OBAMA WINS!!!

UPDATE:
As of 3:30 PM PST, only 11 delegates needed.

As of 2:20 PM PST, Obama has enough superdelegates to win. It is widely expected that Obama will easily capture 15 delegates in the two remaining primaries tonight, possibly 16 or 17. He has the promise of being endorsed by superdelegate Jimmy Carter after the polls close, and the elected leaders of Montana have declared they will support the winner of tonight's primary. Which means...

Barack Obama is the winner of the 2008 Democratic primary!

Unfortunately, though, the fat lady hasn't sung, and no bells have rung "ding dong, the witch is ..."

Will she bow out? NO!

NOPE. I called it.

I can see Obama making the argument that the best way to unite the country is to start by uniting the party, but that would be obvious and shallow. Putting Clinton on the ticket might create an image of unity, but there are too many voters who simply will not show up to vote if she is on the ticket, this one included.

If Obama caved in and added her to the ticket, how can he be perceived as someone who wouldn't cave to our enemies? If he can't stand up to Hillary, then who can he stand up to? He has painted her as the candidate of old politics, and he can't be the candidate of new politics if she's on the ticket. She brings nothing that plenty of other Democrats can't bring, and most likely without that notorious baggage. How would that be turning the page?

No, putting Clinton on the ticket is an endorsement of her nasty and repugnant style of politics that this country doesn't need. I'd be willing to wager that the thousands of Clintonuts who are voting with their vajayjays instead of their consciences can be let go and made up elsewhere. I'm also betting that any Dem behind Clinton on the ticket is probably just covering his or her ass in order to avoid a nasty 3am phone call from an angry red-faced Bill.

Predictions

I've said all along that the only thing the polls have been consistent about is being wrong. That said, Pablano has been pretty good with his predictions, calling IN and NC near perfectly when everyone else was WAY off, especially the big pollsters. But Pablano was way off in KY and OR.

While Kos got close in OR and KY, he seems out on a ledge with MT and SD. This time around, my guess is the Al Giordano is right on the money in both states.

Al Giordano:

Montana:
Obama: 58
Clinton: 42

South Dakota:
Obama: 53
Clinton: 47

More predictions here.

Senator Byrd endorses Obama

It would seem to me that in the way it really matters, Obama got the bigger win out of WV.

Clinton's big win in WV?

Those looking to make a big deal out of Clinton's 67% to 26% (41%) win in WV should consider that it is not nearly as big as his 74% to 26% (48%) win in KS.

To put this in sharper relief, consider his other biggest wins against her:

AK - Obama +50%
CO - Obama +35%
DC - Obama +52%
GA - Obama +36%
HI - Obama +52%
ID - Obama +62%
MN - Obama +34%
NE - Obama +36%
WA - Obama +37%
Dems Abroad - Obama +33.3%

Obama got 67% or more in AK, CO, DC, GA, HI, ID, KS, NE, and WA.

The best part is that tonight, Clinton actually underperformed expectations set by polling, and even by their own metrics.

Really, this should be embarrassing to have one of the biggest names in politics and to consistently perform so badly overall against a relative no-name.

Clinton's math problem

Well, it should be obvious to just about anyone, including those uneducated hard working, white Americans. Clinton has already lost.

Delegates:

Magic number - 2,025

Obama - 1883.5 to date, 141.5 needed to win
Clinton - 1716 to date, 306 needed to win

Total remaining delegates: 430.5

So, do the math. It's not that hard.

But for those who are mathematically challenged, click here.

"I love this country too much..."

"...to see it divided and distracted at this critical moment in history.

"I believe in our ability to perfect this nation, because it's the only reason I am standing here today. I know the promise of America because I've lived it!"



Barack's words - and deeds - are infinitely more patriotic than any flag pin.

Indianans Are Worthless White N*****rs?

UPDATE:

The folks at FirstRead have been doing their homework, and it appears that this video may have been doctored. While I can't say I'm surprised, I still stand by my assertion that it is believable, as are the points I noted that inform my opinions on the Clintons and their positions on the side of whatever gets them votes. That said, I don't condone this type of dishonest attack on anyone. It's quite shameful.

Earlier:

Making its way around the tubes this morning is this video that just surfaced from the '92 Clinton campaign.

From HuffPo:

A former aide to President Bill Clinton, and current informal adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton, expressed outrage and shock on Friday after a videotape from 1992 surfaced apparently showing him describing Indianans as "white n---rs."

