The networks have begun calling the Oregon Democratic Presidential primary for Barack Obama, with most analysts predicting he’ll wind up with a double digit lead over Senator Hillary Clinton.
Since these are NOT firm figures, the final numbers could be quite different. The Raw Story:
Sen. Barack Obama headed for victory over rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Oregon Democratic primary. News networks called the race not long after polls closed.
Obama led Clinton 60%-40% with 60 percent of Oregon precincts reporting. The vote was done by mail-in ballot.
CBS News projects Sen. Barack Obama will win the Oregon Democratic primary. Earlier in the night, Sen. Hillary Clinton coasted to easy victory in the Kentucky primary.
Obama is also guaranteed enough delegates from Oregon to be able to claim the majority of all pledged delegates to be elected in primaries and caucuses, reports CBS News. That total does not include Michigan or Florida.
So Clinton won one (Kentucky) and Obama one one (Oregon) and they both flooded the other in the size of their victories.
What does this mean in the long term? Newsweek blogger Andrew Romano writes:
And despite declaring in her Louisville celebration speech that “more Americans have voted for me than any other Democratic candidate in history,” Clinton is only ahead in a chimerical popular vote that discounts caucus states like Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (where Obama won by overwhelming margins) and includes Florida (where neither candidate campaigned) and Michigan (where Obama wasn’t on the ballot and therefore received a whopping zero votes to Clinton’s 328,309). If you count those caucuses and discount the Great Lakes State–fair concessions by any sane standard–Obama still leads by more than 200,000 votes, even with Florida in the mix.
In other words, Clinton has received more votes than any other Democratic candidate in history–except for Barack Obama.
In either case, the former first lady needs to convince the superdelegates, not us; after all, they’re the only voters who can help her reach the magic delegate majority of 2,026 (or, with Florida and Michigan, 2,210). Unfortunately, these party poobahs have broken 48-6 for Obama since May 6–and if West Virginia didn’t do the trick, tonight’s split decision is unlikely to change their minds.
And to those who saw entrenched positions when they watched Clinton’s and Obama’s speeches, Romano points to an easing of tensions and inching towards overtures of party unity in both of the candidates’ speeches:
Tonight in Des Moines, Obama gently pivoted to the general election, returning to the state that launched his bid to frame “the choice in this election” as a choice between himself and Sen. McCain; Clinton’s remarks in Louisville emphasized her determination to keep on keeping on “until we have a nominee, whomever she might be.” But both Obama and Clinton bowed, deeply, graciously and sincerely, in the other’s direction. While Obama praised a rival who had “shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age,” Clinton capped her speech with a simple prediction. “We will come together,” she said, “united by common values and common cause… in service of the hopes and dreams that know no boundaries of race or creed, gender or geography. And when we do, there will be no stopping us.”
Above all else, tonight brought the Democratic Party one day closer to that inevitable conclusion.
This is really the most fascinating question in the Democrats’ 2008 political bloodletting.
Do many Democrats really want to return to shoot-yourself-in-the-foot political grudge voting (or, rather non-grudge voting) like in 1968 when Democratic Vice President and Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey was narrowly defeated by GOPer Richard Nixon because many former RFK and Eugene McCarthy Democrats sat on their hands?
Or do they want to return to 2000 when some Democrats decided to teach the Democratic party a lesson and vote for third party candidate Ralph Nader, who argued there really wasn’t much difference between the two parties?
Let’s just say Nader’s characterization did not exactly stand the test of time…
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.