If delegates from Florida and Michigan were counted today, Obama would STILL lead the pledged delegate count!

As we all know, Hillary Clinton is still trying to change the rules of the election after the Florida and Michigan primaries and have those states’ delegates reinstated at the national convention. This tactic has a lot of Democrats concerned about what impact such a move would have on the election. As I said in a previous post, I think Clinton’s strategy is one of the most offensive tactics she’s employed thus far. Not only did Clinton sign a pledge supporting the DNC’s decision, but she confirmed that position as recently as three weeks before the Florida primary. It’s bad politics and it’s bad for the Democratic Party. In the end, Clinton’s political connections may trump the interests of the voters. Because of this, I think it might be useful to step back and actually consider what a decision to re-seat FL and MI would mean—hypothetically—at this point in the race.

I compiled the delegate count with results from Florida and Michigan included. I think you’ll be surprised by the results. The situation isn’t nearly as dire as we’ve been led to believe. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, Obama would still only trail Clinton by 47 total delegates. In fact, Obama would actually STILL LEAD Clinton by 31 pledged delegates! This calculation assumes that the “solution” to the FL/MI delegate problem is to apportion them as originally planned—ignoring the fact that Clinton was the only major candidate on Michigan’s ballot and that Obama honored his pledge to not campaign in Florida. The numbers are based on Clinton’s 50%-33% win in Florida and her 55%-xx win in Michigan. In this scenario, the “uncommitted” votes (that everyone agrees would have likely have gone mostly to Obama) are not awarded delegates. Not surprisingly, Clinton isn’t too concerned about having those delegates’ voices head at the convention.

Even if no compromise is reached and FL and MI’s delegates are seated as if they had never been stripped, Clinton would currently lead the total delegate race, 1437 to 1390. That’s a virtual tie, especially considering the fact that superdelegates are defecting from the Clinton camp in surprising numbers. The real shock is that Obama would actually still be ahead in pledged delegates, 1217 to 1184. Here’s the break-down:

FLORIDA — If Florida allocates delegates as originally planned, with no adjustments, the delegates would be divided as follows:

CLINTON: 111
OBAMA: 69
EDWARDS: 13
TBD: 17

MICHIGAN – If Michigan allocates delegates only to candidates who left their names on the ballot (meaning only to Clinton), the state’s delegate distribution would be:

CLINTON: 81
OBAMA: 2
TBD: 18
UNASSIGNED: 55

CURRENT NATIONAL COUNT — Officially, the current delegate scorecard looks like this:

OBAMA: 1150 pledged + 169 supers = 1319
CLINTON: 1006 pledged + 239 supers = 1245

NATIONAL COUNT WITH MI & FL — Here is the scorecard if FL & MI are added:

CLINTON: 1006 pledged + 239 supers + 81 MI + 111 FL = 1437
(1184 pledged)

OBAMA: 1150 pledged + 169 supers + 2 MI + 69 FL = 1390
(1217 pledged)

Obama’s victories in the last 10 contests—most by considerable margins—have provided enough of a lead that the threat posed by Clinton’s underhanded Florida and Michigan strategy is really quite minimal. There is a very good chance that Obama would enter the convention with a sizable lead in the pledged delegate race even if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio AND somehow convinces the DNC to change the rules and allow FL and MI’s delegates. Today’s announcement that the Teamsters will endorse Obama should help to keep the races close in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Unless Clinton wins by 30+ points in those contests, it is hard to see how she could possibly enter the convention with a sizable lead.

What happens once we get to the convention is another story entirely. Stay tuned…

p.s. - I will include the specific delegate break-down for both Michigan and Florida in the first comment in this post.

Obama wins my home state of Maine (incidentally, the whitest state in the union)!

A quick follow-up to yesterday’s post. The caucus in Maine was quite impressive today. Despite near-blizzard conditions across the entire state, we still had record voter turnout. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton by a full 18% of the vote.

Incidentally, Maine still holds the dubious distinction of being the whitest state in the union. You can add that to the list of demographics in the 19 states (plus the Virgin Islands) that Obama has taken so far. In other Maine caucus news, I’m going to be an Obama delegate to this year’s Maine Democratic State Convention. Yay!

AMUSING SIDE-NOTE: This was the AP photo (link) that most of the major news agencies ran with their “Maine Vote Too Close to Call” stories before the majority of districts reported and Obama was declared the winner. Pictured is Pak Lul, one of Maine’s 9946 African-American residents. But who else would they show in a story about Obama, right?!

Obama sweeps Feb 09 states, but media focuses on racial-demographics of Louisiana.

Does it look like this map is the result of race-based voting?!

The results of tonight’s primary and caucus races were amazing. Barack Obama swept all three state contests held today. He won Nebraska, Washington, and Louisiana.

