Friday, March 21, 2008

Gov. Richardson endorses Obama

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com


Obama picked up a potentially big endorsement overnight from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico:

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP.

"As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Although, as Chris Bowers notes:
Seems like a big story, but at this point the real question is whether Richardson brings any superdelegates with him. Right now, there isn't much voting left, and at least six former Richardson supers are now with Clinton (all from New Mexico).
In New Mexico, it's Clinton 6, Obama 2, Undecided 3.

We should also note, that while it's gone back and forth this week, Obama has taken the lead in the delegate tracker in the left sidebar that assumes the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated as is, without Obama getting any of the Michigan uncommitted votes. We understand that this is a scenario that is probably not likely to happen, but we've kept it as a "worst-case" scenario for Obama/"best-case" for Clinton, as well as just for historical reasons. See Florida and Michigan: By the Numbers for a number of scenarios, and we'll be adding more there in the next few days.

Update: Bill Richardson in February, on how superdelegates should vote:
“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. ... Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency.
Who won New Mexico? That would be Sen. Clinton.

46 comments:

DocJess said...

Richardson's endorsement will likely bring other supers with him -- they might just not be in NM.

What could be conceivably worse for team Clinton today is if it turns out that the Obama breach information didn't make it past Maura Harty BECAUSE of her ties to the Clintons.

It's never the crime, it's always the cover-up that gets you...

Bill UK said...

Gov. Bill Richardson is looked upon 'historically' as an ally of the Clinton's and it would have been assumed by the Clinton camp even just a little over a month ago that his vote was in the bank. The endorsement of Barack Obama, and especially the wording of the endorsement shows that he had thought long and hard about the endorsement.

Your comment in the opening text about the question of whether he bring in any other endorsements is a good one. I would imagine that those New Mexico delegates who have declared for Clinton will be receiving a few telephone calls today from both camps, as will the New Mexico undeclared delegates.

Clinton's camp will be trying to hold those delegates who have previously endorsed her like mad, knowing of course that if any of them should switch to Obama then it is in reality worth 2 SD votes and makes Clintons attempt even harder (also the news of a switch would slacken the resolve of others who are wavering in their support for Clinton).

Obama's camp will be contacting those declared for Clinton and the undeclared SD's citing Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement.

The odds are stacked against Clinton in her holding all six of those who have previously endorsed her and most definately the undeclared SD's.

What is interesting to note about Gov. Bill Richardson is that he acted as a 'trouble shooter' during Bill Clinton's residency in the White House, meeting 'enemies' of America to discuss possible solutions between them and the US. Basically what Obama has stated in his policy addresses in his speaches, and yet such policies have been ridiculed by the Clinton campaign?

My erstwhile hope is that Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement will bring a swift end now to the nomination race with more and more SD's declaring for Obama and that the real battle can now be joined, that for President of the United States of America.

mary said...

Gov. Richardson's endorsement will be important in the hispanic community and just put another nail in the coffin for HRC.

This is off topic but important - FOX and the media's coverage of Rev. Wright has so many holes, it looks like swiss cheese. Listen to the FULL sermon and then judge if it was Rev. Wright or Ambassador Peck's words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

johncz said...

At this point it looks likely that Sen. Obama will be our nominee. I think Gov. Richardson saw this as the right moment to begin to unify our party.

Tyler said...

Gov. Richardson's endorsement is significant, but not quite the "big prize". When/if Al Gore or John Edwards weighs in, that'll set or change the contest dynamics -- to either end this process rapidly or keep it going through the convention.

To Mary: Thanks for the link. It wasn't surprising that the coverage has been "like Swiss cheese". The media doesn't know how to cover religious preaching, so it tends to ignore it. Since it can't ignore it, and since a 40 minute sermon (or even an 9.5 minute excerpt) doesn't fit into their time slot, it must be cut appropriately, to show just the highlights. It political coverage as sports event.

Now, I don't blame the media for the coverage, I blame the American people, who cannot watch to a person talking for more than a few minutes at a time. My spouse, my cousin and my child, all educated (and undecided) Democrats, have all refused to watch Obama's speech, because "it's too long". They would rather see short excerpts of a speech than the speech itself.

And my family probably represents the best of the American voting public.

cbsmith42 said...

I'm curious about the lead change with FL and MI... I think I remember that the two SD's that HRC picked up on Tuesday put her ahead by 3. And this is the first endorsement I've seen since. Did I miss some other endorsements?

Truly just curious... not questioning your numbers. Y'all do fine work!

Bill UK said...

Tyler,

It is doubtful whether Al Gore will endorse either candidate (why not only he knows), but the Clinton spin machine was suggesting that John Edwards was going to endorse for Clinton a couple of days ago (obviously he hasn't though).

Al Gore 'would' carry more weight than Gov. Bill Richardson if he were to announce now, the longer he leaves it the less influence he will have (and the less influence he will carry forward in the future).

John Edwards has a more difficult task to perform, he knows his supporters have overwhelmingly gone to Barack Obama, if he does endorse Clinton this will definately lose him his supporter base, and that will leave like a eunoch in a Hareem.

Of course I would hope that John Edwards endorses Obama, and this would be the right move as his supporters have clearly indicated.

Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement has one major advantage, it now undoubtedly puts Peurto Rico securely available to an Obama victory there. This ties up the backend of the campaign and no matter what means that Clinton cannot get the delegates she needs.

johncz said...

bill_uk, I mostly agree and also would like a John Edwards endorsment of Barack Obama. However, to say that Gov. Richards guarantees victory in PR is simply not the case. Its helps for sure but how much is yet to be seen. The Obama campaign as far as I can tell isn't taking anything for granted.

Bill UK said...

johncz,

I did not use the word 'guarantee', what I said was

"it now undoubtedly puts Peurto Rico securely available to an Obama victory there."

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I mean that it makes Puerto Rico an open contest and not one that Clinton can naturally assume she would win. It will undoubtedly cut into the support that Clinton receives in Puerto Rico.

Bill

Demabob said...

Is Richardson considered a likely potential VP candidate for Obama, or would that be considered too unbalanced of a ticket? It seems like it would be helpful to reach out to this Hispanic voters, but it might also alienate a portion of the white voters.

Also, speaking of running mates, has a candidate ever announced their running mate prior to the nomination being sown up? What is the likelihood that either BHO or HRC would use a running mate to try to break the perceived stale mate?

David said...

demabob, Clinton has already said that she would select Obama as her running mate, in an effort to try to sway superdelegates in her favour.

Eddie said...

When are we going to stop seeing the ignorant comments from the media about how the Dems will need to sit the Florida and Michigan delegations in order for one of the candidates to win the race? Don't they understand that sitting those delegations increases the number of delegates required to win, and so both are still likely to be short of the majority figure?

John CX said...

I think the real import is that it will reassure those SD's who may have been shaken by the Wright issue.

What a bad week for Clinton.
- No re-votes in FL and MI make it nearly impossible for her to catch up.
- James Roosevelt Jr, co-chairman of the DNC rules committee makes it clear that the delegates will not be seated without a re-vote. This seems to have been overlooked by most of the media. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/20/dnc_wont_give_in_on_fla_mich_official_warns/
- Nancy Pelosi says that the super delegates should support the candidate with the most delegates, which is almost certain to be Obama.
- Obama makes a brilliant speech that is being called “historic”.

BTW..Great site..Thanks!

Ginny said...

I have to wonder what Richardson will receive for his endorsement. A man who I had previously assumed was honorable has voted against the choice of his constituency. If he doesn't care enough about the state of New Mexico, there must have been something very personal to encourage Richardson to make this decision. As a Hispanic, he has to know that his fellow Hispanic voters are not exactly on Obama's list of top issues. He has sold out in my opinion. What an incredible disappointment.

Ross Heany said...

this is a great blog btw, you are far more clued up on the super delegate maths and numbers than most, and I have found your blog very helpful

I thought Richardson's choice of words were significant “It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and prepare for the tough fight we will have against John McCain in the fall.”

are Democrat super delegates starting to think that its in the interests of the party to push Obama over the finishing line ASAP ?

my blog Byzantine : 2008 US presidential campaign

Yousri said...

For cbsmith42,

The lead change with "FL and MI" was a result of endorsements as well as Sen. Obama picking up a gain of 2 Pledged delegates in DC, according to AP.

Our Ultimate Delegate Tracker can give you a complete picture of candidates' delegates.

Yousri (Formerly NiceGuy1951)

Matt said...

Demabob- Great question about early picks of VPs. There are two examples that I'm aware of, but both done by the trailing candidate. In 1976, Reagan was in a fierce battle with Ford for the nomination. This is hard to believe given Reagan's legacy and the state of the GOP today, but Reagan, in an attempt to get liberal Republicans to back him, picked liberal PA Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate a few weeks before the convention. I believe the move backfired among conservatives, and obviously Reagan didn't get the nod in 1976.

In 1984, the race was mostly over, but Gary Hart announced that he too would pick Ferraro as his VP in order to blunt Mondale's very popular choice.

There's really no incentive for the leader to announce a VP choice early - the downside risk of something going wrong with your choice is not worth the risk. But could Clinton announce early? Sure. But it's hard to think of a choice that would shake a large # of superdelegates loose.

And Clinton has NOT announced that she would pick Obama. Only that she thought he would make a fine running mate. That's not an announcement.

John-CX - James Roosevelt Jr does not get to decide if the delegations from MI and FL are seated without a revote. That decision is ultimately up to the Convention Crdentials Committee, and really ultimately up to the convention delegates themselves. The Rules committee only has jurisdiction until June, and any decision they make can be overturned at the convention.

Ross Heany said...

Richardson has considerable foreign affairs experience which would be invaluable to Obama against McCain in the fall

the racial issue is interesting - he is Hispanic but he has an Anglo name

How many blue collar workers even know he's Hispanic ?

hockeypuck said...

Ginny said: "I have to wonder what Richardson will receive for his endorsement."

Well. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing he'll receive the satisfaction of endorsing a candidate who is electable and who can bring our party, and our nation together!

Rock on Governor Richardson!!!

JayZed said...

I think that Richardson's an unlikely running-mate for Obama., simply because a black guy and a Hispanic guy will simply be too much for some voters to swallow.

However, I think that Richardson is a plausible candidate for Secretary of State in an Obama administration.

Yamaka said...

Gov Richardson's endorsement at this point is nearly useless. Perhaps Edwards' would be more useful at this time.

In a cruel twist of fate, if Sen Obama gets the Nomination, Democrats would lose both the Congress and White House!

Because the Rezko case and Jeremiah Wright issues will be at the front and center in the Fall whether you like it or not.

