Obama wins the Wyoming caucuses handily today with 61% of the popular vote to Hillary's 38%. This will give him another 7 delegates and Clinton 5. After actually participating in this particular state this time, Clinton still came out lacking.

They'll probably spin it by saying there wasn't that many delegates at stake and that the states that count are the high delegate states. I just hope the Obama campaign fires back with the fact that he won more delegates in Texas than she did.

There's definitely a double standard in her campaign.

I found the one chink in Obama's armour that might make me veer toward the Clinton side today. In a speech in Wyoming, Barack Obama was quoted as saying that NASA has lost inspiration and that he would delay some space initiatives for over 5 years (including and not limited to the Moon to Mars program).

From the Baltimore Sun:

During the question-and-answer portion of an event at a recreational center here, Obama was asked about the nation’s space program.

“I grew up on Star Trek,” Obama said. “I believe in the final frontier.”

But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.

“NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,” he said. “I don’t think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn’t even pass for news anymore.”

Now, I'm a DIEHARD NASA fan, and a total space-geek, so what he says here is actually a little more distressing to me than anything he could possibly say about healthcare or immigration. This is really a selling point here, and I'm very disheartened by his policies with regard to NASA's space exploration and science programs. Clinton has a more science-forward policy, and I honestly feel that NASA is our one and only program that can forward humans into the new frontier.

We'll see how far this goes. I doubt this is going to get any media exposure, because of the campaign not wanting to alienate some of the ideologues out here, including me.

Or not...

You may have heard that Senator Obama is, in addition to being a Muslim Baby-eater that Hates Amerika, taking money from Da Mob, specifically Tony Rezko. Thanks to the Chicago Sun Times it looks like those claims (also found originally in the CST) are somewhat questionable. Here are eight things you need to know about thier relationship.

Hillary Clinton has said in interviews and on the stump that, even though the senator from Illinois is not ready to be President, he's ready to be her VICE PRESIDENT. This contradicts the natural idea that the VP has to be READY to be President should the real President ever become incapacitated enough to be unable to fulfill the obligations of the office. This means that the Clinton double-standard is, again, in full play. Clinton's snake-oil salesman, Howard Wolfson, said today that although "Senator Obama has not passed the commander-in-chief test...there is a long way between now and Denver."

This is such a load of double-talking crap. If Obama's going to be ready for the VP position, and in turn, ready to take over for the top office on day one, isn't Wolfson and his boardwalk cronies making the case that Obama will be ready for THE PRESIDENCY on day one?

For the third day of this website, this completely defines the concept of Spitball Politics. Let's shoot that wad of sputum soaked college-rule up to the chalkboard and see if it sticks. Then people will have to pay attention to it...at least for this news-cycle.

Now with over 99% of the ballots counted, it's official: Barack Obama wins the Mississippi Democratic Primary!

Here are some of the results that count:

Male Voters:
• Obama - 61%
• Clinton - 38%

Female Voters:
• Obama - 58%
• Clinton - 39%

Black Voters:
• Obama - 92%
• Clinton - 8%

White Voters:
• Obama - 26%
• Clinton - 70%

Aged 17-64:
• Obama - 63%
• Clinton - 35%

Aged 55+:
• Obama - 43%
• Clinton - 55%

Income < $50,000:
• Obama - 66%
• Clinton - 31%

Income > $50,000:
• Obama - 52%
• Clinton - 45%

Just from these numbers (from the MSNBC Polls), I think it's evident that there's a definite racial gap in Mississippi, but it looks like Clinton's losing her grasp on the female, the rich, and the old voters who swung more toward Obama in the last two contests than ever before.

Also, he pulled away by another 17 or so delegates last night...

...and sealed up his 30th win!

So the Clintons have been generous enough to make the offer to Obama, but we all know how that went down. Should Obama win the nom, do you think he should make the same offer to Senator Clinton? I made my opinion known on the most recent Political Ride:

Yes you should listen!!

So until we get some shmancy poll thingy on this here website you can respond in the comments.

Sharpton asks some of the same questions I've asked myself.

HT to Kansas Bob

My pastor in Greenville and I differed greatly on certain matters political and theological. Still I respected him and was a member. Now granted Rev. Wright comes across as a big old nutjob and anyone that believes that the US Government invented AIDS, was responsible for 9/11, etc. needs to check into a rubber room and thankfully Obama has come down on those things. Can we move on now media?

