreadsheet (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    had SD as a 15-point Obama win.  That was their expectation earlier in the campaign.

    And It Should Scare Democrats (none / 0) (#124)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:12:41 PM EST
    that he's losing it after having essentially clinched the nomination.  
    Fortunately, I'm no longer a Democrat.  Otherwise I'd be really worried about November and angry at my party.  Now, I'm just another above-it-all independent waiting to see who will woo and win my vote.  

    As for his loss, it's my belief Obama isn't the same candidate he was in February.  I don't think he's ever effectively dealt with Wright, an issue that I don't care so much about but others clearly do.


    I hope she breaks even tonight (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:37 PM EST
    in terms of the popular vote between the two states. That would be terrific, IMO.

    Anything beyond that is gravy.

    Obama started off strong yes but since (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Serene1 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    has been really struggling and has been getting beaten soundly by Hillary in key states. But the most horrifying part of it was that nobody neither the MSM, nor the DEM elites was willing to acknowledge this reality. Nobody was willing to state the truth that if not for SD's whom DB famously threatened once, Obama inspite of starting strong, having the so called momentum on his side, having an adoring MSM on his side and tons and tons of money was not able to close the deal but instead in the last few contests lost so badly that SD's had to step in to give him the nomination.
    It almost felt like an alternate reality when Hillary would post a win by beating Obama soundly and yet Obama would take a victory lap and the MSM and other assorted fanboys would gush over how great Obama is.

    CNN calls SD for Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Esme on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    Wolf just called it for her.

    Not exactly a vote of confidence... (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM EST
    So far, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky have had the opportunity to cement the nomination for Obama. All of them were described as must-wins for Clinton. Had even one of them gone for Obama, it would have been a serious statement that the Democratic electorate had settled on a nominee. I've excluded North Carolina, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico since those weren't considered make-or-break primaries.

    All of them took a pass--most of them decisively, several of them ridiculously so. Only Indiana came close.

    Now South Dakota, bringing up the rear, not even expected to go for Clinton, also says no.

    Maybe this is a sign that the Democrats should at least think about it a few more days instead of rushing to a conclusion?

    I feel a unity ticket comming on. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Faust on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:49 PM EST

    Why I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama. (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    Many of us actually think BO will be WORSE than McCain. Why? Obama has no experience - only his ego - upon which to base this candidacy. Plain. And. Simple.

    He is a political lurker...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge. Even his "famous" speech resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate. But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

    I remember reading about him running into committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished. He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"? They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment. Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

    He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont). He lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present). He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and now saying we should all move on - pun intended!). Condemning the Gas Tax Holiday proposal when he supported other such proposals three times.

    Where in the world does he really stand on things? I don't know. And I'm not willing to take a chance.

    If we elect a lurker then Repugs will rule the day anyway because he lurks right as much as he lurks left.

    NOT what we must have for this country if we are expected to move forward.

    Plus, he has destroyed any improvements we have made in race relations since 1960.  He should be ashamed of himself.

    And, this is now my response on Roe v Wade...(not my words...those of another poster whom I know and respect...and with whom I agree!):

    "If my younger sisters lose Roe Wade it will be their own fault for taking the rights they have for granted, because they didn't fight for them. They are complacent and can take the time to swoon over a sexy empty suit who has already set gender relations back a minimum of 30 years, and we haven't even gotten to the General Election campaign yet. Serves them right. Not my problem. I know how not to get pregnant.

    It's my job to protect the rights I fought for that matter to me. This is a misogynist's campaign and if younger women are too busy spawning over Leland Gaunt handing out Needful Things and discussing his vibrating phone when he leans on one of them, then they will have to learn to take the consequences of their own folly along with the consolations. Maybe then they will Get It. I have already done well in my life. Complacency is their enemy, not mine. Let em eat cell phones."

    As Abraham Lincoln said:

    "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."

    Why I can't vote... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    ... for Senator Obama:

    First and foremost, because he has no intestinal fortitude - he won't take a stand on a tough moral issue until he absolutely has to for political expediency. (See JFK's paraphrase of Dante regarding the hottest places in he!!)

    Also, in the last several months of learning about his history, watching him speak and react to crisis after crisis, I have come to believe that Senator Obama is not sincere about any word that comes out of his mouth. It's all political calculation with him and I honestly do not know what, if anything, the man truly stands for. I have the feeling that McCain at least believes what he says.

    Regarding Roe v. Wade, here are a couple of laws of political thermodynamics:

    Issek's Law:  In any Democratic Party primary, that candidate is weakest who - personally or through his/her surrogates - first threatens his/her opponent's supporters with the overthrow of Roe v. Wade should he/she lose the election.