The so-called "Historic Speech" by Obama created a serious credibility and judgment problem for him than solving any. This week was a worst week for Obama.

FL and MI not re-voting is a death knell for the Democratic Party!

Many Obama-maniacs are in denial and are day dreaming! Cheers.

Bill UK said...

Yamaka,

We know you are a Clintonite and you now have to swallow a bitter pill that you backed the loser, but why the bitterness against Obama?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's vote is useless because he didn't endorse Clinton? That is how it reads.

As for Edwards yes it would be great if John Edwards endorsed Obama, but a quick reality check here for you, Obama does not need John Edwards. Edwards' supporters are already going to Obama, and for Edwards to sit on the fence or endorse Clinton is political suicide for him, he will lose his base for any future run he may be planning to make.

Of course Clinton could always offer Edwards the VP position, but then again we all know how Bill Clinton sidelined Al Gore!

Of course Yamaka, you make no mention of Puerto Rico I notice, but Richardson's endorsement hurts Clinton badly, he is undoubtedly a heavyweight, and up until this week Clinton would have him marked off as one of 'her' superdelegates. More importantly is the public perception, here is someone who knows Clinton very well, states openly he has high regard for her, but endorses Obama with such praise it is damaging beyond repair for Clinton.

This last week saw the end of the nomination race. First Pelosi announced that superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged votes (basically telling Clinton she had lost publicly), and secondly Richardson's endorsement of Obama. But there is a third disaster that has not been picked up on much. On Wednesday the Clinton camp started sending out the message that John Edwards was about to endorse Clinton, this never materialised.

Yamaka, visit other forums, Kos for example, and you will see that the Obama supporters are constantly growing in numbers. Indeed Obama's speach on Tuesday received a 70% approval rating, even 40% of Republicans approved it.

But you are entitled to your own opinion, but the opinion of America is against you and your candidate.

Have to ask, when Obama becomes the Democratic Parties nominee for President will you vote for him? Or will you vote for McCain?

The point is how much of a Democrat are you? Are you only a Democrat as long as you get what you want or are you prepared to accept the will of the Party and the will of the majority of the Party?

Yamaka said...

bill uk:

Thanks for your reply.

I see you are one those Obama-maniacs! Sorry to know this!

1. Since Carter, NO FAR LEFT liberal has won the Presidency. 2008 will not be any different.

2. Sen Obama is the FAR Left liberal candidate that Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy are pushing through our throats.

3. I was once a Obama admirer. When I heard him saying that Reagan was the Transformational Leader and Republican Party was the party of ideas, I left him two months ago.

4. Obama always gives excellent prepared speeches with teleprompter! The problem is the content. In the "Historic Speech" he delivered on Monday, what was the solution he offered? None. He exploits race towards his power grabbing ambition!

5. As I said before, in a cruel twist of fate, if the Democrats nominate Sen Obama, the Democratic Party will lose both the White House and the Congress, for sure.

6. Where will I vote depends on who McCain picks as the VP. I am a centrist, a moderate looking for fiscal sanity, which I believe only the Clintons understand well.

Sen Obama writes in his book The Dreams From My Father, " I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".

Now I know why pastor Wright and Michelle Obama are not proud of America in all their adult lives. He also continues,

"That hate hadn't gone away, blaming White people - some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives"

He lives still in 1950s and 60s.

America has changed a lot for the better. Ladders of opportunity are there every where for ALL. He does NOT understand the America of 2000s.

Cheers.

Bill UK said...

Yamaka,

Very rarely is one side ever totally right and the other side totally wrong.

I will take your up your points.

1. Since Carter, NO FAR LEFT liberal has won the Presidency. 2008 will not be any different.

I agree with you, no far left liberal will win, but then you seem to be implying that Obama is a far left liberal, he most definately is not. Some of his policies may seem so to those that do not look into the policies themselves.

But if I may I will use another point of yours below to ellucidate the conflict between this apparent statement and on e you state further on.

2. Sen Obama is the FAR Left liberal candidate that Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy are pushing through our throats.

So what kind of liberal are you that you basically take 3 of the senior Party members (4 if you include Richardson, and that number can be expanded greatly) and say they are pushing through (y)our throat?

Is Obama to the left of the Democratic Party? Is Clinton to the left of the Democratic Party? By the sounds of things you would be happier in the Republican Party because neither candidate is left of the Party. This is shown by the immense groundswell of public support for Obama.

3. I was once a Obama admirer. When I heard him saying that Reagan was the Transformational Leader and Republican Party was the party of ideas, I left him two months ago.

Hang on a minute, as I said in my reply to your first point I will now show that Obama is not the 'far left liberal' you claim him to be. What far left liberal would say that Reagan was a transformational leader? None. This does not therefore tally with your points about Obama being a far left liberal!

What it does mean is that Obama is a leader who accepts the truth. He realises that in both parties there are those who one should listen too. This is the persona of a man who will tell you not what you want to hear, mere placitudes, but tell you the truth. He will work with members from both parties, he will engage the good that is in both parties and he will work for the benefit of Americans and America.



4. Obama always gives excellent prepared speeches with teleprompter! The problem is the content. In the "Historic Speech" he delivered on Monday, what was the solution he offered? None. He exploits race towards his power grabbing ambition!

Yes, in a forty minute or so speach he uses a tele-prompter, so does every other major politican. What is yur point about that?