Well it looks like Obama may be lying about not having heard Wright's sermons. There's a lengthy article at Newsmax that says that he was there and claims that Obama would have no way NOT to know about Wright's tendencies/politics.

ht to Southcon

Written by Patrick:

Not to too strongly dispute my cohort's post, but this story was debunked the very day it came out. Bill Kristol posted on this in the Times, Monday, but had to redact it because he blatantly hoarked the information out of the NewsMax website, which is well-known to post less-than-worthy fabrications of the truth about Obama and others. NewsMax is not a "source", in as much as Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh are not "sources".

Further, Olbermann's The Worst Person in the World addresses this.

...and yes, Scott used a CONSERVATIVE BLOG as his ht on this. Something akin to placing an anti-environment lobby-monger like Dirk Kempthorne to head the Dept of Interior.

In order to decide who gets the super delegates Evan Bayh suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

The Times goes on to point out that:

Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

Hmmmm.

Personally, I think Hillary should step down. It's pretty obvious that she's desperate and knows that her ship is sinking. We all know that that's probably not going to happen though. She wants a brokered convention. It's not what's best for the party, but she doesn't care about that.

I say we just leave it to the delegates' judgment. It's not cut and dried like the popular vote, the polls, number of delegates, or states won (all of which gives them to Obama), but I think that they'll all see which way the wind is blowing and make the right choice. Richardson does and hopefully Edwards does. I agree with a local radio host here that says if Edwards throws his endorsement Obama's way it's over. What say you?

Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,

Surely, you must know that this long, drawn-out primary campaign is doing nothing but hurting the Democratic Party and diminishing our chances in the November general election. Not only are the personal attacks childish and pointless, but they are providing the Republican Party with ammunition to use against the ultimate nominee. (It is true that they would likely use the same ammunition regardless of the content of this primary contest, but they will now have the implicit backing of the losing Democratic candidate.)

Supporters on both sides want the other side to back down and drop out of the race, and that would be the easiest way to close this primary season. It does appear, at this point, that Senator Obama does have an advantage in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, there are still races to go and the people in the remaining states deserve to have their voices heard. So, barring one candidate dropping out of the race, it becomes important to finish this race with a different tone and with different tactics. There must be a way to elevate the contest so that it helps the eventual nominee, rather than hurt him or her.

I am not the first to suggest that the rest of this race should be about substantive issues, rather than silly attacks about whose supporters said what. First, it is important to recognize that in terms of these issues, both candidates’ views are similar. There are substantial differences, but overall, these differences are trivial when compared to John McCain’s ideas. What it boils down to, is that this campaign is about which candidate is liked and trusted more. And personal attacks on the other do nothing to settle that question. What needs to happen is an honest and frank policy discussion that highlights the substantive differences and similarities between the two candidates and how best to beat the Republicans in November. Let the voters decide based on that.

Senator Obama’s speech last week was monumental and should serve as a model for the rest of the campaign. If both candidates continued the race with the same honest and nuanced tone, it would not only put an end to the childish personal attacks, but would prepare the winner for the general election campaign and help to reunite the party behind the Democratic nominee.

Or the campaign can continue the way it is going now. We will go to Denver and have a brokered convention on our hands. Almost exactly half of the party will be disenfranchised. And the nominee, legitimate or otherwise, will have less than three months to pull it together and try to beat McCain in November.

I like my idea better.

Sincerely,
Toby.

Reid predicts nomination will be decided before convention:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says the Democratic presidential nomination will be decided before the August convention.

“It will be done,” Reid said of the ongoing nomination battle in an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal last week.

As the intense fight between Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) heads into the spring, some party insiders are nervous the protracted battle will help Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Reid, however, did not seem alarmed.

“I had a conversation with [Democratic National Committee Chairman] Governor [Howard] Dean today,” Reid told the paper. “Things are being done.”

He did not elaborate as to what those “things” were.

A superdelegate himself, Reid has not endorsed either candidate.

Reid also told the paper he does not think Michigan and Florida will hold new primaries. Reid did predict that the delegates from the two states will be seated at the convention. However, he did not say how that would be accomplished.

"Michigan and Florida delegates are going to be seated. They're going to be a part of the convention," Reid told the paper.

In a separate interview, Reid told the Associated Press that the two Democratic candidates are "basically the same" on the major issues so that any wounds the two inflict on each other will heal well before the general election.

Despite the barbs currently being traded by the Clinton and Obama camps, Reid told the AP that this year's primary contest has been "one of the most sensationally positive campaigns in the history of our country" for both parties.

As we get closer to the NC primary this sort of thing encourages me, Poll Shows Obama Favorable in North Carolina

In a survey conducted on April 5 and 6, the results show that 54 percent of the people are planning to vote for Obama while only 33 percent are planning to vote on rival and New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

13 percent of the people surveyed remain undecided.

