Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Obama Clinches Pledged Delegate Majority

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted May 21, 2008.


Still, Clinton remains. There is one ironclad rule when it comes to races for presidential nominations: You don't quit when you are winning primaries.
Advertisement

Barack Obama may have reached what he describes as "a major milestone on this journey" up the 2008 campaign trail. The senator from Illinois has now secured a majority of the "pledged" delegates to be chosen in the party's primaries and caucuses.

Citing that achievement, Obama told wildly cheering supporters in Des Moines that he was now "within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America."

But Hillary Clinton is not going to let him grab the prize this week.

The lady is not quitting this contest just yet.

The pressure on Clinton to finish her run for the Democratic presidential nomination has been intense. And it will get more intense now that the results from Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky (a loss for the Illinoisan) and Oregon (a win for the Illinoisan) have given Obama that pledged-delegate majority. The senator from New York's keeping her campaign afloat by writing checks out of her own account. And she's watching from the sidelines as Obama and Republican John McCain launch their fall campaigns against one another.

But there is one ironclad rule when it comes to races for presidential nominations: You don't quit when you are winning primaries.

And Clinton has won another primary by a lopsided margin.

The former first lady took 65 percent of the vote in Kentucky to just 30 percent for Obama -- almost as overwhelming win as she secured last week in West Virginia. That victory had her crowing Tuesday night that, "It's not just the Kentucky bluegrass that music to my ears -- it's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of tough odds."

"You've never given up on me, because you know I've never given up on you," told her cheering supporters in a speech that will be repeated as she moves her campaign on to Puerto Rico (where she should do well) and the last primary states of Montana and South Dakota (where Obama's probably a little ahead).

Clinton's had a good enough night.

There is little reason to believe, however, that she will get any more traction from the Kentucky win than she did from the West Viginia victory. Even as he lost Kentucky, Obama picked up enough delegates there to attain the bragging rights that go with the pledged-delegate majority. And his solid win in Oregon padded the margin.

Every indication is that the unpledged super-delegates who have it in their power to "seal the deal" for the eventual nominee will continue to break his way.

"The Democratic Party through the democratic process has spoken," Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, a former presidential candidate who has endorsed Obama. "The super-delegates aren't going to change that."

Dodd predicted that party leaders will ultimately allow delegations selected in the disputed January primaries in Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention in August, but not with a big advantage for Clinton. "I think it will be an even split," said Dodd, who added that he believes the race is essentially "over."

But Clinton will soldier on. She'll point to the fact that she did very, very well in Kentucky -- running up a 250,000 margin in the popular vote, and winning women and men, rich and poor, college graduates and high-school drop outs, liberals and conservatives, Protestants and Catholics, suburbanites and rural folks and just about every other group except the state's small African-American population. She'll suggest, again, that she can win blue-collar voters and Obama cannot. And she'll continue to peddle the line that a lot of Democrats will cross over to back Republican McCain in November if she is not the party's nominee -- pointing to the Kentucky exit polls that suggest that, in an Obama-McCain race, 32 percent of Democratic primary voters who back McCain while 15 percent would not vote.

Clinton's not a bitter ender.

When Obama gets the majority of delegate commitments -- from pledged delegates and super-delegates -- she will quit the race. But until she really has been defeated, Clinton will keep running.

Nights like this guarantee that.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, obama, election08

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So?
Posted by: maestra on May 21, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/p

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So Obama can still only win 7 state Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» send me to GitMo Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: send me to high school Posted by: jimidee
» Bigot Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Bigot Posted by: Prairie Waif
» Hehhh?? Posted by: fifthworld
» Wow Posted by: fifthworld
» You might be a redneck... Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
... I rest my case ...
Posted by: dave1616 on May 21, 2008 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.discussrace.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Important: Sexism and Racism
Posted by: ChicagoPaul on May 21, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night, Senator Obama laid claim (and rightly so) to the fact that he had captured the majority of the "elected" delegates to the Democratic Party's Convention in Denver. This is a significant achievement, but not the most significant thing that came out of the evening.

