Why doesn't he just have the inauguration on 5/20? Campaigning is so boring and tiresome!

To consolidate hold over the Democrats, Obama will nominate himself as VP as well.

Guaranteed to backfire.

------------------------------------------------
“Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever” - Shane Falco

That's all the coronation is: A big giant head fake from Obama to psych people out, peel away whatever votes Hillary might have or discourage people from voting altogether.

He doesn't care that it's not his nomination to claim. Hillary won't go away so this is one way to help her along.

to claim the mantle and shove Hillary off the stage. And it all has to be done before Tuesday when she'll blow him away again.

I love this job!

What he's likely to "announce" is that he's won the pledged delegates because he's gotten at least half of them, but that's only half of them w/out MI/FL which isn't likely to remain accurate on May 31st.

He won't pass 2025 by May 20th, the number needed to clinch the nomination without MI/FL, much less 2210 (the number needed with full MI/FL delegations). Todd Beeton did the math - http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/1553...

Now, in a reality based world, this should backfire. Party officials should be upset that Obama has written off two states and is taking actions more likely to anger Clinton supporters and split the party. That presumes, of course, party officials still care about the party. Which I'm seriously beginning to doubt because their silence about the misogyny doesn't indicate that they have really thought through how to keep the party from splitting. The misogyny backlash from women is gaining traction. Something that could've been avoided had the party acted proactively by defending Clinton (without endorsing her) and telling Obama's campaign to knock off the dogwhistles.

... Obama has told a bunch of high dollar fundraisers "That means all of you [emphasis supplied] have to be nice to Clinton supporters."

Only now.

Sweetie, isn't that precious?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Via Reclusive Leftist, this happened a year ago:

Obama, speaking at the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco, raised eyebrows Monday at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer when, as we reported, the Illinois Senator described his Democratic colleague from California as “a fighter, a leader, a charmer, a cutie.”

The remark “set off a lot of murmuring,” said one Democratic strategist in attendance, “among a lot of very strong powerful women around Boxer there who were offended.”

The descriptive of a powerful feminist senator raised “a strategic question: is (Obama) ready for prime time? You don’t call a U.S. senator a ‘cutie,’” said the strategist, whose take was echoed by others.

What are we up to three or four instances of him using condescending terms for women in public. Oh, wait, I forgot, he calls "all kinds of people" sweetie.

The Democratic Party is developing a real woman problem. They need to do something before it splits the party. Other than nominate Clinton, I'm not sure what that might be. It's kind of hard to permit misogyny to run rampant during a campaign and then after the woman loses, apologize for it. Kind of makes it seem, oh I don't know, less sincere.

What, Mike Tyson? [Not sure who I got that riff from...]

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I used the Mike Tyson comparison. It came from an article I read ages ago about a program for men who had committed domestic violence. A lot of the men defended their actions saying their wife or girlfriend had misbehaved and it was their job to correct her, to punish her. The training leader pointed out that they did not feel the need to do this to other folks and asked them if Mike Tyson had done the same thing would their response be to hit him. The answer was always a resounding no. Because, of course, they only turned to violence against weaker people, so they weren't beating their wives because they had to to teach them a lesson, they were beating them because they could. With bigger and stronger people, they found non-violent ways to make their points.

I say the same thing here. Obama would never call Ted Kennedy a cutie or Al Sharpton a sweetie. He does it to women to belittle them and he does it because he can.

Because it's true. It was very depressing to see some of the readers on Feministe claim that this didn't say anything about Obama or who thought his apology was excellent. It wasn't excellent, it was bullshit. And maybe one slip doesn't say anything about Obama, but this is beginning to look like a pattern.

Seriously. A Democratic candidate for president is trying to use psyops to depress turnout and the Democratic "leadership" is honky-dorie about that? That ticks me off. I chose to be a Dem because that was the sort of thing we used to abhor. Guess you forget these things when you're smoking the hopium.

(Again, we should all put leadership in quotes when talking about the "leaders" of the Democratic Party).

That's the dirty little secret nobody will report. Dick Bennett of ARG (via Susie Madrak, emphasis mine):

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama’s primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.

Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.

There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton’s share of the vote.