You're not likely to hear this in the corporate media, but as of yesterday Obama has taken a massive lead on McCain in the one area that truly matters.
After finally moving ahead in Michigan, and following some corrections on Indiana, Barack Obama is turning five former Red States Blue and now has a 304 to 221 Electoral Vote Lead over John McCain.
The media would have you believe this is still a fairly close race. If you were to look at the various Gallup Polls between Obama and McCain.
Gallup says that Obama's General Election Numbers are only ahead of McCain by 6 points.
Gallup says that Obama's favorability is only 2 points ahead of McCain's.
Gallup says that Obama is also only leading with independents by 2 points.
But things get a little interesting when Gallup also says that there are clearly more Democrats than either Republicans or Independents
And that a higher percentage Independents apparently plan to Vote for Obama, than for McCain.
If you looked purely at these numbers you wouldn't really see anything all that impressive, but going back through the compilation of state-by-state electoral data that's been made available on Electoral-Vote.com and you get a very different picture.
When McCain secured the Republican nomination he held a significant lead over candidate Obama peaking at 324 to 205, but as Obama moved closer to nomination things became more competitive. Rev. Wrong, Bitter-gate and the Working Class White Voters of Kentucky clearly did some damage in early May, but on May 24th just two days after his win in the Oregon Primary, Obama took a 266 to 248 lead over McCain. This lead was extended on June 3rd after the final Democratic Primaries in Puerto Rico 287 to 227 and has held steady until now where he's moved ahead to 304 to 221.
Technically Electoral-Vote.com (whose main page has been down while I've been composing this post - possibly due to an overload after my last diary on them) is still behind on data for Virginia and has it listed as a tie. however, the underlying poll data shows that Survey USA puts Obama ahead in Virginia by 7 points as of May 18th (The data also shows that New Mexico is a tie!) If you then grant Obama those additional 13 Electoral Votes (and subtract 5 for New Mexico) his actual lead grows even further to 312 to 221 - 90 votes ahead of McCain and 40 Votes ahead of what he needs to become President.
Of course there are no guarantees that the map will continue to look this good for Obama - things could certainly change as they already have several times - but right now, I like the way the trend is looking.
With the final concession and endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the Nomination process has ended and the General Election has finally begun.
So, as we start the last leg in the fight for the White House just where do we stand with Obama v McCain?
Although they been battling it out in the polls for months, the latest indications from Gallup are that as of this week Barack Obama has pulled into the lead ahead of John McCain 48% to 42%.
/]
The problem of course with this poll and much of the talk in the corporate media pitting one demographic group against another (young voters vs old voters, educated vs uneducated, black vs women, men vs women) is the fact the we don't elect our President based on national or demographic polls - in the long run none of that data really matters.
What matters is the Electoral college, and it's when we look at that map that things get a tad more interesting.
As of today Electoral-Vote.com shows the national map as follows, with Barack Obama leading in enough states to give him a 287 to 227 Electoral Vote Victory over John McCain.
(Looking closely I have found some errors on the main map. According to the completely list of source polls - McCain and Obama are not tied in Indiana and Virginia as the map indicates.
An April 24th Poll from Research 2000 indicates that McCain leads Obama in Indiana by 51% to 43% and a May 18th poll from Survey USA shows that Obama leads McCain in Virginia by 49% to 42%, and that New Mexico is a tie at 44% each - therefore the correct Electoral Math should be Obama 295, McCain 238.)
Even with corrections the Map shows Obama winning five states that John Kerry failed to carry in 2004, and only losing in one - Missouri.
As you can see by the graphs, the fight has already been fairly volatile in these states and that the 48/42 split indicated by Gallup on the national level is hardly reflected at all on local state-by-state polls. With his current electoral lead, Obama could afford to fall behind and lose his lead in one or two three of these contests (in addition to Michigan and South Carolina where he trails slightly) by November and still reach the 270 votes needed to become the next President of the United States - but if he should fall behind in three or four of these states McCain could win. The question of course is just how likely is that to happen, particularly with the continued rebellion of the Hillacrats such as those who frequent Hillaryis44.com such as Taylor Marsh?
I will not fall in line for the sake of unity for someone who puts Ronald Reagan above Bill Clinton, and uses his campaign to attack, malign and misrepresent a president that with all his faults, gave his very best for his country, left it in thriving economic health, with our reputation around the world at its highest, with middle class people everywhere in better shape than when he arrived. I also will not support anyone who casts aspersions on a woman running for president by implying she cannot win his supporters, or that she can’t be trusted with secret intelligence, a right-wing talking point about Democrats that goes back to my Reagan Democrat days when the GOP let loose with the line that Democrats were "soft on national security," something they’ve been selling ever since.
I’m a proud Democrat, but I’m an American first. If you want unity you’ve come to the wrong place.
People like this are not who Barack can depend on to maintain his lead, and to pick up votes in states where he currently trails. However the question remains, if Barack losses these people - does it hurt him where it matters?
If you look at the Map of Primary wins for Barack Obama below - (taken from CNN's Delegate Calculator) it really doesn't appear to be a problem.
" /]
Of the eight key battleground states - Barack prevailed in the primary in all but Ohio, Michigan and New Mexico. He won a huge swatch of southern states including both North and South Carolina, and he won nearly all of the pacific northwest softening some of McCain's support in North Dakota. The truth is that if Obama loses support in New York and California due to disgruntled Hillary supporters - it's not going turn those states over to McCain. It might hurt him in Ohio - he could lose there - but then if he continues to hold what he already has he still has 275 Electoral Votes (270 needed to win), which means that he doesn't absolutely need Ohio, or Florida for that matter. It would be good to win both Ohio and Michigan, but he doesn't have to.
As it stands right now, I like our chances. All we have to do is bring it home.
Unless something dramatic or miraculous happens I will not be posting about Hillary Clinton again until after November.
On the night that Barack Obama was decleared the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee, Hillary Clinton made these statements...
Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as commander-in-chief and lead our country to better tomorrows?
People in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories, all had a chance to make your voices heard. And on election day after election day, you came out in record numbers to cast your ballots. Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history.
And this:
In all of the states, you voted because you wanted a leader who will stand up for the deepest values of our party, a party that believes everyone should have a fair shot at the American dream, a party that cherishes every child, values every family, and counts every single vote.
Translation: I really won, and we were robbed.
Just over 24 hours later Howard Fineman on Olberman reported Clinton will be conceding and endorsing Obama this weekend, at about 4:10 into the video:
... And to add to what Andrea was just talking about, there was another conference call involving senators, eight senators who were supporters of Hillary's, very hard core supporters of Hillary Clinton's.
And here's the added wrinkle to it: they were urged to assemble that conference call and to speak frankly to Hillary by some of the top strategists around Hillary -- I can't use the names -- but people you would associate with a hard-line defense of Hillary's position, who called the Senate and said "Look. You guys are Hillary's strongest supporters -- you gals also. Get in there and tell her to get out."
And we're talking about senators such as Barbara Mikulski, and Ben -- and Senator Nelson, and even Chuck Schumer, and others were reached out to by people around Hillary, strategists who said "You've got to get to her and get her out of this thing." And that's what they accomplished by this afternoon, so she will do it on Friday, she will get out of the race -- suspend, use whatever word you want -- but more important, endorse Barack Obama.
This was soon confirmed by a blog post and email to her supporters
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy.
The time has come to put down the warclubs, to take a step back and take a deep breath. The campaign is over, and Hillary Clinton did not win - Barack Obama did.
I still hope the Hillary does more than make a simple announcement, I do hope that she begins to actively campaign for her supporters, particularly the feminists, to merge with his supporters so that we will be absolutely assured of taking the White House in November.
