I'm sure someone will post video of this somewhere, but Jon Stewart was in rare form tonight.
Stewart showed a clip from earlier today of the shameless Hillary Clinton making the pathetically desperate assertion that "If we had the same system as the Republicans, I'd already be the nominee." Stewart responded, "So what it comes down to is, that you would win the nomination if Democrats were Republicans.... That sounds like one tremendous.... That sounds like one tremendous 'iF-you' to the process."
Despite Clinton's wishes, Democrats aren't Republicans. And, that's why she won't be the nominee. But this strategy may explain her relationship with Richard Mellon Scaife and her campaign's love affair with FOX News.Read More......
Another new low for the oil industry and as we have come to expect, the Bush administration. Let the damned oil companies pay the compensation to the victims families if they want the business so badly but it is sickening to watch the oil industry dictate our foreign policy. So tell me who loves America and who hates America?
One by one, top executives of American oil companies met privately over the last year with Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, often in his signature Bedouin tent, as they lined up contracts allowing them to tap into the country’s oil reserves.
But now, the new allies are working Capitol Hill, trying to weaken a law that threatens those deals. The Libyan government, once a pariah, and the American oil industry have hired high-profile lobbyists, buttonholed lawmakers and enlisted help from the Bush administration, all in an effort to win an exemption from a law that Congress passed in January that is intended to ensure that victims of terrorist attacks are compensated.
Greg Mitchell, of the invaluable Editor and Publisher, writes about an under-reported aspect of the war in Iraq. A recent report indicates that around 20% of suicides nationwide are current or former military personnel. Other than being at least some indication of the toll inflicted on someone who is trained to be able to kill others, it's an indictment of how our government takes care of the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
As Mitchell explains, non-combat deaths in Iraq are often vaguely reported, and when they're possible suicides, it's often local news outlets that take the lead in investigating. And the problem is significant and apparently worsening:
A rise in suicides among soldiers serving in the military has alarmed Pentagon planners and members of Congress as the war in Iraq enters its sixth year. An Army report produced last year found the rate of suicides among soldiers deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2006 was almost 40 percent higher than the military's average suicide rate. An update of the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team report released in March found suicide rates for soldiers in 2007 remained "above normal Army rates."
I spend a lot of time talking about the political implications of foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular; it's also vital, though, to keep a level eye on the human costs. And they are seemingly endless.
Read More......
Yet another hidden cost to this Republican created problem. As spring arrives in the US, there is concern over increased mosquito infestations due to neglected home swimming pools as others abandon their homes.
In what appears to be the latest symptom of the US mortgage meltdown and credit crisis, insurers, law enforcement, and state agencies nationwide have reported a jump in home and auto fires in the past year set by owners unable to pay debts. The numbers are small, but they're leading the insurance industry to scrutinize what seem to be routine blazes.
"We've seen a dramatic increase in this kind of fraud," said Dan Bales, director of fraud investigations at Mercury Insurance. "People upside down on their house with variable interest-rate loans, or upside down on their cars, are pretty quick to burn their property right now."
Joe is being nice in his post below. See, even when discussing what a frightful, awful, nasty mess Hillary has become, how she's even willing to race-bait Obama a la willy Horton, Joe is still too nice to use the M-word. Lots of Democrats are too nice too. Obama is too nice. His staff is too nice. His surrogates are too nice - note that Claire McCaskill didn't detail even one Clinton scandal (but you'd better believe the Clintons will flay her alive, nonetheless). Hell, even the blogs supporting Obama, and Netroots groups like MoveOn, are too nice. None of these people want to mention Monica Lewinsky even when they're talking about the kind of nasty issues that Republicans will throw at Hillary in the fall. That reticence, that decency that comes naturally and innately to non-Clinton Democrats is what Joe is talking about.
Hillary hasn't had to defend herself in years against all the Monica Lewinsky crap, against rumors about her husband, rumors about herself (see, even I'm being nice and hedging here by not giving you details about the rumors - but you can bet they're gonna go public in the fall), about Whitewater, Travelgate, Filesgate, cattle futures, and on and on. When Hillary is pulling racist crap on Obama, trashing black churches, comparing him to Jesse Jackson, she likes to talk about how she's really doing it to help him and help the party - you see, she's preparing him for what's coming in the fall. She's "fully vetting" him. But who is fully vetting Hillary? The last time she came under the full onslaught of the right-wing conspiracy it destroyed her likability in the public eye, and made her one of the most hated Democrats in America. And she's still paying a price today with horrendous disapproval ratings that she's been carrying for a decade.
