jimblr.com

(CNN) — Barack Obama has picked up six additional superdelegate endorsements so far Tuesday: four from Michigan (each with a half-vote), one from Massachusetts, and one from Missouri.
CNN has also confirmed that six of the 13 Florida delegates pledged to John Edwards are now backing Obama, giving him three additional pledged delegate votes.
Obama now leads Clinton by 166 delegates in overall delegates, 120 in pledged delegates, and 46 in superdelegates.
The Illinois senator is now 35 delegates short of clinching the Democratic nomination while Clinton is 201 delegates short of clinching the nomination.
There are 31 pledged delegates up for grabs in the remaining two contests (Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday night).
There are 193 superdelegates who remain uncommitted.
June 3rd, 2008 1:07 pm ET
Just got my NEW INDEPENDENT registration card!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bye Bye Democratic PARTY! You want BO, you can have him….by November you can put him on the list of losers for the democratic ticket….
Carter…big time loser, what did he win 2 states in his second attempt?
I hope to heck Bill and Hillary Clinton start a new Independent party, start their own news organization, and RUN in November. BTW, CNN, you suck big time.
June 3rd, 2008 1:07 pm ET
Can you smell it? I can.
June 3rd, 2008 1:08 pm ET
Who is the REAL loser??? The answer is we all are if we vote for McSame.
After the dust settles and if McBlame wins because of the brainwashed Democrats then we only have ourselves to blame. God I hope the few crazed Democrats that are planning to vote Republican this year don’t have kids. It’s a horrible thing to teach our little ones to vote for someone else because “Im bitter because my candidate didn’t win”.
Hillery and Obama have a lot more in common than McShame. Please read up on it before you decide. Just because you didn’t go to college doesn’t mean your expected to make stupid decisions for the rest of your lives.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Obama Seeks to Clinch Nomination as Primaries Close (Update1)
By Catherine Dodge
June 3 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama sought to round up enough delegates today to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination as a top adviser to Hillary Clinton said she will acknowledge Obama as the nominee once he hits that mark.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said the New York senator probably will regard Obama as the party's nominee as soon as he secures the required number of delegates.
“If Senator Obama gets the number, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee,'' McAuliffe said on NBC's “Today'' show.
Still, McAuliffe and other campaign officials said Clinton has no plans give a concession speech tonight after the last two primaries are finished in South Dakota and Montana.
“Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening,'' the campaign said in a two-sentence statement after the Associated Press reported that she would offer her concession tonight with an address in New York.
Some of Clinton's congressional colleagues are pushing for Clinton to join Obama on the Democratic ticket in November.
“I'm a very strong supporter of Hillary being placed on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate,'' California Senator Dianne Feinstein said today. “Each one of them represents a different constituency, and the constituencies are knocking heads at the present time.''
Some New York lawmakers said Clinton told them on a conference call today that she is “open'' to running as vice president, the AP reported, citing an unnamed participant on the call.
The AP projected that Obama will end up getting the required 2,118 delegates to secure the nomination after today's primaries. The tally anticipates Obama will gain enough superdelegates — party leaders and elected officials — to put him over the top along with his share of the 31 total pledged delegates available in South Dakota and Montana.