She doesn't have to do that, because as of right now and the true Presidential Race begins Barack Obama has a 287 to 227 Electoral Vote lead over McCain - but I hope she does simply because it will go a long way toward re-stitching the wounds in the party. Barack is currently winning at least fives states, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri and OHIO that John Kerry lost in 2004. Keeping and extending this lead is where our focus now needs to shift.
In addition to this we are looking at having 58 Democratic Seats in the Senate - with a reasonable shot at 61 - and 237 seats in the House.
If we handle things correctly, this will be an absolute rout as well as a glorious sea-change in the direction of nation.
Pardon me if I join Oprah in doing a "Happy Dance", I just won't be jumping on the couch.
The Democratic Nomination is over, except for it not being over.
Barack Obama is now the Presumptive Nominee for President of The United States. At least until the convention.
In the meanwhile, we have a strong second place finish by Candidate Hillary Clinton who has yet to acknowledge Obama's win, and yet to suspend her campaign and yet to concede defeat.
It's only been a single day, but instead of rallying her troops in solidarity with Barack to the greater fight that awaits us, by all indications and certainly based on her speech last night - Hillary Clinton is still in it to win it.
So what should Obama and his supporters do about this?
One thing they may have to admit is there isn't anything they can say that will make Hillary and her supporters happy. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't say them anyway.
Obama supporters could try to forgive Hillary for her MLK/LBJ comments, by admitting that her larger point was that it takes more than just inspiration to get things done, it also takes a skilled legislator and skill leader to implement our best aspirations. (Something which Barack has already shown by passing Health Care Bills, and Middle-class tax cuts as a State Senator as well as Nuclear anti-proliferation and ethics reform as a U.S. Senator)
They can try to forgive Bill Clinton for his South Carolina comments about Jesse Jackson, since his larger point was nothing more than what he said : Barack ran a great campaign and so did Jesse, period.
They can try to forgive Bob Johnson, because Bob's greater point was that Hillary was on the front-lines of the Civil Rights movement while Barack was still a kid who didn't yet know up from down. (Obviously, he's grown up since then.)
They can try to forgive Hillary's the "hard-working white voters" comments, since all she was doing was repeating what the press had already been saying for weeks.
They can try to simply put Geraldine Ferraro out of sight and out of mind.
They can try to forget and forgive the "3 Am", Sniper-fire, Bitter-gate and "Slum-lord" talk as simply being the result of the heat of the campaign. Hard fighters can sometimes swing wide.
As the ultimate winner of the contest, Barack and his supporters have room to be forgiving. This we should do not because we need to appease and placate those who still feel passionately about Hillary, but simply because, it's the right thing to do and it costs us nothing.
The one thing that IMO is pretty much impossible to ignore or forgive, at least not yet, is Hillary's continued insistence that she has "Won the Popular Vote" when the Magical Math needed to justify that statement requires the disenfranchisement of 14 Caucus States, plus all the uncommitted and write-in votes from Michigan.
That's not a misstatement, that's not a typo, that's not matter that's "open to interpretation" - it's a deliberate manipulation and as such, it's a bit much to swallow.
It's a direct denial of Barack's Win. It's a challenge to his legitimacy, one which can not be allowed to stand for the good of the party.
It's become clear based on her actions and her speech yesterday, that Hillary intends to leverage her popular vote numbers and her high delegate count in order to issue demands and ultimatums upon the Obama campaign.
Her goal may be to shoe-horn her way into the Shootgun Wedding of a VP slot. It may be to push Obama to adopt policy positions (such as on Health Care) which are more in line with hers. Whatever her ultimately goal, what matters is how Obama responds.
Obama and his supporters can certainly afford to be gracious and magnanimous - but one thing they can't afford to be are pushovers!
Clinton may indeed have made history this year, she may have indeed drawn much of the Democratic Party to her side - but before Barack gives her the keys to the White House washroom, she still needs to put in some much needed work first. She needs to show that the can bring her army into line, begin to merge forces with Obama and display her willingness to be a team player and help heal the party in preparation for November before he starts giving her stuff willy nilly.
He's the winner, he has to set the agenda.
If he allows the loser to dictate terms to him, then he really is every bit as weak as she has long been intimating and in fact, she really is the stronger candidate.
This has now become a behind the scenes negotiation/poker/staring contest between the two of them over who will begin to start providing concessions first - and my money is still on Barack to be last person standing when the dust settles. He holds the card that matters, He's The Nominee!
Barack may be gracious outwardly but behind the scenes he's going to have to be tough, hard-nosed, and make her blink by holding his ground and displaying HIS leadership ability as the newly annoited head of the Democratic Party.
It's not going to be fun, it's not going to be pretty. It may take some time for these negotiations to play themselves out. The Hillacrats will certainly cry "foul", will certainly accuse Barack of "ignoring the will of the people", but this is the way it has to go because if Hillary can strong-arm Barack it will only undermine his own support, pissing off many of them who can't bring themselves to forgive Hillary for her scorched-earth campaign and galvanize all of the Republican talking points about his "inexperience and naivette".
It's admittedly possible that if Hillary doesn't get "WHAT SHE WANTS" she could hold-out with her delegates and force a floor fight for VP during the convention, since both President and Vice-President have to be confirmed by a vote of the delegates. She could still take this battle all the way to the wall.
It would be better for everyone if that didn't happen. That would ensure that he loses in November, and none of us can afford that.
Short of a quick capitulation by Barack or a contentious floor fight over VP, there is a path that may ultimately allow Hillary a spot on the ticket or even in the cabinet, say as head of HHS, if she is willing to do the right thing for the party by showing a willingness to fight FOR our Democratic Nominee WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR ULTIMATUMS as she was willing to fight against him to win the Nomination herself. However, continuing to try and use sharp elbows is only going to backfire and make her not only unwelcome and unpalatable as a member of the Obama Administration, it could make her poisonous to nearly all Democrats and shorten her political career.
I have confidence that Barack will do the right thing.
Let's hope that Hillary, for the sake of the Democratic Party and for the sake of the Nation, can make the difficult - but correct - choices in the days and weeks ahead.
Y'know, watching the all new improved Scotty Show has been quite a treat so far - but most of the really good performances have been coming from Fox News, Dana (Tina Dancer of Fascism) Perino and of course, Comedian Rush Limbaugh.
On today's episode Mr Limpbaugh responds to this mornings interview with Scott McClennan on the Today show, just remember that this is the man that in 2006 admitted that he'd been "carrying water for the Republicans" for years and he wasn't doing it anymore. I guess he got his second wind. Limbaugh, being the singular dipwad that he is, goes far beyond the already standard talking points that Scott is just "Disgrunted", "Chasing a Buck" and that his behavior is "Puzzling".
No, it's much worse than that.
Funny Point Number One after McClennon describes how he thought Bush really meant it when he said he was going to be a "uniter not a divider" Yucks a minute on the one.
Limbaugh: This just Frosts Me. You are using the language of the LEFT! Don't you realize - You DOLT - that your job was to help your President Prevail?
And here most of us thought that the job of people in public service was to serve the needs of THE NATION and to protect and honor THE CONSTITUTION. Silly us.
Then Rush goes on an on and on about how <i>President Bush did so much to reach across the isle by writing legislation with Ted Kennedy</i>.
He went out of his way to bring Democrats into the White House for policy purposes.
That was ONE BILL Rush. One. Uno. Way back in 2001. What's he done for the country, and in concert with Democrats lately? Veto the Childrens Health Care Bill? Threaten to Veto the new G.I. Bill?
How many times did he meet with the Congressional Black Caucus? Was it even once?
This is a President who would never attack Democrats
Except for calling them "Appeasers", "Traitors", "Quitters" and "Defeato-crats".