If Hillary manages to steal the nomination, the Republicans are going to throw every Clinton scandal in her face, and then some - you can rest assured that they won't be afraid to say the M-word. And when the country is yet against forced to talk about Monica and oral sex 24/7, Democrats will be looking back at Rev. Wright as the good ole days.
Read More......
Markos explains in pretty clear language why Obama didn't win. It's not that complicated, really, because it was expected for months. There is one point that stands out for me:
Rhetorical constraints. Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she p----- a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan!
Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics.
Hillary and her crew have really exploited this situation. She loves to invoke Rev. Wright and had a field day with the "bitter" comment. It's not like there isn't plenty of ripe material in her past that could be political fodder. But, Obama doesn't go there. The Republicans will. So, she is using the GOP attacks on Obama (the kind of attacks that the GOP will use on Hillary), but Obama, for the reasons Markos stated, doesn't respond in kind.
Any time any of the previous controversies or indiscretions of the Clintons are raised by anyone, her campaign gets all indignant and appalled -- like it's all some well kept family secret. (It's not, p.s.) But, all those Clinton scandals MUST never be discussed, it's too mean or too personal or too dated or something like that. Yeah, and the Republicans will accept that standard, right? We're not sure we really know how Hillary Clinton can handle those attacks because no one on the Democratic side will make them -- but we'll all be expected to defend her if she does steal the nomination. (And who knows what else is lurking out there.) That's something the superdelegates need to keep in mind. Do they want that Clinton baggage -- again?
Today, Senator Claire McCaskill broached that subject on MSNBC, via Ben Smith:
MCCASKILL: Well, it's a really difficult decision. I mean, no one in the Obama campaigns wants -- I mean, Senator Clinton talked about her baggage in the debate last Wednesday. And everyone is very respectful and deferential to the Clinton family in our party and we don't want to do that. But, frankly, they keep throwing nails in front of the bus. And as voters are considering whether or not some of the controversies around Barack Obama will be an issue in November, people do need to remember, there will be controversies about the Clintons that will also be an issue in November. And I think that's what we hope superdelegates also focus on.
Thanks for saying what so many people are thinking. The superdelegates should ask Al Gore how much the Clinton drama helped him in 2000.
Basically, the Clinton campaign's "slash-and-burn politics" is a gift to the GOP. The fact that Obama doesn't employ the same tactics is a gift to her. I'm sure this all makes Hillary's new best friend, Richard Mellon Scaife, very happy.
Feel like the room is spinning? See if this helps:
1. "Obama's not electable" is a dumb argument. First off, he's still winning. Second, he already fares well in head-to-head polls against McCain, and he hasn't even opened 'er up yet. Obama facing McCain is going to be such a juxtaposition of new vs. old that the latter won't stand a chance. Remember, Republicans aren't crazy about McCain in the first place. One Obama convention speech and some focused campaigning, and he'll be just fine. Third, don't forget Democrats are split right now, but their voter turnout has been considerably higher than Republicans. Once the party unites behind one candidate (and I have faith that, in time, they will), Democrats have the opportunity to dominate in sheer numbers alone. (That is if they're not completely exhausted and disenfranchised by then). And fourth, as Markos smartly points out:
[I]n today's world, the ability to raise money is part of "electability". Obama has a ton of it. Tens of millions sitting in the bank and the ability to raise tens of millions more at will. The Clinton campaign, despite boasts of having raised a few million since last night, are deeply in debt.
Which campaign looks more electable on this front? The campaign that is flush with cash and can easily raise more, or the campaign that is scrambling to get out of debt?
2. The popular vote is not a fair metric in a mixed primary system. I wrote about it here on Americablog more than a month ago. I think it's time to drag the post back out again. Just because the concept is a little tough to understand does not mean it's wrong. Terry McAuliffe et al can scream "popular vote" all they want, but it doesn't make them right. They would have an argument if all states used a primary. But they don't. Caucuses are harder to participate in (they demand more time and commitment) and, therefore, draw fewer voters. Causes states are then represented considerably less in the popular vote than primary states. It's why the delegate allocation exists. You can't toss out the contest because you don't like the outcome. I don't know how we've gotten to the point that the press isn't willing to cry foul at the very first suggestion of it.
3. Finally, "do or die" night kind of loses its punch the umpteeth time around. I really really really wish this would all come to a close already. Can't we smush together all the remaining primaries and just get them over with? It'll be like ripping off the band-aid. All we're doing now is postponing the inevitable, and it's just getting worse. Please don't take this as some huge anti-Clinton slam or some declaration that later voting states count less than the earlier ones. I've just had enough. I think after the past couple of weeks, it's officially okay if you have too.
Read More......
