Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.

People don't seem to learn from reading, either.

[gardyloo]

It's Barack.

...but Hillary still won't leave.

[TripMaster Monkey]

First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".

Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight" [rawstory.com]. Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".

Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???

Re:Stands on Linux?

[zygotic mitosis]

The site has had a Politics category for a couple years now. This election affects many of us, and it is certainly "stuff that matters".

Uhhh....

[Otter]

I have minimal interest in this subject, but even I know his damn name is spelled "Barack [cnn.com]", not "Barrack".

Re:Stands on Linux?

[pkboy]

His campaign's websites use Linux [slashdot.org]

Re:Stands on Linux?

[mrbluze]

Or is the election campaign qualify as being "for nerds" now?

If you were looking at the firehose at the time, the posts regarding this topic were running red hot. Obviously people on Slashdot thought it warranted discussion.

Re:Why should she go away?

[elrous0]

Better tell your Clinton friends to take a LONG HARD LOOK at the alternative. 4-8 more years of Iraq, world hatred, and the continuing decline of the economy is a BIG price just to pay for a little spite.

Re:Please explain us ...

[cowscows]

In the US there are two major political parties, and each one puts one candidate up for the election in the general election for President. But before the general election, each party has the primary campaign, where individuals within each party run against each other for the right to be the candidate in the election. These primary campaigns basically involve citizens (when it's their state's turn) going and voting for the candidate that they want to represent whichever party. Depending on the rules of the particular state, sometimes you have to be a registered member of that party in order to vote, and sometimes they're open to anyone registered to vote at all. Basically the way it works is that depending on how many votes you get in a primary, then you get a certain number of delegates. Delegates are basically voting representatives for that state, proportioned by the relative populations of each state,and are expected to vote in accordance with the results of the primary popular vote in that state.

You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.

The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.

That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.

Re:People don't learn from history

[MrDiablerie]

Hussein is a pretty common name and you are assuming that all Republicans are biased against anyone with a "foreign" sounding name. This is just more unsubstantiated fear-mongering. I know many Republicans that are going to vote for Obama over someone who probably has mental issues from being tortured by the Vietnamese. Obama has the support, people want to see him win. He's been able to motivate people to vote in the primaries that would have usually stayed at home in past elections. I think this drawn out nomination process has made the job easier for McCain. Hillary has already done all the grunt work for him. But I have doubts the general public is going to vote for someone who would be the oldest president elected to office when they are crying out for change.

Re:What kind of message?

[bigstrat2003]

Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? Is that caring and accepting?

It's neutral.

Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people? What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings?

So he knows some crazy people. Big fucking deal. I have some friends whose opinions are moronic beyond belief, but that doesn't mean I agree with them in the slightest.

Funny how you touch on shit that doesn't matter in the least, yet leave out the one thing that really does paint Obama as an elitist, insensitive bastard: him going on about how people only like guns/religion because they're poor, a month or two ago.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Arathrael]

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being.

Way to generalise. Has it occurred to you that they might have considered his policies, read his books, just generally done their research and decided that he's the overall best candidate for President?

I'd add that Obama has, to varying extents, actually done well with independent and republican votes in states where they were allowed to vote in the democratic primaries.

I'm not saying Obama's a sure thing, but you can't just pick one factor - in this case, prejudice amongst republicans - and say that'll be the decider. I could say "McCain won't win because he's too old", and certainly that'll be a factor too, but it's by no means the only one. You have to look at the whole picture. I don't think it'll be a landslide either way, but certainly Obama is a strong candidate.

Re:People don't learn from history

[bsDaemon]

Indian-American, not to be confused with American Indian. He was born here.

Re:Please explain us ...

[khelek]

That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist

Quick explanation of why super-delegates exist: The powers that be in the Democratic Party don't trust the voters to select their presidential nominee. Like in everything else, they know better than we common folk do.

Re:People don't learn from history

[WindBourne]

To be pres/vice-pres, yes, you must be born here. All else is open. In fact, I am guessing that Schwarzenegger may chose to be a senator once he is done with Gov.

Re:People don't learn from history

[pirhana]

> Generally you Democrats and Republicans I don't see enough difference between Republican and Democratic candidates. Party voters still make me sick

This is exactly why Hillary lost the game and Obama got it. People in US(and around the world , though irrelevant) were fed up of the status-co politics. They wanted something different and someone who can make a change. As citizens and consumers, people want products which are different. Especially when they realize that the product they have currently(Bush) sucks so bad. Hillary miserably failed to understand this pulse and stuck with same old crap. There is no perceivable difference between Hillary and Bush. The differences are really cosmetic. Iraq is just one example where there is a striking parallel between the policies of Bush/Mcain and Hillary.

Re:Why should she go away?