Funny HA HA Number two: The Plame-gate deal, where Scott laments that both Libby and Rove lied to his face about being involved in the leak.
(Long Sigh) Uh, Scott. National Intelligence Estimate. The PResident does not leak it after he declassifies it. Do you not rememer you idiot, that the drive-by media and the Democrats where clamoring for this? ...
Also this business about Rove and Libby involved, hey Scott have you heard thename "Richard Armitage"? They were not involved in the leak. Scott if you had an gonads you know that what happened to Scooter Libby was one of the major travesties of justice that has occured in our lifetimes.
Ok, here's the interesting thing. Yes, it's true that the President can declassify anything he wants to - anytime he wants to. But contrary to what was discussed on Countdown with McClennan tonight - Valerie Plame's ID was not including in the NIE, according to transcripts of the Libby Trial Her status as an employee at CIA was included in a State Dept INR memo which was generated, in part, by Scooter Libby asking Armitage's deputy Marc Grossman about Joe Wilson's trip. If Scooter hadn't made an issue of it, there wouldn't have been a memo - which was STILL classifed - for him to later leak to Armitage, Rove and others.
Second point, the NIE information that Libby was authorized to give to reporters, something that Richard Cheney's actual press secretary Cathie Martin refused to do, was all bullshit. Libby told Judith Miller that the NIE made an "unequivical case against Saddam and his weapons program" That was a lie. Even the executive summary of NIE didn't make that case, and in the actual classified section was an extensive State and Energy Dept debunking of the aluminum tubes theory. It even posits that the Niger documents that Joe Wilson went to investigate were forgeries! Libby also told Miller that "Wilson's wife works at CIA, and that's why he was sent...", except that he told her that she worked in Non-proliferation when Grossman had told him that she worked for CPD, and that info was confirmed to Libby by Robert Grenier the CIA's top man on Iraq. The difference is crucial - CPD is where the COVERT SPIES WORKED!!
If LIbby had told her WIlson's Wife works for CPD even Thick-as-Rocks-Miller could have figured out that she was probably a covert operative and she was now a participant in Treason.
Libby's meeting with MIller on June 23rd was the FIRST case where classified info on Plame and Wilson went to an unauthorized person. It was the first time her ID was revealed. But it wasn't the last. The only reason Miller didn't reveal the information long before Robert Novak was because the New York Times refused to print the story. And if Karl Rove hadn't confirmed to Novak what Armitage had told him about Plame, he wouldn't have printed it either.
Yes, they were bloody well involved you nipple.
Libby's guilty sentence was perfectly appropriate considering he lied both the FBI and the Grand Jury that he first heard about Plame from Tim Russert, instead of the truth, Dick Cheney told him.
Then there's the Iraq War:
Limbaugh: His book is fiction. President Bush delivered 24 major speeches on Iraq over two years. Congress sited no fewer than 23 reasons when it overwhelmingly gave Bush the right to removed Saddam Hussein
Congress didn't give those reasons, the Iraq Force Resolution was written by the White House and it required the President to verify that there was no chance that "Diplomacy could still work" with Saddam. Bush to this very DAY is still claiming that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back in, but he started the War while the inspectors where in the middle of finding and destroying al-Samoud missles that they found - IN IRAQ! They said that Saddam wouldn't come clean because he didn't explain What he Did with Yellowcake Uranium that Joe Wilson couldn't Find - BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE
Hey Rush, McClennan's not the "DOLT" or the "idiot" here - you are.
No one was going to push Hillary out of this race, except Hillary. No one was going to invent some genius argument, that was going to convince her or her supporters that her candidacy had to end - she had to do it herself.
Of course, it's not going to end. It's going to limp on for a few more weeks, it might even get worse for her as she attempts, as she has so many times before, to lash out at the invisible enemies who have so spitefully held her back, and blocked her inevitable coronation.
It had to finally be revealed that Hillary's greatest foe, her greatest downfall, is Hillary.
The truly sad thing is that I think many of us are fully aware that Hillary probably didn't mean to deliberately build the construction that she needed to stay in the race purely because Barack Might Get Shot.
She's been saying over and over again how she's the "better candidate", and that's the reason she's continued to fight on. Frankly, looking at the Electoral Vote Map, she has a point.
Even as of today the state-by-state polls indicate she has a lead over McCain of 312 to 202 Electoral votes with 270 being needed to win the Presidency. That's practically a blow-out.
The thing is that winning isn't everything.
There's also the question of "Who would make the Better President?"
What Hillary has shown us again and again, long before this latest rhetorical blunder, is that it wouldn't be her.
She was against seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida before she was for seating them. She and her campaign gleefully exploited the Secret-Muslim smears, the links to a "Slum Lord", to an ex-Hippie Radical whose never been charged or indicted with anything, and his links to the outrageous black preacher - look he's black and angry and stuff - with the verbal diarrhea problem. (Not that any of them have ever spoken for Barack, but who cares?) She claimed we shouldn't just count the votes from 48 States, we should count all the votes - except for the caucus states she didn't win. We've heard her claim that the "little states" don't count when she doesn't win them, but that they show that "Barack can't close the deal" when she does. We've heard Geraldine give us the "Barack wouldn't be where he was if he was white" upper-cut, while Hillary herself delivers the round-house that his problem is that "He can't get the poor dumb white voters", and she can.
And all the while, the real reason she hasn't already won the nomination is because of all the sexism!?
Yeah, right.
If this was about just the one RFK statment, it woudn't be so bad. But we've already heard her claim that MLK wasn't as important as LBJ right on top of the 40 anniversary of Martin's murder. Why should we be surprised when she didn't know that she should have stopped with the insensitive crazy talk back then, and has now basically did the exact same thing to RFK and his memory?
I know some of her supporters feel that all she's done if fight hard and I agree we do need Democrats to fight hard for what they believe in. But what is it that she's shown she believes in here? That MLK doesn't matter? That she's Hubert Humphrey waiting in the wings for Kennedy's fall only to lose in November to Nixon? That truth is only viable when it's expedient? That some white people are irredeemably racist, and she doesn't care? That instead she's willing to exploit fear and paranoia of a black man, who couldn't possibly love America as much as she does or they do, while claiming she's the victim of gender prejudice? What, just cuz Chris Matthews is a condescending prick? Grow up. Have these all just been political arguments that have nothing to do with how she really thinks or how she would really govern?
Which version of Hillary are you guys supporting? Do you think you get to pick your personal favorite and go with that?
This is not how we need a potentially leader of the free world to be thinking, speaking or acting. They're supposed to be fighting for us, not just for themselves. If the RFK comment was her response to a 3 A.M. wake-up call, she just flubbed it and started World War III with most of America. Nobody makes you take the Low-Road, it's not a mandate, it's not a requirement - it's a choice. There's always a better option. She has simply made the wrong call - repeatedly - because she thought she could get away with it. She thought "it's just politics", instead of it being a complete lack of character. It's not just politics, it's clearly a part of who she is, and she's not getting away with it. Not anymore.
It's time for Hillary's supporters, to realize they made an honest mistake. Yes, she does seem like a great candidate on paper. Electorally it makes sense. It's true that she would probably win the Presidency more easily than Barack and that feeling that way can be easily understood, forgiven and forgotten. In the heat of a passionate campaign, we can all sometimes say things we don't literally mean, it can get away from us. But now it's time to face the facts.
Her campaign is in it's last throes. She's not going to be the nominee. She's not going to the be VP. She's out. She's probably going to continue to hang around, continue to get a few more charity/protest votes in Puerto Rico, but then - it's over.