So has the media focused on how Obama was able to build a broad coalition of voters across demographic groups in three states that are ethnically and racially very different places? Nope, they decided that the really interesting story was the fact that he won 90% of the African-American voters’ support in Louisiana. Once again, the message is to marginalize Obama as “the black candidate.”

Let’s take a couple steps back and think about this. Take a look at the census data for each of the EIGHTEEN states that Barack Obama has won so far:

Alabama: 75.1% white, 26% black, 0.7% Asian, 0.5% Native American, 1.7% Hispanic
Alaska: 69.3% white, 3.5% black, 4% Asian, 15.6% Native American, 4.1% Hispanic
Colorado: 82.8% white, 3.8% black, 2.2% Asian, 1% Native American, 17.1% Hispanic
Connecticut: 81.6% white, 9.1% black, 2.4% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 9.4% Hispanic
Delaware: 74.6% white, 19.2% black, 2.1% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 4.8% Hispanic
Georgia: 65.1% white, 28.7% black, 2.1% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 5.3% Hispanic
Idaho: 91% white, 0.4% black, 0.9% Asian, 1.4% Native American, 7.9% Hispanic
Illinois: 73.5% white, 15.1% black, 3.4% Asian, 0.2% Native American, 12.3% Hispanic
Iowa: 93.9% white, 2.1% black, 1.3% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 2.8% Hispanic
Kansas: 86.1% white, 5.7% black, 1.7% Asian, 0.9% Native American, 7% Hispanic
Louisiana: 63.9% white, 32.5% black, 1.2% Asian, 0.6% Native American, 2.4% Hispanic
(EDIT-02/10) Maine: 96.9% white, 0.5% black, 0.7% Asian, 0.6% Native American, 0.7% Hispanic
Minnesota: 89.4% white, 3.5% black, 2.9% Asian, 1.1% Native American, 2.9% Hispanic
Missouri: 75.1% white, 11.2% black, 1.1% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 2.1% Hispanic
Nebraska: 75.1% white, 4% black, 1.3% Asian, 0.9% Native American, 5.5% Hispanic
North Dakota: 92.4% white, 0.6% black, 0.6% Asian, 4.9% Native American, 1.2% Hispanic
South Carolina: 67.2% white, 29.5% black, 0.9% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 2.4% Hispanic
Utah: 89.2% white, 0.8% black, 1.7% Asian, 1.3% Native American, 9% Hispanic
Washington: : 81.1% white, 3.2% black, 5.5% Asian, 1.6% Native American, 7.5% Hispanic

That’s right, the list includes Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Connecticut, Colorado, and Alaska. None of which could be explained off as victories based on the prevalence of African-American voters. So explain this to me: how can anyone possibly still talk about Obama as a candidate who only appeals to African-Americans? As Democrats, we should be nothing short of proud that we have a candidate who does so well among black voters, who make up one of our biggest voting blocs. But we should also be amazed that we have someone who can win such a demographically diverse array of states. Come November, that will be the key to victory for the Democratic Party.

Jimmy Carter’s family supports Obama. Ex-President enthusiastically praises Obama.

In a surprise non-endorsement-endorsement, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter showered praise on Senator Obama. He also went on to say that, of the Carters’ four children (and their spouses) and 11 grandchildren (and their spouses), only one son is supporting someone other than Obama. “He’s supporting John Edwards,” President Carter offered. After Edwards drops out of the race this afternoon, it looks like all of the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s family will be standing strong with Barack Obama!

FOR THE RECORD: Jimmy and Roslyn Carter never formerly endorse any candidate in the Democratic primaries. I wonder President Carter believes that it would be unseemly for a former President to get down in the mud of modern slash-and-burn politics?

Now THERE’S a statesman worthy of the lasting title: “Mr. President.”

The REAL first black President: Toni Morrison endorses Barack Obama.

Toni Morrison: Obama’s latest high-profile endorsement.

Nobel Prize winning author Toni Morrison has endorsed Barack Obama. In the arena of politics, Morrison is probably best known for her infamous declaration in 1998 that Bill Clinton was “blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime” and should be considered “the first black president.” Morrison has been so moved by Barack Obama’s candidacy that she now believes that a real black man has a chance at winning the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Here is an excerpt from Morrison’s letter to Barack Obama:

“In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naiveté. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.”

Reading Morrison’s letter and Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama literally brought me to tears. Many of us have a lot of emotional energy invested in Obama’s campaign. For me, if Obama wins the nomination I will be able to actually vote for a candidate—rather than against his or her opponent—for the first time in my life. Morrison summarized what is special about Obama better than I ever could have.

Thank you Ms. Morison. Thank you for believing.

Clinton breaks signed pledge concerning Florida primary.

Does Hillary Clinton practice what she preaches?

