Obama Clinches Nomination

CNN called the Indiana primary for Clinton at 1 a.m. today with 99% of the vote counted. At that time she had a 2% lead; however more than 1% of the vote in Lake County remained to be counted. He won by large margins in the four counties that Kerry won in 2004--which are considered to be Democratic party strongholds in a state that traditionally votes Republican.

In North Carolina he had a decisive victory with a 14% lead. Taking both elections together his vote count exceeded hers by more than 200,000.

Had it not been for Republican cross-over votes to Clinton by voters who appear to have been following the Limbaugh guidelines in his Operation Chaos strategy--calling upon committed Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary even though they intend to vote for McCain--he would have carried Indiana. This strategy was also operative in Pennsylvania and Texas and Ohio.

I find it interesting that recently one election coverage deemed it a negative for Obama that Clinton appealed to less educated white voters, while he was the candidate of a new elite--educated voters. I still believe that "electability" has been used as a euphemism by those who were embarrassed to say outright, Obama can't win because he's an African-American. I believe that he not only can but will win in the general election.

Since Clinton has morphed into "the populist candidate with balls" I have thought she's became very scary. Her mantra--I'll do anything necessary to win--reminded me uncomfortably of George W. Fast forward to a Clinton presidency and her recent statement about obliterating Iran should it attack Israel with a nuclear weapon.

0
No votes yet

Comments

I don't care what anyone says. On the flip side, there won't be much dirty laundry left for the GOP.......or will there be?

for the front page. Populist candidate with balls? And conspiracy theories about Rush and Republican votes? Forget it, this is no longer a reality based, objective or even somewhat rational community.

I didn't manufacture either of those comments. According to exit polls somewhere between 10 and 11% of those voting in the INdiana primary, admitted to being Republican voters, who said they would be voting for McCain in the general election. Of these somewhere more than 60% said they cast their vote for Hillary. A similar pattern has existed in other recent primaries since and including Ohio.

I believe that the logic of their vote was that prolonging a bitter primary campaign was helpful to the McCain campaign, who see a rift among Democrats as positive. If the spread narrows below 1% in the primary, then this would indeed have swung the vote to Hillary.

Rush Limbaugh has been urging this tactic, which he calls Operation Chaos. I do not think that I have endorsed a conspiracy theory in commenting on this.

James Carvalle is a spokesman for Clinton and appears regularly in panels on CNN in that role. He has said that if Clinton gives one of her "balls" to Obama she will still have two. Others remark on Clinton's "testicular," "High testosterone" campaign.

carol

as you seem to be that the "nomination was clinched". Maybe the pundits are calling it for Obama. We still have WV, KY, OR, SD and MT left to vote. And it seems the contest is still tight enough that these votes will make a difference. Hillary is projected to come out of these back on top in the popular vote.

I still see a brokered convention with superdelegates making the final choice.

-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin

Superdelegates say, we will decide, from the Hill:

Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won’t necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their decision.

Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.

-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin

On Hillary: Clinton dogged by questions of ‘electability’Dec. 4, 2006
NEW YORK - Call it the front-runner’s paradox.
While Hillary Rodham Clinton tops every national poll of likely 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, the New York senator is dogged by questions of “electability” — political code for whether she can win enough swing states to prevail in a general election.

It’s a gauge typically applied to Democrats, as few question the crossover appeal of the GOP front-runner, Arizona Sen. John McCain. And for activists eager to recapture the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, electability remains a crucial yardstick by which Clinton, especially, seems to be measured.

On Obama..article from February 2007
Is Barack Obama Electable? Latest Election PollsThere are a couple of issues that he has to face. The first is that he is an African-American. And the second is that his father was a Muslim despite him being a Christian.

Religion and race are factors that should not matter but the latest polls still show that as high as 30% of America will never vote for a Muslim. There is a smaller group of about 10% that would never vote for an African-American. But reality is probably a bit more than just the 10% because many people are probably embarrassed or shy to say so.

So if you are voting in the Democratic primaries, pay attention on overall electability. Although it is important that you get the best candidate for your party, it is always more important that your nominee becomes the next president.

I'd hate to be a super delegate... This time around the dems cannot afford to blow it...and we can't let them either. We seem to have a good bead on Clinton's team..does anyone think it would be very different from Bill's team? Obama, I know zip about his team. Who's Obama's mouthpiece?

When the campaign began I really was skeptical that America would accept a black president. That was a factor in my thinking about John Edwards. But over time I have come to reevaluate things.

I think there is a generational divide. Those under 35 really are less racist than the older generations, for the obvious reason that they were born after the victories of the civil rights movement. That is one of the reasons why Obama has such a strong showing in this segment of the electorate.

The percentage of black Democrats and the percentage of Christian conservatives in the Republican party is roughly the same. Both of these constituencies play a critical role in their respective parties ability to win in a general election. While it is true that some voters who are queasy about having a black president will perhaps decide for McCain or stay home, it is equally true that a decision to chose Clinton over Obama on the basis of race is sure to have repercussions with black voters.

On the issue of having a Muslim father. Let us suppose that his father was not just a Muslim but involved in some questionable radical Muslim sect, what does that have to do with the son he deserted. He did not take responsibility for Barack Obama who was raised by a single mother and her parents. There is no Muslim gene after all!

Obama writes about his anger at his father and their failure to connect on the few occasions when they met.

