Barack Obama's insurgency has entered the phase of the general offensive. It began last year, perhaps earlier, with foolish audacity and serious low-visibility organizing of both people and money. It surprised the overconfident incumbent machine with a peaceful uprising in Iowa, suffered a sudden counter-attack in New Hampshire, but kept rolling up wins at the popular periphery, survived against the heaviest establishment blows on Super Tuesday, and now is poised to compete with concentrated force against the dwindling citadels of the opposition [Texas and Ohio], before swarming through the last primaries of Rhode Island [21 pledged delegates], Vermont [12], Wyoming [12], Mississippi [33], Pennsylvania [151], Guam [3], Indiana [66], West Virginia [26], North Carolina [91], Oregon [48], Puerto Rico [55], Oregon [48], Montana [15], South Dakota [9]. There are 564 pledged delegates up for grabs in those last 15 contests alone, and most if not all lean already towards Obama.
What about Hillary Clinton's "firewall" states of Ohio and Texas? When the balance of forces shifts in a competition, when the general offensive is on, little can hold it back. Wavering voters shift their allegiances. Donors defect. The calculation of electability shifts. The old leadership is staggered, off balance, the ground collapsing under their feet. Even if Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas, the margins will not be enough to block his momentum.
What about the super-delegates? Won't the party establishment become Clinton's safety net? Not in the face of the running tide, not a chance.
Won't this go all the way to the August Democratic convention? The pressure to turn the Democratic forces towards the November general election, towards responding to John McCain, will become too overwhelming to resist.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign, unprecedented for a first run for president. His greatest challenge at this point is not the faltering Clinton campaign, but the difficulties of transitioning to front-runner status without stumbling. It's not over, but it's his to lose.
Update:
The magnitude of Obama's Wisconsin victory is slightly diminished because of the large numbers of white suburban Republicans in crossing over to vote for Clinton, according to former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin's analysis of initial precinct returns.
I, like most Dems, would have no problem supporting either of these candidates against the war-mongering McCain.
However, I must confess to a little joy at seeing HRC's defeat. This is truly one of the biggest underdog victories in the history of U.S. politics. The Clinton campaign has gone from inevitable to desperate.
Why? Simple.
For the past decade, the Clintons have done nothing but stick their middle finger in the faces of the Democratic base. From NAFTA to welfare reform to supporting the disgusting DLC to the Iraq War, the Clintons have done nothing but tilt to the right. What has been the result? Huge Dem losses in Congress (until 2006 after finally purging the Clintonites from the DNC in 2005), a stolen 2000 election and the most divisive war since Viet Nam.
If this is the Clintons' swan song, I, for one, will not miss them.
I have always believed in a woman's right to choose and so has Hillary. But we are not going to kill live babies outside the mothers womb that breath on their own. Obama has voted to allow this to happen. These babies once they have taken a breath are American citizens. How dare Obama do that to fellow American citizen.
And many people that don't believe in abortion would not push the issue if this partial birth abortion was banned. Having Obama as president will set these people on fire to bring down ROE VS WADE and the court is stacked in their favor to do so. We can't afford to take that chance. Vote for Hillary and this will not happen she has already voted against it. So has Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. ( LOOK IT UP) That should tell you how radical Obamas position is.
Next it'll be flag burning, gay marriage, whether or not he wears his American flag pin often enough, if he smoked a joint in college and, of course, if he's a Manchurian candidate for radical Muslims.
If you still have any doubt that there's little difference between the DLC machine and the GOP machine, posts like this erase it promptly.
Truman pointed out Republicans make better Republicans than Democrats do. Let Hillary run as a member of Rove's party.
So twisted....you go down with your candidate !!!!
LOL !!!!
What concerns me most are those ready and willing to end this competition before "we the people" have ALL had a chance to use our voice. Regardless of what many project the inevitable outcome to be, is it truly democratic to shut down the polls before everyone votes?
Isn't relevancy one of the reasons many states opted to move their primaries up on the calendar. In "our" democracy every vote should count (ie. popular vote vs. electoral college; popular vote vs. delegate vote).
