Obama Set To Reach Delegate Milestone

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama will reach a significant milestone Tuesday as he marches toward the Democratic nomination for president _ a majority of pledged delegates at stake in all the primaries and caucuses.

Obama will still be short of the overall number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, unless he were to suddenly receive an avalanche of endorsements from the party and elected officials known as superdelegates. But the Illinois senator's campaign is touting the delegate milestone as a big step in defeating his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"A clear majority of elected delegates will send an unmistakable message _ the people have spoken, and they are ready for change," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a memo to supporters Monday.

"As we near victory in one contest, the next challenge is already heating up," Plouffe wrote. "President Bush and Senator McCain have begun coordinating their attacks on Barack Obama in an effort to extend their failed policies for a third term."

Obama picked up the endorsement of Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia Monday, less than a week after Clinton overwhelmingly won the state's primary. Byrd is the longest serving member of the U.S. Senate.

Obama has led in pledged delegates since he won the first caucuses in Iowa on Jan. 3. The two candidates stayed close through Super Tuesday, when Democrats voted in 22 states and American Samoa. Obama won 13 more delegates than Clinton that day _ out of nearly 1,700 at stake.

Obama built an imposing lead the following two weeks, winning 11 straight contests in states such as Louisiana, Maryland, Washington and Virginia. He led by 161 pledged delegates on Feb. 19, after victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii. The lead has been relatively unchanged ever since as the candidates spent the past three months trading victories.

Obama goes into Tuesday's contests with 1,610.5 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. He needs 17 more to reach a majority of the 3,253 pledged delegates available. Clinton has 1,443.5 pledged delegates, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press.

Clinton's campaign played down the significance of the milestone, accusing Obama of declaring victory without reaching the required number of overall delegates.

"Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring 'mission accomplished' does not make it so," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said in a memo to supporters.

Obama has a total of 1,915 delegates overall, including endorsements from superdelegates. Clinton has 1,721, according to the latest AP count.

Obama is a little more than 100 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination. He cannot make up that ground in the Kentucky and Oregon primaries because of the proportional way in which Democrats award delegates. The two states have a total of 103 delegates at stake Tuesday.

But winning a majority of pledged delegates could help his case with undecided superdelegates, who are free to support whomever they choose at the party's national convention in August. Obama argues that superdelegates should support the candidate who wins the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses. Otherwise, he says, they would be overturning the will of the voters.

Obama, who overtook Clinton in superdelegate endorsements a little more than a week ago, picked up six more Monday. Clinton added none.

Clinton argues that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

Her campaign is also trying to change the math by getting the delegates seated from the Michigan and Florida primaries. Clinton won both primaries, but the states had been stripped of their delegates for violating party rules by holding their primaries before Feb. 5.

The Democratic National Committee's rules panel is scheduled to address the issue May 31. If any of the delegates are reinstated, it would increase the number needed to clinch the nomination.

Comments

[kilv]

UPDATE: After yesterday now Clinton only needs 81% of all remaining votes and Superdelegates (as opposed to 74% before OR & KY)!

[pupbayer]

I'm pleased to see that huffingtonpost FINALLY realized that Senator Kennedy's situation is a little more important than "Obama's night" as they like to call it. The story on Senator Kennedy should have been the main story ALL day not just this evening. I guess it is just a matter of priorities and Obama's ego doesn't rank up there with the malignant brain tumor of a leader of the Democratic Party and this country. But...that's just me.

[missjabez]

It would be great if this happened. But judging by her past behavior, not very likely.

[Bella Liberty]

Remember that President G.W Bush waged war on Iraq, March 19th 2003. after Iraq war in 2004 American elcetion you all voted for G.W Bush and kicked out John Kerry but today the same people you all are balming to President Bush, also voicing for Iraq war and voting for Obama. If he will be the next President , very near future you all have to blame Obama and you all have to cry for America.
Save super power dignity and White House in time.

