With 99% of the vote in, Hillary squeaks in a victory. She's going to win by about 20,000, around what the Obama campaign predicted. I predicted she'd be done by May 6, looks like I was practically right.
What an idiot statement by the mayor. Barack is encouring the young voters to get out and vote--something they were criticized for not doing in the past. I'm sick of Clinton and her politics, her games, and her fuckin' disgusting laugh. Drop dead, bitch. And by dead, I mean out.
Obama has won 1584 delegates with less than 300 left in the remaining primaries. Hillary's won 1400 and change. It's still up to the politburo to effectively choose the winner. Obama's obviously got the edge. The politburo "voters" aren't obligated to vote for who they endorse, as we've seen some already switch from one candidate to another. Hillary doesn't have to raise another dime to remain in it until the convention, if she chooses. A lot can happen between now and then - that'd be her calculus should she choose to stay in it. There are a few things to consider. John Edwards has 200 or so delegates. If he were to be convinced to endorse Hillary, she's all of a sudden ahead in delegate count. Al Gore could lobby the politburo folks. Pick no winner first vote at the convention, and they could nominate Gore on the second ballot. Obama's campaign could implode. ABC News is a friend of the Democratic Party: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4365942 Reformer: Trial Will Reveal 'Cesspool' of Obama's Allies With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the "cesspool" of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president. "We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from." Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians." There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign. The trial Monday involves federal charges of bribery and extortion against Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who became known in Illinois politics as a behind-the-scenes operator and fixer. While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama's political career. "This wasn't just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it's someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time," Stewart said. (more at the link)
John Edwards only has 19 pledged delegates left. Edwards only reached 26 pledged delegates, and Obama already took some of those away at the Iowa State Convention. Edwards can give a small boost, but he definitely won't decide this election, even if he gives his 19 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton (even then she is down too big). What happened here? Forever, in this process, even with Obama obviously going to win this thing, the media has let this go on. Why all of a sudden, when Hillary wins Indiana...are they calling the race over? why now?
Start the victory parade, the witch is gone. Obama's polling against McCain continues to improve. He's up .6 percent in one day expect that to continue after the pundits are done with Hillary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 7 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>John Edwards only has 19 pledged delegates left. Edwards only reached 26 pledged delegates, and Obama already took some of those away at the Iowa State Convention. Edwards can give a small boost, but he definitely won't decide this election, even if he gives his 19 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton (even then she is down too big). What happened here? Forever, in this process, even with Obama obviously going to win this thing, the media has let this go on. Why all of a sudden, when Hillary wins Indiana...are they calling the race over? why now?</div> The coverage has been bizarre; divorced from all reality. Biggest Obama nights before today: Super tuesday, TX/OH, and PA. All were spun in the media as historic Hillary come backs. It really makes me wonder about traditionally media's coverage of other stories. . . . there is the story in the Times about the administration bribe pundits to forward hawkish talking points on the air. I agree with your, why now? This hasn't been a race since before TX/OH, if we're pretending it's close, might as well keep on keeping on.
A version of Reagan's 11th commandment applies to the press and Democrats: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a Democrat" It's not that hard to figure out. The correllary is true, as well. If the war is going well, don't mention it; if it's not, harp on it all newshour long.
I did some calculations, and if Obama wins just 45% of the pledged delegates that are left, he'll need just around 1/3 (if not less) of the superdelegates (that are undeclared) to vote for him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 7 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama's campaign could implode. ABC News is a friend of the Democratic Party: (more at the link)</div> LOL. The article is 2 months too old. Is this and your debunked Edwards idea all you got?