[rock56501]

and the continuing decline of the economy

You forgot to mention that the .com burst happened during the Clinton administration and the economy recovered during the Bush administratation. Even after the Demecrats took control of the congress after the 06 election, the US economy still managed to get to the point that it is today. So how would having a Demecratic president change anything?

Re:People don't learn from history

[pdusen]

Not giving handouts to those who have little is NOT the same as taking things away from them.

Re:People don't learn from history

[wwwgregcom]

Take your trolling somewhere else. Obama in no way voted for the Patriot Act. Ever. Like the Iraq war authorization, that vote predated him in the senate. I can't believe someone marked you insightful. Here's proof. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 [senate.gov] He later supported revising it with civil liberties measures.

Re:People don't learn from history

[nickos]

there is Iraq, which I initially supported until it became clear that the WMDs were about as real as the luminiferous ether

It was always clear to most of us in Europe (I was in the UK) that the WMDs were fictional and we were screaming it from the top of our lungs right from the start [bbc.co.uk]. For some reason it seems most Americans fell for the lies though. I blame your superficial news media...

Re:People don't learn from history

[Talderas]

You're assuming that governments are the only agencies capable of providing welfare, which is simply not true. Many charities and church organizations provide aid for people that need it, and the better part about those organizations is that since they rely on donations, they actually try to help the person get out of the economic situation that he is in, rather than doing nothing and letting the individual slum on the free cheese.

That's the issue many people have with government welfare programs, they don't provide much incentive for people to get off it.

Which do you think is better? Donating $50 to a charity that helps the poor, that is more likely to succeed at getting them out of their situations, and being able to write off the $50 for taxes, or not getting that write-off and have the government spend your $50 on people that probably won't ever leave the welfare system?

Apparently war comes with Democrats or Republicans

[jbn-o]

And Sen. Obama is offering exactly what as an alternative to more war? Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite how many Americans want that (it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet). His Iran threat to the Chicago Tribune [socialistworker.org] ("[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.") and his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.

As Cindy Sheehan recently reminded us [counterpunch.org], the Democrats have a strong history of war making and a lot to apologize for:

Democrats are responsible for every war in the last 108 years, excluding the two Bush wars and the Reagan Grenada farce. Democrats are responsible for dropping, not one, but two atomic bombs on the innocent citizens of Japan. Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none.

Re:What is he gonna change?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to change our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our foreign policy philosophy. He's going to actually attempt to use diplomacy instead of just talking shit to nations that we don't agree with. He's going to close down Guantanamo and bring back a little thing called habeas corpus. He's going to try to reform our healthcare system to make it more affordable and more accessible to people who have trouble getting coverage. He's going to push harder for alternative energy sources by funding R&D projects with money earned from a cap-and-trade system. He's going to bring about a government that actually attempts to be transparent instead of relying on executive privilege any time someone comes looking for information. You could actually go to his website [barackobama.com] to find this out yourself, or you could just keep waiting for him to personally show up at your house and tell you all about it.

Re:Just So Yo Know What You're Buying This Time

[Mr. Slippery]

How David Axelrod works as the Obama dirty-tricks dept.:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/olson_obama.htm [thornwalker.com]

A choice quote from your link: "Watching the never-ending spectacle of glassy-eyed white girls gone wild for this mulatto, and knowing the Negro libido and psyche, one finds it almost impossible to believe that he has never taken advantage of his opportunities."

Would you care to renounce that author?

Re:People don't learn from history

[RocketScientist]

Kucinich is much more liberal than Obama. The only good thing that came out of the primary process was eliminating him. Otherwise, I think the democrats picked the least electable candidate out of the bunch they had left. Obama won more delegates, but the only states he won by a large margin are traditionally democratic states anyway, and the states that Hillary won are the battleground must-win states for Democrats in the general election. You know, all the flyover states that Obama wrote off to his friends in San Francisco a few weeks back.

Re:People don't learn from history

[nickos]

Because the British government ignored the wishes of it's citizens. Anyway, the government knew it was all nonsense too - remember the "Dodgy Dossier" [wikipedia.org]?

Re:He's a Democrat, so who he is doesn't matter no

[Dog-Cow]

It's because most such people are using elite to mean snobbish. The two often coincide, but as you point out, not by definition.

Re:People don't learn from history

[XPACT]

He started the War in Serbia.

Re:People don't learn from history

[cromar]

Do some research [huppi.com] on welfare (AFDC). ~55% of people on welfare in the US are off of it in less than 2 years: 20% are on welfare for less than 7 months. 15% are out in 7 to 12 months. 19% are off in 1 to 2 years.

That leaves 27% who are on it for 2 to 5 years, and only 20% who are on it over 5 years. The debates about this shit are so far divorced from reality anymore it is driving me crazy. THE US DOES NOT HAVE A WELFARE PROBLEM. For the most part it is working exactly as it should - helping people to become self-reliant.