It's time to stop playing this game where we pretend the Clintons play politics like normal Democrats. They don't. They're vicious and nasty and have perfected the art of personal destruction after years of being on the receiving end. (Talk about the abused becoming the abuser.) Hillary isn't going to stop when the SuperDs finally give Obama the majority he needs. She's taking this all the way to the convention and she's going to contest the Michigan and Florida delegates. She's already told us she's taking this to the convention. After she's pulled the most racist presidential campaign since Willy Horton, after she's been willing to bring up Swift Boat-style attacks against Obama that even the GOP won't touch, why does anyone think she won't risk the utter destruction of the party by taking this thing to the nomination? She's told us that's exactly what she's planning on doing. Has she shown any self-restraint, or higher concern for the party, up until now? At some point, Hillary is going to cross one line too many, and she's going to get the civil war she seems to be itching for. And if she thinks the party is going to unite around her after she steals the election, then she hasn't spent a lot of time reading blogs or following the grassroots. She's going to get an all-out war, she's going to split the party, and if she steals the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats actively try to make her lose the general election. And there will be nothing the party elders can do about it once it happens.
So, last night, the pundits were giddy over Hillary Clinton's double digit victory over Obama. One problem, it didn't happen. The actual margin, according to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, with 99.44% of precincts reporting is 9.2%. There are 42 precincts left to be counted. Clinton was always supposed to win PA by a wide margin. But, Obama cut her lead in half by improving on key demographics over Ohio. 9.2% isn't over 10%. Just isn't. It might creep up a bit (CNN now has the margin at 9.4%). It still won't break 9.5% or the magical 10% -- or 10.5% as required by the king of the punditry, Mark Halperin:
She has to win the popular vote by more than 10.5% or the media will say she didn’t beat expectations (and her Ohio margin).
Again, didn't happen.
Also, let's get something straight: Contrary to the spin and the gullibility of the punditry to be spun, Clinton is now on a one-state winning streak. After February 5th, Clinton lost 11 in a row (those still count). On March 4th, Clinton won two (Ohio and Rhode Island) while losing two (Vermont and Texas -- yes, she lost Texas, it's about delegates, remember). She then lost two more, Wyoming and Mississippi, before winning Pennsylvania by a smaller margin than expected. That's a one-state streak -- and she still can't win the nomination.
Despite the Clinton campaign's spinning frenzy, there is an end in sight. Jed does the delegate math -- because this is about the delegates -- and comes up with a couple of plausible scenarios. Here's his conclusion:
Over the next two weeks, Barack Obama (and us, as his supporters) should focus his most of his energy on winning both North Carolina and Indiana. Hopefully, that results in two wins, ending the campaign.
On a parallel track, Democratic Party officials who understand that Obama will be the nominee should work to secure 170 or so commitments by superdelegates to join the Pelosi Club.
This sets up a perfect narrative. Either Plan A works -- we win North Carolina and Indiana -- or we move on to Plan B, and by winning Oregon on May 20, Barack Obama will cross the finish line and become the nominee.
Either way, if we head down this path, there's a 95%+ certainty that on May 6 or May 20 we will be celebrating Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
Until that point, who cares about the spin of the media? I find it annoying so I just turn the television off.
We're going to win. It's not a question of whether or if. It's just a question of how and when.
And I think that on May 6 or May 20, one of these two plans will allow Barack Obama to win -- not by default, but by triumph.
So what do you think? Are you ready? Let's close this out!
Sounds good to me. And, my television is off.
Read More......
Per the RNC, the national leadership of the Republican Party has been in contact this morning with the North Carolina GOP, urging them to refrain from running the "Extreme" ad. The party says that the content of the anti-Obama ad, which references the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is "not appropriate" and "unhelpful."
*** We can stop the delegate math: Turning to the delegate math, if Clinton nets approximately 16 delegates out of Pennsylvania, she'll trail in the pledged battle by 150 delegates. With just 408 pledged delegates remaining, that means she'd need 68% of all pledged delegates left to overtake Obama. Now, if Obama and Clinton simply split the 187 delegates up for grabs on May 6 basically down the middle (which would be a rosy projection in Clinton's favor) and Obama's pledged delegate lead simply stayed at 150 and didn’t grow to 160 (the most likely outcome in two weeks), Clinton would need to win 85% of the then 221 remaining delegates up for grabs. 85%! As we mentioned on air last night, the battle for pledged delegates is over, Obama will win that metric and win it by some 100+ delegates.