bloomberg.com

Women have fought for equality in the workplace and the public square for decades, and now that they have achieved it, two men believe that women have to be protected from big, bad men who criticize their political speeches. The first, Barack Obama, comes as no surprise; he wants to minimize the political damage from a speech Michelle Obama gave at the beginning of February. The second, Republican Senator Bob Corker, has no such excuse:
The office of Senator Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, has weighed in today, siding with Senator Barack Obama’s objections to the state’s G.O.P. Web campaign against Michelle Obama.
To recap, the officialdom of the Tennessee G.O.P. posted a Web spot that mines remarks Mrs. Obama made in February that “first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad repeats footage of her speaking those words, interspersed with comments from Tennesseans, talking about how they’ve always been proud to be an American. …
Today, Mr. Corker’s chief of staff, Todd Womack, demanded that his boss’ state party remove the Web ad:
After the Republican National Committee damaged our campaign with their infamous ‘Call Me’ ad — which we immediately denounced — we have strongly encouraged the national party and state parties to absolutely refrain from getting involved in negative personal campaigning, and we have asked the state party to remove their You Tube ad from their Web site.
Republicans will be in much better shape if we spend our time focused on issues like reducing federal spending, lowering the cost of health care and creating a coherent energy policy.
As I wrote yesterday, anyone who delivers speeches at campaign events had better grow a thick enough skin to take criticism for their statements, and that includes the spouses of candidates. No one suggested that Bill Clinton’s statements on the stump should get excepted from criticism, and the Obama campaign didn’t follow that policy when decrying Bill’s divisiveness when Bill called Obama’s story on his Iraq policy a “fairy tale”. Why didn’t they observe the spousal exemption then? Is it because Bill’s a man and not a poor woman who requires the protection of her men?

hotair.com

The Morning Brief, a look at the day’s biggest news, is emailed to subscribers by 7 a.m. every business day. Sign up for the e-mail here.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday suggested that in the years ahead, U.S. generals really should be trying to fight the last war, because Iraq represents both the future and the present for armed conflict.
“For much of the past year I’ve been trying to concentrate the minds and energies of the defense establishment on the current needs and current conflicts,” Mr. Gates told a Colorado meeting held by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called ‘Next-War-itis’ — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,” he said, attributing this inclination in part to how the Cold War shaped the American peacetime military. But citing the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, the Israeli record in Lebanon and the U.S.’s own contemporary history in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Gates argued asymmetric warfare will continue to dominate the U.S. military mission. “Smaller, irregular forces — insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists — will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries,” while nation-states will adopt those tactics as well, he said. “Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today.”
That means the service and congressional backers of billions of dollars in planned weapons projects may have to demonstrate their “relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that, as I mentioned, are most likely to engage America’s military in the coming decades,” Mr. Gates said. It could also mean increased attention paid to American experience in such combat environments that go back a lot farther than Iraq. Newsweek’s Christopher Dickey, who has covered American operations in Lebanon in the 1980s and Iraq this decade, suggests “Lebanonization” is the most likely fate of the latter: “a foundering half-failed state where neighbors fight proxy battles through sectarian militias and through the many factions in a government that is unable to govern at all,” with “times of war when life seems to go on almost as normal, and times of peace when it seems not to.”

online.wsj.com

The earthquake in Sichuan has displaced the Burmese cyclone disaster from the news and invites grim death toll comparisons. Unfortunately, the Burmese government is showing no ability to cope with the disaster on their own, nor are they allowing much outside help in.
In this post, we publish two eye witness accounts of the cyclone disaster sent to Danwei by a Burmese citizen and by an American in Rangoon / Yangon. Both must remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
The second article by the American describes the storm and goes into some detail about the aftermath, including the author’s attempts to distribute aid in the countryside outside of Rangoon.
Below is an extract about one such aid mission from the American’s account; it explains the photograph reproduced above (taken by the author):
We passed one village en route that had a small red cross flag in a shack with many people waiting outside. Our convoy stopped and we found out they were distributing a very small amount of rice and milk to the villagers. This was a good place to donate some of our goods. As soon as we stopped a crowd of several hundred came around us and we began to fear a riot. In the chaos, we tried to organize the distribution.
In the midst of all this we suddenly found a soldier and perhaps military informant filming us. One had a video camera and the other was taking stills. This was more harassment to prevent aid from getting through, and at first sight of them (we had later realized they’d been tailing us for some time on motorbike), half our party stayed in the cars for fear of having their faces picked up and sent to who knows where else. The image of the authorities doing nothing to help starving and homeless people but instead pushing them aside to film us was burned into my mind.