This isn't a construction of the media. This isn't the boys club trying to squeeze her out. She's been dancing on the edge of the rhetorical cliff for months now. We all know it. Many of her supporters have happily cheered her on with each new dazzling kick and spin move. But you have to know she's been flirting with total disaster and devastation all along. It's been the kitchen-sink/scorched earth strategy for a long time. Now she's finally gone tumbling down the cliff and Nobody pushed her.
She fell off the cliff all by herself.
That's the way it had to go. It wouldn't have been tolerated if Barack had cut her off at the knees. He would've become the bad guy. The big black meany man who stole her Presidency from her. But that's not what happened. Nobody can claim that Barack knee-capped our first potential female President. She just lost.
She utterly failed the Commander-and-Chief test.
I'm not gleeful about this. I'm not joyful. I'm just relieved that it just might - just might - be nearly done with. I'm telling you this has not be fun to watch. Democrats clawing at Democrats. Friendships broken. Families going at each other. It's been H.E.L.L.
That is why people have wanted this to come to an end. We've needed to put her out of our misery. It's not about June. It's the fact that you don't count the length of campaign from the finish line backward, you count it from the beginning. This campaign has essentially been going on for a year and a half already. The only reason anyone might have wanted Hillary out of the race, beside the fact that she hasn't been able to statistically win for weeks, is that they are just plain SICK AND TIRED OF IT ALL.
22 debates. 22 Friggin Debates. Enough already. We get it. We know who we want, we don't want Hillary. Sorry, but that the way it is.
The one thing I have to thank Hillary for - in a sad, sick way - is making Barack a better candidate than he had been. McCain can't play the "He's a Negro" dog-whistle game on him, she's already done it and still lost. He can't argue that he's "too inexperienced", because with experience and judgment like her's - we obviously need more rookies. Obama is now innoculated on Reverend Wright, on William Aires and on Tony Rezzco. He's teflon. Unbreakable.
During all these challenges Obama has shown us a grace, class, dignity and clarity of vision that is rare and awe inspiring. His speech in Philadelphia was historic. That's how we need a someone to respond under pressure. These primaries have shown why we need a President like Barack Obama. This is the guy I want answering the crisis phone at 3 a.m. and at 2 p.m.
So, yes in a way, we owe Hillary our thanks.
It's also true that during her various attacks Barack suffered Electorally. Back on May 5th, Obama and McCain were in a dead-heat with 264 to 263 Electoral Votes respectively.
After Hillary hit him with Bitter-gate and "He's an Elitist who doesn't relate to hard-working blue collar (white) Americans" Barack lost ground not just in West Virginia, but in Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan falling behind McCain 290 to 237 on May 11th.
But today - literally today,just a single day after Hillary's campaign has taken what may well be a mortal wound - Barack has flipped the map by gaining ground in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. He now has regained the lead with 266 to 248.
He still has to break the tie in both Indiana and Virginia, as well as hold his leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Missouri to win. But it's possible he could do that and take back Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina. Sure, it could also go back the other way, there are quite a few states at play, including red ones, But today, for the first time, if just a few things go his way, it looks like Obama could win by an Electoral Land-Slide!
And we have Hillary to thank for that. Somebody had to air out of Barack's near-dirty laundry, better it was Hillary now than McCain in November.
It had to be this way.
By finally exiting the race, and not seeking to use her delegate votes to engineer some kind of Shotgun Wedding as VP, Hillary will be doing us all a great service.
She just might've saved this country, from both McCain and herself.
That incredible font of Patriotism Laura Ingraham has apparently responded to Keith Olbermann's taunt - "Why do you hate our troops" with the preceding video.
Her claim here, using the site "Olbermannwatch" as her source is that Keith is a liar, and that he really did mean to insult our U.S. troops when he mentioned "Cold=Blooded Killers" in the Iraq War and wasn't simply throwing Bush's ridiculous rhetoric at the Knesset right back at him in reference to BlackWater.
As it was delibered Keith's Special Comment said this starting from the relevant quoting from Bush's speech:
"The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.'
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives'?
They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes.
Let's just reinterate that Olbermann was Quoting the President in that statement, and clearly was turning that comment around to point at people who may, very well may, have committed WAR CRIMES!
Who might those people be?
Who are the War Criminals?
Might they be the members of Bush's Cabinet who conducted meeting after meeting discussing torture methods in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act?
Might they be members of Blackwater USA who have been granted immunity and impunity to murder civilians in Iraq?
Ignoring the War Criminals, the wingnut fringe instead attacked him for daring to use the Presidents word against American Troops. In response to this Keith issued a Clarification
Television goes by quickly and the viewers are not provided a copy of the script. So it is possible that reasonable viewers might have been confused by exactly to whom I referred, especially considering that I edited the original line, which was: "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives? They are called your cabinet and your Pentagon."
During the editing process, it seemed that was a little broad, that there appear to be men in both of those places, General Ricardo Sanchez, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, perhaps even the new Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, who did not merit inclusion in that list. Obviously, my use of Mr. Bush’s phrase, cold-blooded killers, did not refer to U.S. troops. I have never had anything but the highest respect for them and their sacrifice.
The difference here? Once sentence, specifying the cabinet and pentagon as the "killers" was removed. Instead he said "They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes."
That's changing a single sentence, that's all. In neither version of this were our troops called out. In neither version were our troops insulted.
He changed it because he didn't think it was fair to make a statement that would have included current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (who openly and frequently objected to the use of torture) and General Ricardo Sanchez who has also vehemently criticized such crimes.
Sanchez was the former Commander of Forces in Iraq, so if he deliberately excluded Sanchez he was most certainly excluding all of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanitan who had NOT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.
One might go so far as to assume that he was also alluding to War Crimes and cover-ups such as in Haditha. Or Moumadiya. Or Crimes such as the killing Pat Tillman and subsequent cover-up and destruction evidence in that case.
But only a completely assclown or moron would think Keith meant "All Of Our Troops Are War Criminals!"
Yet this is exacty what Olbermannwatch claims.
After he came under fire for his Special Comment on May 14 in which called U.S. Troops "cold blooded killers", Keith Olbermann delivered a "clarification" in which he claimed that he had edited out the part in which he called White House and Pentagon officials "cold blooded killers". One problem, the day the Special Comment aired Keith was on Daily Kos comparing himself to Mozart for having produced his "masterpiece" in "one write". In other words...WITHOUT EDITING.
This is what Olbermann actually said in a comment within his May 14th Diary.
Then I'm reminded of other things this administration has done, and suddenly, they're twice as long.
Actually, this one was one straight write. Took about an hour, I moved one sentence, added the new info on the fraudulence of the golf claim, and altered about a half dozen adjectives, and that was it. Not exactly Mozart's unblemished composition sheets, but I'll take it.
by Keith Olbermann on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM PDT
< Parent | Reply to This >
This is the point where you have to wonder if these people are simply lazy or mendacious? Keith did exactly what he said he did, he meant exactly what he said he meant - and he has certainly every RIGHT to say it in a country that is supposed to still have free speech.
Yet again, we have a completely mischaracterzation of a reasonable statment into some kind of anti-American slur. We've seen this with Michelle Obama and her comments about how the American people were coming together with common cause "for the first time in her adult life". We've seen many of the comments of Rev Wright distorted (which admittedly wasn't hard to do). Or the comments of Rosie O'Donnell the half-million Iraqi casualties - so far - and just who the "terrorists" responsibile for this war?
(No, She did not mean our Troops, she clearly meant Our President is Responsible. He is "The Decider", Right?)
The very thought that Our Troops are Terrorists is just plain insane. It's a LIE to say that Rosie made that claim, Michelle has made that claim, or that Olbermann has made that claim.
Here, yet again, and again and again, socio-pathological liars like Ingraham, O'Reilly and Olbermannwatch throw fact and common sense out the window in a desperate and sad effort to smear the critic. To justify the unjustifiable. To excuse criminals by confusing them with our Heroes. Deliberately. Viciously.
