After big win in Oregon, Obama ‘within reach’ of Democratic nomination

For a change, the conventional wisdom and the expectations of the political world were pretty much spot-on yesterday. Hillary Clinton cruised to an easy victory, as expected, in Kentucky, winning by a landslide margin of more than 35 points. Barack Obama also saw smooth sailing in Oregon, winning by about 16 points. None of this was expected to fundamentally change the contest in any way, and none of it will.

The results in Kentucky were, like West Virginia a week earlier, somewhat disconcerting, at least with regards to racial attitudes: “Of the 21 percent of Kentucky voters who said that race was a factor in their decision, about 90% chose Hillary Clinton. In other words, more than 50,000 Kentucky Democrats are willing to admit that the pigment of Obama’s skin was a reason they decided not to vote for him.” We know that these numbers are often skewed downwards because of voter embarrassment, suggesting as Sullivan argued, that there is “a core of less educated white voters in the Appalachias will do anything to stop a black man being president of the United States.” No matter what your political stripe, this is not at all encouraging.

But the big news of the night wasn’t the vote count, but the passed milestone — with the results from Oregon and Kentucky, Obama secured a majority of the available pledged delegates. The campaign, not surprisingly, saw this as a major development worthy of celebration, and hosted a major event in Iowa last night. The occasion marked the semi-official beginning of the general election.

Under the rules used by Democrats, the split decision was enough for Mr. Obama to secure a majority of the delegates up for grabs in primaries and caucuses. His campaign has portrayed success in winning those pledged delegates as the most important yardstick for judging the will of Democratic voters, and has encouraged superdelegates — elected officials and party leaders who have an automatic vote at the convention — to fall in line accordingly.

“We have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said in an address on Tuesday night, standing in front of a moonlit Capitol in Des Moines.

Even as Mr. Obama moved closer to making history as the first black presidential nominee, he stopped short of declaring victory in the Democratic race, part of a carefully calibrated effort in the remaining weeks of the contest to avoid appearing disrespectful to Mrs. Clinton and alienating her supporters. Instead, he offered lavish praise for his rival over 16 months.

“Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and your daughters will come of age, and for that we are grateful to her,” Mr. Obama said.

Obama stopped short of declaring victory — but just barely.

The Obama campaign is in a slightly awkward spot. If they continue to pretend the Democratic nomination fight is still underway, they lose valuable time and resources they need to take on John McCain. But if they’re perceived as slighting the Clinton campaign in any way, it might generate intra-party resentment.

So, Obama is threading the needle. While waiting for Clinton to step aside, Obama praises Clinton’s work and career. He’s not claiming victory, he’s just moving on, letting his insurmountable lead in the Democratic speak for itself.

McCain and the Republicans, meanwhile, have become Obama’s central and sole focus. While Clinton’s speech in Kentucky offered her rationale for continuing a primary campaign, Obama’s speech in Iowa offered his recipe for winning the general election. The two Democratic candidates simply no longer appear to be in the same place.

…Obama’s speech was, without a doubt, a general election speech. “The same question that first led us to Iowa fifteen months ago is the one that has brought us back here tonight; it is the one we will debate from Washington to Florida, from New Hampshire to New Mexico,” he said, ticking off no less than four potential swing states. ”The question of whether this country, at this moment, will keep doing what we’ve been doing for four more years, or whether we will take that different path. It is more of the same versus change. It is the past versus the future.”

Obama went on to reclaim the word that slowly disappeared from the landscape in recent months. See if you pick up on the subtlety:

“I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don’t represent is change.

“Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners; a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas. That’s what change is.

“Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants; that brings down premiums for every family who needs it; that stops insurance companies from discriminating and denying coverage to those who need it most.

“Change is an energy policy that doesn’t rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil – an energy policy that puts a price on pollution and makes the oil companies invest their record profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet. That’s what change is.

“Change is giving every child a world-class education by recruiting an army of new teachers with better pay and more support; by promising four years of tuition to any American willing to serve their community and their country; by realizing that the best education starts with parents who turn off the TV, and take away the video games, and read to our children once in awhile.

“Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth.

That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That is what change is. That is the choice in this election.”

And so it begins.