danwei.org

Tailor-Made Support for Obama?
While trying to watch Barack Obama’s concession speech Tuesday night, countless Americans were distracted by the three dudes behind him wearing Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts. Whoa — what marketing genius engineered 20 minutes of free advertising for the frat-boy clothing company?
Missed it? Three college-age guys sat side by side in the second row at the Evansville, Ind., rally — each wearing a different and very visible A&F logo shirt. Positioned directly behind Obama, they were caught by the cameras cheering, whispering and even yakking on a cellphone.
Who were they? "These are folks who presumably support Senator Obama and showed up on an important night for the campaign," said Indiana spokesman Nick Kimball, who told us Obama’s staff had no idea how those three ended up in those seats. The rally for 8,000 was organized in 24 hours, open to the general public, did not require tickets — and had no dress code. "We are an inclusive campaign," said Kimball. "Folks come as they are."
But what are the chances three random guys would show up in $29.50 A&F duds in primo camera space? "We had nothing to do with it," company spokesman Tom Lennox said with a laugh yesterday. "Thanks to the campaign for the product placement. We wish we had thought of it."
We’ll buy it: A&F (over the years accused of racist designs, discriminatory hiring and over-sexed advertising) would have used way hotter boys if it had planned the stunt. An Evansville employee was not allowed to comment, but confirmed the A&F triplets — still unidentified yesterday — are customers at the local store. Can "The Real World" be far behind?
From Clay Aiken, the Same Old Refrain
It’s been two months since we blew the lid off the simmering Clay Aiken scandal, revealing that the most successful "American Idol" runner-up ever has skipped all but one of the quarterly meetings of the Presidential Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities since he was appointed in fall 2006. Much scorn was heaped upon our story by the fanatical Claymates community — but silence from the crooner and his reps.

washingtonpost.com

INDIANAPOLIS — Sen. Barack Obama’s convincing win in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana on Tuesday have made the dispute over Michigan and Florida delegates the biggest remaining rationale for Sen. Hillary Clinton to stay in the Democratic presidential race.
“We need to work with others to ensure that Michigan and Florida are seated at our convention,” Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Wednesday. It was one of the three goals Wolfson set out for the campaign to somehow wrest a nomination that appears increasingly secure in Obama’s hands. Clinton also must score a decisive win in next week’s West Virginia primary and convince undeclared superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate against Republican John McCain this fall.
Only 217 delegates remain to be won in the final six primary contests. That small number means Clinton has a steep climb to significantly dent Obama’s lead, which began at roughly 150 delegates at the week’s start and is sure to grow in the wake of his 14-percentage-point victory in North Carolina. Michigan and Florida combine for 368 delegates.
But even under the Clinton campaign’s most optimistic projections, Michigan and Florida are not enough to overcome Obama’s advantage. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told reporters Wednesday that full delegations based on the January contests would mean a gain of 58 delegates for Clinton, but that still would leave her roughly 100 delegates behind.
And Singer admitted that the two proposals now before the Democratic National Committee’s rules committee would reduce the Michigan and Florida delegations, and therefore Clinton’s delegate haul.
The campaign has not said whether it would formally ask the DNC’s rules committee to fully seat the two states’ delegation at a May 31 meeting scheduled to discuss the issue.
That meeting will consider two challenges to the Michigan and Florida delegate bans, one from each state. The challenges would, if upheld, give Clinton some, but not all, of the delegates she has said she is entitled to. It’s possible the committee will consider a third solution, proposed by the “Group of Four” Democratic leaders in Michigan, who have pitched a plan to fully seat the Michigan delegation but reduce Clinton’s delegate advantage in recognition of the fact that Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.