Re:People don't learn from history

[digitrev]

You should take a look at Canada. Four parties in Parliament with the Conservative Party forming a minority government. The Conservatives are the "right-wing" party, and the Liberals the "left-wing" party. Of course, the two are so similar on most things that they're nigh indistinguishable. Those are the two main parties, and the only ones with any chance at forming the government. Then we have the NDP, which is the true left wing party. They'll support just about anything socialist, and are heavily supported by unions such as CAW and CUPE. And filling out the roster is the Bloc Quebecois. The Quebec only party that runs on a platform of do what's best for Quebec. I've heard from people I live with in Ottawa that if the Bloc ran outside Quebec, they'd for them, just to get rid of the major parties. Of course, we also have the sporadic groups, such as the Green Party, who run in all ridings but never get elected, and the rest of the parties, such as Libertarian, Marxist, Communist, Marijuana, Fascist, and my personal favourite, the neorhino party. You can find the rest here [wikipedia.org].

Of course, we only get one vote, and whoever has the plurality of vote gets the seat in a riding, and whoever gets the plurality of seats gets the government. If they don't get a majority of seats, it's a minority, which tends to be unstable, though the current one isn't. If they get the majority of seats....well, that just means it's 4 years of one party doing whatever the want (more or less).

Re:People don't learn from history

[tbannist]

Unfortunately, as the previous poster indicated, McCain's views on what is and is not torture and what is and is not America have proven to be flexible when his party put pressure on him.

Re:Every once in a while

[EQ]

Is this really the best the US can come up with for presidential candidates?

Its a symptom of a broken system. 2 party politics are what delivers such mediocre candidates. If you look back at US history, a dynamic effective leader is seldom the result of our system in the US.

On the bright side, as long as "we the people" continue to push back against bad government and work to retain basic personal and economic freedoms, mediocrity from a President is usually good enough.

Re:People don't learn from history

[AshtangiMan]

Interesting but wrong. Obama has not won . . . he has claimed victory. The winner is either announced when one is picked officially at the convention, or when all but one of the candidates steps down. Neither of those things has occurred yet. Note that I am for Obama, and in the event that Hillary wins I will probably just vote for Ron Paul, as in the end I believe that most of the things the feds are into these days they should be leaving to the state and regional governments.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

What BS you spout. You said:

"But since then, McCain has flip flopped on almost every stance he took out of line with the Republican party. Campaign finance reform, Gay marrage, Torture, even the war he has been pretty fishie on."

You're basically saying that he isn't independent-minded (i.e., a 'maverick') because he doesn't vote the Democratic party line. But if he voted the Democrats' line, he wouldn't be a 'maverick', -- he would be a Democrat, just as surely as someone who votes the Republican line is a Republican.

McCain certainly did not vote "to allow the CIA to waterboard and use other combinations of intense questioning methods." He has been strongly against torture in his legislative proposals, [sourcewatch.org] many of which have become law. McCain's position regarding the CIA and waterboarding is that such forms of torture are already clearly forbidden under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [pitt.edu], which bans torture in essentially the same language as the Geneva Conventions, and which is extended to the CIA by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [sourcewatch.org]

He didn't vote for a proposal in 2008, NOT because he wanted to promote torture (!), but because it would "apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities." [nytimes.com] While I suppose you may disagree and say that the CIA ought to become a military organization, surely it is a legitimate position on McCain's part to say that the CIA should continue to be nonmilitary. And despite what you say about it being a 'flip flop', it is absolutely not a new position for McCain. As noted in the NY Times article linked above, he has the same views in 2005 -- the same year that he was lauded by the media as a foe of torture and an opponent of the illegal activities that had been carried out by the present administration.

You lie when you say that McCain is in favor of torture. It's the same despicable sort of lie that was used against McCain during the primary campaign in 2000, and the same sort of lie that has been used against Barack Obama during this primary -- e.g. that McCain supposedly had an illegitimate child, that Obama is supposedly a Muslim, and so on. You should be ashamed of yourself. There are many legitimate reasons you might oppose McCain. Why must you choose a patent and disgusting falsehood?

Re:People don't learn from history

[penguin_dance]

Not giving handouts to those who have little is NOT the same as taking things away from them.

Oh somebody mod this simple statement up. They get it. That's part of the problem in Washington--a reduction in the increase in spending on something is called a CUT.

It's like planning to buy a $45,000 vehicle and then claiming I cut spending by buying a $35,000 vehicle. Nevermind the fact that I've increased my spend $35,000....

Re:People don't learn from history

[ssstraub]

Easy, but not a good example. Halliburton, or more to the point, Kellogg, Brown & Root, is the only company in the US that can handle what needs to be done in Iraq. Ever wonder why no other company has sued the government over the Iraqi contracts? Because no one else can do the job. Sorry, try again.