I absolutely hate posting something that shifts the focus away from the positive message and meaningful policy proposals that Barack Obama has offered this week. That said, I simply can’t let this one slide. In the interest of getting back to what inspires us rather than what should infuriate us, I’ll try to keep this post short.

Hillary Clinton just announced that she will break the pledge she signed with the national Democratic Party and demand that Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates be recognized at the convention. She is also campaigning in Florida, despite making a commitment—in writing—that she would not do so. I actually desperately wished that the DNC would work out a deal with Florida and Michigan so they would push their primaries back to February 5th. I hoped that the two states’ Democratic Parties would be willing to act in the best interest of Democratic voters. I was extremely disappointed when they refused to budge and lost their delegate representation.

However, regardless of how you feel about the row between the DNC and the two defiant state parties, all three of the major Democratic Party candidates swore an oath not to campaign in Florida and agreed that the DNC had made the right decision in stripping Florida’s delegates. Now that Hillary Clinton suffered such a humiliating defeat in South Carolina, she has decided to break that pledge. What concerns me is this: if Clinton is willing to turn her back on her own party in the primary races, what can we expect her to do if she actually wins the nomination?

FYI, here’s a link to an NYT article from last year announcing Clinton’s agreement to abide by the DNC’s rules: LINK (new window)

Obama’s SC victory — and a more honest analysis of the past four primaries.

The SC win lends even more national
legitimacy to Barack Obama’s campaign.

I couldn’t be more thrilled that the race in South Carolina went the way that it did. Not only did Obama win big, but he proved that he could counter the Clinton campaign’s vicious tactic by connecting with real people. In a state with more GOP voters than Democratic party members, Barack Obama inspired Democrats to come out in record numbers. He received more votes than all of the Republican candidates did combined.

Now that we are about to move on toward the huge February 5th contest, I want to take a moment and put the race-so-far into perspective. It’s easy to concentrate too much on the win/loss column and miss the big picture. Here’s what has happened in the states so far:

Iowa: Barack Obama won the state by more than 8% of the vote, even though Hillary Clinton led by 30 points just two months before the caucus.

New Hampshire: Clinton won by just 6%, despite her 33 point lead in the polls just four weeks before the primary. It was a “setback” for Obama only because expectations were so high following his win in Iowa.

Nevada: Obama trailed by 28 points with only three months to go, but Clinton only narrowly won a plurality of the popular vote. Obama actually won more delegates in the state.

South Carolina: Obama trounced Clinton 55 to 27 percent, even though Clinton had a 22 point lead in the polls as recently as December. In Edwards’ birth state, Obama won more votes than Clinton and Edwards combined.

Given the remarkable turn-around in each of the four contests so far, none of you should think that a win is impossible in your own state. Regardless of what the polls say, it is critical that each of you make it to the voting booth. Don’t just support a candidate in principle, support him or her with your vote.

It is becoming increasingly likely that—for the first time in decades—virtually every state’s delegates will matter at the national convention. In an election season that has produced some of the dirtiest politics in recent memory, the Democratic Party may just be forced to reach out to all of us. This could be the chance we’ve been waiting for to finally step back and really define where we stand as a party and what we believe as a nation.

The presidency on the line: Tonight’s S.C. debate could be key to the Democratic nomination.

Obama must continue to take the high ground.

I have never been one to make broad, sweeping comments about how important any given political event, speech, or debate is in the “Big Picture” of American politics. Frankly, when media talking heads start prattling on about the all-or-nothing nature of one event or another, it usually has more to do with a lack of celebrity gossip than with the actual welfare of our republic. That said, I can’t help but feel that tonight’s Democratic debate in South Carolina may be a turning point in the Democratic nomination process.

A good deal of press ink has been dedicated to the racial demographics of the Democratic voters in S.C., but I think this contest’s importance has less to do with racial dynamics than it does with the state’s geographic location and the timing of the primary in the election process. If one candidate or another is capable of carrying a considerable plurality of primary votes in the first Southern state in the race, that candidate will leave the state with a sense or credibility that may be immeasurable. Like it or not, most American voters live outside of the northeast corner of the continent. Wining in South Carolina will establish a sense—right or wrong—that the candidate is capable of beating GOP voters in their own back yard.

Today’s endorsement of Barack Obama by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution helps establish that sense of electability. But Obama needs to seem more than electable if he wants to compete with the vicious tactics of the Clinton campaign. That is why I think tonight’s debate is so critical. Obama has never been as good as Hillary Clinton at the national debate format. He’s a brilliant statesman and an eloquent speaker, but he just doesn’t work well in an environment that favors one-liners and sound-bytes over policy information and talk of consensus building. In a way, Barack Obama is just too sincere for the debate format.