Senator Clinton vociferously has claimed sexism has reared its ugly head, especially in the media coverage of her campaign. While she hasn't been specific, I'm not surprised that people cast their votes based on what type of sex organ a particular candidate possesses.

There are people who vote for Senator Clinton because she is a woman. This is sexism. There are people who do NOT vote for her because she is a woman. This, also, is (DUH!) sexism.

Senator Obama has not claimed that racism has reared its ugly head as a reaction to his campaign, but you'd have to be pretty blind to think that it hasn't. It's pretty sad that individuals readily admit to perfect strangers (poll takers) that they voted for Clinton because Obama is black. Yet, this was evident in last night's events, and has been a discussion point in media coverage this morning.

There are people who vote for Senator Obama because he is black. This is racism. There are people who do NOT vote for him because he is black. Yup, yer right: This is racism, too.

Even if a voter lists off a ton of reasons why he/she is voting for either one (or against either one), if one of those reasons is sexist or racist, this is behavior that is inconsistent with the ideals of this country.

Our Founders understood that the Union was not a perfect one 232 years ago. Documents like the Declaration and the Constitution and various laws and amendments were written, not to mention a war and a movement, all occurred to bring that Perfect Union into clearer focus.

One might argue that this Democratic primary was "ordained" to happen in order to continue this focusing process because it is very evident that sexism and racism exist in this country - STILL.

What to do? Very simple! Senator Clinton should say, "Don't vote for me because I am a woman. Don't vote for me because I am white and Senator Obama is black. I don't want your votes." (I would expect her to NOT include the word "simply" in the first two sentences.)

Senator Obama should say, "Don't vote for me because I'm black." I'm not sure there are people who are voting for him because he is male and she is not...but...maybe he could add that too.

By having both candidates declare that they do not want sexist or racist supporters, we will have written a new chapter in this country as we continue to perfect this union.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All politics is tribal. Posted by: jimidee
» Unfair Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
One Good Thing
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 21, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One good thing that's come out of the campaign for the presidential nominee of the Democrats is the emphasis on blue collar working class people. Hillary's candidacy has ensured that they and their issues got attention. I hope that Obama will through labor, social and economic policies try to address the destruction of blue collar jobs and the disintegration of the middle class in this country. He will need a Democrat controlled Congress with enough majority to make changes. In the meantime the corporate lobbyists will be in full working mode to maintain the status quo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And whose fault is that? Posted by: jimidee
» RE: And whose fault is that? Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: One Good Thing Posted by: Moira61
Are Hillary's Remarks Those Of A Uniter?
Posted by: dustinblythe on May 21, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since before West Virginia I have been disappointed and, frankly, shocked by the level of denial and divisiveness in Hillary Clinton's comments. Are these the comments of someone who recognizes the primary delegate mathematics and is simply playing her string out to the end? I believe they are more like the speech that Mitt Romney gave when he exited the race: "I am the better candidate. You did not choose me, but you will wish you had when our nominee loses in November. See you in Iowa in 2011."

Hillary still believes that she can A.)pull off some massive coup at the convention in August and still become the nominee, B.)she is making her pitch for the VP spot by pointing out how Obama needs her to reach certain constituencies or C.)she is laying the groundwork for a run in 2012. Maybe all of the above.

In the meantime she is making her supporters, mainly women and especially women above 40, sour and "bitter" over what she is now claiming is sexism in the media. More and more her supporters are seeing Obama as the enemy and those who support him, like John Edwards, as the bad guys who are kicking Hillary while she is down. I have seen it here in Indiana. After our Congressman Joe Donnelly endorsed Obama, even while praising Hillary, we received a flood of calls from angry Clinton supporters. I have talked with people who are angry at John Edwards for backing Obama. ?!?!? Both of these men, as well as others, have done so at least in part for the good of Party unity. Is Hillary doing her part for the same cause?