    Vimes' Corollary (to Issek's Law): The electability of a Democratic candidate is inversely proportional to the frequency and vehemence with which he/she - personally or through his/her supporters - threatens the overturning of Roe v. Wade should he/she lose the election.


    Shain, you can clog my blog anytime. (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    Speaking for me only, of course. I don't agree with every point you've made, but I appreciate the outpouring nonetheless. I do agree 100% with your level of outrage.

    CNN calls South Dakota for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    But you'd never be able to tell if you looked at their web page

    Exit polls.... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    South Dakota exit polls are out

    It looks like Clinton 53, Obama 47

    Obama loses women 57-43 (ties with men)
    Obama loses older voters (60 and over) 65-35
    Obama loses white voters 55-45
    Obama loses those making less than 100k 55-45 (wins 49-51 among the wealthy)
    Obama loses democrats 55-45 (wins independents by only 2 pts 49-51)
    obama loses moderates 48%-42%
    Obama loses all religious demographics by at least 8 point -- except for those who answered "none", which he won by 8 points.

    This is NOT a viable candidate....

    Same old same old... sigh (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM EST
    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    C-Span (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:31 PM EST
    You know..... if you watch the election results on C-span, you can watch McAuliffe introduce Hillary.....  :)

    She's about to speak (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:02 PM EST
    Terry Mac just said she got most votes ever in primary

    They are taking this baby (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    to Denver !!!! Teery McA just ask the crowd if they are ready for the next President of the USA. Chelsea is with Hillary.  

    Here she is - I'm in tears. Ain't no mountain (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    high enough is playing. All three Clintons on stage. This is beautiful.

    Jeralyn and others (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    Hillary should be speaking in moments.  Terry was just up and now the whole Clinton family has taken the stage.  Abc has it on a redirect on their web site.

    On CNN... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    Good Lord.  They have the numbers right in front of them for all of the contests and all I hear is "Dominance" and the like.  I'm not mathematician, but sweet jeebus on a cracker even I can see this was in no way a dominant win.  What a freaking joke.

    Has anyone else noticed Obama's victory map, it looks almost identical to Shrub's!?  Excluding Texas of course.

    Empty.  Pyrrhic.  Victory.

    "Good night and good luck" is right, they're going to need a truck of luck to only be embarassed in Nov.  One vote for Dukakis was enough for me, I won't be voting for his twin.  Call me a bitter clinger, but I call it having a modicum of pride and self respect.  They would rather lose than to see Clinton win.  It's called actions and consequences.




    They are all there (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:28 PM EST
    Bill, Chelsea and Hilary: GREAT CROWD

    Hillary is just so good at this (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    I hope she can keep campaigning in some capacity.

    She just gets better and better and better (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    VERY impressive.  Great speech.  

    Technically, or whatever, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    Question: how can Obama be declared the nominee before she concedes? And she ain't conceding! Officially, he's still the presumptive nominee, correct?

    Bill, Chelsea, Hillary, they're all beaming. RADIANT!

    The people are ignoring the media!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:52:02 PM EST
    She's NOT giving up!!!  Yeah!!!  GO HILLARY!!!!  

    I thought Obama had a lock on SD?  So much for the media, their lies just didn't work this time.  

    Hillary's speech is awesome!!!!!  

    WOW. Fox is repeating the most votes ever (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:02:25 PM EST
    in a primary and not mincing it with any other words or eye rolling. First time I've seen/heard it so clear and final from talking heads. And yes, they said 'more votes than Obama even'!!  :)

    Ok, props to all her supporters who came up on stage after her speech. Big hug from Paterson :) Very impressive, classy finish from Hillary. GO HILLARY GO!!!

    and damn! she looks GOOD!

    Nycstray, I'm right there with you. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    But don't you mean she got: "Teh most votes evah"!

    A general query: what does it mean that Obama has "CLINCHED the nomination"?

    Is a CLINCH anything like KEIGEL exercises?


    He didn't clinch it (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:27:49 PM EST
    It was handed to him and he grabbed it like a fool.

    Hillary 08 - "Teh most votes evah"  ;)


    wow. How good SD feels sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    The results are saying that basically everyone in SD was for Hillary.  Its become an older state, they went Hillary.  Women.  Basically all are blue-collar or at least working class (how much you think CitiBank pays?).  

    Score.  I'm dampered by the whole St. Paul rockorama coming up soon but hey, working for South Dakota it doesn't often get much better than this.

    Take that, Hildebrand Tewes.  

    And the Daschle vice-presidential campaign.... (4.80 / 5) (#14)
    by Shawn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:17:06 PM EST
    comes to an abrupt and merciful end.

