7:03 (all times are EDT)
Even though the early returns are tight, it's clear that Senator Clinton will win Kentucky by a West Virginia-sized margin. Speaking of which, I didn't liveblog last week's West Virginia primary, but my post mortem was basically: Senator Obama lost with only 25 percent of the vote. However, on February 5, Senator McCain lost West Virginia, too. What was Senator McCain's percentage of the West Virginia caucus results? One. One percent. Why aren't there any questions about Senator McCain's "white working class problem"?
7:08
And by way of tradition, here's my prediction for tonight's results:
7:10
Kentucky results so far:
Clinton 52
Obama 45
Everyone has called Kentucky for Senator Clinton.
7:11
Back to the "white working class problem". The subtext is that white Appalachian voters are racists, regardless of party, because they refuse to vote for a black candidate. Other white Appalachian voters are stupids because they've been duped into believing these ridiculous e-mails about the Senator's religion. So my question is: Why is this a problem for Senator Obama and not a problem for the racist/stupid white Appalachian voters?
7:14
Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC now. "Let everyone vote" -- this is an interesting talking point from the Clinton campaign. Correct me in the comments if I'm wrong, but even if Senator Clinton had dropped out, wouldn't her name still be on the ballot in the remaining primaries? Meanwhile, McAuliffe just said that he believes Senator Clinton will have more delegates before the convention. Yep.
7:21
McAuliffe is fear mongering now: "Who's going to keep me safe? Who will be the best on national security? And if you look at the exit data, Chris, you know -- it's not about race and gender, it's about who they best think can deal with these economic issues and keep us safe." OLBERMANN: "Isn't that essentially a Trojan horse you've brought in on Senator McCain's behalf?" McAULIFFE: "Hillary beats John McCain on these national security issues." So much for the so-called cease-fire.
7:31
Kentucky margin:
Clinton 58
Obama 38
7:35
Chuck Todd: Oregon is only 3 percent African American. By the way, Oregon is also 3 percent Roloff.
7:46
Plug! Plug! Cliff Schecter is liveblogging over here. We'll be stealing each other's snarky observations tonight.
7:48
Cliff reminds us that Alex Castellanos is on CNN again tonight (and looking especially Robert Goulet-ish, by the way). For those of you unfamiliar with Castellanos' race-baiting work... Watch this:
Why does CNN allow Castellanos on the air when they know that race is an issue in this election?
7:55
Following up on Castellanos' creepy Goulet vibe:
7:56
Senator Clinton to make with the talking any minute now.
8:15
Senator Clinton speaking now. Some kind words for Senator Kennedy -- "one of the greatest progressive leaders in our nation's history."
8:19
"We're winning the popular vote." No she isn't.
8:26
Via the comments... Josh Marshall on the popular vote argument:
"Even if you change the rules and fully seat Michaigan and Florida and count them for the popular vote totals and don't count any portion of the Michigan "uncommitted" (which were understood a the to be for Obama) vote for Obama, Hillary is still behind in the popular vote total. The only way she moves ahead in popular vote is if you do all that AND don't count four of the caucus states...Some stuff is just too ridiculous to let pass."
8:35
MSNBC is projecting 29-14 delegate split in Kentucky. 1 delegate away from surpassing a majority.
8:36
Also, Gallup's tracking poll has Senator Obama now leading Senator Clinton among women and Hispanics nationwide.
8:43
Russert just noted that Senator Clinton's electoral math is literally drawn from Karl Rove's electoral map. Weird. To that point, it's worth noting that according to Quinnipiac's latest numbers, Senator Obama is only one point behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. One point. That's statistically nothing. And it's only May.
8:46
Schecter at FDL: "Knocked Up is on HBO. But I'd rather be watching Candy Crowley."
9:01
Norah O'Donnell just reported that 9 out of 10 voters who thought race was important selected Senator Clinton. But, of course, that's Senator Obama's "problem" -- all that racism. His problem. Racist white people are his problem. Yeah. What the hell is wrong with people?
9:15
Matthews to Lisa Caputo: "Senator Clinton can't seem to win people who are educated. What's the problem?"
9:19
CNN reporting that Senator Obama has officially won a majority of pledged delegates. The Senator has reached 1628 pledged delegates.
9:23
Back to the Senator's so-called "problem." Put another way... If someone runs up to you right now and sucker punches you in the throat because of the color of your, say, hair -- is that your problem or the sucker puncher's problem?