Keith was at least honest enough himself to realize that some people may have taken his comments the wrong way if you weren't fully paying attention, or simply don't care about the truth... but I care.
We care.
And I'm sure the Troops, those who've fought, bled, died, been traumatize and continue to struggle financially and emotionally after their service Care too.
It's taken me a bit of time to come to this conclusion. I've carefully considered the issue of post nomination Party Reconciliation and whether or not we may need to a Shotgun Marriage to repair the wounds that have been gouged into the Democratic Party by this Primary Season.
But I've finally realized we don't need to break out the spackle, silly putty and super glue in order to re-stitch the Democratic party back together. With Barack Obama's candidacy we ourselves are Becoming the Change that we need.
Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate, and a fine politician - but she is shown herself to clearly be a politician of the past with her use of divide and conquer, fear-mongering, crush and smear tactics.
It's time we moved away from that kind of politics, and that kind of country. It's time we embraced the future - and that future is President Barack Obama.
As thereisnospoon has handily pointed out today, this isn't about either sexism or racism.
Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee because he has repeatedly refused to pander to our worst instincts. He has refused to easily give into fear.
No, he didn't do the proper political thing and toss Jeremiah Wright under the Mid-town Express at the first opportunity. He let Jeremiah blow himself up.
No, he didn't immediately assume that we should show "strength" either by jumping into a ill-advised and unnecessary war, or by keeping everyone we disagree with at arms length as if simply having a conversation and attempting to find common ground (Like Kennedy with Krushchev, Nixon in China and Reagan with Gorbachev) is in and of itself some kind of grand concession and some sign of "weakness" or some silly misappropriated version of appeasment.
No, he didn't sign on with an idiotic gas-tax holiday plan, because he had the experience to know that it wasn't going to deliver the consumer savings it promised.
On each of these issues and many more he shown better judgement, and better respect for the intelligence of the American people than has Clinton. She and her campaign have deliberately pandered to ignorance, paranoia and fake outrage with "I would have walked out of that Church", "He's lucky to be a Black Man" when even they know damn well he isn't, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know..." and bragging that she "has the hard-working uneducated White Voters, that he can't get" - while he has not responded in kind. He's refused to be dragged down into that cesspool with her.
He has not stooped to her level.
Sure we need a President who is "tough", but I would prefer one who doesn't repeatedly and chronically gets "tough" about The Wrong Issues.
He has not tried to exploit our fear and anxiety or try to Bribe Us. Instead he has shown Courage and an abiding Faith in the American people and that's the kind of President we need.
We need a President who isn't going to have a "Senior Moment" over and over again between Sunni and Shia. Who knows the difference between someone (like the duly elected ruling party in Palestine) supporting you, and you supporting them. Whose idea of "Supporting our Troops" isn't to oppose bills that would do exactly that. Whose Primary campaign debts and promises aren't to lobbyists, corporations, Rangers, Super-Rangers or Cougars - but are to the American people themselves.
More than that we need a President whose idea of showing solidarity with our military families isn't to give up a golf, and then not actually give it up - we need a President with genuine courage.
For Courage is the ultimate cure for what ails us.
Courage is how we cure both Racism and Sexism. It takes courage to ignore what statistics might say about any particular type of individual, and what past experience might say - and to take them for who and what they actually are.
Courage is how we cure Terrorism. It takes courage to remove the primary power that a terrorist wields, fear of death, destruction and injury. If we can not be terrorized, their methods become useless and meaningless.
Courage is the Key.
We don't need to be afraid that the party won't heal itself, that we may have lost some of the Hillacrats forever as they wallow in self-pity over how we "beat up on their girl", yet ignore and justify all the jabs and cheap shots she and her campaign have dolled out. Let Hill court and keep the West Virginia Double-wide vote. The people who just can't bring themselves to vote for that black (muslim/anti-american) man.
If they're willing to embrace change, and embrace the future - fine. Glad to have ya, but if not - we don't want 'em. We don't need 'em. Frack 'em.
We don't need to go begging on hands and knees for them to hold their nose and pretend to support our curly haired black-negro-man with the white mother, elitist, former food-stamp receiving, educated, school debt-having, orange-juice drinking, basket-ball playing, lousing bowling candidate. If they want to jump-ship and join the Republicans and vote for John McInsane, I'm sure Maverick and his good buddy Karl Iceman Rove will be happy to have them.
We have to realize that nominating and electing Barack Obama to the Presidency will send a shock-wave across this nation and across this world, one that will resonate for more deeply than even the passage of the original Civil Rights Act. Back then LBJ knew that Democrats would be losing the south for perhaps a generation or more. This time we might lose more than that, and we might gain far more as well.
Both in the long and the short run, it's going to be worth it.
This is the beginning of the NEW Democratic Party.
We have already begun the Change that Barack has spoken of, we have become that Change. Those who wish to join us and embrace that change are welcome to do so, those who do not are free to wallow in the cynicism, pandering, oppurtunism, manipulation and fear-mongering of the past.
We're done with all that, and are going This Way. Toward the Hope. Toward the Future.
Everyone else can either climb on for the ride or be left behind.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Oh, No she D'int!
Oh yeah. She did, but the funny part is that all she did her was repeat what the Press has been doing for months. Just do a search on Yahoo News for "Obama, White Voters, Polls" and this is what you get.
1. Voters question Clinton's trustworthiness. - By Chadwick Matlin - Slate ... ... Times/CBS News poll says the country prefers Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton by 12 ... Six percent of Democratic primary voters think Obama is a Muslim. ... www.slate.com/id/2175496 - Cached
3. Obama Support Among "Bitter" Voters Unchanged ... poll can help address the issue directly because it asks voters if ... to live in small towns, Obama probably had white voters in mind when he made his ... gallup.com/poll/.../Obama-Support-Among-Bitter-Voters-Unchanged.aspx
5. ABC News: White Working-Class vs. Change in Indiana EXIT POLL: White Working-Class vs. Change in Indiana; Blacks Lift Obama to N.C. Victory ... 51 percent of voters picked it, and they went to Obama by about his ... abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=4798314&page=1 - 94k
6. ABC News: PA exit polls: Whites, blue-collar voters stick with Clinton Working-class white voters rallied around Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday as ... Survivor: Clinton Closes In on Obama. WATCH: Rocky Road to the White House ... abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4706022 - 93k
9. Voters agree Wright furor hurt Obama : Politics : Commercial Appeal Black and white voters in next week's primary states agreed on one thing on Wednesday: Barack Obama's preacher had hurt the Democratic presidential candidate at a ... commercialappeal.com/news/2008/may/01/road-to-the-white-house-voters... - Cached
Far from being a taboo subject, this issue has been constantly debated since both Rev. Wright and Bitter-gate.
How does Obama win back the Springer Vote? How is he going to appeal to the Double-Wide Demographic?
Don't look so shocked, we all know what we're talking about here. White, Working-class, un and under-educated. C'mon. Where do you really think these people can afford to live? A condo? Who do you think Rush Limbaugh is talking to day in and day out?
Some of my best friends used to enjoy semi-mobile living conditions. Really.
Anywho...
The sad part about this discussion isn't the fact that it's being discussed, it's that it's being portrayed as some kind of failure on Barack's part! instead of the very obvious implication that we still, even in the 21st Century, have some dumb-ass reactionary redneck's left in this country.
Again, don't get all offended - isn't that the core idea behind Jeff Foxworthy's entire career?
You might be a Redneck if...?
You won't vote for the Black man for President, even when he's the best candidate, he's won the popular vote, he's (practically) won the delegate vote and he's won the most states.
