Obama Manager: 'We Can See the Finish Line'
By Shailagh Murray
Sen. Barack Obama is expecting a net gain of 13 delegates from Tuesday's primaries, campaign manager David Plouffe announced.
Plouffe estimated the Indiana pledged delegate tally would break down 38 to 34 in Clinton's favor, with North Carolina going 66 to 49 for Obama. The Illinois senator would likely lead Clinton by 172 pledged delegates as a result of yesterday's contests -- Obama's biggest margin yet.
"It's a high-water mark," Plouffe told reporters on a conference call this morning. "We can see the finish line here."
The call included a line-up of high-profile Obama backers, all of whom spoke of the Democratic race as essentially over. Sen. John Kerry called Tuesday's outcome a "giant and decisive stride" toward the nomination. Sen. Claire McCaskill said of the candidate's big win in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana, "Barack Obama squared off against the electability argument, and he won."
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano added, "It's now time for the superdelegates to begin bringing this process to a close."
But no one was willing to give Clinton a public nudge out of the race.
McCaskill called any form of intervention "inappropriate and awkward and wrong for any of us....It is her decision and only her decision."
Posted at 2:35 PM ET on May 7, 2008
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This

Get This Widget >>

Posted by: SMS | May 8, 2008 4:32 PM
Barack Obama wishes questions about his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and other radicals would end. But maybe the reason they won't is that there's a pattern: Marxism. It's not hiding. Given Obama's closeness to his friends, it's fair to ask whether Obama doesn't share their extreme-left views. Yet whenever he's asked, he gets mad and avoids the issue. This stinks, frankly. Why does someone who says he represents "change" have so many Jurassic Marxists in his camp calling the shots? He needs to repudiate this crew now.
Posted by: Game Spy | May 8, 2008 3:48 PM
That's true, Tom. Good insight. At least the oil companies would take that 18.4 cents and use it to find more oil in the few places Obama and his ilk have not placed off-limits. According to Ernst & Young, from 1992 to 2006 the U.S. oil industry spent $1.25 trillion on long-term investment vs. profits of $900 billion.
Meanwhile, Barrack Hussein Obama, who had a Che Guevara poster displayed in one of his campaign offices, doesn't mind if Cuba, with Chinese assistance, explores for oil 45 miles off Florida while U.S companies are blocked from further Gulf of Mexico production.
Posted by: Frank | May 8, 2008 2:27 PM
The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, so accepting his 30 cents a day figure, he must think we use a little more than a gallon and a half a day, including weekends, driving to our jobs, to the mall, to our kid's soccer games, even to the 7-Eleven.
If he's talking $30 over six months or 180 days, he's talking about 16 or 17 cents a day, which means he thinks the average American family uses less than a gallon a day.
Posted by: Tom | May 8, 2008 1:43 PM
Tom:
I thought I heard him say $28 per month on MTP Sunday. Regardless of what the savings are, struggling American families need all the help they can get!!!
Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 1:33 PM
Barack Obama thinks a federal gas-tax holiday is a political ploy. But when he was in the Illinois Senate, he voted for a state holiday three times. These days, he prefers a holiday on gasoline production.
In an ad that aired before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, candidate Obama said: "I'm here to tell you the truth. We could suspend the gas tax for six months, but that's not going to bring down gas prices long-term. You're gonna save about 25, 30 dollars, or half a tank of gas."
Speaking in Indianapolis before the ad was aired, Obama threw different numbers to a swooning crowd. "I know it polls well," he said, "but here's the truth: It would save the average family 30 bucks over the course of three months -- $28, or more precisely, 30 cents a day -- which is less than (a) cup of coffee at the 7-Eleven."
If that's his idea of math, we don't want him in charge of the federal budget or U.S. energy policy. So which is it -- $30 over three months or over six? And he must think Americans don't drive very much.
Posted by: Tom | May 8, 2008 1:19 PM
Sorry, Helen, but we are still here. At least registration will cut down on the FAKE Jake's ...
Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 11:51 AM
Since Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County-Decided January 22, 1973; Obama, a baby born, (out of wedlock,?) in Hawaii between a probable polygamist and a white girl named Sydney, is all the Democrats can find to be President. They, the dems, have had a peanut farmer, a Hillbilly from Arkansas, and now a real ½ African candidate.
Meanwhile the Republicans have no one except an old disabled cripple POW to run for President. We question that either party is functioning or are they obsolete in today's world. Between the propaganda of the parties' and the press, we have to depend upon blogs for information. When men as Mitt Romney, Bill Gates and Steve Forbes are underutilized we have, Half Africans that could not manage a hamburger joint wanting to command worlds most powerful Military, carry the keys to our National Treasury, and furnish free housing. This has to be the last election held with substandard personnel
Posted by: BillyBob | May 8, 2008 11:13 AM
btw, very clever comment by RAT-the...I enjoyed the metaphor, though I don't agree.