    I still think he'll pick a white male Midwesterner.

    Isn't it amazing how ... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:28:50 PM EST
    Obama's friends can deliver states for him?

    He won't pick (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST
    some one from his part of the country.

    He needs the East Coast.  He'll lose the red states in the South.  

    He'l lose...

    Geez.  He's going to lose.


    On the upside (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    McCain is going to have to clean up W's mess and if he's as big a disaster as I suspect we may well see some more desertions from the GOP.

    Wasn't Wexler auditioning for the VP on Saturday? (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    He'd better hope for something (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    Think he made a good impression on his constituency with his attitude, and throwing away 50% of his votes? I'm betting he will be an easy candidate for an opponent to beat this year.

    Pie....you crack me up! And, you are so very (none / 0) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST

    we'll see how happy (2.33 / 3) (#13)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    you are in november. i doubt very.

    Wow the vitriol (2.33 / 3) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST
    at this site is ridiculous.  The democrats have their first african american nominee, and look at you guys.  

    Heh. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    Uh (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    Do you feel we should see him as an African-American, or as a nominee?

    The Democrats have the most (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    unqualified candidate for the Presidency in the history of the United States. That he happens to be an African-American is irrelevant to the lack of qualifications. Or at least it should be. Affirmative Action is all very well for leveling the playing field in the areas of education and employment, but it's not appropriate for use in nominating a candidate for the highest office in the country. An AA candidate who actually had credibility as a legislator and a civil rights record would be greeted here with cheers. Obama isn't that candidate. Sorry you can't see that.

    If the Democratic Party wanted us to support their candidate, they should have chosen one that was qualified and hadn't insulted, demeaned and alienated several large voting blocs in the primary campaign. I WILL NOT VOTE for a candidate that has spent the last year or so sneering at me. I will write in Hillary. So will a lot of people.


    We are all racists...didn't you hear? If you (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    really want some extra crispy vitriol, I recommend you go to dkos or huffpo where you usually hang out.

    Isn't he post-racial or bi-racial? (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by TomLincoln on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:19:12 PM EST
    And I only see him as a nominee. The idea of his nomination will surely make a lot proud, but I see him as a big time loser in November, and even if he were to get the presidency I see him going for Jimmy Carter's second term. Tha's what McCain should be sayng!

    hey jgarza- THERE IS NO VITRIOL HERE (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:27:04 PM EST
    compared to the bizarre unfounded hared of Sen Clinton that comes out of most Obama sites (such as KOS &americablog) That crap is not allowed here- it is ENCOURAGED there. Get a grip!

    You are ignoring the facts (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    To call him the presumptive nominee prior to the convention, his delegates needed to come from the PLEDGED group. Supers aren't secured until they vote at convention.

    Nothing official seals his nomination.

    Hillary remains a very strong contender for the top spot on the democratic ticket.

    The media and the DNC are just pulling your leg and laughing that people are letting them get away with it.


    The good news from the SD exit poll (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    is that a vast majority of SD Democrats who voted today will vote for Obama in November. The Damage isn't permanent there, it seems.

    Woo-hoo! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    SD Dems will vote for Obama!  That's, what?  3 electoral votes.  The White House is in. the. bag!

    And how does SD usually vote? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    Isn't SD (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Evie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    only like 20% Democrat?

    So if Obama gets all of them and maybe some independents, he'll only lose by 40 pts?


    Terry McAuffile (none / 0) (#59)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    on TV addressing supporters in NYC; Hillary next.

    Can watch on Fox online.

    She's speaking NOW (none / 0) (#76)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:48 PM EST

    Michelle looks great, but... (none / 0) (#110)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    She just gave Barack a congratulatory knuckle-to-knuckle punch and a thumbs-up.

    How very Jackie-O of her!

    Hahaha............ (none / 0) (#116)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    As if Jackie O didn't have more class than that.  

    F'ing A! Just got the news on this on TL (none / 0) (#111)
    by nulee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    way-to-go! Blow it out of the water Hillary!  Body slam to AP vote suppressers, Daschle, McGovern and Obama!

    You GO girl - we have you COVERED!

    Early skinny on prochoice Dem women in SD (none / 0) (#118)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:51:09 PM EST
    We're doing fantastic in early returns for prochoice Dem women running for state leg seats in SD.  Concerned about one with a four way race but others are ahead of incumbents they lost to in the '06 cycle.

    I'm tellin' ya!  Progress in SD!  

    Two Bulls still way too early at Pine Ridge...Kevin Killer, too, a popular young startup... .

    Somebody tell me it doesn't help to nurture the ground and thank you Hillary Clinton!

    And Romney won Montana (none / 0) (#125)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:41 AM EST