Hillary may have won West Virginia and Kentucky but I see these wins as similar to a team that is kicking field goals while down by thirty-five points in the fourth quarter. It is too little too late.

"The dream is over/What can I say?/The dream is over/Yesterday" John Lennon, "God"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This 'I will not vote for x if the other is the candidate' is crap.
Posted by: snax on May 21, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line is that 90% of Democratic voters recognize that regardless of who is the nominee, that failing to put a Democrat into the office could be the highest of errors. As much as I dislike Clinton's tactics and style - and mistrust her, she is still a progressive leaning candidate, vs. McCain, who can't seem to make up his mind about anything, but now thinks we don't need the right to choose, tax cuts for the rich are good, and free trade is good for the economy, and best of all, that we should just bomb Iran without silly diplomatic efforts getting into the way.

I voted for Obama because he has presented a consistant positive message on nearly every issue, vs. the negativity, sniping, and hypocrisy that appears to be rampant from the Clinton campaign.

Some might say that the lesser of two evils is still evil, but you must still make a choice in your best interest - or accept the consequences of not choosing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not true or fair..... Posted by: Fencerider
» Sallywally Posted by: foreverhope
» Old labels Posted by: westomoon
Race
Posted by: Johanna Moren on May 21, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know,why he is called black,when he has just as much white in him.
That is something I think is racist.
The man looks so comfortable in himself that it is a delight to watch him.

Clinton always looks as if she has an axe to grind. Most feminists do of course.
Why they call them feminists is beyond me, there is nothing feminine about them.

Johanna Moren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Race Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» RE: ace Posted by: hilaryuk
» Foreverhope - Yessee Mammee Posted by: lasirene
» RE: ace Posted by: westomoon
» Feminist is not a SEX based term. Posted by: Prairie Waif
» Oh, Johanna! Posted by: westomoon
Oregon = Progressives heroes / Kentucky = redneck hicks... Operation Chaos strikes again.
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 21, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Cross said it best about redneck: no matter were you are at in America, they are the same all over. Progressives/Liberals/Socialist/Communist = The Modern Democrat whatever you chose to package yourself these days are located in American east cost cities and along the I-5 Corridor (omit San Diego). You mix in Illinois and you have yourself a little St Petersburg.

Now here is the bad news.

Here is the thing called the Electoral College that was designed so mob rule dose not happen. Designed to make states like "the south" and out in the "Mtn West" matter. Yes states like Utah, New Hampshire, Minnesota and more swing states like Ohio, Florida and thanks to Obama now there is swing state like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Hillary is your best bet however roll the dice with Obama. Operation Chaos strikes again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ummm..... Posted by: Fencerider
» Ummm..... really Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Ummm..... really Posted by: Prairie Waif
Referendum
Posted by: Quasar on May 21, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think, at this point, it is clear that these democratic primaries and caucuses have really been a referendum for who most Americans, independent and republican as well, would like to see as president. The nomination has been so close (and at times "bitter")because both candidates are so strong.

McCain is almost an after thought. Don't let the MSM or Limbaugh tell you otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet goes overboard for censorship:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 21, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to the Saudi Arabian Model (for the U.S., this time)

Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 21, 2008 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Saudi Arabia, guest workers are imported to do menial functions - it is essentially a legalized slavery system, in which workers that do not have jobs are immediately deported, and union organizers are treated similarly.

This is the exact goal of the U.S. Wall Street sector: destroy unions and organized labor, roll back everything FDR accomplished, and return us to an era of autocratic rule by robber barons who use slave labor.

The key element in creating this captive foreign workforce is to make sure they have no better opportunities at home - and the U.S. has been invading and destroying Mexico's economy with the assistance of the ruling elites in Mexico and the ruling elites in the United States, who both worked together to sign NAFTA and the SPP, against the interests of the vast majority of citizens in each country.