Hillary Removes Bill Clinton as First Husband

By Greg Palast [New York, Wednesday 20 May 2008]

In a surprise move meant to reinvigorate her faltering campaign, Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton dismissed William Clinton as First Husband designate.

Those close to the candidate, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Clinton, also known as “Bill,” had, with press revelations of his business associations with the repressive Colombian regime, plus a long history of support for anti-union causes such as NAFTA, had become a “real drag” on Senator Clinton’s ambitions.

While disappointing returns from Kentucky primary polls flashed on campaign monitors, the Senator’s spokesman issued a tersely worded statement announcing the resignation of the ex-President and thanking Mr. Clinton for “his years of service in support of Hillary’s career and her goals for America” and that the candidate would, “miss his presence greatly.”

Mr. Clinton will retain the title of Former Chief of the Free World.

  • The catastrophic failures of bush will lead Obama to be the 21st Century Roosevelt.!

  • The catastrophic failures of Hoover/bush will lead Obama to be the 21st Century Roosevelt.!

  • And Change is what Obama has undergone over the course of this campaign. And that’s a good thing.

    I have to admit, I was not as enamored with him initially. I often saw in him the same “Who, Me?” scared little boy eyes that we see so often in Bush.

    But over the course of this protracted campaign, he has really grown, gained confidence, refined, and made deeper, his strong but initially somewhat hollow speaking style. Perhaps the long Democratic road against such an aggressive opponent will prove to be beneficial against the Right.

    Initially, my response to his hype was ” I hope he’s got more that hope”

    And now, he does.

  • The mainstream media and the repugs know that shillary gives the criminal cabal behind dur chimpfurher the best opportunity to get a “third term” via mclame. Not that he can win – they can steal the election just like in 2000 & 2004.

    Here’s how it works:

    1. If shillary is nominee– they can dredge up all the slime from the 1990s and more because they have a “green light” to attack her more directly (and bill, remember the right-wing noise machine & echo chamber?)

    2. If Obama is the nominee – they can plant the memes and framing that will be used to justify another stolen election. And shillary has proven she is more than willing to help them out and now actively has the support of kkkarl rove (mclame advisor) and rush (head of the rightwing noise machine – made an honorary repug member of congress in 1990’s)

    That is why enough is enough – Obama doesn’t need the racist white vote to win in Novemeber

    We have a historic opportunity to win White House without voters that don’t support progressive/liberal/democratic ideals.

    Because over 80% of America want change – mclame (bush 3) cannot win an honest election. For the first time in American history, the POTUS does not have to be decided by the most ignorant, bigoted, and racists voters.

    LET’S SIEZE THE MOMENT!

  • “That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That is what change is. That is the choice in this election.” — Barack Obama

    This looks like it will be a changing moment in history. Democrats have a presidential candidate who who speaks forcefully and proudly, instead of timidly and apologetically. They have a candidate who says what he believes, not what pollsters and focus groups tell him the country wants to hear.

    We have a chance to change America by destroying the myths created by the corporate controlled media — that Democrats are weak on national security, that the only “family values” are those set down by conservative, Protestant Christian churches, that supply-side economics works, and that intelligent, educated people are somehow less entitled to a role in shaping the future of America.

    But don’t think for a minute it won’t be an ugly campaign. The entrenched interests — those living in wealth and privilege, the multinational corporations, the millionaire religious leaders, and their water carriers in the Republican party — won’t give up easily. The Republican smear machine will be working overtime spewing out lies and distortions intended to divide Americans by class, by religion and by race. The “journalists” in the corporate-controlled media will faithfully parrot the Republican lies in order to retain their jobs and influence and to keep their bosses — Viacom, Disney, General Electric and Murdoch Corp. happy.

    But I’m hopeful, for the first time in many years.

  • “See if you pick up on the subtlety:”

    I missed it. I didn’t see any subtlety at all.

    Change from the Clinton years? Not such a big deal.

    Change from eight years of Bush? Huge. Eighty percent of Americans want change from that. After they have time to think about it, they might even accept that change when it is offered by an African-American.