It's the mathematical equivalent of sniper fire. Hillary's campaign is today alleging that they overtook Obama in the popular vote last night! Of course, it isn't true, but hey, I guess it depends on what the definition of truth is. Even though Hillary is still half a million votes behind Obama, including primaries and caucuses, her campaign is of course now adding in the votes from Florida and Michigan - which were disqualified by the DNC. So, yes, if you add imaginary votes to the count then Hillary does take the lead in imaginary-land (hey, I'm more than happy to make her our party's imaginary nominee). What was David Geffen's now infamous line about the Clintons that got him into so much trouble with Hillary?
Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.
As an aside, anybody else notice how quickly Hillary is willing to chuck Iowa and New Hampshire overboard? The reason Florida and Michigan got into trouble is because they moved their primaries and caucuses too far up, threatening Iowa's and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status. Hillary was all for Iowa and NH having that status when she wanted their votes. Now, not so much. Oh, that's the truth thing again. Sorry, I forgot. (Oh, and they also lied here, claiming that ABC validated their wacky math - ABC didn't, and called them on it.)
Read More......
Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft....
Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.
"You just have to be accused of that, and people come after you. We've had a number of attempted lynchings. ... You see them covered in marks after being beaten," Kinshasa's police chief, Jean-Dieudonne Oleko, told Reuters on Tuesday.
Police arrested the accused sorcerers and their victims in an effort to avoid the sort of bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 suspected penis snatchers were beaten to death by angry mobs. The 27 men have since been released.
"I'm tempted to say it's one huge joke," Oleko said.
"But when you try to tell the victims that their penises are still there, they tell you that it's become tiny or that they've become impotent. To that I tell them, 'How do you know if you haven't gone home and tried it'," he said.
Over the past week, Hillary repeatedly said that she would nuke Iran if Iran nuked Israel. She also said that she would consider extending the US nuclear umbrella to protect other US allies in the Middle East as well. This is a rather large change in US nuclear policy. Apparently aware of this fact, senior members of Hillary's staff tried three times yesterday to deny that Hillary said she would nuke Iran (Hillary literally said that the US would have "a nuclear response" to Iran - it doesn't get any clearer than that) and they denied that she said we should extend our nuclear umbrella to protect other countries in the region (but she did, twice).
In an effort to determine just how a large a gaffe Hillary made, I decided to contact a national security expert. AJ, our former defense intelligence officer, is taking his law exams, so in the meantime, here's the take of Dr. Jeffrey Lewis. Dr. Lewis is Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation. He founded and maintains the leading blog on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, ArmsControlWonk.com. Here is Dr. Lewis' take on Hillary's, and her staff's, comments on this issue:
It is frustrating, because she handled it exactly wrong. I like Senator Clinton and, if she is the Democratic nominee, will wholeheartedly support for candidacy for President.
That said, I think the strain of the campaign is getting to her. A couple of rules about nuclear weapons.
Rule number one is never, ever, ever threaten to use nuclear weapons against another country unless you plan to do so in the near future. Brandishing our nuclear arsenal doesn't achieve anything beyond what comes from having nuclear weapons in first place-- the Iranians are well aware of our nuclear capabilities. Talking about it always rings hollow, while encouraging the other side to call your bluff by saying or doing provocative things in response.
Rule number two is don't act freaked out by other countries current or possible nuclear weapons. The model here is LBJ, who gave a very reassuring speech saying that China's first nuclear test in 1964 wouldn't change the balance of power in Asia. The goal is to reassure allies, not talk like some deranged lunatic, which Senator Clinton is normally not.
Rule number three is to remember that the credibility of the nuclear umbrella comes from the credibility of our security commitment to other countries. So you don't talk about extending nuclear deterrence; you talk about how we regard the security of Israel (or Japan or Europe or whomever) as a vital national interest. The nuclear part is pretty obvious and best remains unsaid.
A couple of months ago, I thought Obama got the better of an exchange with her over his decision to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan against civilians. She trotted out the tired, old never rule anything in or out.
I wrote an op-ed in the FT about it and mentioned in a recent essay for SIPRI. I still think he got the better of the debate (because he was right on the merits.) But her gaffe really illustrates the rationale behind the conventional wisdom. It's Abe Lincoln -- better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
She's not a fool, of course, but this kind of mistake helps illustrate the downsides of talking about nuclear weapons, either as a campaign ploy or when one hasn't thought carefully about the policy matter.
My friend Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:
Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.
Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do.
But Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome and needed.
Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant even to say the word “gay.”
Obama “gets it” in a way that no previous candidate for president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless real.
Obama mentions us in his speeches, a lot. And yes, Hillary will say those are just words. But you know, Obama was willing to chastize his own community for their homophobia in a speech given on Martin Luther King's birthday in MLK's own church to thousands of black leaders. Those are words that matter. Here's to hoping that Hillary can find it in herself to utter the word gay (and even lesbian) in a setting that isn't limited to a gay audience.