9:25
Something I've learned during this process that really, really sucks: Some Democrats are still very racist. Others, who believe every e-mail they receive, are also not very smart.
9:39
Fun fact: Senator Dodd says the word "here" a lot.
9:52
MSNBC reporting that former Carter Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan has died after years of fighting various forms of cancer.
10:00
Before Senator Obama speaks tonight, here's a flashback to Senator Kennedy's endorsement speech.
10:04
SCHECTER: "Alex Castellanos is babbling again. It can be hard to talk when you're not used to talking through the blow-hole of a white pillow case."
10:05
And this video just in from Kentucky:
10:06
Russert saying that Senator Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates.
10:08
Whoever has the beeper/pager at MSNBC... Please stop it!
10:12
Senator Obama getting ready to speak.
10:19
Senator Obama declares that he has achieved a majority of pledged delegates. "Within reach of the nomination for president..."
10:22
SENATOR OBAMA: "We all admire her courage and committment and perseverance. And no matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughter and your daughters will come of age, and for that we are grateful to her."
10:35
Schecter:
Obama is again hitting McCain on lacking the courage to sit down with our enemies. I love that frame. Because it is TRUE. And it is what we should have been saying for a while. It is the cowards who resort to violence immediately. They don't have the guts to work things out in a complicated world, instead of bombing people on false evidence....
10:36
That was a HUGE speech. I haven't seen that much energy from the Senator in months. That's not to say his speeches have been weaker, but this one was particularly strong in terms of his delivery.
10:42
CNN's John King just used his magic-marker fingers to draw what appeared to be a large bowel across "rural" Kentucky. That's about right.
10:55
Is it me or is Begala sounding more and more like Lionel Hutz? Speaking of The Simpsons, if you're planning on selling a monorail to a small rural town, check out the exit polls and find the towns that believe the Manchurian e-mails. Monorail... Monorail... Monorail...
11:03
Results coming in from Oregon. 11% reporting. Senator Obama leading with more than 60 percent in the counties surrounding Eugene and Portland. However, there don't appear to be many racists there so, naturally, these results don't matter.
11:09
MATTHEWS: "There's a problem here for Barack Obama... the Appalachian whites... He didn't even try to reach them..." RUSSERT REPLIES: "They were reachable in Oregon and Wisconsin...." Huh-what-now? Appalachian voters from Oregon? That's crazy! Appalachia is more enormous than I thought! But to Matthews' point -- yes, why can't Senator Obama reach the racist white hillbillies? What's Obama's problem!?
11:17
No exit poll news yet on Oregon's all-important Roloff vote.
11:20
29% reporting
Obama 60
Clinton 40
Also, on CNN, Gergen wondering why Senator Clinton hasn't told her voters (paraphrasing): if you're voting for me because you won't vote for a black candidate, I don't want your vote.
11:26
Chuck Todd: 115 of the 212 remaining undeclared superdelegates are from states that went for Senator Obama.
11:35
Schecter notes: "Rudy Giuliani got 1.5% of the vote [in Kentucky] and he has been out of this race since his old combover went out of style." Why can't Senator McCain win over all of Giuliani's voters? What's his problem?
11:48
Norah's exit polling... In 2004 32 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for President Bush. The exact same number said they'd vote for Senator McCain over Senator Obama.
11:50
Video flashback to last week. The crossover rural white Democratic voter:
I'm selling Janice a monorail.
11:51
That's all for me tonight. Three more primaries to go. Speaking of which, I have two requests... Can we stop calling them "contests"? They're primaries and caucuses, and they're supposed to be important electoral events. A "contest", on the other hand, involves throwing a baseball at a clown in a dunk tank -- or betting your friends that you can go the longest without masturbating. Second request: now that the primary season is nearing a conclusion, can we stop calling the candidates "Barack" and "Hillary"? I don't hear anyone calling Senator McCain "John."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
LOL!! That was FUN to read.
I'm looking forward to the fall debates . . .
Kudos to you Bob for sticking with it, as I barely could finish your liveblogging segment...doesn't this stuff bore the crap out of you? Folding laundry was more interesting than anything said in the coverage on any of the networks. Can't we just hand Obama the keys to the country and be done with these shennanigans?
Oh, but caucuses are okay right? There isn't a double-standard the Obama surrogates don't like.
For this primary, yes, caucuses are OK. According to Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the candidates they are, at any rate. Well, Hillary was for caucuses before she was against them, so I guess there is a qualifier there.