Mickey Kantor, who served as campaign chairman during Clinton's 1992 run for the White House and says he has offered help and advice to Sen. Clinton, insisted that the tape was a fraud and that he was exploring legal steps against the individual who posted it online.

"I've never used that word in my entire life, ever, under any circumstance, ever," an angry Kantor told The Huffington Post, citing his and his parent's work fighting for civil rights. "I have listened to [the video] and so have you. You can't tell what it is I'm saying in that second sentence, you can't decipher that."

The video, which spread through the Internet like wildfire on Friday morning, shows Kantor with fellow former Bill Clinton staffers James Carville and George Stephanopoulos discussing results from the general election. In the footage, which is excerpted from the 1993 film The War Room, Kantor approaches the two aides and appears to say, "Look at Indiana -- wait, wait, look at Indiana. 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win, those people are shit. ... How would you like to be a worthless white n****r?"

Hiring "the best" libel lawyers? Sounds like Mickey's being a bit defensive. Folks don't usually get defensive unless they're insecure, guilty, or both.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least. With the Clintons, they are only on your side if it is politically expedient. That explains why Bill has been mocking, dissing, and brushing off blacks in this election, and why Hillary is sidling up with the vast right-wing conspiracy, and pandering to the lower income/lesser educated rural folks. I tend to believe this video is accurate because it fits the Clintonian model. Just remember how much Hillary pandered to the folks in Iowa and Mississippi, and South Carolina, and other states, only to completely dismiss them as being unimportant after she lost those races. Should anyone be surprised that she ("Rich people --- God bless us..." as quoted to Bill O'Reilly) considers everyone inferior, and that in all her benevolence, she is here to save them from angry black men? Would it be surprising that key figures in her campaign are the same as her? Like minds attract like, they say. Consider Carville turning on Richardson, now that Richardson is no longer politically useful. Consider Bill Clinton disrespecting black voters, now that they are no longer supporting Hillary. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the Clintons are nothing more than opportunistic panderers.

Lets see if the MSM will be all over this like they were with Wright. I'm not going to hold my breath though, as I am addicted to oxygen.

Whe-e-e-r-r-re's Johnny?

UPDATE 2:
Okay, I'm not being fair to Edwards, or his wife. I'm frustrated with this campaign, with the media, and all the bullshit nonsense that they focus on instead of the fact that April was the deadliest month in Iraq since last September, and that oil companies are raping our asses without even bothering to spare a little Vaseline, but McCan't and Hillrod want to take 10 billion dollars out of our treasury that will cost the jobs of lots of construction workers and further erode our already crumbling infrastructure and telling voters they'll save some money on gas when they really won't because the oil companies aren't going to lower gas prices to compensate for the measly 18 cents difference which is less than the gas price increase in the last few months which means they'll pocket that difference.

We've got some very serious fucking problems in this country and we're running out of time to start fixing them, and the media wants to play politics with race because god forbid a black politician knows a scary black man that has all us whiteys scared shitless that the blacks are going to take over.

It should come as no surprise that the MSM would eventually devolve into a parody of itself, right down there alongside the National Enquirer and similar rags. Hell, those tabloids are profitable, which is more than can be said about the dying newspaper industry. As for cable "news" shows, with regard to MSNBCs and CNNs ratings war with Fox, it seems they learned the same lessons that Hillrod has learned about Republiscums. In order to beat your enemy, you have to become your enemy.

Circling the drain, babies. Circling the drain.

Sorry Sen. Edwards, and Mrs. Edwards. I let my emotions get the better of me. Again.

UPDATE:
Lets see if Johnny is a pussy and decides to vote with his wife's genitalia.

Earlier:
I used to respect John Edwards, because as much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, I understand the need for and the value of trial lawyers, in spite of their gross profits. But in this election he has borne himself out to be a charlatan and a moral coward.

Edwards talks a good game, like most lawyers do, but he's been a vulture leering over the fight between a vicious hyena and a hungry lion, waiting to feast on whatever remains when the fight is over.

At this point, I see him as a coward. Edwards has had the chance many times to have an effect on this nominating cycle, and he has passed each of them by, as he will again this time. Edwards is as calculating as Clinton is, and he is too scared to throw his weight behind either candidate for fear of ending up on the wrong side and having nothing to show for two failed runs at the presidency. Of course, that is if you count $400 haircuts and a few million dollars as nothing.