  • Can some of those hardworking West Virginia and Kentucky voters talk to Vice-President Cheney and ask him to lower the price of gas? These escalating gas prices are beginning to have severe negative effect on our community with regard to food cost and other transportation-related necessities. Since Vice-President Cheney is in charge of this administration and its energy policy, the hardworking West Virginia and Kentucky voters could request a lowering of the price of gas. Our community will be unable to remain economically viable should the cost of fuel remain at existing prices or continue to increase at the current rate.

  • Easily Obama’s best line of the night:

    “The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything from our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy, too. And so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history.”

    Fear of diplomacy…. nice frame.

  • Rearranging the Carpetbagger:

    So, Obama is threading the needle … if [Obama is] perceived as slighting the Clinton campaign in any way, it might generate intra-party resentment.

    He has been threading this needle for 18 months!

    He has gone out of his way not to throw the Queen’s slander back in her face. The Queen on the other hand… has been willfully underhanded, and willing to lie like a steroid Republican.

    This has made many question Barack’s native toughness.
    But, as we’ve seen of late, Barack doesn’t take this kind of slander from republicans.
    Not one bit. Which is very good news indeed…

    The bad news: We’ve entered the “Honor Thy Queen” endgame phase:

    All praise Hillary. All praise Bill. All praise Chelsea’s hair.
    They’ve all done so much for us ordinary Americans…
    We owe them a living. We owe them the shirts off our back.
    We’d be shit if it wasn’t for the Clintons.

    What I want to know:
    How many weeks do you think we will have to suffer this BS?

  • k-man said:
    Can some of those hardworking West Virginia and Kentucky voters talk to Vice-President Cheney and ask him to lower the price of gas? These escalating gas prices are beginning to have severe negative effect on our community with regard to food cost and other transportation-related necessities.

    If the voters of West Virginia and Kentucky deserved to be exempt from the ‘negative effects’ of life, they would have been born wealthy like all my friends. Since they can’t afford to contribute money to the Republican Party, and since they’ll vote for that senile idiot McCain rather than vote for a darkie negro elitist, liberal Democrat, they’ll get nothing from me.

    So go fuck yourself!

  • Subtlety?

    The subtlety of grabbing that two-faced, flip-flopping, lying-through-his-false-teeth, decrepit ex-aviating weasel by the scruff of his mangy, lobbyist-infested, made-in-Bushylvania neck—and throwing him under an aircraft carrier—with just one speech?

    THAT subtlety?

    If that is “subtlety,” then I think we’re going to really enjoy it when things get “blunt.”

    Obama doesn’t merely put Dems on “good ground” for the coming battle—he puts them on very good ground….

  • Cubbie: I have been — and may continue to be — one of your bigger detractors here, but that first post was brilliant, both hilarious and one that makes your point without your usual egotism, nastiness, and repetition. If this had been typical of your remarks — unlike your later one — you would have been welcomed here, and the points you have made would have had more atttention paid to them.

    But credit as credit’s due — the fake press release gave me a delightful laugh to start the day.

  • I haven’t been here as long as most of you others, but I’ve always been a Little Bear fan. He’s brash, but he speaks the truth as he sees it, and, more importanty to me, largely as I see it. Brash + Truth nearly always equals Lots and Lots of Offended Folks throwing their skirts over their heads and shrieking for a plumber’s helper, but I find myself enjoying it more and more as I get older and older.

  • Many times during the campaign, when Obama has been on the receiving end of cr*p from both McSame and Hillary, I’ve had some doubts in his ability to counter. But every time he comes out not just OK, but stronger. And the reason is that he speaks truth to pwer. A politician who tells it like it is. How refreshing. And brilliant. After the lies of the past 7-1/2 years, people are more than ready for it.

    You can see the Oregon results here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OR

    (You can get the results for each county if you hover your mouse over each.) What’s interesting to me is the support Obama got east of the Cacades, the more conservative part of the state. The Cascades run north/south on the western edge of Hood River County (it is “under” the “m” in Gresham) south through Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath counties. So those counties and the ones east of there are what I’m referring to. The Clinton counties east of the Cascades are the more lightly populated (the 3 giant counties in the SE had a total of just over 3000 votes).

    The three counties in the SW part of the state are also more conservative, and Obama won them too, though by a smaller margin. I have no idea why Grant county has not yet reported but there aren’t many folks out that way so it won’t affect the outcome significantly.