I can show You An Insurmountable Advantage using the Facts.
I hate to burst All the Bubbles Some are living in But the Only way Mrs. Clinton wins the Popular Vote is if You count Mi. & Fla. but do not Count Caucus States.
First Mrs. Clinton said Caucus Votes are not fair & then She said Mi. & Fla. would not Count as Agreed to by All the Candidates , then She said Fla. & Mi. Must Count , Then it was the Electoral Votes that Count & then She said that the SD's would Decide based on Who is More Electable against McINSANE & Now She says that the Popular Vote is what Counts & Not the Math or the SD's but She also says the Map Counts & the Map She is talking about is none other than KarlRove's Map. Am I the Only one that finds this Reasoning Absolutely Ridiculous ? This is Crazy , We need to Move on & Kick some RethugliCon Arse!
After All is said & done & if You can Include Fla. & Mi. as well as the Caucus States & the SD's Barack Obama wins the Electoral Vote , the Popular Vote & the SD's
" Second request: now that the primary season is nearing a conclusion, can we stop calling the candidates "Barack" and "Hillary"?"
Senator Clinton calls herself Hillary on all her campaign signs, probably to separate herself from that other famous political Clinton.
Would you even get it if I pointed out the irony of using the term "racist" to describe a broad generalized judgement of a group of people such as you just perpatrated against those "stupid/racist Appalachian white voters"?
Also, I have a question. I'm sure there"s a perfectly good answer for it that's plainly obvious and I'm just missing it because I"m stupid, but still, I was always told there are no stupid questions and I'm genuinely curious.
In your blog you make the following statement:
"The subtext is that white Appalachian voters are racists, regardless of party, because they refuse to vote for a black candidate."
I find this statement curious because, well, would a Republican be considered racist for not voting for a black candidate if there were no black candidates on the Republican ticket? I'm just asking as I don't know why you felt the need to say that Appalachian voters of "both" parties are racist as I'm not really sure how you can judge that since Republicans wouldn't be voting for Obama anyway.
And finally, I do have one other thing. I get your point about referring to the candidates as Sen. [inset appropriate name here], and I can't speak for Obama, but all the signs I've seen for Hillary say, "Hillary '08" so maybe that's why people call her Hillary. Perhaps you should write a letter to her campaign. I'm sure they would give it all the due consideration it deserves.
Many journalists have written articles critical of Hilary's stubbornness in what is increasingly obviously a losing effort. Not only has she resorted to dirty tactics that give the other guys ammunition for the general election, but she's also prolonged a fight that prevents the Democratic party from focusing on McCain rather than each other. Criticisms of her on these fronts are certainly valid. She's killing the party from within to pursue a lost cause.
But the voters themselves are as much to blame. If you're a Democrat who plans to continue to support the party, why do you vote for Hilary at this point? It's a mathematical foregone conclusion that she cannot win. High-ranking Democrats have called on Hilary to concede, but the onus is more on the voters.
The question I would pose to the driver of that car was simply this: Will you vote for Obama in the general election? That's the most important question the die-hard Hilary supporters must answer.
If the answer is no, then why even support her at all at this point? All voting for Hilary accomplishes is further muddying the waters for the party and making things easier for McCain.
If you're a Democrat who won't support Obama in the general election, then either change your party affiliation now or don't bother to vote in the primary because you're just helping Hilary drag the party down to defeat in the general election, which you're going to help McCain win anyway.
Ya, blame the voters if you cannot win!! Or call them racist, stupid or whatever and then lose in November so Republican policies can continue. Obama cannot win, if that is because some are racists or stupid, that is the way it is and you have to work around that to get to solving the pressing problems of this nation. It is important to first win so you can institute progressive policies, not just be right and then your opponent wins.
It is amazing that after February 19 when Obama became the presumed nominee winning 11 contest in a row and David Axelrod declared that Clinton cannot pass him in delegates, he has lost Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, won North Carolina and Oregon and lets say Texas was a tie though Clinton won in the primary which was the only democratic part of the Texas nomination with secret ballots. So Obama's record is 2-4-1, pretty pathetic for a presumed nominee!!! Contrast that with the Republicans. When it became clear that McCain was the frontrunner, Huckabee started losing all the contests even though the nomination was not sewed up.
So what!!!! Hillary cannot win
Do you only count points scored in the fourth quarter when determining the winner in a football game?
That 2-4-1 metric is meaningless. That being the case, I expect to see Terry Mcaullife and Howard Wolfson talking about how important it is pretty soon.