Johnny has one last chance to prove relevancy before history passes him by. Any takers for a bet that he doesn't have the balls that his mill-worker daddy had? I'd love to be proven wrong.

Losing by Winning

As I posted earlier, she cannot win. She did not reach the 12 point threshold she needed to keep her candidacy viable. She might have won the primary in PA, but she lost the primary. As Robert Creamer writes:

The Pennsylvania Primary was Hillary Clinton's last chance to deliver a game changing blow to Obama's campaign for the nomination. She failed to deliver.

Pennsylvania provided her with her final real opportunity to knock the wheels off the Obama campaign. She needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural -- Hillary's voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin -- which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2% -- fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination.

...

All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities for her own campaign to be shut down. If she loses Indiana and North Carolina it will be extremely hard for her to continue. But there is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.

Clinton's may have won last night, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama's march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton's Waterloo.

Read Robert's full post.

Dylan Loewe has this to say:

Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory against Barack Obama in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary. But underlying the numbers, there is a new kind of inevitability on the horizon. Certainly her campaign will use the night's victory to propel the race forward into Indiana and North Carolina, hoping against hope that few noticed what actually transpired. But with her luck running as perilously low as her campaign war chest, it would seem improbable that the media would provide her cover yet again.

After tonight, despite an apparent ten point victory in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton is no longer electable in a general election.

All there is for Obama supporters to do now is to ignore the Main Stream Media as is struggles, stumbles, and falls all over itself, and then climbs up its own collective ass to spin some sort of blathering bullshit that serves no other purpose than to creative some sort of false and useless narrative about this campaign in order to sell more advertising to be shoved down the throats of all those who are unfortunate enough to not see past their true intent.

Actually, one more thing Obama supporters can do is to support the Obama campaign. Donate a few dollars to the campaign, or make some phone calls to North Carolina or Indiana, or send nice emails to the precinct captains and volunteers in those states (here, here).

What Edwards has been waiting for?

Could it be that John Edwards has been waiting to endorse a candidate right before the North Carolina primary? Lets hope Barack has recently bought some Kawasaki jet skis.



UPDATE:

I used to respect John Edwards, because as much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, I understand the need for and the value of trial lawyers, in spite of their gross profits. But in this election he has borne himself out to be a charlatan and a moral coward.

Edwards talks a good game, like most lawyers do, but he's been a vulture leering over the fight between a vicious hyena and a hungry lion, waiting to feast on whatever remains when the fight is over.

He is a coward. Edwards has had the chance many times to have an effect on this nominating cycle, and he has passed each of them by, as he will again this time. Edwards is as calculating as Clinton is, and he is too scared to throw his weight behind either candidate for fear of ending up on the wrong side and having nothing to show for two failed runs at the presidency. Of course, that is if you count $400 haircuts and a few million dollars as nothing.

Johnny has one last chance to prove relevancy before history passes him by. Any takers for a bet that he doesn't have the balls that his mill-worker daddy had?

Ignore the spin...

...she can't win.

Without a minimum of a 12 point win today, her campaign is doomed. Whatever win she manages to pull out today, her gains will be erased two weeks from now in North Carolina, and very possibly in Indiana.

Oh yeah, she wants to nuke Iran.

The truth is never negative, it is only the truth

Obama has been pretty good so far about keeping his attacks as defensive maneuvers, but he could be better. He's done well at responding to Clinton's attacks, and has kept his "negative blows" to those that parry her attacks. But as every trained fighter knows, you can't always just play defense, and being aggressive is not the same as being negative. As long as Obama speaks truth to Hillary's so-called power, he's in the clear. A strong and successful fighting strategy is to meet every blow with two of your own. If someone punches you, you punch back twice. If they kick you hard, you kick back harder, twice.

Obama has been gentlemanly so far, but the time has long past for this to stop. To win, he doesn't need to praise her campaign, or show admiration for her tenacity, or anything else. She has squandered her right to any respect for her campaign tactics beyond all but those who admire Karl Rove. Obama should not reward her campaign with praise, he should constantly call it out for what it is, but instead should do his best to connect it to the Siegelman case in Alabama, which could prove to be the nail in Rove's coffin, and by extension Clinton's. It will brim as an example of the death of old-school politics.