But more importantly I suggest you listen to his speach again. His answer is not simple, his answer is not easy, but his answer is there. Americans must accept that peoples perspectives of history are different, which is a full blown truth and irrefutable. What Americans must do is realise this and work at understanding why, and then move on to where the American Dream is available to everyone equally, irrespective of colour, race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.. It is only by doing this that America will be the home of the reality of the American Dream. But it has to be worked for.

Obama also recognised that this is not a one way traffic debate. He was able to show that all sections of society bring with them baggage that is formed from their own experiences and the perceived experiences of peoples groupings.

Further, and an absolute truism, only by confronting the past can Americans move on. This has been so clearly exemplified by Germany after WWII and in more recent times Rwanda. What America does have is the advantage of free speach and law on which to base this confronting of the past.

Whether Asian, African-American, Native American, White, Hispanic, or any other racial grouping, Americans have to see and realise that they can only prosper together. But more than this, America can, and I repeat can, regain the respect of the free world. It can hold its head up high and say 'Yes, we are the beacon of freedom for all.'

But you obviously missed this in the speach, thankfully 70% of those who heard it didn't and approved it.


5. As I said before, in a cruel twist of fate, if the Democrats nominate Sen Obama, the Democratic Party will lose both the White House and the Congress, for sure.

How do you jump to this conclusion?

In Pennsylvania alone the number of those describing themselves as Democrats has sky rocketed. The number of young voters who are participating in the process and voting, yes actually voting is at an all time high, and they are voting in the Democratic Primaries not the Republican Primaries.

This statement of yours is nonsensical and is just fear mongered Clintista propaganda. It should also be pointed out that more independants are voting for their choice in the Democratic Primaries than are voting in the Republican Primaries.

6. Where will I vote depends on who McCain picks as the VP. I am a centrist, a moderate looking for fiscal sanity, which I believe only the Clintons understand well.

So your vote is dependant on McCains choice of VP? Well that is interesting. It clearly indicates that you would vote for a man who openly admits he knows nothing about economics (well excluding his role as part of the Keating Five scandel).

But you state the 'Clintons' (plural is noted) are the only ones who know about ;fiscal sanity', well this is news to a lot of people, especially those owed money from the Clinton campaign who have not been paid yet! But that aside, you think that someone who so mismanages their election funds is able to run the economy? Well it is your choice.

Yamaka, I am sorry you will not be happy with President Obama, but I am sure you will be one of those to benefit by his eight years in office.

Yamaka said...

bill uk:

Thanks for your reply.

"So your vote is dependant on McCains choice of VP? Well that is interesting. It clearly indicates that you would vote for a man who openly admits he knows nothing about economics"

McCain is Center Right and always talked about excessive spending and the deficit. Under his tenure, I believe people will be better off than the Tax and Spend Far Left liberal like Obama! What economics does Obama know? He can give cheap talk, that's it.


"But you state the 'Clintons' (plural is noted) are the only ones who know about ;fiscal sanity', well this is news to a lot of people, especially those owed money from the Clinton campaign who have not been paid yet! But that aside, you think that someone who so mismanages their election funds is able to run the economy? Well it is your choice."

Just to remind you that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat who won the WH twice back to back since FDR. Not a Kerry, Kennedy or Pelosi like Far Left bleeding liberal. He is a Center Left, as Hillary is. Whatever way you slice Obama is a bleeding Far Left liberal - Hillary is for sure right of him. For example, he will lift the cap on SS tax to save SS, but she will first bring fiscal sanity before looking at other options. For Obama, taxing the 'wealthy' is the cure all mantra - the bed rock principle of all bleeding Far Left Liberals. That's their Achilles' heel!

Clearly, the Democratic Party is pulled on the one hand by the Far Left liberal wing of the Party (Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi etc) and the other hand by the Centrist wing of the Party (Clintons). I wish the Centrists win, because most of the American electorate (50%) is in the middle. When the Party moves to the Far Left, the WH and the Congress will leave them, my prediction.

Sen Obama brought Reagan into the discussion in NE just to hurt the feelings of the most successful President that the Democratic Party had in the recent memory, William J. Clinton! Not because he knows Reagan or he has the capacity to work across the aisle.

Obama is a Trojan Horse, an insurgent candidate sent by pastor Wright and the ilk to wreck the Democratic Party. You the Obama-maniacs are in a suicidal mission!

PA is going to Hillary, for sure, and if she does not win the Nomination, most of her supporters will go to McCain. Because what Sen Obama writes in his Book,
The Dreams From My Father:

" I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".

Now I know why pastor Wright and Michelle Obama are not proud of America in all their adult lives. He also continues,

"That hate hadn't gone away, blaming White people - some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives"

He lives still in 1950s-60s.

America has changed a lot for the better. Ladders of opportunity are there everywhere for ALL. Hard work and personal responsibility are the traits needed to succeed in America. Nothing else.

Sen Obama does NOT understand the America of 2000s.

Keep day dreaming of President Obama!

That's not going to happen.

Cheers.

Bill UK said...

Yamaka,

You have just been added to those to be ignored, like Time and Anon NY.

Why?

"Obama is a Trojan Horse, an insurgent candidate sent by pastor Wright and the ilk to wreck the Democratic Party.

This is pure Clintonite propaganda, not thought out, not reasoned, just absolute fear mongering.

Thank you for showing your true colours.

Yamaka said...

bill uk:

America needs an experienced leader who can understand the problems, give tangible plans and execute them.

Not some one who uses the Race Card from Day One.