[SensibleAmerican]

Another Obama-blowing-and-sucking-media "milestone"! The poor fellas are so scared of Hillary taking the overall popular vote lead that they are ready to declare a "nominee" with 48 States! LOL What a buncha ninnies and hypocrites! The same losers who cried foul in 2000 that "all votes should have been counted" now want to short circuit the electoral process!

Hillary has won in States which actually matter in the General. Obama has won caucuses that are a farce and that too in States which are deeply RED! If the Dems had a "winner take all" rule, Hillary would be the nominee by now! But then, the Dems are known to nominate losers! They are desperate to do so again!

[dentuso]

This is a bit of a perverse statement.

We have a Democratic nominee, and a Republican nominee.

61% of the electorate this year are registered Democrats.

100% of McCain supporters are McCain supporters. Similarly, 100% of Obama supporters are Obama supporters.

The only variable party in this is the Clinton supporters. If 100% cast their votes for the Democratic Party nominee, we win.

If they don't, we won't.

The responsibility and credit or blame in November will, in the eyes of history, sit with one group; Clinton's supporters.

To suggest otherwise is unreasonable and disingenous at its core.

[pupbayer]

Making excuses already? This election is for Obama to lose. Coming off the Bush years, ANYBODY out to be able to win! If he doesn't, he has only himself to blame. I know that's not his style...everything is always someone else's fault but with this election, whatever happens is his responsibility.

[dajay]

Yes, but when he is going to actually secure the nomination with the needed amount of delegates votes.

So he is almost there,but not quite yet, and will even lose big in another state tonight.

How ridiculous

[Mercedes]

Let's just tell the TRUTH:

Most white people in the country don't want Barack Obama as their president because he is not 100% white. No matter how intelligent he is, or worthy of the job, there are those who will refuse to even consider him a candidate just because of his skin color.

And being a brown-skinned Hispanic woman, I can fully relate to this, because over my 41 years on this planet I've been treated by many whites as being Inferior to them, even though I am a pretty smart lady.

Hopefully, the young people and more sensible and intelligent people will realize that between McCain and Obama, Obama is the ONLY wise choice to be president, no matter what his skin color is.

[RussnCA]

Some don't want him because of his lack of experience, particularly in foreign affairs. Also, some don't support him because he supports nuclear power and his lack of support for universal health care. Add to that the Chicago-style campaign he has waged... and his edge is pretty much fresh face, same old politics.

[Freedomscap]

Well, if those folks don 't support Obama because of the reasons you cited, they don't reason well and it might as well be his race.

Do some reading on presidential history for starters: I would suggest the presidency of FDR, for starters.

Him not supporting universal healthcare is hogwash. You think the biggest proponent of universal healthcare, Kennedy, would be supporting him if that were true.

I don't know about the Chicago-style campaign issue -- elaborate on that issue, please.

[Mogamboguru]

John F. Kennedy had LESS experience than Obama, when he came to office. Intelligence and smartness cannot be replaced by experience. If it was otherwise, the eligibility of a president shoudn't start before the age of 80. In that light, even John McCain would still be a minor.

On the other hand, age doesn't save his bearer from idiocy - see McCain's last gaffes on Iran.

If it comes down to a choice between Intelligence or age - I'd ALWAYS vote for intelligence.

[Mogamboguru]

Skin colour shouldn't matter a damn thing. I mourn you being exposed to malign treatment so often.

But as long as we keep talking about this matter, as long it will be perpetuated. So lwt's stop talking and start acting - acting, like there has never been such a divicive thing as colour, race, or gender. It's time to overcome colour, race, gender, religion, handicap - you name it.

We are all children of one and the same ancestor - HUMANITY. That is all, that should be of interest to everyone.

[Mercedes]

Mogamboguru:

If only the rest of this country could think like you do.

Yes, I know I talk about race a lot, but when I've asked my co-workers and friends who are white and who are not voting for Barack WHY, they can't give me a good answer. They just say, 'well, he's inexperienced', 'he doesn't know how to deal with foreign policy' , 'he is too young', etc... These are some reasons, but NOT GOOD or LOGICAL reasons to not vote for Barack. Even McCain, being as old as he is, is not an expert on foreign policy or everything a president has to know how to do. The job of president calls for someone who is highly intelligent and who can deal in Diplomacy, not make threats like McCain-who I know wants to bomb Iran first, then try to negotiate with them and who wants to basically continue the path of hypocrisy that we've been on with Bush for the last 7+ years.