Any doubters should know that the truth is never negative, it is only the truth.

Better (in the) red than dead

This has to be Hillary's line of thought. But given how far in debt her campaign is, she may have to loan herself another few million to make a dent in Indiana, because she's certainly not raising much cash elsewhere.

March monthly reports filed Sunday night with the Federal Election Commission show Clinton with a $10.3 million debt load – and only $9.3 million cash-on-hand for with 10 contests to go.

Obama reported having $42 million for the primary and minimal debt.

About half of Clinton's debt -- $4.6 million -- is owed to Penn's polling firm. The campaign has already shelled out $14 million to Penn, Schoen & Berland.

If she can't run a decent campaign, how can she run the country?

Quote of the Day

"...I think it is becoming a national imperative to defeat the Clintons." - Andrew Sullivan

Horton Hears a Who Cares?!

Ha ha.

Lets see just how super the super-delegates are

Clinton cannot win without stealing the election with super-delegate help. Period We know this, and she knows this. She doesn't seem to care, and in her own words considers this the "fun part" of the campaign. She's relishing in splitting the Democratic party, and I would even go so far as to say that I believe the "strike" of Hillary supporters at Kos is part of their "play the victim" tactic, and may in fact be a coordinated effort with the Clinton campaign.

This does not have to go on. The super-delegates can prove how super they are by showing some heroism and coming out to support Obama now. They could even pressure Clinton to bow out right now.

As much as I despise Clinton's tactics - and her politics - I would settle for her on the ticket if she were the veep, but only if she agreed to that in the next few weeks. Obama could get rid of Bill by making him a Supreme Court justice (and wouldn't that be glorious!).

I just got an email from the DNC asking for a donation to help lay the foundation for the nominees run against McCain. I wrote back and told them I won't give up a dime to the DNC until I can be assured that Clinton won't steal this election. I cannot, and I will not support the party if that is allowed to happen.

The turning tides

A friend and reader shared this with me tonight:

I went to my county caucus yesterday. They don't expect final results to be tabulated for at least a few days. So many people want a spot at state and congressional caucuses, and I say let them... I also found it interesting listening in on the Clinton supporters in my house district - maybe I'm biased, but most of them did NOT have good reasons for their support. A whole lot of "let's get a woman in the White House" gibberish when our side had no racial arguments at all - it was genuinely about what he supports. I can be proud of that. I can also sleep easy tonight knowing that 390 people from my house district - my NEIGHBORS - are democrats. Huh!!! Considering how are elections go around here, who would've thunk??? so I think the key lesson here is making sure Dems get out to vote and vote for the right people this time around. We're in the retired (THANK GOD) Tom Tancredo district, but on the edge, so it is hard to overthrow the republican support in that CD. But we also have our state house and senate districts to think about and as far as I'm concerned, no more excuses, people! let's get it done.

Some really great points here. The part about Clinton supporters not having any real reason for supporting her other than the fact that she's a woman is something I've heard more than anything in my contact with Hillary supporters. I have to believe that, mostly because no other argument is valid. It can't be experience, because all the candidates with experience aren't in the race anymore. She certainly doesn't have any credible experience, as we continue to discover as her claims are being vetted (no, she has NOT been vetted as she claims, but she will be before this is done). I'd say the Clinton supporters going on strike at Daily Kos is a wonderful thing. I imagine they got tired of losing arguments against a Hillary presidency.

As for red seats turning blue, we're seeing more and more of that lately, and hopefully we'll see a whole lot more.

The AP's bias toward Clinton has been exposed

Regarding the writing by Mike Glover, with attention to other articles recently released by the AP, I have noticed a clear bias favoring Senator Clinton over Senator Obama. I'll admit that their writers are trying to be clever with how they use certain devices to get in subtle digs and stabs, but this type of shameful behavior must stop.

I call your attention to this recent article by Mr. Glover:

Obama expands delegate lead over Clinton
Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday

Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57.

Firstly, the AP seems to be the only news outlet that consistently refers to Mr. Obama's lead as fragile, whereas every other media outlet calls it like it is, and that is "nearly insurmountable." But I'll let that one slide. However, with Mr. Glover's adoption of a Clinton-created term - automatic delegates instead of superdelegates - Mr. Glover blew his cover. The AP bias towards Clinton has now been exposed.

Fortunately, other important and relevant folks are picking up on this also:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183723.php

Don't think we're not paying attention.