Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
United States Government Politics

Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination 1788

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

Comments Filter:
  • by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:06AM (#23650477)
    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" []. 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???
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:11AM (#23650583)
      A Zombie Jesus perhaps?
    • by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:13AM (#23650627)

      Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).

      Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.

      Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.

      Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.

      • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:23AM (#23650789)

        Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics
        I keep hearing this canard. The rest of the sentence is against Hillary Clinton. Do you honestly suppose that after the last eight years that those groups are going to flock to McCain in the general election?
      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:25AM (#23650817)
        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.
        • 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 [] ("[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 [], 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.

      • by Free the Cowards ( 1280296 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:29AM (#23650895)
        She only has no practical reason to "go away" if she is absolutely selfish, something which I concede may very well be the case. If she cares at all about her party or her country then she'll admit defeat and get her ass in gear promoting Obama to the masses in every way possible.

        I say this as a dedicated third-party supporter who thinks that every serious Presidential candidate fielded over the past decade or so has been completely useless, from either major party.
    • by glgraca ( 105308 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:14AM (#23650633)
      I can picture her in a press conference concurrent to Obama's inauguration saying "I'm not making any decisions tonight; I still have a few cards to play".
    • by wass ( 72082 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:15AM (#23650661)
      Well, the interesting thing is that in no primary in the US history has the outcome ever been so close. Obama has certainly won the primary, but just barely.

      The party is truly split between the two candidates, and for the Obama team to take a small winning margin and run all the way to the general election while ignoring Hillary and keeping her out of the team, it will majorly turn off roughly half of the Democratic Party. The Obama team just wants Hillary to go away, but when she has the support of half the party, how can she just give up and disappear? That would be irresponsible to her supporters.

      Another argument that the Obama team has been making for the past few months is that Clinton is ruining Obama's chances in the general election by keeping the election going, and that she's been mean to him with her campaign. The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine.

      It certainly is an interesting time in politics, seeing such a split in the Democratic party. Hopefully it can come together, but it won't happen if Obama just runs fully with it, leaving HIllary in the dust. Or, as you put it, to "make this woman go away".
    • by bsDaemon ( 87307 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:17AM (#23650693)
      The Clintons and the Bushes are like political Herpes. In my life time, we have had Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quale, Clinton/Gore, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Bush/ Cheney -- complete with all the usual suspects from the 80s and 90s... and the fucking Ford administration, too!!

      I am SO FUCKIGN GLAD its not going to be another 8 years of Clinton -- followed by what, Jeb Bush then Chelsey Clinton?

      Bush Sr. and Clinton palling around...

      but yeah, study hard, stay away from drugs and out of cyber-porn on the internet and YOU could be President of the United States some day.... pfft

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:22AM (#23650767)
      Hillary (like Bill) is hyper-ambitious and a sore loser. Right now she's still steaming and trying to plot a new course for the only person she ever cared about in this election (herself). She'll be back in a new form soon enough (no doubt trying to strong-arm her way into the VP spot).
    • by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:47AM (#23651189)
      A quote I saw today:

      Hillary Clinton, America's Psycho Ex-girlfriend
  • by Voltar ( 973532 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:44AM (#23651121)
    Is Obama a black man with a white mother or a white man with a black father? As a racist white male, this question has been causing me night terrors!
  • by Lokni ( 531043 ) <reali100.chapman@edu> on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:09AM (#23651659)
    Did any of you see the speech yesterday by McCain? Who does a speech in New Orleans and not have a single black person show up? The differences between McCain and Obama are so stark that people have very little choice in the matter. 3/4s of this country want the war to end. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the war. He has made that painfully obvious. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuation of the same policies that have made Bush the most unpopular president in the history of the country. On top of all of that the turnout for this election is going to be massive. Election boards nationwide have reported that turnout for just the primaries this year have exceeded turnout for general elections past. What is energizing people to come out like that? Probably the same feelings that makes Bush unpopular. Independent voters are breaking hard to the left for Obama. And in reality, if you want the best indicator that people are going to vote a Democrat president in, look at the Republican house and senate seats that have been lost already to Democrats this year. Across the country seats held for decades by Republicans are being won by Democrats or are being polled as likely Democrat pickups already. There is one house race I know of in the south that voted 70% for Bush in 2004, it is that Republican of a district. Yet today, it is polling 65% in favor of the Democrat candidate. The turnarounds nationwide are, in some cases, that big. There is no way this country is about to continue the policies of George W Bush with a vote for McCain.

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!