Let's weight the opposite side. Intolerance about Muslems as a group goes against the very best that this country stands for--respect for the individual and freedom of religion. Very few Muslems in this country have reprehensible connections to radical sects; as I understand it most have made respectable, middle class lives for themselves just as my parents who were the Jewish children of immigrants did.

When my father went to Columbia University he wanted to be an engineer but his mother convinced him that the reality of anti-semitism meant that he would never get a job. Instead she urged him to become an accountant. He followed her guidance and earned the highest grade in his class which in every other case entailed a job offer from a leading New York accounting firm. You guessed it. No such job was offered to my father.

He and my mother were not religious but they were acutely aware of anti-semitism. When we travelled for example, they were on the look out for No Jews/No Dogs signs. These attitudes changed during and especially after WWII, but I remember them. Well the U.S. has not had a Jewish president.
Catholics were also subject to prejudice and this was a factor that concerned people before JFK was elected.

It is about time I think, that we let the under 35's educate the rest of us, and we take a giant step away from all this divisive prejudice. To my mind the numbers of interracial marriages plus the adoptions across racial lines that are now accepted are a sign that we can beat any "inelectibility" that Obama may have on this score.

I have been thinking that Bill Richardson would make a good runing mate for Obama. Think about it. He is an example of the integration and acceptance of Hispanics in our midst. And he speaks damn good English. I have listened to him during the early part of the campaign and since he endorsed Obama and I am impressed.

A lot will rest with people like you and me I think. We have to weigh in against prejudice where and when we find it. Not by being abrasive and self-righteous (I am addressing that remark to my better self, I don't mean that you are abrasive--quite the contrary) but by understanding that Americans can do better than that.

Just a little example. I freeze inside and feel anger when I see women wearing a Muslem get up, and I have schooled myself to counter that with a warm smile or pleasant manner when the occasion arises. I think that many younger women are wearing the veil etc., because they resent the prejudice against Muslems that they know is out there; or they feel that our culture is over-the-top on espousing libertine, consumerist values, as well as some who really believe that God wants women to be hidden from men's sight.

When I was an adolescent most of my girl friends came from homes like mine where religion was definitely on the back burner. They certainly did not come from homes where Orthodox Jewish practises prevailed. However when it came to marrying and establishing their own homes many decided to become Orthodox and observe Kosher food practises etc. By the way Orthodox Jewish women were also supposed to keep their hair covered (and some shaved their heads and wore wigs as an acceptable compromise.) Many Jewish settlers in Israel are immigrants from the U.S. who embrace a fundamentalst view of the Jewish religion. And as you may know the Jewish morning prayer that a man says includes thanking God that he was not born a woman.

Perhaps I have strayed from mhy point. IMO this election campaign is a good time to look prejudice squarely in the face and say a resounding, NO. I fear and reject the theocratic, implications of fundamentalism whether Christian, Jewish, Muslem or Hindu, and the treatment of women which is part of the package. But I know that we will not be able to bridge the gap while we tolerate ignorant prejudice of the sort that assumes that Barack Obama, a baptised Christian who has attended church for the past 20 years, is a Muslem because his estranged father may have practised the relion.

carol

The bitter irony to all of this, of course, is that Obama has equal rights under the law and Clinton does not.

Are you referring to affirmative action. That presumably has not affected her. It was not in place when she went to college. Women as well as blacks are protected under law against discrimination, although of course not always in practise. What do you have in mind?

carol

Women do not have equal rights under federal law in the United States. The Equal Rights Amendment for women has not been ratified.

And now we have to defend Roe vs Wade. One good thing about the campaign that ALL of the Democratic candidates have come out strongly on the question from the earliest days.

It may become an issue again if McCain goes after Obama's support of the right of a woman to have a late-term abortion.

carol

And it's not even from the Onion. It's from the New York Times.

Pundits Declare the Race Over

by Jim Rutenberg

t is based upon exit polls that asked voters whom they would vote for in the general election in a race between Clinton and McCain, correlated with voters who said that they had voted in the primary for Clinton.

I think that we can all agree that analysing exit poll results provides a tool for evaluating the Indiana vote. I found the whole article which appeared on Raw Story to be of interest. Kerry: Limbaugh's 'tampering' gave Clinton IN victory. The following excerpts come from remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist, and were first reported in the Wall St, Journal

[T]he Obama campaign sent an e-mail to reporters Tuesday night arguing that 7 percent of the Indiana electorate could be attributed to the "Limbaugh effect" -- 41 percent of the 17 percent who said they'd vote for McCain over Clinton but still supported Clinton.

5% of the Clinton primary voters said they did not plan to vote in the general election if the candidate was Clinton.

carol

Interesting article...get ready for change!

nytimes

After 16 years, the Clinton era may be coming to an end, presenting Democrats with a historic but potentially wrenching transition and a challenge to Senator Barack Obama as he seeks to reconcile a deeply divided party.

Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been at the heart of the Democratic Party since Mr. Clinton steered it back to the White House in 1992, with a campaign that combined a moderate appeal with the hard-edged political tactics that had once been the province of Republicans. Mrs. Clinton seemed poised last year to lead Democrats into the general election campaign if not beyond.

And while the relationship between the party establishment and the Clintons has always been uneasy at best, an entire generation of Democrats has known no other figures as dominant as the two of them.
-snip -
“There is going to be a new set of people running the show,” said Simon Rosenberg, the executive director of the New Democratic Network, a political action organization not affiliated with any candidates. “The Clintons and their allies have been running the show for 16 years. You’re going to see a new generation of political leaders coming to the fore. It’s going to create an upheaval.”