Hillary will be ready from Day One. She has the support of a veteran policy maker Bill Clinton who brings his track record to the table, most women, experienced voters and Latinos, all are the backbone of American economy.

Let us wait and see which side prevails.

Fuzzy speeches can't solve America's problems.

We need hard work and vision.

Hillary has both. Cheers.

Bill UK said...

Yamaka,

You wait and see what side prevails, as for the rest of us, including the media it now seems, we are already convinced.

By the way, according to your post you do not include 'men'. Amazing.

If Obama wins Pennsylvania would you agree that Clinton is finished?

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by less than the 63-37 she needs to win by would you admit Clinton is finished?

Remember the maths, no matter whether you look at delegates or popular vote.

You see Clinton cannot win, others hedge their bets because of politeness and statistical abberations, I will not from this point on.

The nomination race is over, the Democratic Party nominee is Barack Obama!

John W. said...

"Hillary will be ready from Day One."

Ready to do what, directly lie to the American people about her foreign policy experience?

Yamaka said...

"The nomination race is over, the Democratic Party nominee is Barack Obama!" --bill uk.

Delusion has no meaning in real life.

If Barack Hussein Obama Jr is the Democratic Party Nominee, good have a coronation before you wake up. All day dreams go to waste basket!

You can even call him the President of Black America! Who cares!!

Wait till the Convention is over in August to know the Nominee if you live in real world.

Yamaka said...

Most SDs look at the big picture:

As of 3-22-08, both BHO and HRC have 1688 delegates if you include ALL votes polled. We need 2208 delegates. We have 10 States to go and about 600 delegates to be pledged, and about 55 uncommitted and 372 undeclared.

PA will for sure go to HRC. Other 9 could go either way. Finally, no candidate would have 2208 to clinch the Nomination.

SDs must use their common sense and ask the question "Who is electable against vastly experienced McCain in the Fall?"

A simple clear answer is HRC.

There is no room for error and day dreaming.

In real world real people get elected. Not Fuzzy Talks.

John W. said...

Sorry, Hillary shill "yamaka", but most SDs look at reality:

There is no chance in Hell that the Michigan or Florida delegations will be seated.

We're working with a magic number of 2024, barring a complete turnaround of DNC rhetoric for the past four months (very unlikely) or Obama dying of a sudden heart attack in July (also very unlikely).

PA might swing Hilldawg back 20 delegates, if we assume she wins by 26% and that Obama gains exactly zero ground for the next four weeks.

After that, literally every state that still hasn't voted ranges from slightly leaning Obama (Indiana) to heavily favoring Obama (Montana).

Also, Richardson's endorsement probably made a Puerto Rico win possible in case Hillary hasn't magically become sane and left the race so as to not completely ruin the Democrats' chances of actually winning.

Obama is currently just 402 delegates (pledged and supers) away from that magic number, and going just 50/50 with the remaining PLEDGED delegates, plus just 100 supers, puts him over that number.

Hillary literally does need to win everything 70-30 from now on AND get a majority of unpledged delegates, and that clearly isn't happening.

As if that's not bad enough for Clinton's hopes - assuming each candidate wins the state they won in the primaries (pledged delegates), Obama beats Hillary in terms of electoral votes to the tune of 220-176. Assuming Obama wins Indiana, Oregon, South Dakota, North Carolina, Montana, and Kentucky, and assuming Clinton wins Pennsylvania and West Virginia, that goes to 267-202.

Basically, she's fucked.

The nomination race, believe it or not, IS over.

Yamaka said...

Sorry John W, I disagree.

In real democracy ALL votes are counted.

America is the oldest democracy under the Sun.

Some bogus, moribund Rule cannot disenfranchise several million voters. That's God's Law.

Magic number is 2208 delegates.

Only SDs can decide this Nomination.

Wait till Aug and See how the SDs vote on this.

Oba-No-ma Coronation has to wait till August 2008!!

Some funny story about Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama Jr:

As per Chicago Tribune -

Before her husband became US Senator Michelle earned $121,910 a year, and after her husband became US Senator her salary jumped to $316,962 a year as a VP of Community Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals!

Sen Obama asked for a ear mark of $1,000,000 for UC Hospitals to build a pavillion!!

A quid pro quo.

Alas, the Senate turned down the ear mark!!!

See how the Chicago politics work!!!

So much for the new kind of kid in the block.

What is the difference between Jesse Jackson and Barack Hussein Obama Jr.? Nothing.

Cheers.

DocJess said...

It amuses, astounds and annoys me that the Clinton-shill Yakama would come onto a site dedicated to NUMBERS, and still shill.

Look at the numbers, Yakama, and listen to what the rational have posted here -- AT BEST, the Clintons cut Obama's lead to 100 pledged delegates and 500,000 popular votes by June 4th. AT BEST.

This is the party of Jefferson, and we stand by the voters. Well, there was that 2000 loss of ONE vote (that being Justice Renquist) -- but normally, we go with the majority.

While some of the Supers are DNC people, most are elected officials -- and there is no way they go back to their constituencies having voted against the national nominee as chosen of the people, for the people, and by the people.

You can keep hoping -- but the only reason that the Clintons are still in the news is because the media likes conflict and something to fill the news cycle.

My guess is that on June 4, Hillary is sat down by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter and offered Senate Pro Tem to drop. In a lot of ways, that's a win-win.

Give it up Yakama, your dream is over.

Yamaka said...