So the only TRUE reason I can find is that people will not vote for Barack because of his skin color. What a tragedy!

[Mercedes]

Freedomscap:

I've been for Barack Obama since day one. Most of my relatives and family will be voting for him, too. I have quite a few family members in California who are also voting for Barack. But the older aunts and uncles are either not voting or will vote for McCain--because of his age and experience. I agree with you about different age groups having different ideas on who to vote for.

Thanks be to God that the Young people are Finally getting the chance to be involved in the political process! My son is almost 19 years old and this will be his first time voting for president in November. He and his friends have been posting messages at their 'myspace.com' and 'facebook' sites to their friends, and their friends, and their friends, etc... almost campaigning, to get their friends to register to vote for Barack. This is so exciting to me, because the young people will be in charge of the future and it is their Right and their Turn to get to decide how they want this country to be. I can't believe how excited he is, and all because of Barack Obama. He has such a winning way with the youth!

[Freedomscap]

Well, Mercedes: Texas is a special kind of place. I don't have anything against it, my Dad is from Dallas and I have cousins in Texas, as we speak.

I live in Los Angeles and it is my impression that if CA, where to vote today, Obama would clearly win here.

I believe many in the Hispanic community believe Obama can't win because of race. And I don't want that type of thinking to preclude them from supporting him.

The tremendous outpouring of support Obama received in Portland, Oregon, which is 90 percent white, should be inspiring to you. Things are changing and definitely amongst the younger folks who aren't so preoccupied with matters of race.

We, Obama supporters, would love the support of the Hispanic community -- I don't mean this in a condescending way, i.e., all Hispanics are monolithic. However, I do believe that many Hispanics are supporting Hillary and this may be generational, however, we welcome and need their support. And we hope that they don't continue to believe that Obama is precluded from winning because of his race.

I think the results coming from the Oregon primary today, should put that notion to rest, hopefully.

[Mercedes]

(I don't know why I'm having trouble with replying to messages--there isn't a 'reply' listed at the bottom of the comment for me to click on)

Mogamboguru:

I have heard and seen many programs about Our Lord Jesus being a man with brown skin, black hair, moustache and beard, with dark brown eyes. But when I was growing up the only pictures I ever saw of Him was of a young white man in his late twenties, with long light brown hair, moustache and beard, and with blue eyes. The 'white man's' Jesus. I do know that He is Beautiful whatever He looks like.

Also, about Adam and Eve. They were from the region of Iraq/Iran in the Middle East--the "cradle of Civilization" and they, too, were brown skinned. That's why I get mad, too, when some people in this country think that the people of the Middle East are living in the 'Dark Ages' or are perceived as being ignorant or child-like because of their religious beliefs. I mean, this is the beginning where we all started from! Our knowledge of life and intelligence began here!

I will be enjoying the rest of the primaries and I hope that Barack has a wonderful time and gets to relax a bit, right after the last primary on June 3rd, as he has definitely earned the right to be the Democratic nominee.

[Mercedes]

Freedomscap:

I cannot reply to your post underneath your comment for some reason.

I was born in California but I've lived in Texas since I was a baby. I'm 41 years old now.

Yep, old George W. was governor of my state in the mid to late 1990s, and may I add the WORST governor Texas has ever had. He not only took a state surplus and turned it into a loss, by cutting business taxes and boosting OIL royalties for his rich buddies, but he raised every kind of state and license FEE you can imagine on the rest of us, and he cut back on so many social services for all ages; especially the young and old. Maybe that's why I don't want McCain to win--he'll just keep on doing what Bush has already done, making our once Great country into a has- been, a shell of its former self--all while the rich keep on getting Riche and the rest of us struggle to survive every new day...