    With Hillary’s win by 250K in Kentucky and Obama’s current 95K lead in Oregon, Hillary has a net gain of 155K votes… since she’s using that metric.

    And Ron Paul got 15% of the vote from Republicans. Take that, McCain!

  • As for the question of ‘change’ I have been consistently optimistic over the chances of any Democrat this year, but the more I listen to Obama, the more I see an authentic ‘phase shift.’ I use that term — I was tempted to use ‘paradigm shift’ but if literal that’s too strong, if figurative it is too cliched — for a particular type of change in American politics, where a previously ‘open question’ where ‘respectable men can differ’ changes to a settled one, where defenders of the ‘old ideas’ have gone from respectable to reactionary. We’ve had six of them — one slightly aborted — in our history:
    1798-1802: When Jefferson demonstrated what this new ‘Democratic Republic” actually was — Adams had had no clue — and that it would survive instead of being merely a ‘monarchy in waiting’ for some American royalty or Napoleon to take over.

    1824-1830: When Jackson made the ‘Democratic” part paramount, so that even the Whig party (not the ‘wig party’ as someone described it) had to make themselves play by Jackson’s rules — even if it meant appealing to ‘low-information voters.’ (They did it exceptionally well. The Harrison “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign outdid the Bush campaigns by orders of magnitude for lies, lack of issues, and irrelevancy. But they had to play by the new rules — and no one would go back.)

    1858-1864: The shift on slavery — and secession. It was still possible, in 1858, to argue that ‘the peculiar institution’ might need to be protected, that there were things to be said in its favor, that slaveowners could be Supreme Court justices. By 1864, while there might still be attempts (through the ‘black codes’) to restore the functional equivalent of slavery, no one could argue for its actual return and be considered ‘respectable.’

    1898-1904: The first ‘Roosevelt Revolution’ which was more substantial than is remembered. Before then, the only ‘acceptable’ form of Governmental ‘Interference in Business” was for the government to protect and help businesses — the idea that business ever really wanted or would accept a strict ‘laissez-faire’ system is nonsense. For states and the federal government to regulate businesses for the protection of workers or society as a whole was ‘radical’ in the 1890s. By the time of TRs second term it was the accepted idea, and ‘laissez-faire’ claims were — if not unthinkable — the less accepted part of the argument.

    1927-1934: The second ‘Roosevelt Revolution.’ We forget exactly how strongly the Coolidge Era Republicans worked to change things back or stop progress. The ideas of Social Security, of unions as even legal, of minimum wages and 40-hour weeks and unemployment compensation were unthinkable in America except by the Progressives — interestingly enough, who were mostly Republicans from the Middle West. By the middle of 1934 they were seen as certainties — even if the details weren’t in place — that would never be seriously challenged.

    1957-1964: Not as clear cut in some areas, because Eisenhower — the only decent Republican President since TR — accepted much of the Roosevelt changes — and, more importantly, because the changes ‘in the air’ were throttled by VietNam (the ‘liberal’s war’ that got all sides dismissing liberalism). But in one area the change was complete and irreversible, like the change of a hundred years previously. It was no longer ‘acceptable’ to argue that there was any merit in segregation, in ‘state’s rights’ — as the term was used then — or in restricting the vote to whites.’

    And, as I have obviously been building to — I see a similar change coming in Obama’s Presidential terms. The details aren’t clear, of course — but who could have predicted what Lincoln, FDR — who, while campaigning challenged the Republicans because they had produced an unbalanced budget — or the JFK-LBJ teams would do during their campaigns.

    (Experience? A one-term Congressman, a two-year Governor who’d held some minor sub-Cabinet posts, and a ‘young, naive, and possibly McCarthyite Senator joined with a slimy, egotistical, power-using Southern Senator.’ Boy wouldn’t they have been targets for the barbs of their opponents — and they were, frequently from people who were adamant for the changes they would, in fact, bring about. The Sewardites dismissed Lincoln as a fool, the Stevensonians fought against the Kennedys, etc.)

    But the changes will happen. The vague outlines are there — an end to the divisiveness that sets up battles between blacks and whites, straights and gays, even men and women. The end of the religious irrelevancies poisoning our politics. The shift back to a more people-centered politics against one that needed corporate support — only this time the Internet has meant this does not have to depend on ‘low-information voters.’