I thought that was the entire point behind CMT. and "Blue-Collar TV"?
Instead of asking, gee - what the hell is wrong with these people? - the press has been putting all the blame in Barack's lap?
And now that Hillary is echoing them, people are up in arms?
Oh my God, the Sherrif Nominee is a Nig...!
Just figuring that out now are ya? Very astute. But Guess what...
Oh my God, the Country's Full of Ignorant Red-Necks too...!
Which of course, according to the Press, would be Clinton's base.
But here's the really interesting thing that the Press and Hillary haven't said, something that our own DemfromCT pointed out last week.
Since July 2006, long before both Bitter-Gate and Rev. Wrong, Barack Obama's favorability has actually maintained a net 5 points gain in support from White Voters, Hillary has lost 36 points from the Black Vote.
I wonder why the Press doesn't ask "What in the world is Hillary going to do about her Black Voter problem?"
Instead we get all this blather about how we're supposed to expect Black people to vote not based on issues, or facts, but skin color.
Y'know - cause they're just naturally racist. They see everything through the prism of color. It's in their blood, don't cha know?
Never mind the fact that both Bill and Hillary used to have massive support Black Voters. Why doesn't the Press ask - What went wrong sour between Hill and Black people?
Oh wait, they did ask that and the answer was - Bill.
But White people, when they reject a perfectly good Black candidate it's got nothing to do with race - except for everything! You see, he's too leftist and radical (A hidden Black Panther), he's too elitist (Uppity!), Educated (Effete!), and he's too damn Muslim (Barack Hussein Obama - Farrakhan and Hamas' new Puppet President!) and we shouldn't bother to call them out on it. No, don't even think about it. Don't get them all riled up by saying they're "bitter" or anything...
That's like tossing raw meat at a starving dog.
Whatever you do - Don't Feed the White People! They Bite.
For those who can't take a hint:/Snark Off!
It's about time we started realizing that we have some big big problems in this country and it's not all the black peoples fault, nor is it all the white peoples fault. It's our fault if we let ourselves be manipulated in this way. If we fail to see the obvious. If we let injustice happen in our laps and just brush it away.
We need to admit that Racism for a minority of say 17% of Democratic Voters in the South has become acceptable. It's expected now.
We have to do better than this. This isn't just Barack's problem, it's a problem for all of us.
We need to get enraged and fight back not just because Hillary repeats this nonesense, we need to fight back All the Time when the media repeatedly attempts to pit us all against each other.
We need to fight fear with truth.
Black people are not slaves to their skin-tone, and White people - even the "uneducated" ones - are a lot smarter and a lot less racist and reactionary than everyone from ABC to FOX seems to think.
Barack can get the White Vote back, in fact he's already started to - and if Hillary keeps insulting her own "base", she's going to lose all of it.
The Judiciary Committee has voted this morning to subpoena Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington to testify and explain the development of the administrations interrogation program.
Listening to the Vice-President's Chief of staff explain how Pouring water down someone throat isn't as bad as Forcing it down their throat - never mind the ensuing suffocation either way - should be a real popcorn moment.
More from Thinkprogress which discusses ongoing efforts to bring Doug Feith, George Tenet and John Ashcroft before the committee as well.
If this had happened last year before Stonewall-Gate basically stole every once of energy from the DOJ-purge investigation, I'd be a lot more optimistic.
The best we can hope for - assuming that Fred Fielding doesn't kneecap the process with executive priveledge claims - is that these hearing may force the congress to seriously reconsider the Military Commissions Act, restore Habeaus Corpus, dismantle Gitmo, end the Kangaroo Combatant Courts and remove the immunity for torturers who acted between 2001 and 2005.
The eyes of the world are watching, particularly when we held an al Jazeera journalist for 6 years without charges or trial...
Hajj is the only major mainstream news journalist ever to be held at prison. His supporters claimed that he was being held in retaliation for US anger over the Arabic television network.
The cameraman was never prosecuted. The US never published its allegations, but said in a hearing that Hajj was classified as an enemy combatant because he worked as executive secretary for a beverage company whose director allegedly aided Muslim forces in Bosnia and Chechnya. He was also suspected of transfering money to a charity the US labeled as terrorist, and had interviewed Bin Laden.
The man worked at the company where the director was suspected of helping Muslim forces in Bosnia? In Chechnya? Talk about Guilt by Association. He gave money to a charity? He interviewed Bin Laden? So did Peter Arnett of CNN.
But Hajj isn't the worst case, the truth needs to be told. Here's what Human Rights First said about Torture two years ago in it's report on Gitmo: Command Responsibility
Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global "war on terror." According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.
Despite these numbers, four years since the first known death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this list – those of detainees tortured to death – only half have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail.
The War Crimes Act, even after it received it's Bybee inspired downgrade, still considers torturing someone to death to be a Capital Offense. High level government officials who sanction U.S. policies which led to these deaths could be charged with Conspiracy and as accesseries to Murder.
That's a conspiracy that includes Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Addington, Cheney - and Bush.
In a way I almost wish they would wait until the next administration, because the more that Congress shows that these people are at criminal risk, the more likely they are to get pardoned as they sneak out the back door - and we really don't need that.
Despite all the huffing and puffing over just when and how Hillary Clinton will finally pull a heroic Rocky-II-like comeback knock this black teenager out of the race - all the real numbers say she's already lost.
Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee, all he has to do is sit back and wait for it.
And you can prove it for yourself and all your friends with CNN's handy-dandy popiel-o-matic Delegate Calculator.
With this pocket-size tool, You Too, can be a Pundicator.
(Isn't it odd that no-one who actually appears on CNN knows how to use their own website?)
As of today, May 4th - my wife's birthday - the Delegate Calculator indicates that Obama has a lead of 1736 total delegates (with 289 needed to win) and Clinton has a total of 1,599 total delegates (with 426 needed to win).
The only numbers that really matter are the number of delegates needed to win - which again are 289 and 426 respectively. That's how close the nose each of our candidates has come to crossing the finish line.
What we have to remember is that either candidate must reach the magic number of 2025 only using the pledge and Superdelegates that remain, of which - according to the calculator - there only 695.
Simple, very simple, basic math says that in order to win Clinton has to gain 61% of all the remaining delegates. Each time she falls short of that number, it gets larger for the next contest. Obama on the other hand only needs 41%, as long as he stays above that number - HE WINS.
He could lose Indiana, lose North Carolina, lose Kentucky - but as long as he doesn't collapse below 41% - he will be the Nominee. Period.
And if he does better than that, things continually get worse for Clinton.
As of today the results in Guam and some of the recent Superdelegate shifts have not been counted on the calculator but that is of little matter, you and I can put them in ourselves.
Grab the Guam slider and set it 50% Obama/50% Clinton, it automatically allocates 2 delegates to each. That puts Obama at 287 and Clinton at 428 with 691 available. Their percentage requirements to win remain at 41% and 61% respectively.
The latest Zogby Poll for the Indiana Primary gives Obama a one point lead (43/42%) over Clinton. Adding this to the Calculator as best you can (52/48 Obama) gives Obama an additional 37 delegates, bringing him to 1,775 and another 35 for Clinton bringing her to 1,636.
Are you following along at home kiddies? I knew that you were, because this is where it gets fun.
With a small victory in Indiana Obama's Magic Number drops to 250 - and his percentage required for final victory also drops a bit from 41% to 40.3%. Clinton's does the opposite, with still 389 needed to win her required percentage for the remaining delegates shifts upward slightly to 62.8%.
This means simply put, that as time goes one things get worse for her - not better.
Let me just say this again, after this point Clinton has to beat Obama by an average of 22 points on all remaining contests and on all remaining Superdelegates to win the nomination.