In Mexico, this means impoverished farmers are forced to either migrate to the U.S. or work in sweatshops for very sub-par wages. Those sweatshops used to be in the United States and had to obey labor and environmental regulations, but were immediately moved to Mexico after NAFTA was passed - since factory owners would rather pay $10 a day than $20 an hour to their labor staff. Thus, in Mexico, labor costs are abut 5% of what they are in the U.S.

This is why repeal of NAFTA is not a topic you'll see discussed by any elite-supported private institution. It'll be very interesting to see if the second installment of this series contains a detailed analysis of how U.S. trade policy, as determined by the ruling elites in the United States, has led to this immigration situation.

In fact, you won't even see a mention of NAFTA in this context here at Alternet, I imagine. Indeed, concerns about NAFTA and SPP have been portrayed here as a manifestation of xenophobia that would do the John Birch Society proud.

Alternet's top ten sponsors, 2001-2005, from GuideStar:

NATHAN CUMMINGS FDN 850,000
DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION 760,060
FORD FOUNDATION 733,000
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 355,000
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 300,000
SCHUMANN CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY INC 285,000
ALBERT A LIST FOUNDATION INC 253,000
ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION 252,818
ARCA FOUNDATION 210,000
Wallace Global Fund 200,000
MCKAY FAMILY FOUNDATION 185,000

The basic viewpoint promoted by these foundations re NAFTA is as follows: "While there is much more to know, it is clear that trade liberalization accompanied by robust environmental policies can help achieve sustainable development—just as freer trade without adequate environmental safeguards can trigger degradation,” noted Shantora. “The key lesson is that policy matters.”

However, the fact here is that it is not "trade liberalization" - it is capital liberalization, and that is the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thoughtcriminal Posted by: Quannah
» Huh? Posted by: fanny666
For a Working Class: Not "White"!
Posted by: shinseiji on May 21, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What "loyal" dead ender Democrats - including Nichols - wish to gloss over is the essentially racist nature of the Democratic Party. Unexpectedly, the Clinton campaign has demonstrated this reality for all the world to see. "Triangulation" was hardly a new political art form invented by the Clintons; Democrats have always been the party of divide and conquer of the working class along race, gender, religious and other cultural lines, just as the Republicans have traditionally been the party to promote the unity of the corporate ruling class. Together they work to guarantee the continuation of that rule.

What is significant about the present campaign is that this political nature is brought into the light of day for all but the Party dead-enders to confront. It really doesn't matter who will "win" the nomination, Obama or Clinton; what is more important will be the promise of the wrecking of the politics of the "white working class" as this politically confected bloc is forced to chose between their class interests and the race politics they are accustomed to being fed. And they are feeling the pressure of this choice to an excruciating degree with the profound and accelerating crisis of the US economy. "Shall we continue as Reagan Democrats?", they will have to ask themselves in November. Choosing the former will mark the end of a long reactionary era and will be a step forward in the annihilation of that politics and with it, I'd predict, the Democratic Party that the Clintons are trying so desperately to save as the vehicle it has been for their own ambitions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Phenomenon has started since the weekend...
Posted by: Quannah on May 21, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and that is Hillary staffers and supporters going on tv and bringing up Al Gore challenging the vote in Florida in 2000.

I've never heard them talk about this before.

Perhaps she's thinking of challenging Obama's upcoming "presumptive nominee" status in the courts? Would she really sink so low as to drag this through court to let a judge decide who gets the Democratic nomination?

Just something to watch, I think. I just find it curious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yes she will Posted by: foreverhope
» But what good would it do? Posted by: westomoon
Ironclad, shmironclad
Posted by: Knowmad on May 21, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But there is one ironclad rule when it comes to races for presidential nominations: You don't quit when you are winning primaries."

I don't believe even American politics is so backward that a party will chose to inflict damage on itself so as not to break some arbitrary rule. If you let something like this ruin the only real hope you people have for change and progress in this critical time, maybe you really are as collectively stupid as some (not me) believe.

You need to get Billary out of the way asap; the stakes are way too high to stroke someone's ego. And why is she still in anyway, when she simply can't win, even with the Florida/Michigan last straw in her favour.