Others who have analyzed Obama’s debate performances have suggested that he needs to hire better writers, spend more time practicing his 12-word responses, and step back from the podium and into the mud of contemporary politics. Perhaps that would be a good strategy. Doing so might even help him win the nomination. But for Barack Obama to give up the high-ground would mean turning his back on his commitment to truth and the promise of a better America. I just don’t believe Obama will do that.

What I see as the most important objective that Obama can accomplish during this debate is to transcend the political horse race and rise above the nonsense that has taken up so much air-time these past few weeks. First, and most importantly, he needs to say the words that Hillary Clinton has been stubbornly unwilling to say: he needs to look into the camera and tell the nation that any of the three candidates on the stage would serve honorably and effectively as the next American President. By doing so, Obama can stand before the American people as a candidate who puts the welfare of the nation above political bickering, and he can reassure the Democratic Party that–regardless of who emerges as the nominee–we will be united and committed to winning the election that really matters in November. Other than that, I think that Obama needs to make it a priority to explain the true nature of the lies that have been told about him. I think he needs to do so without stooping to the level of his attackers, but he needs to address these issues.

To be entirely honest, I have absolutely no idea what will happen on Saturday. I’ve stopped trying to understand the American electorate. What I can say is that what takes place in South Carolina may very well decide who gets the nomination. One way or another, I hope that Barack Obama stands firm in what he believes and continues to offer us an alternative to the politics of the past.

We will all have to wait and see…

The one question that isn’t being asked in Clinton’s MLK/LBJ debacle.

Want this mess to go away? Then STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!

I have tried my hardest to let this war of words concerning the legacies of Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. just go away. It is a distraction to both camps and I honestly don’t know what good it does to keep talking about it. Since Hillary Clinton’s people can’t seem to let sleeping dogs lie, though, I want to make two very quick points.

First, I keep hearing the claim that “people inside the Obama camp” have been “playing the race card” by making accusations against the Clintons. As a voter who is almost certainly casting my caucus vote for Senator Obama, I would love to hear the details about these accusations. Instead of pointing out the culprits, Clinton’s defenders never mention who from the Obama campaign is supposedly fanning the flames. As far as I can tell, this is the ONLY remark that has been made by Obama about the whole supposed MLK issue:

“I am baffled by that statement by the Senator. She made an ill-advised statement about Dr. King, suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Rights Act. For them to somehow suggest that we’re interjecting race as a consequence of a statement she made, that we haven’t commented on, is pretty hard to figure out.” -Barack Obama

Obama’s campaign has steadfastly eschewed “the politics of personal destruction,” and they should be recognized for continuing to do so here. In reality, it was Matt Drudge who first started making a big deal about the quote. You can say what you want about Obama, but I think we can all agree that Drudge is not a covert Obama operative. Until someone can point a finger to an actual quote used by an actual campaign member, I’m going to have to assume that it isn’t Obama who is playing the race card here.

The second point I want to make is fairly simple. Here is the full version of what Hillary Clinton said to begin this whole mess:

“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.” -Hillary Clinton

I actually agree with what Hillary Clinton has said about her remarks. She raised the iconic images of MLK (and JFK) to make a point about the difference between the power of ideas and the power of political experience. She brought up these great historic figures precisely because they were passionate advocates of social justice who spoke eloquently enough to inspire people to action. Her point was that even Martin Luther King—whose influence on American history can’t be questioned—needed a skilled politician like Johnson in the Oval Office to get the Civil Rights Bill passed. Clinton was saying that Barack Obama is an inspiring public figure who is able to influence a new generation to action, but he doesn’t have the political power or experience that someone like LBJ had. I don’t agree with her characterization, but I also don’t find anything inherently wrong with what she said. It’s the question she didn’t answer (and was never asked) that bothers me.

The follow-up question that no one in the media seems willing to ask Senator Clinton is actually quite obvious. Here’s how I would pose the necessary follow-up question:

“You accurately explained how the Civil Rights Bill was passed in 1965. You compared yourself to LBJ in that scenario, and—quite generously—compared Barack Obama to Martin Luther King. But King never got the chance to run for President. If he had run, do you think lack of political experience in Washington would have made Martin Luther King an ineffective President?”

Until and unless someone in the media has the guts to ask that follow-up question, I really wish they would just stop pushing this story. Even if this kind of divisive maneuvering does help Clinton in the primary contest (and I’d like to believe that it won’t), it can do nothing but damage the Democrats’ chances in November.

UNDECIDED VOTER? Please take a minute to watch Barack Obama’s thank-you speech to the people of Iowa.

If any of you out there are still sitting on the fence, trying to decide which candidate has the character necessary to change this country for the better, I urge you to PLEASE either watch this speech or read the text of it below. What follows is Barack Obama’s thank-you speech to the people of Iowa:

“They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

Those of you who know me understand that I am cynical to a fault. I’ve decided for once to cast aside my cynicism, embrace hope, and believe in the possibility of real change. I hope you’ll do the same.