Once again, if the rules are so screwed up and skewed, and aren't valid in determining the nominee, why did Sen. Clinton, along with all the other candidates, agree to them before the primary started? If every vote must be counted, why did Sen. Clinton agree that the votes in Florida and Michigan wouldn't count? Where was her concern for those voters (of which I am one, living in Florida) before it turned out that she needed them to have any kind of shot at winning the nomination?
If you want to make baseball an 11 inning game, the time to do it is in the off season, not when your down three runs in the bottom of the ninth.
Can we stop with the accusations of racism towards the Hillary voters in WV and KY? Honestly. If you had even one ounce of fairness or objectivitiy, you would be accusing the black voters who go for Obama at 90% RACISTS. If the white people voting for Hillary from WV and KY are ignorant idiots, as you describe them, then the black people voting for Obama MUST be the same way. No? I'd love to hear you explain how they are any different.
And, again, accusing these people of being "Hillbillies" and making shit jokes about them isn't going to help the image of the 'liberal blogosphere.'
Like it or not, those people have the right to vote... just like you Mr. Ceska. So get over it. Maybe those people in WV and KY aren't racist... maybe they are just good at spotting a salesman.
When one in five people admit to a complete stranger they wont vote for a black man thats racist!!If your black and vote for the first black in history you are not racist.How many irish catholics voted for kennedy ? and why shouldnt they?if obama wasnt an option they would be voting for whichever white person in this case hillary would br if you dont understand then im sorry your a lost case.By the way ky votes republican{and it woked out so well for them because they are sooo bright} so why is this a big deal again?
And maybe you haven't spent much time in Kentucky...
Canaris - Obama ran the ads and no other candidate did. They played by the rules and stayed away from tha ad buy, so please stop making excuses for Obama. he has plenty of people doing that for him already.
The rules also say that if neither candidate gets to 2024 the SD's will choose the nominee and they are only to consider who will be the best GE candidate. having the most pledged delegates, but not getting 2024 on your own, is not an automatic for the SD's to vote for you. Close doesn't count if neither gets to 2024 and neither will get there. The popular vote is the will of the people. There are plenty of democrats who said the popular vote was pretty important in 2000. The popular vote will absolutely matter more than pledged delegates if neither gets to 2024 (and they won't).
If HRC wins the popular vote, and it is likley she will, she will earn the nomination.
It's kind of ironic that you mention "play by rules" in making the case for Hillary Clinton, since those rules have been continually changed by the Clinton campaign as the primary has dragged on. Didn't those same rules, rules that Hillary Clinton agreed to way back when, say that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count? Your argument about the CNN ads is no argument at all. Do you know how broadcasting works? Do you know what a national ad buy is? HIllary could have bought ads on CNN as well. I guess she made a "political decision" not to. I do expect to hear repeated references to the 2000 election from the Clinton camp though, should she manage to pull ahead in the popular vote. I believe they are thinking it is something of an ace in the hole.
Obama will go over the top via superdelegates in any case. The question is how much damage Sen. Clinton will do in the meantime.
I have one question for you though, how, having seen how Sen. Clinton lies, repeatedly, even when she doesn't have to (I'm referring to the Bosnia story and the repeated lieing to try and cover it up), can you still support Hillary Clinton? This is a serious question, since it was that episode that caused me to switch my support from Clinton to Obama.
Obama made a political decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot!!!
We don't live in a vacuum and the reality of the situation is that the primary is close and the votes from these states are going to have to be included. The Dems cannot risk alienating the voters from these 2 crucial states. The DNC miscalculated, but they need to be dealt with and counted if there is any hope of winning those states in the GE.
Going over 2024 with SD's is meaningless at this point because the SD's can change their minds and then he could go right back under 2024.
Lies? Obama said on Countdown that he never heard any offensive comments from Reverand Wright when he was in the pews and then 72 hours later he said in his speech, "did I hear controversial comments from the pew? Of course I did." This lie was politically done to deal with a crisis that was borne out of his bad judgement of choosing to have a 20 year relationship with a man that said the US government created aids to kill black people and distributes drugs to blacks to imprison them. If this individual were associatd with HRC there would have been a Special Comment by Olberman. Instead, the MSM gave Obama his usual pass and said, "This has been explained enough for us." Obama is responsible for playing the race card with Brazille and Clyburn in SC. The media helped Obama and pointed fingers at HRC, but it's not what actually happened.