“Even with both candidates now running TV ads in the state, Obama is maintaining his lead in that solid 20 point range,” said Dean Debnam, Public Policy Polling President.

Rumors of voters mistrusting Clinton have been abound and are part of the reason she has received considerably less of the vote.

I think I can safely say that voters mistrusting Clinton is no rumor. That's the reason I wouldn't vote for her. I don't trust politicians in general as much as I trust regular folk, Obama's no exception. I trust Hilary even less. So who will I vote for should she make it to the general election? I may just commit Hare Krishna.

Don't really have a whole lot to post today, so here's a glimpse at a couple things I've read so far today.

Politico: Obama's happy, drama-free campaign:

In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton can’t run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?

And while she says she is ready from Day One to be president, she is at something like Day 430 into being a presidential candidate and her campaign seems to be going from bad to worse to train wreck.
...

And this is the pitch the Obama campaign is going to make in the weeks ahead, especially to those superdelegates who are still on the fence: Obama has run a good primary campaign, which is a sign that he will run a good general election campaign, and then a good presidency. Clinton, the Obama campaign will say, cannot make the same argument.

Sean Wilentz argues in Salon that if the Democratic primary operated on a winner-take-all basis -- "one of the central principles of American electoral politics" -- Hillary Clinton would be ahead. "In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257," he concludes. Instead, Obama has a lead that is "reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process."

This is a bizarre proposition. It's true that the Democratic delegate-apportioning process is eccentric. But since when is winner-take-all considered a more democratic process than proportional allotment? Indeed, in this case, winner-take-all would have made the Democratic primary less democratic. Obama is winning the popular vote. He's even winning if you count the vote in Florida, where neither candidate campaigned or organized their voters. (A restriction that benefitted Clinton enormously, as greater familiarity has boosted Obama's standing virtually everywhere -- witness the withering away of Clinton's once-massive lead in Pennsylvania.)
...

Clinton supporters are spending an inordinate amount of time devising scenarios where Clinton would be winning if the rules of the primary were changed retroactively. Yet all the rules were understood and agreed to by both candidates in advance. The rules are not perfect, but the hypothetical alternatives proposed by Clinton's side -- imposing a winner-take-all system, counting the votes in states with no campaigning or only one candidate on the ballot -- would make the race less fair, not more fair. So, yes, it's possible to imagine different, less-fair rules where the losing candidate would have prevailed. But so what?

show the race tightening in Pennsylvania. The CNN "poll of polls" (You know it's good because they polled the polls! How about that?) has Clinton up by only seven points, while the RCP Average has her up by only just over six points. No telling what the MoE is. Also, it should be noted that, according to CNN, nine percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania are undecided.

I don't put a whole lot of stock in polls, especially in this race, but any polls that show my guy doing well are encouraging! (In true American political style, I dismiss polls that reflect poorly on my candidate and tout the good ones!)

is supporting Obama. He's not my favorite man in the world (far from it), but I can't help but agree with him here.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

via Friendly Atheist.

I admired Obama when he did not throw Wright under the bus after the whole debacle flared up the first. But as you probably know, Wright persisted yesterday, giving speeches which, among other things, reiterated his suspicions that the US government is responsible for AIDS. He also said that Obama renounced his words merely because he had to do what a politician does. In essence, he threw Obama under the bus. Obama wasn't left with much choice but to come against Wright, rather just his words. Hindsight being 20/20, it's about damned time.

I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about.
...
I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday.
...
The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
...
They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs.
...
If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either.
...
I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.
...
It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for.

In a spectacular example of coincidence, it turns out a little bit of corruption may have played into the latest Jeremiah Wright debacle.

Some investigative geniuses started looking into the different press events that Wright attended this past weekend, and it looks like the National Press Club event could have been a Clinton-instigated issue. You put a wild badger in a room with a few pigeons, three D-cell batteries and a sack of oranges, you're going to get a battle of epic proportions. Two trains on the same track. Planets lining up....stuff like that.

This reeks of the same stuff Hillary was doing when she was running with the devil, Richard Mellon Scaife. I hope this isn't an underhanded campaign trick to try and smother Obama in the crib before the general election.

From RawStory and The NY Daily News:

"Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds," The New York Daily News' Errol Lewis begins Tuesday.

"A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity," he adds. "It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

More:

On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."

I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

Even if it wasn't deliberate, the implication of underhandedness is there...and it is absolutely despicable.

Tom Hanks is endorsing Barack Obama.