Who in their right minds thinks that's gonna happen? (Oh, yeah, most of punditocracy on on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS - except for Chuck Todd who seems to have actually passed 5th Grade math - continues to maintain the ridiculous delusion that Hillary still has a chance to win, silly of me not to notice....)
Ok, let look at North Carolina - where the latest polls places Obama with a nine point lead (46 to 37%) over Clinton. Let's be generous and say that Obama only wins by 8 points (because the slider won't go to nine - damn you CNN!) Obama would receive 62 delegates and Clinton 53. After this contest there are only 504 available delegates, and in order to win Obama would only need to 37.3% of the remaining delegates and Clinton needs a whopping 67% to win.
Anytime she doesn't beat him by greater than that number she falls further behind and can't catch up.
If Clinton doesn't win both West Virginia (where she leads 55/27) and Kentucky (where she has a massive lead) by a pair of double digit 20 point blowouts it's still all over but the whining because those states - with only 28 and 51 delegates at stake respectively - are both too small to make up the difference.
That's right Hillary, "Small States really don't count that much" do they?
Just one week from now - there will only be 425 delegates left (which in reality is an over-estimate since many more Supers will probably be committed by this point next week) and Clinton will need to get 298 or at least 68% of them all (which is assuming that she does blow Barack out by 22 point in Kentucky and again in West Virginia as predicted)
A 22 point landslide is what she needs just to stay even at this point, she has to do much better than that to win.
Once you plug in all the remaining poll estimates, which really only includes Oregon which has Obama up by 6 points, and assume he basically loses every other state by at least 8 points except Puerto Rico where Clinton is strongly supported and there he gets again blown out again by at least 22 points...
You get this:
Even with all that, with every break she could possibly get, Clinton still needs 212 delegates to win, while Obama only needs 95. All of the 287 Superdelegates would have to break for Clinton by 73%. She needs to get almost 3 to 1 of the Supers over Obama to Win. But if Obama just barely manages to squeek by with just 33% of the Supers - it's over, it's done, finito.
He wins.
See?
Your mileage may vary depending on your assumptions generally speaking, and the Calculator isn't perfect, but even if you give her every benefit of the doubt and 2/3 of the Supers - whom she happens to have been leaking lately like water from an old radiator - she still can't win.
By all reasonable measures, she already lost, her campaign is dead - a load of sound and fury signifying nothing - she just hasn't realized or admitted it yet.
Let's get real here people. We all know what this is, we all know what this is about.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are trying to BUY YOUR VOTE for a measley $30.
A half a tank of gas.
Is that all they think it's worth? Really? A 5% drop in the gas tax for three months that consumers may actually see only half of, which will blow a giant hole in the infrastructure budget and likely put about 6000 people in Indiana and North Carolina out of work?
How much difference is a few more pennies a day going to make when you don't have a job to get those pennies in the first place?
Are you kidding me? The Republicans in Congress are not going to allow a TAX HIKE PROPOSAL to even reach a vote in the Senate, and the Bush will almost certainly Veto IT. We don't need to take money away from our infratructure when we already have Bridges Falling Down.
Obama: This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea design to get them elected in November.
This is just politics as usual, but the sad part is that this cheap parlor trick just might work with some of the voters in the upcoming primary.
Are Americans really this stupid?
Are they really going fall for it Again? Another cheap, easy, quick fix solution that won't work and is not what we need.
We need to do the right thing, we need to do the hard thing and actually implement a workable energy policy. We need to start talking about real bio-fuels, plug-in hybrids, full on electric vehicles, wind, solar and permanently ending our dependance on foreign oil.
For people who don't know we can have viable electric vehicles, the Mythbusters on Discovery channel just broadcast an episode where they had an electric car drag race against a Ferrari and WIN. It also nearly beat an F1 race car.
Hello everybody, glad you could stop by. Welcome to America. Home of Fragile and the Scared. The Nation that doesn't want to "embolden the enemy" by saying anything nice about them while we smoke 'em out of their holes. The Nation that's going to round all the evil doers up and teach 'em a lesson, unless they say something mean about our troops - like call them a bunch of Doody Heads and hurt our feelings.
Even Hillary Clinton, who certainly isn't some kind of pansy and has lots of testicular fortitude - would have run away from Reverend Wright screaming.
O'Reilly: What do you think when you hear another American Citizen say things like that?
Clinton: I would not have stayed in that church. I take offense to it.
That's it, run way - Flee. That'll show him. If you can't take on the crazy reverend in the daishiki - how are you going to take on Al Qeada Hillary?
Oh, let this not be another defending Reverend Wright Post.
Well, it's not. He's toast, but what about all those things he said? Anyone else every say stuff like that before?
Anyone remember that crazy Colorado Professor who dared to hurt America's poor little feelings by saying - the terrorist aren't just a bunch a crazies and might have had a reason for 9/11?Remember Ward Churchill?
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 4 -- The University of Colorado staunchly defends its faculty's rights of free speech and open academic inquiry. Most of the time.
But Friday, interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano launched an "academic investigation" that could lead to the firing of Ward Churchill, a tenured full professor who ignited a national firestorm by applauding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and condemning the victims as greedy, arrogant and cruel.
In a commentary he says he wrote on 9/11, Ward Churchill called some victims "little Eichmanns." In a rambling, acidic commentary he says he dashed off within hours of the attacks, the 57-year-old professor of ethnic studies described the bankers and stock traders who died in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." He called their deaths a "penalty befitting their participation in . . . the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."
Thank God he didn't mention anything about Chickens roosting.
Still they did eventually run a tenured professor out of town on a rail! - because well, y'know, we can't have people saying that kind of stuff. It might scare the children. The tiny tiny, helpless little babies - THAT ARE RUNNING OUR COUNTRY!
Hey, anyone remember that crazy Colorado School teacher that dared to compared Bush to Hitler? Whatta Maroon that dork was, eh? Anyone Remember Jay Bennish?
Officials declined to say whether social studies instructor Jay Bennish faced disciplinary action, but his attorney, David Lane, said Bennish would be back in the classroom Monday "with full pay."
Bennish had been on paid leave from Overland High School in suburban Aurora since March 1 while Cherry Creek School District determined whether he violated a district rule that teachers must present balancing viewpoints in the classroom.
During a Feb. 1 lecture in a geography class, Bennish said some of Bush's State of the Union address the night before "sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say."
Man, what was that guy smoking? Good thing we put the smack down on him. We can't possible tolerate anyone making the suggestion that an American President could have anything at all in common with a crazed genocidal dictator..
That's just plain CRAZY talk, right?
He sounds almost like that nutty comedian chick. What was her name, oh yeah - Rosie O'Donnel.
Oh. MY. GOD. How could she say that? It's not like any radical Christians have set off bombs or deployed chemical biological weapons like Anthrax on American soil. I mean, as long as you don't count the Selma Church Bombings, WACO, Oklahoma City, the bombing of dozens of gay clubs and shootings and murder at abortion clinics by people such as friends of Randal Terry of Operation Rescue and the Bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta by Eric Robert Rudolph.
Except for all that, it's not like we've every had any Christian Terrorism. What the frak was she thinking?
We can have people saying stuff like that IN AMERICA. We're all like Lee Greenwood, we're Proud To Be Americans, where at least we know we're free (to be harassed, harried and threatened for speaking our minds.) Where the hell does she think she gets the right, or the freedom to say batshit like that?
amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh ok, fine - so Congress can't make it illegal - but we can sure make it pretty damned uncomfortable can't we?