After the Mississippi primary, I wrote an article about how the delegate math doesn't add up for Hillary. I pointed out how she will only scrape past him by about 23 pledged delegates if she took 66% of the vote in the remaining states. Then I made some more realistic estimates. Pennsylvania: Clinton 55 Obama 45 (Delegate Clinton 87 Obama 71) Guam: Clitnon 57 Obama 43 (Delegate Clinton 2 Obama 2) Indiana: Obama 59 Clinton 41 (Delegate Obama 42 Clinton 30) North Carolina: Obama 54 Clinton 46 (Delegate Obama 60 Clinton 55) Total: Obama 175 Clinton 174 Actual: Pennsylvania: Clinton 55 Obama 45 (D: Clinton 85 Obama 73) Guam: Obama 50 Clinton 50 (D: Clinton 2 Obama 2) Indiana: Clinton 51 Obama 49 (D: Clinton 39 Obama 33) North Carolina: Obama 56 Clinton 42 (D: Obama 66 Clinton 49) Total: Obama 174 Clinton 175 So Obama is doing pretty much online with my predictions since Mississippi.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ May 7 2008, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 7 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama's campaign could implode. ABC News is a friend of the Democratic Party: (more at the link)</div> LOL. The article is 2 months too old. Is this and your debunked Edwards idea all you got? </div> LOL. I'm just looking at what her strategy could possibly be at this point. An Edwards endorsement may still sway a number of the politburo members, regardless. The trial is still ongoing - they're making final arguments soon. Why do you think the press is willing to jump on the Wright relationship but is ignoring the one with Rezko? The press has been making a big deal about how Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him and he withstood it. SMOKESCREEN.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 7 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ May 7 2008, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 7 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama's campaign could implode. ABC News is a friend of the Democratic Party: (more at the link)</div> LOL. The article is 2 months too old. Is this and your debunked Edwards idea all you got? </div> LOL. I'm just looking at what her strategy could possibly be at this point. An Edwards endorsement may still sway a number of the politburo members, regardless. The trial is still ongoing - they're making final arguments soon. Why do you think the press is willing to jump on the Wright relationship but is ignoring the one with Rezko?</div> Well, in one case you've got a guy jumping up in down in front of a crowd and screaming "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" and in the other you've got your garden variety Chicago politics <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The press has been making a big deal about how Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him and he withstood it. SMOKESCREEN.</div> Here in Indiana I don't see anything like "Hillary through the kitchen sink at him". He more or less was throwing the kitchen sink at himself because of various bad judgements. What the results from last night tell me is that most folks who voted Democratic saw this stuff and just weren't swayed by it. Clinton can hang around as long as any independently wealthy person can I suppose, but the Democratic party is pretty clearly going to nominate Obama.
The press tried to throw the kitchen sink at Obama when Wright started to open his mouth again, but now he's rebounding.
Well, one thing the press is saying is that DEMOCRATIC voters have pretty much made up their minds during the primary season (and early on), and there's not much that Wright, or anything less than a bunch of Obama's associates going to prison, will do to change their minds at this point. AND that the general election is a very different story on these things. Voting for someone of either party isn't exactly voting on principle. Right now, the polls say that fully half of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain or will not vote at all (well, not voting is principled at that). When it comes down to it, I have little doubt that the numbers will be 10%-ish by November.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 7 2008, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, one thing the press is saying is that DEMOCRATIC voters have pretty much made up their minds during the primary season (and early on), and there's not much that Wright, or anything less than a bunch of Obama's associates going to prison, will do to change their minds at this point. AND that the general election is a very different story on these things. Voting for someone of either party isn't exactly voting on principle. Right now, the polls say that fully half of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain or will not vote at all (well, not voting is principled at that). When it comes down to it, I have little doubt that the numbers will be 10%-ish by November.</div> No, Obama has broken his tie with McCain, that's what I was alluding to.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TI6PA4v6dZg&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TI6PA4v6dZg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Any chance of a Paul/Gravel Libertarian ticket?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080507/D90H0F203.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hillary, Barack, want my vote? Just $20 million, please May 7, 3:45 PM (ET) LOS ANGELES (AP) - What will it take for a Democratic presidential candidate to win the support of California superdelegate Steven Ybarra? Say, $20 million. The Democratic National Committee member doesn't parse his words when it comes to what he wants from Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton - an ironclad promise to spend that heady amount to register Mexican-American voters and get them to the polls in November. In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until "someone shows me the money." When will he settle on a candidate? "Nobody showed me any money yet," he said. He's not kidding. To Ybarra, a Sacramento lawyer, the stakes are no less than winning the presidency in November. He predicted that as many as 1.3 million Mexican-Americans could be added to voter rolls in New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and other swing states, a potentially decisive edge for the eventual Democratic nominee. With that investment of funds, Mexican-Americans would realize Democratic leaders "care about us," Ybarra said, referring to Mexican-Americans. Is $20 million a lot to ask? In 2004, "they spent a billion to lose," he said.</div> That's what the politburo folks are about. I wouldn't be fooled into thinking these super delegates have honorable intentions. They have power and they intend to use it. This guy (Ybarra) just happens to be open about it
Democrats are so stupid. They really are. It's like they don't even care if they win the election. I hear all of Hillary's surrogates are now pushing for her to get offered a spot on the ticket; as if there is any chance of that ticket winning. It's going to have to be Strickland. So here comes this pud -- not even an elected official -- looking for twenty million to register a demo that Obama probably isn't going to win in November. I mean, great, I hope that all of the voters in the entire United States get registered no matter where their political affiliation lies. But Obama isn't running to register voters. I hate my party, I really do.
Oddly, I just saw last week's Boston Legal. In the show, Shirley and Alan sued the Democratic Party over the super delegate thing. 1 man, 13,000 votes. Hardly democratic. The point of their case was the super delegates (in Boston/Mass.) should vote for who their constituents voted for. Given that there's only 2 parties with $1B each (plus) to spend on presidential campaigns, it better be fair. Fair? LOL. Oh, and they lost the suit: the Democratic Party is a private organization. The judge said, "you lose, everyone loses." Bingo.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a8lvc-azCXY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a8lvc-azCXY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