"While some of the Supers are DNC people, most are elected officials -- and there is no way they go back to their constituencies having voted against the national nominee as chosen of the people, for the people, and by the people"-docjess

Wrong.

Gov Richardson, Sen Kerry and Sen Kennedy support Obama, but their States have gone clearly to HRC.

But as per the Rule:

1. SDs can vote their conscience and 2. No delegate is BOUND until the Convention.

You keep your numbers and be happy. My numbers are:

So far HRC and BHO tie with 1688.
Magic Number is 2208 delegates.

If not ALL votes counted, there will be a train wreck at the Convention in Aug.

The Officials at the Democratic Party has gone on a suicidal mission so far.

They will go down in utter flames come November 08. They will lose the WH and the Congress.

Obamamaniacs, your best days are over.

Following scandals need to crest; they address to the knowledge, competence, character and judgment of a candidate:

1. Tony Rezko
2. Nicotine and Cocaine Addiction
3. Jeremiah Wright
4. Luis Farrakhan.
5. Michelle Obama's Salary.

Have Fun. Cheers.

John W. said...

Do I need to shove it in your face so you'll get it, yamaka?

They. Are. Not. Counting. Either. Delegation.

MICHIGAN:
The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four [as Carl Levin and others pushing a re-vote are called], and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren't there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn't involve those four, the Governor, and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

FLORIDA:
After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.

State party leaders have been seeking a way to have Florida's delegation seated at the Democratic National Convention.

"We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida," state party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.

DLC LEADERSHIP:
Unless Florida and Michigan Democrats devise workable plans to redo their outlaw primaries, there is no chance the national party will yield to pressure and approve their delegates if it could tip the outcome of the Democratic presidential race, a potential key arbiter of the dispute said yesterday.

James Roosevelt Jr. of Massachusetts, cochairman of the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee, said in an interview with the Globe that he doubts there will be a resolution of the standoff without the states devising do-over contests to be held before June 10.

The magic number is 2024.

Obama leads in that sense by about 130.

Clinton has a real chance of winning only Pennsylvania and West Virginia out of all remaining states.

The popular vote lead cannot possibly be made up in the next three months, either.


Do you get it now, or are you going to spout even more Hillary-biased SPECULATION in the face of actual, cold facts from the legislatures of Florida and Michigan and the DLC?

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and both of their respective Democratic populations know it damn well.

It is exactly like starting a massive fight in your high school and then having the audacity to start complaining when you're suspended for a month.

Keep crying about Florida and Michigan being punished for something their legislatures knew well, and very damn well, when they convened to move their primaries up to January, against DNC regulations. They broke the rules, they paid the price, now stop pretending it'll all be reversed and all is magically well.

John W. said...

PS:

"Some bogus, moribund Rule cannot disenfranchise several million voters."

Tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States in December 2000. I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

John W. said...

And on a final note: it does not seem like the CCC would overturn the will of the rules committee... not even with possible Clinton backroom deals.

Yamaka said...

john w:

My Number is 2208.

BHO and HRC are tied at 1688.

No Party that disenfranchises millions of voters SHOULD win and WILL win. That's God's Law.

You Obama-maniacs keep celebrating the Coronation of Your Black Messiah!! Who cares?!!!

Here is a simple suggestion to the Credential Committee:

Since the "Representative" from MI and FL is not the Gov of each State the Rule was not implemented right.

Here is a way to rectify the crisis:

1. Give ALL votes that HRC earned in MI and FL to her since she did not violate any Rule.

2. In MI, BHO and Edwards removed their names voluntarily as a tactical approach. Therefore, divide the MI "Uncommitted" by 50:50.

3. In FL, BHO violated the Rule by running cable campaign Ads. Therefore, give him only 50% he earned there.

Train Wreck averted.

Be a problem solver.

We cannot give Affirmative Action to the Presidency of USA!

Each vote must count.

John W. said...

"No Party that disenfranchises millions of voters SHOULD win and WILL win. That's God's Law."

The Florida Republican Party disenfranchised thousands of voters in 2000.

The Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties deliberately disenfranchised their own voters when they agreed to move up their primaries.

The Repubs won in 2000. Guess which side is winning in 2008?

"My Number is 2208.

BHO and HRC are tied at 1688."

Reality's number is 2024. Obama is currently up by roughly 140.

"You Obama-maniacs keep celebrating the Coronation of Your Black Messiah!! Who cares?!!!"

As opposed to what, you Clintonistas acting like the senator-from-New-York-who-is-actually-from-Arkansas somehow deserves the nomination for having a vagina?

It's not like Obama supporters in general are in any way like what you just described, so could you stop with argumentum ad hominem for at least a few comments?

"Here is a simple suggestion to the Credential Committee:

Since the "Representative" from MI and FL is not the Gov of each State the Rule was not implemented right."

Of course, the "representative" from MI and FL were the people in their respective state Democratic Parties who voted to disenfranchise their respective populations.

It is not the DNC's job to clean house after two states decided they need to destroy their rooms. It is the DNC's job to get a Democrat elected President.

"1. Give ALL votes that HRC earned in MI and FL to her since she did not violate any Rule."

Of course, she simply violated courtesy in MI that every other viable candidate at the time (Edwards and Obama) had so graciously followed. So what's worse about this is that you're a supporter of someone apparently without honor.

"Train Wreck averted.

Be a problem solver.

We cannot give Affirmative Action to the Presidency of USA!"