detnews.com

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia on race just wrapped up, and I’ll have a report shortly. Here’s the prepared text, which was similar, but not identical, to the delivered speech.
* Interesting development after Hillary Clinton’s speech on Iraq policy yesterday: “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is sticking to her plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, no matter what. In a testy exchange with a reporter on a conference call Monday, after Clinton delivered a speech about Iraq, top Clinton advisors went to pains to make plain that there would be no room for adjustment in Clinton’s Iraq plans, no matter what happens on the ground. At one point her communications director boiled it down to a one-word answer. Would she stand by her plan? Yes.”
* Good: “A coalition of liberal groups will coordinate $350 million worth of efforts to mobilize voters and advocate for candidates for the general election, its leaders are expected to announce Tuesday. They are billing it as the largest such effort ever across the liberal spectrum. MoveOn.org, labor groups like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win, and other organizations like Acorn, Women’s Voices Women Vote and the National Council of La Raza will be taking part in the effort for the presidential election and House and Senate races.”
* The Clinton campaign asked the Texas Democratic Party to delay their district conventions, the second step in the caucus process. Yesterday, the state party rejected the request (and even seemed to mock the campaign for asking).
* Lots of new polls out over the last 24 hours. CNN has Obama and Clinton leading McCain nationally by similar margins, Gallup’s tracking poll shows Clinton edging Obama by two among Dems nationally, and CNN shows Obama besting Clinton by seven among Dems nationally.

thecarpetbaggerreport.com

I voted for John McCain in 2000. If he had won the Republican primary, I definitely would have voted for him in the general election against Al Gore. The John McCain of 2000 was the Barack Obama of 2008 — a guy who gave you hope that politics could change and that someone with integrity could actually win.
But he didn’t win. And instead of McCain changing politics, politics changed him.
Now, that McCain of yesteryear is unrecognizable. He has taken nearly every position he abhorred and gotten in bed with every loathsome political figure he fought against. Where have you gone, John McCain? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
There are two different McCains: the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008.
The John McCain of 2000 called the Christian right preachers, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the “agents of intolerance.” He was right. These people are complete charlatans — and McCain knows it. At least he did in 2000.
The John McCain of 2008 has kissed the ring of nearly every major Christian right preacher in the country, even Falwell. Falwell said the United States had the Sept. 11 attacks coming because we tolerate homosexuals, feminists and liberals. The John McCain of 2000 would have found that despicable. The John McCain of 2008 gave the commencement speech at Falwell’s Liberty University.