One more thing, watch this interview Hillary did with the gay cable network, Logo. First, the issue comes up about her never using the g-word, and she does use it, once during an entire 5 minute interview with a gay station about gay issues, while mentioning "gay organizations." But notice how repeatedly in the interview Hillary hesitates and stumbles at places where you would naturally expect her to say the word "gay" - she doesn't say it - she kind of stops, doesn't say gay, then moves on. Watch the video for yourself. She's not comfortable saying the word. Obama is. I think that tells you something about how they feel about the issue inside. It's likely generational - he's in his 40s, my generation, she's 60. A transcript of the worst part follows the video, below - note particularly the question and her answer 1 minute and 2 seconds in:
1:02 LOGO: "Your opponent, Senator Obama, regularly mentions gay people in his stump speech... You don't mention gay rights all the time in your stump speech, you do when you're in front of gay audiences, why is that?"
1:21 CLINTON: "Well I do mention, uh, from time to time, um, you know I don't mention, you know, everything in every speech that I give, but uh people, you know, know how committed I am and they know what I've done, and that I led the efforts uh to try and defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, working with you know all of the major uh gay rights organizations, uh, so you know I'm gonna continue to not just talk about what I will do but demonstrate by my actions what I have done and will do."
Read More......
Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers' laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government's power to look through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.
Lets say you are coming back from a vacation in Europe. Well, US border agents without a warrant, and for no reason at all, can take your laptop, camera and cell phone and do with them what they please - read all your emails, go through your writing, even loop through your tax returns without any evidence you committed a crime. We move closer to 1984 everyday.
Read More......
A year ago, Hillary criticized Obama for making a blanket statement about the use or non-use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which is interesting, since last night Hillary said she will nuke Iran if they use nukes against Israel. Here is what Hillary had to say last year:
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
But that was before Hillary thought she could win a few extra votes in Pennsylvania by changing decades of US nuclear policy on the fly. That 3am phone keeps ringing, and I'm not liking who's answering.
Read More......
Okay, Pennsylvania is over. I swear, I can't sit through another night watching Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Even with the sound down, it's painful. Russert can't complete a sentence without saying "Rev. Wright."
Hillary Clinton still can't win so nothing has changed. Well, except that the funder of the vast right wing conspiracy, Richard Mellon Scaife, is her new best friend. Think about that one. Think what he put her through in the 90s (and, yes, Scaife was behind almost all of "it.") Her strategy is to destroy Obama so she and Scaife's people have that in common.
One other thing: Obama picked up a new supedelegate, Brad Henry, the Governor of Okalahoma, this morning.
If anything could make China forget about the Olympics, it's the fall of their stock market. This is actually serious and could cause much more significant changes in their system.
But China's stock market bubble has burst, leaving 150 million share investors waking up to their worst hangover ever. The combined effect of a vertigo-inducing rise in inflation, new regulations and a slowdown in the US economy has brought share prices down as quickly as they went up. Indeed, after further falls this week, Chinese shares are worth just half what they were last October, when the market peaked
One problem is the strength of the Chinese economy – and the inflationary pressures that has brought. Fears that government initiatives to tackle inflation will damage corporate profits has wiped $1.9 trillion off the value of Chinese companies since the beginning of the year. "The dive is the reflection of investors' mounting concern about the economic scenario," said Zhang Ling, a fund manager based in Beijing. "Runaway inflation is pretty bad for the economy and equities, raising costs and slowing earnings growth."
Nor does the outlook for the global economy help confidence in China, which has built much of its boom on exports, the demand for which may now dry up. The rising cost of global commodities also threatens profits.
An email from the Obama campaign provides an analysis of where things stand now -- and how little things have changed despite Hillary Clinton's long anticipated victory in Pennsylvania:
Tonight, Hillary Clinton lost her last, best chance to make significant inroads in the pledged delegate count.
The only surprising result from Pennsylvania is that in a state considered tailor-made for Hillary Clinton that she was expected to win, Barack Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary. For example, among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap with Clinton by six points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 points to 24 points. And Independent voters – the group that will decide the general election and a group Obama is particularly strong with – were not able to vote in [Pennsylvania.] Not surprisingly, she led by as much as 25 points in the weeks leading up to the election.
As he has done in every state, Barack Obama campaigned hard to pick up as much support and as many delegates as possible and was able to stave off Clinton from achieving a significant pledged delegate gain from Pennsylvania.
The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary. While there were 158 delegates at stake there, there are fully 157 up for grabs in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6.