Looks like the Republican talking heads got you on that one hook, line, and sinker! Have you ever researched this preposterous claim for yourself?

And I quote: [halliburtonwatch.org]
"Despite claims in 2003 that Halliburton is the 'only company' that can handle the Pentagon's logistics work in Iraq, today's Post quotes a consultant for the company as saying, 'You're really asking too much of one firm to be able to manage all of this.' Other companies expected to bid for the contract later this year include Lockheed-Martin Corp. and Northrop-Grumman Corp."

Perhaps you haven't heard of Bunnatine Greenhouse? [pbs.org]
"She testified before Congress that the contracts awarded to one of these subsidiaries, KBR, represented the "most blatant and improper contract abuse" that she had witnessed during her 20 year tenure working for the government."

The new LOGCAP 4 government contract [newsmax.com] is expected to have "robust competition" and be awarded to no less than three separate companies.

Seems pretty obvious after some simple research that KBR isn't the only company that can handle the job in Iraq.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[VJ42]

I'm not even American, but even I know that the other side [gwu.edu] were not exactly guiltless in cooperating with the Iraqi reigeme either.

Re:People don't learn from history

[treeves]

and if they're smart they'll answer (1) *irrelevant - the POTUS doesn't control the economy, and (2) Yes.

*but other than energy costs, not too bad, and energy would cost less if federal laws and regulations didn't prevent more production here in the USA.

Re:What is he gonna change?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't really been able to figure out much of what he plan's to change?

Then you haven't read his Blueprint for Change [barackobama.com].

The Moar You Know.

[Anonymous Coward]

wiki sez: [wikipedia.org]
"Quadroon" is someone of one-quarter black ancestry. A quadroon has a biracial parent (black and white) and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black grandparent and three white grandparents.

"Octoroon" means a person of fourth-generation black ancestry. An octoroon has one parent who is a quadroon and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black great-grandparent and seven white great-grandparents.

Re:People don't learn from history

[normal_guy]

Russ Feingold is the only person who voted against the Patriot act every time.

Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either

[Shakrai]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the media gets to decide?

How is the media 'deciding'? He has a majority of the delegates to the convention. I don't think the media repeating this fact is 'deciding' anything.... it's reporting.

Louisiana Politics

[jmorris42]

> He's dirty as fuck, more corrupt than a louisiana politician.

Oh I doun't doubt Obama is a fully integrated part of the political machine 'yall got up there, but you Yanks don't know squat about corruption.

We have a Governor in Federal Prison. He got elected while under indictment, with the endorsement of BOTH major parties. Of course due to our crazy open primaries his opponent was David Duke so it wasn't like we had much of a choice.

We got us a Congresscritter who got caught with $90,000 in 'cold hard cash' sitting in his freezer. He is still in Congress, reelected by nice margins.

We got us a blooming idiot down in New Orleans as mayor, prone to foot in mouth like 'ya wouldn't believe. Makes Wright look like a beginner in the whitey hatin' business. And totally incompetent. You want to know why New Orleans didn't really TRY to evacuate, look no farther than Ray and the Ray Nagin Memorial Bus Lot.

We just got rid of a Governor who was so incompetent her own party made sure she didn't run for reelection.... didn't help em though, Jindal cleaned their clocks anyway, so we have some room for optimism.

Re:What is he gonna change?

[Dripdry]

Can someone PLEASE mod the above as "lazy"?

Mod ALL posts or comments in the media like this as "lazy", please?

Do I have to be the person to come and post "RTFM" ?

For everything that's holy you're on the fracking INTERNET! USE IT!

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ [barackobama.com]

There you go. There are, in detail, his stances on the issues. Do you honestly think he has time to go over policy during a 5 minute campaign speech?

If this was too harsh, please mod me down, but I am really sick of people making that comment and I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Thank you and goodnight.

Re:Sorry

[Moryath]

Check this out too:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6185320 [go.com]

Know how much of this guy's money wound up in kickbacks to Obama? Loads!

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[Shakrai]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure free public healthcare (welfare) is a cornerstone of his campaign

Where did you get the impression that any of the Democrats health care plans would be "free"? Hillary talked about garnishing paychecks. No one is purposing "free" health care.

FWIW I'm not the biggest fan of any of their plans. But you can't do nothing as John McCain purposes. There is simply no reason that a gainfully employed American should have to file bankruptcy if they get sick. Yet that's exactly what happens to a lot of people. Do you really see the current situation as sustainable?

As far as proving the democratic party has demonstrated an affinity for giving free stuff to people and creating massive bureaucracies to manage those peoples' lives for them

As opposed to the massive bureaucracy created by the Republicans that thinks keeping us safe means outlawing bottled water and breast milk on airplanes? I'll ask you again: What "free" stuff is Barack Obama offering?