Handing over the delegations of both states to Hillary because she cried too vocally over it after it became apparent she wouldn't win with the rules that she agreed to will solve nothing.

Rewarding two states for breaking the rules, no matter how "trivial" you think those rules are, will do nothing but make the political process look like more of a joke, to say nothing about boosting the chances of John McCain winning at the national level and the Republicans winning at the state, municipal, and legislative levels.

We cannot afford "affirmative action", true, which is why we cannot afford just giftwrapping the two poisoned delegations!

Yamaka said...

"As opposed to what, you Clintonistas acting like the senator-from-New-York-who-is-actually-from-Arkansas somehow deserves the nomination for having a vagina?"

Your mother has V, sister has V, wife has V and daughter has V, if you are a family man! Therefore leave V alone. Thanks for your decent and enlightened imagery!

HRC deserves the Nomination. Because,

1. She is the most qualified person for the job. She happens to be a woman.

From the dawn of time, men have dominated the world because of their muscle power. Time has come we need only the Brain Power. Women have been the backbone of the family for several hundred centuries. They have not been honored, cherished and respected.

Even very young democracies like India, Israel, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Germany have elected their woman Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is time the oldest democracy under the Sun recognizes the sacrifices of women for the sake of the family and the men's world. Men have created a mess of everything around us, we need a woman to step in and clean up the mess.

Break the glass ceiling that man has erected on woman.

Are you such a pathetic woman-hater?

"Of course, the "representative" from MI and FL were the people in their respective state Democratic Parties who voted to disenfranchise their respective populations".

Please understand how Primaries are conducted. State Legislature passes the bill concerning the date and the Governor signs it into law, and people follow the law, period. In FL both are governed by Republicans. Tell me what teeth the FL Democratic Party can have when the power is with Republicans? Are you a logical person?

In MI, State Senate is with Republicans, although the House and the Governor are Democrats. The MI Democratic Party did not have much teeth in the matter.

Why didn't DNC get a binding contract from the Governors of MI and FL at the very beginning? This was the mistake the DNC made. The Rule was a bogus rule in the first place, and the implementation of it was seriously flawed by the DNC. Therefore, the Credential Committee MUST allow all delegates to seat in the Convention, as per the will of the people. That's democracy.

"Handing over the delegations of both states to Hillary because she cried too vocally over it after it became apparent she wouldn't win with the rules"

People obeyed the State law, went to the polls and voted, period. Peoples votes trump all other considerations in democracy. Count all votes. Obey the will of the people. HRC happens to be the winner people elected - accept people's verdict in those States.

"We cannot afford "affirmative action", true, which is why we cannot afford just giftwrapping the two poisoned delegations!"

Peoples votes are NOT poisoned. It is the czarist arrogance and ignorance of the DNC that is breaking the Party apart. DNC must work for the People, not the other way around.

If DNC punishes the People of FL and MI, there are dire consequences to the Democratic Party:

1. The Party will be irrevocably split 50:50. Half of the delegates will walk out of the Convention on a simple principle: Count ALL votes, period. That's democracy.

2. In the General Election People will punish the Democrats, who WILL and MUST lose the White House AND the Congress. They deserve neither.

McCain will be the President, and Pelosi and Reed will sit at home!

You, the Obama-maniacs can have your President of the Black America head quartered at the Trinity United Church of Christ at Chicago!! Your First Lady Michelle will bake cookies for you!!!

Happy ending. Rejoice to your hearts, Obamamaniacs!!!!

The Democratic Party will cease to exist if NOT all votes are counted.

Where is the NEED for such a Party, anyway? Cheers.

John W. said...

lol, yamaka's ilk sure weren't around in 1968

I seem to remember the Party nearly disintegrating and still managing to survive to this day, it's too bad in your quest to get a woman elected - the least worthy woman, as I would vote for Kathleen Sebelius among others if she were to actually run - you seem to be ignoring this.

Rules were deliberately broken. Dems (the PEOPLE, not the PARTY) in both states knew this full well in January when they voted mostly in Republican primaries or simply stayed home because they knew both primaries would be irrelevant.

You cannot completely change the rules halfway through to suit one candidate, much like you cannot open a hole in the middle of a boat while you're halfway between Caen and the mouth of the Thames, or halfway between Long Island and Nantucket.

Either leave the delegations be, revote them, or shut up.

John W. said...

I mean, honestly, what you're advocating - has a very clear slippery slope, from "let's ignore what we made very clear in calendar year 2007" straight into "let's make it so only one candidate can run throughout the entire primary process", and from that into a one-party state, just as soon as the Party stops killing itself every four years because its base somehow finds a way to fall to Republican rhetoric.

We were giftwrapped this election, from the national level straight down to the municipal.

Barack Obama clearly had the momentum of a Bill Clinton going into March.

Guess what? The Party inexplicably fucked everything up and now both candidates' hopes of winning anything are completely sunk, all thanks to a Clinton campaign that just won't shut up and bow out.

Or would you prefer that in your blind quest to see a woman elected President, you really did tear the Party apart in the process - in disenfranchising millions of voters after Michigan and Florida who voted for the black guy with the funny name, your lot managed to do exactly what nearly happened in 1968 and 1984?

You silly little 1990s nostalgics really do want the Republicans to rule this country for all eternity, don't you? You didn't learn from 1968, you didn't learn from 1984, and you definitely didn't learn from 1994.

"Tell me what teeth the FL Democratic Party can have when the power is with Republicans? Are you a logical person?"