read_more

It’s almost exactly a year since Barack Obama drew some 20,000 people to Austin’s Auditorium Shores the last Friday of February 2007—and so much has changed in the meantime (not even counting the passing of Lady Bird Johnson and the renaming of the lake next to the rally site as Lady Bird Lake).
That intermittently rainy afternoon, the third-year U.S. senator who’d come to national stardom as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention touched down in Austin as part of a presidential campaign kickoff tour that had started two weeks before on a frigid Saturday in Springfield, the capital of Illinois.
Local supporters had already persuaded the campaign to move the rally from a gym on the University of Texas campus. Even so, Obama was wowed by the size of the crowd; five times he called it unbelievable. Obama campaign aides watching the spectacle online from his Chicago headquarters were likewise stunned. They’ve since said the Austin event tuned them into how much of a political phenomenon their man might be in places far from the Midwest heartland.
And he wasn’t yet settled into the rhythms of a speech leading neatly from one punch line to another. That oratorical weakness sometimes re-emerges, though Obama is far less likely now to drift, as he did last Feb. 23, into somewhat pointless recollections of stumping through southern Illinois with Dick Durbin, Illinois’s senior U.S. senator.
This Friday, hundreds of “Stand for Change” rallies later, Obama is no longer a novelty in a Democratic field crowded with grizzled aspirants. Now he leads the only other viable candidate, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, in pledged delegates, having won 11 straight contests since Feb. 5, in financial resources, and in momentum. He was even expecting to benefit from the 2004 Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, stumping for him soon in Texas.
A year ago, Obama was still very much an unknown as a national candidate. But his Auditorium Shores speech, while uneven, was welcomed because of its tone of promise and urgency. On Friday in his rally at 11th and Congress Avenue, he’s widely counted on to knock ‘em dead with a message promising to achieve the Democratic agenda—expanded access to health care, investments in public schools, removing U.S. troops from Iraq and restoring diplomatic relations around the world—by leading Washington away from partisan strife with a unity of purpose.
A year of Fridays ago, Obama told Austinites: “I am an imperfect vessel. This campaign is not going to be about me. Ultimately, it’s going to be about you.”
Urging people to enlist friends on his behalf, he said: “Tell ’em it’s time for you to turn off the TV, stop playing GameBoy. We’ve got work to do.”
In Texas and beyond, many people heeded his call, pitching in as volunteers, holding house parties, making donations. Among them: Kenny Thompson, who helped set up the Auditorium Shores rally. Thompson, who’s 27, quit his job as an aide to City Councilwoman Sheryl Cole last summer to work full-time as part of Obama’s advance team around the country. He’s worked a very cold circuit including Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, Wisconsin and the state of Washington.
The Pflugerville High School and Texas Christian University graduate returned to Austin to help Obama in Texas on Monday night. “The first thing he wanted to do was sleep,” said Alisha Thompson, his mother, saying he also was savoring the warm weather.
Kenneth Thompson Sr., Kenny’s father, said his son has enjoyed an unbelievable chance to “see how America works; how the political process really works.” The Thompsons planned to be at Friday’s rally (and no, their son didn’t line up VIP seats). Kenneth Thompson said he expects his son to head next to Ohio, where Obama is expected to have several public events the first part of next week.
Kenny Thompson Jr. told me last month: “We’ve got the message people want to hear… It’s great to be here (with Obama’s campaign). It’s unbelievable to see these kinds of crowds.”
The young man who’s now an old hand with Obama confirmed Friday he’d be watching Obama (and perhaps marveling) again, in downtown Austin, Friday night. “It’s awesome, good to be back home,” he said. “It’s even better to be here when there’s so much momentum.”
I believe Barack Obama is unstoppable and deserves to be: He’s attracting independents, young people and the disaffected in a way that’s unheard of. He thinks out of the box. He is collaborative not polarizing. He is brilliant not cunning. He is optimistic not angry. He’s the President America deserves. At the same time, Americans in general, and Democrats in particular, have had big problems with Bill and Hillary’s past behavior, current lifestyle arrangement and arrogance, acquired post-Presidency. Now it shows. It must be remembered that Obama was sought out and recruited by Oprah and others who wanted an alternative to the Clintons. Then what began as a “dump Billary” exercise turned into a movement headed by a new, charismatic leader. Hillary just hasn’t got the right stuff. Never did. Or the right husband. The Clintons are going beyond cowardice. The race baiting and cheating on DNC rules, (Michigan and Florida) and super delegates is sleazy, dirty politicking. I don’t think the American people are going to put up with it
This Time, Will it be “The Integrity Stupid”
I just hope Texas is not as prejudice as it used to be against people of color and are ready to progress as much as most other states are. That they will be able to accept Obama as an intelligent and loyal person and embrace the spirit of UNITY he stands for. Now understand me I am not saying that his color is the only reason a person should vote for him, but please don’t let it be your reason not to vote for him. I must admit this is my fear for Texas!