At this moment, only two counties remain to be counted in Indiana. NBC has been holding out on calling the election for Clinton because of those two counties, Lake and Union. Union county, a rural, white county with just over 7,000 people. Lake county, however, has an 25% black population of over 485,000 people (including Gary, IN, a predominantly black city with 85%).

Hillary just addressed her people claiming victory in Indiana, thanking the people for giving her the "opportunity" to continue on to the convention.

Fingers are crossed that Lake county can pull up the 4% points needed for Obama to break her and ruin her "victory" speech.

Update:
NBC just called Indiana for Clinton by a razor-thin margin (likely under 15K votes). The interesting thing about tonight is that she seems to have canceled all of her public events for Wednesday. Didn't Romney do that right before he pulled out?

I don't know how I feel about this, if it's true, of course. I guess it depends on the tone of the campaign between now and then. If, as seems to be the general consensus, Hillary continues the dirty tactics, this will be a good idea. It will be a symbolic step to starting the general election. But, if Hillary takes the Huckabee route, it seems that declaring victory will come across as presumptuous, which could turn voters off in November.

If on the off chance, the rest of the campaign is about the issues and is fought fairly and cleanly (unless that's not a word), I think Obama should hold off on declaring victory until after the Rules Committee meets on the 31st and until after the last of the primaries on June 3rd. Obama has the nomination, whether or not he declares victory.

A pledged delegate for Clinton switches his vote to Obama. Great. We got the vote, but what does that mean? There has been talk from the Clinton camp about getting pledged delegates to switch. This could legitimize her position. Methinks the Obama camp would be smart to discourage delegate switching.

Update: Christopher Orr at The Plank weighs in:

But there is, or ought to be, a moral [obligation]. There may be extraordinary cases in which it is reasonable for a pledged delegate to defy the will of the citizens whose votes he's representing, but this isn't one of them. There have been plenty of procedural absurdities that have been brought to light in this year's extended primary. But none come close to comparing with the undemocratic chaos that would ensue if other delegates took their pledges as lightly as Johnson does his.

My initial prediction for Hillary to drop out of the race was June 10th. I'll still stand by that prediction, as I think that after tomorrow, she'll give a little time for the superdelegates to make their decisions. But, Marc Ambinder presents a good case for her dropping out (or at least suspending her campaign) tomorrow:

(1) She's going to speak Tuesday night from New York, not from South Dakota or Montana.

(2) The Politico reports that members of her advance staff are being recalled to New York and being given hints that their employment is over; yes, Clinton won't have any more states to campaign in, but the Obama campaign is not shedding its advance staff after Tuesday

(3) Cheryl Mills, a very senior Clinton adviser, intends to return, full-time, to her job as senior vice president at New York University. (Note: aides say I am making way too much out of this news; Mills would surely stay on board Clinton's campaign if Clinton continues. And truth be told, I did not contact Mills before I wrote this item, something I should have done.)

(4) Junior members of the staff are making plans for vacation, and they're not receiving any push-back from their bosses.

What do you think?

AP: Obama has delegates to clinch nomination

Tonight's speeches will be interesting to watch.

This might be a result of the long and vitriolic, at times, campaign, but all this talk about the possibility of Hillary being the VP-candidate seems a bit presumptuous to me. Granted, there are legitimate arguments about why she should be on the ticket, but once again, Hillary is banking on being inevitable.

Within the past few months, there have been some harsh words thrown around by supporters of both Democratic campaigns, which is understandable, to a certain extent. But, now that we have a winner, some of the same people who were the most vocal against Obama (namely, Lanny Davis) are suddenly pushing for Hillary to be vice-president (I might also add that in that previous link to voteboth.com, still has "Clinton/Obama '08" in the logo, but I'll chalk that up to it being so soon after the primaries). As if she were entitled to it because she came in second. It doesn't work that way anymore.

I am open to the possibility to Hillary being on the ticket. And given her popularity within the party, it is important that she not be cut out of the loop entirely. But, she, or her surrogates, are in no position to presume anything.

It can apparently buy 94 Democrats in the House.

From MAPLight.org:

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.
...
"Campaign contributions bias our legislative system,” said Daniel Newman, Executive Director of MAPLight.org. “Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests."

This is absolutely sickening news. Selling out your constituents is one thing. Selling out your freedom is blatantly criminal. I hope this gets picked up in the mainstream.

An interesting independently-made anti-McCain commercial:

I think it would be a very effective ad, if professionally produced and it's not like it's untrue, but should Obama put some money into this type of advertising? Has he already?