    This is why never take my ‘confidence’ as a suggestion we can or should slow down and coast. Yes, Obama will win, easily. But there are 435 Representatives up for election, and there isn’t a Republican seat that is ‘safe.’ There aren’t many safe Senatorial seats for the Republicans — some are gone already (Sununu and the open Virginia seat) and others that seemed sure (Stevens) seem to be at worst toss-ups. While we only have Landrieaux (sp?) at risk.

    We can make true change happen — and we will.

  • Jim Benton – nice to see that GMTA is true.

    After watching that great American Experience biography of FDR last week, I was thinking how the three most unlikely Presidents (when compared to the others) are also the three Greatest Presidents – Washington (hey, they had to go create a country for him to embody), Lincoln for the reasons you pointed out, and FDR for the reasons you pointed out. And now we have a fourth candidate who would be considered “unlikely” as short a time as a month ago, who is going to move from likely to more likely over the next five months. I really do think we are seeing a “phase shift” as you put it that hasn’t been seen since FDR.

    As I tell friends, we’re finally ready to win the election of 1968. All the issues that were there then are still here, and worse for having been denied and ignored, and all the forces that were there that could have solved them, are here now with the experience and strength to prevail this time.

  • It really is crazy how the news people think that they can twist us into voting for Obama when we will not. We are watching the Florida and Michigan mess, this is not the fault of the people and if they remain punished it will be a terrible disappointment when they lose this election because they decided Obama was it. If Obama thought clearly he could win of his own merit, he would let the revote happen. I will vote for McCain if he is the nominee and we will have a Republican in the White House because there are thousands and thousands just like me that will not listen after this is over and I was a true democrat for thirty years. Guess independance is the way to go. And even after all of the statistics show that almost all of Clinton’s supporters will not change their minds the news media believes they can convince everyone to vote for Obama…Fat Chance for me and a lot of others…..you are going to learn the hard way.

  • I truly hope not one Repbulican wins reelection and every seat goes to a Democrat. That way when the country crumbles from within from their idiotic policies, I can finally say “I told you so”. But by then it will be against the law to say anything negative about a Democrat while all the Republicans will be sent to prison for saying anything against the Democratic party. Sound familiar? It should, that’s how dictatorships and one-party rule get started. So enjoy your win during this upcoming election while you can Democrats because in the scheme of life, it won’t last very long.

  • That way when the country crumbles from within from their idiotic policies, I can finally say “I told you so”.

    So, Bruce, why do you hate America?

  • I like Bruce’s idea. I hope he’s right. Dems *should* win everything and then outlaw the republic party. After all, between trashing the Constitution, letting New Orleans drown, lying us into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, committing treason by outing a covert CIA agent, and so on and so on and so on, the republic party has become nothing but another anti-American terrorist organization.

    And the republics have given us a very straight-forward method of dealing with terrorist organizations, after all.

  • Watching the raise of Obama has been one of the most frightening events of my adult life. This must be what it was like to watch the raise of Hitler in pre World War II Germany. A stage show politician with a serious chip on his shoulder raising to power while feeding the blind grasping masses with empty promises. America wake-up! Obama is Malcom X in sheeps clothing – he has a hidden agenda that occasionally reveals itself. In this case Obama hates America and everything it stands for because he suffers from the syndrome of a bitter black politician with a serious chip on his shoulder. The blind hopeless masses keep looking away from that in hopes for some pie in the sky unrealistic “change.” Just like the change Hitler promised – Obama’s agenda for change will only fully reveal itself if he takes control of the country. Everything Obama has proposed including his approach to interactions with Cuba and Iran are tainted by his dislike for America. In the end it will only severely weaken America.

  • * Something to look out for: “John McCain’s campaign is using their campaign website to encourage supporters to post supportive comments on political blogs, including the most well-known liberal site in the blogosphere. And to make things easier, they’re including talking points with which sympathizers can use to get out the McCain message….”
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15620.html#more-15620

    Re: Bruce – #20 and Dane – #23

    Theeey’re heeeere!

  • In reply to Dane.

    Get a history book and come back when you can speak with intelligence. Only a silly child would compare Sen. Obama to a Hitler type.

  • Comments are closed.