[Mogamboguru]

Mercedes -

to give this bitter topic a sweeter twist, listen to this: In m youth I have learned a phrase:

"Imagine, a white racist dies, and his soul is being called before the Gates of Heaven to be evaluated if he should be allowed to enter, or go down to Hell - only to find out that God is BLACK..."

Adam and Eve were black, too. And Nowadays, Jesus wouldn't be allowed to enter the huge churches in the bible belt, because he was a Semite.

In the end, life is too short, to waste it on idiots. Have a nice primary night, Mercedes. The good one will win this time. And we are on his side. Obama '08

[Freedomscap]

Because my experience, and what this race has brought to my attention that many folks of all colors are willing to vote for Obama -- that's why he is winning and that's why he is getting sweeping endorsements. Just look at the size and scope of his rallies -- a true indicator of change being in the wind.

[Freedomscap]

What state do you live in Mercedes?

[jamjam]

Hillary cannot win. This much is clear.

Will her supporters vote for this man?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

I don't think people on the Democratic side have honestly seen enough of McCain to know who they are voting for - ironically enough.

As the late, brilliant,and deeply missed Ann Richards said, Bush was born with a "silver foot in his mouth". McCain manages to make Bush look at least relatively articulate and consistent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

As Bill Maher said, this guy is a warrior who is "dumb about war": he's obviously on the CFR, but so is Obama. McCain rattles on about Iran supplying weapons to Al-Qaeda, and has to be corrected (via a whisper in the ear) by of all people, Joe Lieberman.

Not only that - he is fairly clear on his position with regard to Iraq. More troops. It may be "unpopular' he says, but he will send more troops there if he's elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8IRU1PKwk

He's got his own friendly pastor, a "moral compass" and "spiritual guide" - not Hagee, another guy named Parsley.

Rod Parsley says the US cannot truly fulfill it's "divine purpose" until it understands it's "historical conflict with Islam". Islam is the single most dangerous enemy the US has, according to this guy.

"We were built for the battle! We were created for the conflict!" screams Parsley, "We get off on warfare!"

He makes Reverend Wright look like Ghandi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

[rmetz74]

Well RButler, since the system won't let me respond to you in the original thread, I'll do so here.
Let's summarize your points, such as they are.

1 - There is no difference in political stature or relevance between Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama.

2 - Comments made by posters on a blog's message board in response to a pundit carry as much weight as comments made by state legislators via national press release in response to a candidate's wife.

3 - This one really deserves to be quoted. "I also recall Obama supporters making ugly remarks about the tragedy of Eight Belles at the Kentucky Derby. Clean your own house first, rmetz74."

All three of these make the same point - you have chosen to wholly abandon logic and reality in favor of lazy, polarized nonsense.

And to be clear, I don't mean all Hillary supporters, I mean YOU.

That's the difference between us. Not which candidate we support, but that I don't assume a group of people who shares one opinion is therefore an army of like-minded clones. I have the utmost respect for the majority of Hillary supporters - smart, caring people who have simply come to a different conclusion than I have. And I feel for that majority, who read comments from nutbags like you and wish you'd stop associating yourself with them - just as the vast majority of Obama supporters feel when the nutbags among us go off on a tantrum.

[dentuso]

Okay,

I keep being told that I'm supporting Obama because he's not Hillary. Because he's not a woman. I'm being told that my support for the Democratic nominee is a vote against woman.

You're very, very wrong. Just like a vote for Hillary BECAUSE she's a woman is a vote for Obama BECAUSE he's black is a vote for Sanchez for mayor because he's hispanic, is a vote for Herve Villichaez BECAUSE he's a little person is a vote for Larry Bird BECAUSE he's tall is nothing more than justification for others to vote AGAINST people because of these attributes and God-given attributes.

I am supporting Obama because he's our candidate, who happens to pursue precisely the same ideals as the Democratic voters, including Hillary Clinton.

Again, the very second you support someone because of gender is the very second you open up logic for someone not to.

And THAT is discrimination, every bit as dangerous as the idiots who would actually withhold a vote for someone for one of these reasons.