With a popular vote spread of less than 5%, does it make sense to end this race prematurely? What kind of example does this provide to the next generation, those aspiring U.S. citizens and growing democracies around the world? How does this make our democracy legitimate?
Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
2/24/08
Popular vote
-
Obama - 10,300,410
Clinton - 9,375,213
---------------------------------
Total - 19,675,623
--
Difference of - 925,197 or 4.7%
U.S. citizens from 15 states have not yet had a chance to caste their ballots.
But it is a good bet that Obama will win. Hillary is exceding her previous best (worst?) false indignant accusations.
They don't seem to be winning her any friends, but they do serve a purpose. They keep people from looking too long at her filthy record.
Authorize war on Iraq? Aye.
Kyl-Lieberman? Aye.
"But I'm anti-war!" Believe her?
Don't think about6 it.
1.) What tax increases are you talking about? I don't find any in Obama's platform. You could more than pay for his domestic initiatives just by getting the hell out of Iraq.
2.) If you define "experience" as decades spent in Washington, McCain's "experience" works against him.
Now here's a question for every Hillarybot: how would Hillary face McCain on the war when she VOTED FOR IT HERSELF?!
As to experience. It is defined in many ways but Obamarama is sorely lacking in virtually every aspect where it comes to leading the worlds only remaining superpower. That is undeniable.
BTW- I'm not a Billary supporter in any way, shape, or form
Absolutely Wrong!
I would guess that as many crossed over to vote for Obama as well.
But it is not about the very few republicans who cross over to vote Democratic.
It is the fact that BOTH of the Democratic Candidates are better for America.
The republicans deserve ZERO credit and ALL the blame.
I wish that both Obama supporters and Hillary supporters would over look their small differences after the primary and join together and defeat the republicans. I believe that the vast majority will indeed do that.
We should accept any republicans that come crawling over to support us but we should not cater to them. They are dead wrong in both their Economic and Military perspectives and must face that reality if they wish to be a constructive part of our democratic process.
Here in Oregon we're not voting till the end of May and we never expected we might actually be relevant this year. But like Tom Hayden says, the race is most likely won. I've told the family to get used to the phrase "President Obama." I'm liking the sound of that.
do you know who you're voting for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
A B I G F A T Z E R O!
NADER SEALED OBAMAS FAITH ON MEET THE PRESS.
The American Dream is like a Chameleon.
Meanwhile, the snoring and snorting over at RNC hq will be comical
And it aint over yet, folks!
10:52pm
Alexandria, VA
Have to agree with you Mr. Hayden.
And have to say that I wish you would run for Governor of California!
We are(were) a nation of laws, but think a person is the answer.
Then wonder why.
Amazing.
Every four years.
um...
: = /
11:23am
Alexandria, VA
A person is the answer when a candidate respects the rule of law and his/her opponent does not.
I'm trying to evoke discussion. Does he respect the rule of law or does he just more than the garrison enterprise's candidate? Or that serial felon he must beat in the primary?
We can agree on the former, to be sure.
My point is the constitutional society was subordinated by the Supreme Count picking Cheney and the Minion over the rule of law in 2000.
I call it the American Abbeyance. If so, we cannot redress ourselves until we accept the great experimant in participatory democracy was/is concluded in favor of a more perfect permanent majority. Counting ballots every four years may not be enough until so.
They have been countering the republic since. Who actually beleives anyone has been accorded the extent of their sedition/recralcetrance? Their acheivements, however moronic, is likely to be beyond one persons capacity to redress for years.
Got fascism?
um....
:=)
not only that, but he has already proven to be a great leader in that he inspires so many to rise up and think and act.
You could program a Tickle Me Elmo to say CHANGE and win the nomination from this nation at this point in history.
Has anyone thought of if the fascist Karl Rove slash and burn paradigm is the one actually winning? >; =/ Did their votes make the numerical difference?
Make no mistake, Obamma impresses few more then this person. He can beat any American? But, how can he/we stand up to the counter republican fascist cult o' Federaralist (anti)Society? He isn't so rosey of an oppertunity in lieu of their playbook.
Great, great man though. He could do so much more for EVERYONE in the Supreme Count. Thats my only gig.
Great posts though.