Where did Rosie get the naked gall to suggest the the deaths of a half-million Iraqis might just be the fault of - gasp - America. If the terrorists killed all those people - except obviously for those who got Shock and Awed into the next life right up front - and you say it's America's fault, you must be saying that Americans are Terrorist right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE_l8QYAWZM On Wednesday’s show, O’Donnell (who leaves the show for good in three weeks) blasted Hasselbeck for not coming to her defense on the matter. "Do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists, Elisabeth?"
She pressed: "Yes or no? Do you believe it, yes or no?"
"Excuse me, let me speak!" Hasselbeck snapped. "Let me finish!"
At this point, the conversation moved into split screen mode.
"I don’t believe that you believe troops are terrorists. I have said that before," Hasselbeck continued, "but when you say something like, ‘655,00 Iraqis are dead. We invaded them...who are the terrorists?’..." She trailed off.
O’Donnell repeated: "Do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists, Elisabeth?..You would not even look me in the face, Elisabeth, and say, 'No, Rosie.' "
Hasselbeck shot back: "Because you are an adult, and I am certainly not going to be the person for you to explain your thoughts...Defend your own thoughts!"
...
O’Donnell, 45, continued: "I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying. You said nothing and that’s cowardly. Nothing, Elisabeth."
Why can't people like Rosie Support the Troops with nice shiny happy talk? Doesn't she know all they need is a little puppy love, some kisses, and smoke blown up their ass to help them get through the day? You wouldn't want to Make a Marine Cry would you? God, how could she be so insensitive? Why do they always have to Blame America First when America initiates an unprovoked invasion of an unarmed country, then completely botches the security and the reconstruction effort? Why? Why! WHY!?
Maybe because sometimes these things have to be said.
About 60 years ago there were riots in the streets over Elvis and his swiveling hips. Congress got involved to protect our youth and with the help of Dr. Frederick Wertham Batman was branded a pedophile and Wonder Woman a bondage fetish deviant.
About 40 years ago there were riots at the Democratic National Convention over Vietnam, while the Beatle's sang of Love and the Rolling Stone's sang "Street Fighting Man"
About 30 years ago we were having Congressional Hearings over "We're Not Gonna Take it" and "Animal F#ck like a Beast".
About 15 years ago there were riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict - just two year's after the release of the Bodycount's song "Cop-Killer".
In his outrage at what the song suggested - that some brutal racist cops in LA just really needed some killin' - Moses himself, Charlton Heston took some time out from a few gun toting NRA rallies to rail against this vile irresponsible hate speech. How could anyone suggest that it might be "OK" to consider fighting back against the police? (Or to consider fighting back against a currupt government that was unable or unwilling to protect the people from it's own enforcers gone wild?)
What Anti-American CLAP-TRAP is This?
How could anyone suggest that we should consider taking up arms against the most visible agents of the government itself? Against the Police?
How could anyone agree with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28?
, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.
This is why we haev a 2nd Amendment - to allow the people to protect themselves from a Government gone wrong. Rather sad that Mr. 2nd Amendment, Charlton Heston, so clearly misunderstood the 2nd Amendment.
And let us not seriously consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46.
That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.
Extravagant a suggestion as it is - let it be made. Outrageous though it may be - let it be said. Infuriating and Offensive it is - but let it be heard.
For only if we continue to openly speak our minds and express even our most outrageous concerns, to redress our deepest grievances with our government may we yet stave of that extravagant last ditch effort, having nothing left but our courage and dispair to save our country from itself.
Amen.
I've sometimes wondered, in all seriousness, if the tendency for some Americans to react with such shock and horror to incendiary comments which have a perfectly reasonable basis in fact might just because it hits far too close to the bone. It's like we have our own national Toxic Shame.
Toxic shame, the shame that binds you, is experienced as the all pervasive sense that I am flawed and defective as a human being. Toxic shame is no longer an emotion that signals our limits, it is a state of being, a core identity. Toxic shame gives you a sense of worthlessness, a sense of failing and falling short as a human being. Toxic shame is a rupture of the self with the self.
Toxic Shame is like a viral infection of the soul. Unlike normal, healthy shame where you understand your limits and responsibilities - Toxic Shame is a deep humiliation, one that's goes right to the core of your being and existence. It is the mistake you can not undo, the stain that can't be washed out - the permanent flaw in your creation. It's a conflict that caint be reconcilled, a wound that can't be healed unless those people come to realize that what you do, and what you ARE - are two different things.
People make mistakes, Governments make mistakes - but they themselves aren't the mistake. They react like a Patriotism-Addict, who will lash out as soon as anyone tries to pull the Flag-Juice Ripple from their lips. People that can't take criticism of America, react in irrational outburst of outrage because they are hiding their own seated deep toxic shame, shame that they've tried to drown in flag-pins and rabid gingoism, hiding even from themselves that they know deep down that the criticism is not only true - bit that, in their own warped obsessive view, it can never be fixed.
They think, somewhere in their subconscious, that it can never be any different. It can never get any better.
But it can be fixed. We can heal this nation in so many, many ways. We can move forward and closer to the promise of A More Prefect Union if if we can just stand to address the issues truthfully, painful though that will be. But we can't do that yet, the last few weeks have clearly shown that America isn't ready.
Now is not the time.
But soon, soon America needs to have a frank, honest, brutal Intervention. Just like all other addicts, we need learn to accept ourselves, flaws and all. We need to have the solice and wisdom to recognize what we can't change, and the courage to change what we can.
Only then can we start fixing things. Only then can we start making the Better America, the America Of our Dreams.
So now we've reached the final chapter in the Rev. Wright novella and my overall feeling after the entire sad soap opera is disappointment.
Maybe I expected far too much.
I had hoped that some of the truth behind many of Wright's comments would eventually be examined. I wasn't so naive as to think the media would admit that they got it wrong, but that Barack would find some way to improve the quality of our discourse.
Unfortunately, Rev Wright turned out to be his own worst advocate - and Barack was left with no choice but to toss him under the bus, backup and start doing donuts.
It's really Wright's own fault, the blame has to start with him and his Grandstanding. He got start-struck. He went Hollywood. He was drunk with the power of being in the spotlight and drove his own car into the ditch, with Barack's Presidency strapped into the passenger seat.
I clearly understand that Barack had to cut him loose.
I just wish he didn't have to. I wish he didn't have to confirm all those smug media pundicators who've spent the last month mostly debating just how high the railway bridge needed to be when Barack finally kicked Rev. Wright from the train.
Those lazy ass-clown hacks don't deserve to be vindicated, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I admit I was surprised when Obama himself bought into the spin.
Obama feels that Rev. Wright dissed him when he said that he was a pastor and Obama was politician. Somehow Wright's rather lengthy discussion before the NAACP on how some things can be different but not deficient, was completely missed.
He wasn't insulting Barack by saying he was a "politician" - he is a politician. That's not a dirty word, it's just descriptive.
The problem wasn't that Wright wouldn't repent and renounce his previous statements, it's that in some cases he simply refused to show any sensitivity to those who may disagree or misunderstand him. When he was asked whether Barack was in the pews when he was smack talking he said...
MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?
WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK.
Oh, OUCH! That wasn't pretty.
He also didn't really take anywhere near the proper care he should have when he finally asked the AIDS question.
MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?
(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)
WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?
MODERATOR: No questions -
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.
In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the — one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.
So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable
So in response to the question he refers to a book by a Harvard researcher, but doesn't really bother to explain that quite a few doctors and scientists have been looking at weather polio and other vaccines first tested in Africa may have caused the HIV virus to jump species from monkey's to humans, and whether agencies such as the CDC have stonewalled and blocked attempts to either verify or refute this hypothesis.
I first came upon this idea ten years ago in the New Yorker Magazine, and based on that and some pretty simple research on wiki - there has been a lot of pushback on this and various agencies
|
>
/]
" 
" 
"
" 
" 
" 
"
" 
" /]