Tell me exactly what the FL Democratic Party did, with the power "resting with Republicans."

I'll tell you what they did: they turned around, bent over, and let it have its way with them.

Instead of motioning for some sort of way for the legislative bodies of both states to ignore the Democratic primaries, instead of doing anything that could've avoided this situation, they let it happen.

Willful ignorance of genocide is worse than actual participation in it, because at least the actual participants admit it.

"Are you such a pathetic woman-hater?"

Are you that incapable of seeing logic that you'll simply dismiss me as a "woman-hater" because I see Hillary's main supporters for what they are?

Because I can tell you what they are, for the most part (because Rush Limbaugh's "support" really doesn't count, now does it?): blind feminists, incapable of supporting any female candidate with integrity, incapable of supporting anyone capable of what would actually further the feminist movement.

Your ilk could've brought in Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, anyone without the political baggage of a Hillary Clinton... but no, she has name recognition thanks to an adulterer whose reputation rides on the coattails of Greenspan.

Do you really want this disgrace of a woman to become President? Would you prefer her over someone I respect more than nearly every politician I have met or have heard of, nearly every person born outside of the city of Cleveland? (I'm referring to Sebelius there, mind you.)

Because if you do, that's fine with me, because no matter how much I try to convince you otherwise, you are entitled to your own opinion of things, no matter how misguided it may actually be.

It's the job of people like me to fix things, but it's not the job of people like me to force people to do so.

Think for yourself, about whether it will really be worth it to seat the delegations of two cowardly lions of state Democratic Parties.

37% of your ilk won't vote for Obama if he's nominated. Less "Obamamaniacs" would do so. Get a perspective on reality, and quickly.

Because clearly, if you'll simply continue defending your Manchurian candidate as if she's done nothing wrong, as if she has not just lied directly to the American people, about her willingness to go without Michigan and Florida two months ago when it wasn't obvious she was going to lose the nomination, as if she didn't just massively embellish her trip to Bosnia in 1995 and then have the audacity to try and excuse it with a simple "I misspoke"... you are going to need it very badly.

Yamaka said...

John W:

Now you seem to talk logic.

Some 300 years ago there was a Rule that Authorized Slavery worldwide.

All the Colonial Powers followed that Rule and Slavery was rampant in Africa, Europe, which then followed Americas (Remember, America DID NOT invent Slavery, a fact Wright and BHO should understand). In 1860s people asked what is the logic of this bogus Rule? We fought a Civil War and abolished that Rule, we emancipated the Blacks, and later we gave voting rights to ALL human beings including Blacks and Women. Thus, voting became an inalienable right given by God, we all believe.

Some ill-conceived bogus Rule that allows some States to go earlier than other States cannot trump the larger principle of God's Law:
NO one SHALL disenfranchise any Voter.

If DNC stands on violating this God's Law, then it shall not stand as a viable National Party, period. It needs to be destroyed as is.

I am a delegate standing up for Hillary from TX. I hope to get elected to go to Denver.

We SHALL organize and destroy the Party that disenfranchises about 3 million voters from two very important States MI and FL.

For, Voting Right is a Human Right. We shall always fight for our Civil Rights and Human Rights, period.

"Your ilk could've brought in Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, anyone without the political baggage of a Hillary Clinton"

Lunacy. Utter nonsense.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only woman started to compete in the field. She is the most qualified, experienced, who can beat the vastly experienced McCain in the Fall. She is ready to take the job from Day One.

BHO is an inspirational speaker (just a fuzzy talker, I may add), but has serious flaws in character, judgment and national experience.

Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright has made him as another Black Candidate from Chicago. He will NOT get the votes of most of Whites aged 40 and over, most women, most Latinos, Asians and the mighty members of AARP.

That leaves all of Blacks and a few inexperienced younger crowd for BHO. Is this enough for the Nomination? NO, NO say the SDs who will eventually Nominate HRC.

Obama-maniacs, you day-dream for another few months. Your leader BHO will take you to a desert land of Black rhetoric and Afro-Centric "Black Exclusiveness".

Did you all see how dishonestly Obama threw his loving Toot (maternal White grandmother) under the bus just to save his skin and the scalp of Wright, the other Tuesday Speech?

In his book The Dreams From My Father he says his Toot was a gentle loving woman who respected Blackness and Black co-workers!

But he just dishonored her before the entire world with a lie: that she used some ethnic slur that made "him cringe". This never really happened, if you believe what he says in his book! What an audacity that he compared Toot to the anti-White anti-American Wright!!

An opportunistic liar, at best.

We shall meet in Denver for a War.

nanc said...

I just found this site today, and want to compliment you on it - it's great. I'm bothered greatly by yamaka's comments, however. Especially when he starts listing the "scandals." Cocaine & nicotine addiction?? He smokes, big deal. Do you not think the Republicans could come up with more than 5 REAL scandals about the Clintons? Scandals that are ACTUALLY scandals? At least we know the Obamas' finances. The Clintons are certainly waiting long enough to release THEIR tax returns! Perhaps if Dr. Wright's out-of-context sermons had not been publicized, yakama would be claiming Sen. Obama was a muslim. Yakama, you don't sound like any Democrat I know or want to know.

DocJess said...

Nanc --

Welcome, and don't worry about Yakama -- you can argue with him/her but you won't get anywhere.

Luckily, the vast majority of the posters here are rational, sane, and thoughtful (even when we all disagree)