I only hope Texas represents well and see through the many personalities of Hillary.
GO TO OBAMA.COM CHECK OUT ISSUES IF YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HIM!
The main difference between Hillary and Obama is that one has been consistent and the other has tried on more campaign costums than a Holloween sale. How are we to know who the real Hillary is or perhaps we shouldn’t care as long as she delivers.
The problem is I feel that Obama is running to really change Washington and politics as usual as much as one can. I feel Hillary is running primarily just to win. And these two motivations matter. It is the difference between voting for the war and justification for an attack against Iran for political calculation rather than doing the right thing. Our generation deserves something better than the same old same old.
By Mr Judgment
Why Hillary Should Not Be President
The only thing that matches the cynicism and Machiavellian nature of the plan to put team Bill-ary back in the white house (or is it Hill_Billy now?) was Karl Rove’s plan to install Dubya. However, standing near the leader doesn’t prove you can lead. And, unfortunately if you inherit the infrastructure of the dear leader, it’s hard for the people to evaluate what’s you and what’s the machine. Hillary could easily be as big a failure as Dubya who’s path to the presidency she would have more in common with than Bill’s. She might have the judgment necessary to be in command hidden in there but it’s impossible to measure — she hasn’t stood on her own for many decades. Thinking the machine can be president is the same flawed view that allowed Dubya to slip in.
Personal judgment is what counts - you can’t reasonably ride coattails to a command position. You either have leadership in yourself or you don’t. Clinton hasn’t shown it.
For example, look at how she has mismanaged her campaign, passing the buck to others when there have been failures. Case in point: poor judgment in staffing her campaign leading to overspending. (Lucky she had $5M to loan herself - wonder where it came from???.)
‘[Campaign manager Pati Solis] Doyle did not tell Clinton how rapidly the campaign was spending money, according to one campaign official, who said Clinton learned about her financial constraints only after the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8.’
If Hillary can’t manage her campaign finances, can’t keep Bill on a leash, and can’t find her own message — how exactly will she lead the country?
By David Proctor McKnight
Now that’s the new Texas journalism for you—not being all that interested in “intrastate political relations” and “intrastate commerce” in the other states in the Union when in fact in the early history of Texas, those intrastate political and commercial conditions were a big part of the decision on the part of a lot of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence of 1836 to leave their former states behind to take a chance on a new life in “the Texian country.”
Would that we heard more about Sen. Richard Durbin from Sen. Obama this time around because Durbin, as a former member of the U.S. House from Illinois who moved up to the Senate, is widely respected among political activists and journalism editorialists around the country. No wonder Barack Obama mentioned him in his previous appearance as it probably helped some Texans “place Obama” within the broader Illinois political tradition with which they probably are already familiar.
Likewise, there has been little interest in the press about what Hillary Clinton has accomplished as a U.S. senator from the state of New York, including becoming the first woman elected to any statewide office in the Empire State. And this after having grown up in Chicago, received education at college and law school in New England, then haviong started a career and family life in Arkansas, where she made many important contributions to the well-being of that state.
Texas these days seems to expect us to forget what we have tried to accomplish within our home states when we go to the Lone Star State to visit or even to make a new home. This is why some folks see Texas as less interested in its neighbors in the region of the South, for example, than it once was as when Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson saved the day for the Democratic Party by showing Alabamians, Georgians and Carolinians alike just what a good neighbor to the Southwest Texas could be in good times and bad.
Maybe this recent political ennui in Austin and elsewhere is due to Texas’ position as the most populous state east of California. Whatever it is, Sen. Obama now has both Massachusetts senators campaigning for him in Texas even though Sen. Clinton one the Massachusetts Democratic primary. It just goes to show that the former Chicagoan, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has to re-connect with voters in the heartland the way Chicagoans do naturally in their daily business and professional lives, even from her new Eastern seaboard vantage point.
Give Sen. Obama credit for having already accomplished this and much more in this regard with respect to folks in many of the Midwestern heartland states. So now both candidates are competing to win the hearts and minds of the people of Texas. And you can be sure they’ll rely on as many “intrastate connections” in the Lone Star State as they can muster.
The eyes of Texas are upon them, and the rest of us from west to east across the country are watching, whether eagerly or wistfully, to see just how our friends back in Texans go about making their collective decisions in this crucial upcoming primary election competition.
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.
Please read our Privacy Policy. By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement.
Copyright 2008 The Austin American-Statesman. All rights reserved.

statesman.com