Regardless, good luck (though hopefully luck won't have to play a part).

FYI: I just used the nifty little tool on CNN that lets you extrapolate the numbers for the remaining primaries and superdelegates. Here's the scoop: If Obama wins only 22 percent of each of these he still wins the nomination, regardless of what the short-sighted Billary boosters would have you believe. Don't forget the MSM wants to keep this thing a 'race' as long as possible - it's great for ratings and the sponsors love it. Skewed priorities or what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friends & enemies
Posted by: HughScott on May 21, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sun-tzu, the great Chinese general/military strategist (~400 BC) famously said, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

For that reason, Obama has no choice. To win the presidency in November, he must choose as Hillary as his running mate. Making her his official White House food taster would be another good idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Friends & enemies Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Friends & enemies Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Friends & enemies Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Friends & enemies Posted by: foreverhope
A quick survey......
Posted by: Fencerider on May 21, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would Obama backers vote for Hillary if SHE gets the nomination: Yes or No?

Would Hillary backers vote for Obama if HE gets the nomination: Yes or No?

Simple questions, please discuss.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: comradebob
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: ChairmanMetal
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: westomoon
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: foreverhope
» The mantra Posted by: westomoon
» RE: The mantra Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: The mantra Posted by: westomoon
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: fanny666
» Fanny666 Posted by: westomoon
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» Some Edification Posted by: ChairmanMetal
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: jimidee
» RE: A quick survey...... Posted by: MplsVala
The Clintons care about one thing: Power. They are willing to inflame the nation in the process
Posted by: aamer923 on May 21, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To go back to the White House, the Clintons will go after pledged delegates, super delegates to change their minds, they will disrupt the convention, go to court, to the supreme court. They will divide the party and the nation stirring up blacks VS Whites. They will tell FLorida and Michigan that their voters are being shunned. They do not care what they do to get to the white house.
They will not get there. But they will inflame the nation in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Anyone Honestly Believe
Posted by: desidid on May 21, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Hillary would be fighting for the voters in Florida or Michigan if she were in Obama's place? Or do you think she would acknowledge she signed a pledge? I think a lawyer should understand that you don't sign anything if you think it will hurt you in the future. Sen. Clinton believed she was ordained to be the Democratic candidate when she signed the pledge, and today is using the "I'm doing it for you!" argument. She isn't doing it for anybody other than herself and it should be a concern for her supporters that she is able to find very slippery ways to get around breaking her word, or pledge, if you will. If this is an indication of her management style we are in for more of the Bush twisted logic approach to government. Those making the argument that that they just want a woman, or they won't vote for a Black person, careful what you wish for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama faces racism in West Virginia
Posted by: fanny666 on May 21, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama faces racism in West Virginia

The "He's an undercover Muslim" argument is going to be a big issue in this campaign, as ridiculous as it seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Censorship?
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on May 21, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deleting SPAM is not censorship. It's good housekeeping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The gag reflex"
Posted by: giles on May 21, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think JMc is a demagogue and the Clintons unscrupulous arrivistes. Obama lights the future bright and fairer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It hard to quell that gag reflex"
Posted by: giles on May 21, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think JMc is a demagogue and the Clintons unscrupulous arrivistes. Obama lights the future bright and fairer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Something wicked this way comes..."
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 21, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We haven't seen the worst of this yet..

It's gonna get real ugly and the stench will rise up in your throat and seem to linger and cling to you no matter how much you wash..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I fear... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» You're fluffin' me indeed Posted by: fifthworld
This country's finished
Posted by: fifthworld on May 21, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Staged shortages and rations, (read "food control", an 'a priori' or m.o. of fascism) collapsing infrastructure and economy, techno-crazed zombie population, another 9/11 around the corner to justify nuking Iran, stolen election to come (I'll readily put money on that), martial law likely. And all this bone-headed goofy HOPEfulness about Messiah Obama, it's bullshit folks. Call me cynical and tell me to go somewhere else, but until the PEOPLE really wake up to what's comin' down, systemically, and stand up in resistance, there IS no HOPE and CHANGE. Besides, Obama is really not so much better than Hillary. My assessment about Barack Brzezinski Obama is that he's all the more dangerous as a not-so-covert warmonger, not to mention numerous other indicators if you look at his advisors. Wake up and learn, and be vigilant in the coming weeks and months.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Go back to sleep... Posted by: jimidee
Where's Obama on Iran?
Posted by: fifthworld on May 21, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9045