As far as I'm concerned, it has been explained enough. We cannot hold Obama responsible for something someone else said. And as far as, he sat in that church for years, so what!!! When you go to church, you don't worship the human being, you are there to worship God. People have relationships with people for years, but that doesn't mean that the people in those relationships think the same. That is why we are called individuals-we all think differently. People need to move on from Rev. Wright. It is an old story and the only people continuing to use it are people who are looking for reasons not to vote for Obama. So, if you don't want to vote for Obama, don't. But, please stop using weak excuses.
Offensive and controversial are two different things. For instance, offensive (to me) would be "KILL WHITEY", controversial would be "the US government created AIDS to kill the black man". I'm offended by the former because I'm white and don't think I need killing simply because of that accident of birth. The latter is controversial because, while I think it's nonsense, the fact that a government that deliberately let black men die of syphilis so they could observe it's affect on those men makes it something that, while controversial, is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
It is splitting hairs, it is true, but this politics, where the definition of "is" somethime assumes great importance.
"Don't recall anyone calling him John"
I'm sure there are many lobbyists who refer to Double Talk as a John.
You say McCain got 1% in WV. You do know that is idiotic. It was the Repub. caucus where McCain delegetes teamed up with Huckabees to oust Romney.
McCain will easily win WV in Nov. regardless of the Dem.
Loved it.
By the way, did anyone see the CNN special the other day about the economic hard times in parts of Kentucky. Well to sum it up, the citizens of this small, rural town basically said that they would not vote for Hillary because she was a woman (an old white, poor, white woman actually said that). She said it was because the bible says that a woman's place is in the home. They also said overwhelmingly that they did not feel that by voting they would be able to see any real economic change in their town. And that if they did vote that they would probably vote for McCain because he shares their values.
Now I understand that this is only a small sample of the population among the poor, whites in rural America, but doesn't all this sound familiar to something that was said a few months ago? Obama said somthing about rural America being, I think the word was "bitter" but who knows, the press didn't really make a big deal about it. Anyway the more people that speak their minds on television, the more they reinforce Obama's point.
Oh Bob. Why do you want to be all crabby when change is almost in our hands, Bob? We call McCain "Old Man", remember?
Old man is a phrase that fits any one over 50 !!I know I am 53 LOL !!
John Mccain will not release his medical records and is suppose to have already taken care of it.
I guess that goes under EXECUTIVE PRIVELEGE !!
I see now why they call Bush and Mccain twin brothers maybe CLONES !!!!
Go Bob. This is awesome coverage. This is why blogging is fun.
Hillary claims that there has been no racism in this campaign.
Please remember that the reace card was played by Donna Brazille, James Clyburn and Senator Obama's campaign as HRC was gaining on him in SC. Just because the media looked the other way and pointed the finger at HRC doesn't change the truth and the way things actually occured in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world where the MSM and blogs have forced THEIR narrative of how things have/would occur in this primary.
good one and to the point.
Bob you are doing an awesome job with these posts. I can't wait to read you the day after the election. Your points are well taken. I voted for Obama in PA and I will vote for him in November.
I agree about not calling the primaries "contests." And while we are at it, how about removing the word "democratic" from describing the nomination process? The process is more accurately a "nomination procedure" decided upon by a committee of party leaders. It has elements of democracy, but also party meetings (caucuses), carte blanches for certain officials (superdelegates), as well as just plain meetings behind closed doors (DNC meetings, state Democratic party meetings, etc.). Nobody ever said that a political party should run itself democratically, and they don't.
But it is still democratic, the people have spoken and they gave majority of the delegates their preferred candidate; however those delegates are not enough to clear the 2025 hurdle set by the party.
My take is, at the end of the day, let the person with the majority of delegates from all primaries & caucuses (including FL & MI) be declared the winner.
I do not care if that person is Obama or Hillary, but even if you add the rightly disputed FL & MI delegates i.e. assign them just like Hillary is saying, which means give Hillary 55% of the delegates in FL and Obama 45%; also
It's always nice to know that on the nights when I just can't sit in front of the television watching inane political blather, I can read Bob Cesca the next morning over an espresso and get the scoop in the most amusing way possible. Thanks again, Bob. You rock the house.
(And, yeah, what's up with the disrespectful "Barack" and "Hillary" references? Never hear them talking about how "Mike and Ron took 15% of the vote from John in Oregon tonight" do we?)
Posted May 20, 2008 | 07:19 PM (EST)