[willygoo46]

Isn't strange how the probably Democtratic nominee got blown away in West Virginia. How about Kentucky - blown away. Oregon - he'll probably barely win. Oh yeah, another racist state that refuses to support Obama. Just like Ohio, just like Pennsylvania. Thankfully, Obama does great in areas with large amounts of Black voters. There he wins 90% of the Black vote. It's not about race!?!?

Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination and lose in the general election. Thankfull, we democrats will have majorities in both houses of congress.

[fitconnection]

Nice try, but wrong, wee willy. Of the FIFTEEN WHITEST STATES in the USA - Obama has/will win 11. Hillary has/will win 4.

Time to go back to math class.

The great thing about Clinton camp spin is it's so easy to poke holes through. It's like Bush administration spin - completely full of shit.

[Freedomscap]

You need to go back and do your homework. If Obama merely did well in states with large black populations, he wouldn't be winning this race. Try some logic.

The only, repeat, only area Obama doesn't do well in is the Appalachian area -- it's regional, not demographic. Thus, it says more about the Appalachian region, not Obama's candidacy.

You need to do deeper research and thing more critically about these issues.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Obama beats Hillary in many states where McCain is currently polling ahead of EITHER.
http://www.electoral-vote.com

All those Obama blow-outs in the rockies, the plains, the south, mean BUPKES in the upcoming Electoral College system.

Obama can't beat McCain with half a party, while talking about unifying the country.

Note that amongst the few six or so states where WHICH Democrat MATTERS, Ohio and Florida top the list. In both, per current polls, Clinton beats McCain, but McCain beats Obama.

Obama can't win without Hillary supporters, and without Ohio and Florida.

Anyone who thinks Obama is only soft on the back lot for Deliverance is soft in the head.

UNITY 08

[Freedomscap]

The assumption that those half of the party that aren't unfied behind Obama, can't be replaced, is also some soft thinking.

Also, the operative word is "current" in your analysis.

Further, the Democrat Congressional wins, in Mississippi, specifically, but other states, also, should suggest to you a pungent odor in the wind.

[Freedomscap]

Anyone who thinks Obama is only soft on the back lot of Deliverance is soft in the head.

Call me soft, I don't care and let's see what the narrative is today, after the results come in for Oregon and Kentucky.

[Freedomscap]

That is a specious argument. First off, I've seen polls that cite the opposite.

Your analysis and the polls you go to for your analysis, offer a too simple analysis.

The loses in Congressional district, specifically, Mississippi, but other districts also, should harken something to you.

Further, your argument assumes that the map is a constant: The idea that Hillary supporters can't be replaced is foolhardy.

I can't buy into an argument that is based on outdated thinking -- using old models.

The whole reason why Obama is winning is that they changed the way the political game is played, entirely. The requires you to rebot your computer and come up with a different way of viewing the map.

But stay stuck on the old, like: McCain and Hillary and let the chips fall where they may. This is 2008, not 1998.

[eveready]

It is about race. It is about gender. You are correct Obama will lose the GE.

[Mk26gmls]

Congress is spending money like it grows on trees. I wish every single person in Congress would be replaced this year. Both sides of the aisle are terrible. Can Obama really change this entrenched attitude in Congress?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080520/D90P99I80.html

[jupitor]

If I read one more time that She won Fl/MI I'm going to do a stand in protest! The lady did not win those states. Matter of fact His name wasn't on the ballet in MI. She also signed a agreement not to seat either state, or campagne in either state! That agreement can be held up in a court of Law! She wants to change the goals to meet her wants/lneeds, as if she's the whole of the D.N.C commetee all herself, and what she says goes! I'm trying to be graciouse to the lady, as Obama wins this thing----------but she sure makes it hard with her behaviors to forget and forgive and get on with it all. We need to pull together! But I heard her in Kentucky last night she keeps harping on seating Fl and MI. She seems to not be able to do the math correctly. While Cnn went after Obama last night as a sure sign he's the nomanee.It will get worse, grant you as time goes on from the Republicans!