points out the inevitability of a Bush regime attack sometime soon, certainly well before November, according to leading policy analysts and strategists, and recent defectors like Gen. Fallon. And where are the Israel-poodle corpo-democrats like Hillary and Barack on the subject? The silence, or rather the cheerleading for an attack, is total betrayal of anything remotely human. God-damned shameful, and shame on anyone supporting either of these vile candidates as an "alternative" to McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's Obama on Iran?
Posted by: fifthworld on May 21, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9045

points out the inevitability of a Bush regime attack sometime soon, certainly well before November, according to leading policy analysts and strategists, and recent defectors like Gen. Fallon. And where are the Israel-poodle corpo-democrats like Hillary and Barack on the subject? The silence, or rather the cheerleading for an attack, is total betrayal of anything remotely human. God-damned shameful, and shame on anyone supporting either of these vile candidates as an "alternative" to McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a Northwest Regional News Compiler Today
Posted by: westomoon on May 21, 2008 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Crosscut ( http://www.crosscut.com/2008-election/14415/ ):

. . . The most important development Tuesday had little to do with the two primaries' results or the upcoming try at Michigan/Florida dispute resolution. It was the release of a Gallup Poll — by far the most reliable of all national polls — showing Obama opening an ever-widening gap among Democratic voters. Obama led Clinton by four percentage points at the beginning of May. Tuesday's poll results showed him leading by 16 points. (The polling was done over a three-day period last weekend.)

Even more significant, the Gallup showed Obama not only maintaining his lead among African-American, better-educated, and young voters but Clinton, for the first time, falling behind Obama among women, less-educated voters, Latinos, and East Coast residents. The only demographic group still giving Clinton better than 50 percent support: women 50 or older.

Thus, contrary to dire predictions of many party leaders and media — and contrary to West Virginia and Kentucky results which, it seems to me, reflect an isolated regional pattern — the two candidates' supporters are not polarizing as the contest proceeds. Instead, following a normal pattern, Democrats across the board are rallying to the side of the apparent nominee, Obama, as we enter the primary-season homestretch. Obama, accordingly, has shifted his campaign focus from Clinton to Sen. John McCain, the putative Republican presidential nominee.

A nasty finish?

Clinton prides herself on being realistic. She is, morever, an avid student of polling data. The Obama surge in national polls — heightened as non-elected "super-delegates" rally daily to his cause — combined with her relatively empty campaign treasury are almost certain to cause her to end her candidacy on a positive, unifying note. The end might come right after June 3. It might come a bit later, as the Michigan/Florida outcome becomes clear. Or it might not come until the August convention itself.

Whenever it comes, it is unlikely to be accompanied by Book of Revelations, destructive tactics which would harm Democrats' chances in the fall. . . .


Author Ted Van Dyk has been involved in, and written about, national policy and politics since 1961. His memoir of public life, Heroes, Hacks and Fools, was published this year by University of Washington Press, which has proposed its consideration for national and regional non-fiction awards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please tell the the Oregon final count
Posted by: Laplander on May 22, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary won Kentucky by a whopping 30+ percent. Why is it that all we hear about Oregon is that Obama won? Can anyone anywhere give me the final 100% count? Just how big was his win there? Or was it too close to mention? Just wondering. All I can find is his lead at 85%...........Don't they bother to count the other 15%?
Mary H

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the Oregon final count Posted by: westomoon
» Oregon Posted by: foreverhope