Posted by: BC | May 8, 2008 2:50 AM
Any of the 3 will be an improvement on the current situation, however...I completely agree with Obama's view of McCain: "his plans for the future are nothing more than the failed policies of the past." EITHER ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES IS BETTER! People wake up! Clinton's supporters must realize that they are waiting for something that is not going to happen (a horrible mistake by obama or a shift of superdelegates that would be political suicide for the democrats...McCain's supporters must realize that he is no longer a centrist candidate but is now beholden to his party for allowing him to become their nominee (he is a hawk who's strong suit is admittedly not the economy...the most important issue to the voters). As dissapointed in this country as I was 4 years ago, I would be as proud to see obama as our next president. I think the rest of the world shares this sentiment. Just remember, withdrawing from Iraq strengthens our military against actual threats from credible enemies, and is a victory for our country. Don't let people tell you it is anything less...
Posted by: BC | May 8, 2008 2:29 AM
So will the new rules spare us from the ranting of Rath-The and JakeD?
Posted by: Helen | May 7, 2008 11:55 PM
LOL! :-D
"We can see the finish line here."
Said the Blind People to the Deaf People!
While the Mute People had to watch! ;~)
Posted by: RAT-The | May 7, 2008 10:39 PM
Yes the finish line to total obliteration by John McCain. The country is center-right. Come general election, the Dems will not win based on a coalition of Blacks, aging liberals, affluent whites who want to experiment at the benefit of the working class and the impressionable young. What a farce!
The Obamaites can gloat now but we will see what shrill song they will be singing in Novemember.
Sit back, relax, and enjoy the spectacle.
Let the games begin!
Posted by: alee21 | May 7, 2008 9:47 PM
However this comes out, David Plouffe will never want for work. He's managed the best campaign organization ever. I credit the candidate with setting the tone and values and having the Midas touch with little donors. But everything about the campaign management has been masterful, right down to the little thank you postcards to the little donors. Wouldn't it be nice to see the USA once again operating with a balanced budget and a high degree of trust in the chief executive? I would love that. In my lifetime. With all praise to Plouffe.
Posted by: Gaias Child | May 7, 2008 9:41 PM
BP:
John SIDNEY McCain.
A Canadian:
Was it "ad hominem" to type out McCain's full name? Thank God you can't vote in our election (a statement of relief based on a statement of fact -- NOT an "ad hominem" attack -- just in case you had a hard time figuring that out too ; )
Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2008 7:07 PM
I'm a working class WHITE WOMAN and I say OBAMA IS MY voice, my choice and my candidate!
YES WE CAN!
Posted by: MimiF | May 7, 2008 6:43 PM
I'm a poor WORKING CLASS WHITE WOMAN! Go Obama.
Posted by: Lisa W | May 7, 2008 5:48 PM
It is amazing some are so excited about NC primary.
What do you expect when Uncle Wright claims
"You are attacking black chuch"
This is BARELY public call on purpose
"You are not black enough"
For that, Uncle Wright deserves VP spot.
The primary SO FAR LEFT is
"The Emperor''s New Clothes"
Let us wait and laugh at end.
Posted by: jy2008 | May 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Comments like those of JakeD- i.e. personal attacks that associate a candidate's name with some unseemly cause- make people outside of the US shake our heads in disbelief.
There's a word for it: ad hominem. It's the lowest way to argue against something: when you're down and can't win, you attack the other person rather than what they stand for. It's just sad.
Posted by: A Canadian | May 7, 2008 5:28 PM
@Stephanie
'Well, I am one of many MANY Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama in the Fall. But that should be okay. According to Donna Brazille, all Obama needs is the "new" coalition of AA's and eggheads. Working class whites need not apply.'
Actually Donna Brazille said nothing of the sort. It is clear that Hillary's defeat has hurt people like yourself, who invested so much hope in the prospect of America's first female president, but that is no excuse to turn 'to the dark side' and begin spinning lies about Obama and his supporters in the style of the conservative gutter media. In November your choice is between 4 more years of the Republican party (last seen destroying America in as many different ways as they could) or the Democratic party, fronted by an exceptionally intelligent, politically capable, and hard-working young man. Are you really going to let yourself become so consumed with bitterness over Hillary that you will let your whole country go down the gutter at the next election? Grow up, and use your head, your heart and....the force:
Posted by: Gabriel Casey | May 7, 2008 5:25 PM
Polls in May do not resemble polls in November. It is still an uphill battle for McCain who must run against two in the fall, Obama and Bush. However, thanks to the Democratic primary campaign, he has a chance, where 6 months ago, it looked like he had none.
Obama has been revealed a a lefty, out of the mainstream by the process. That will not be enough to beat him this year, with the Republican brand so damaged, but it's a start.
Posted by: Ed | May 7, 2008 5:23 PM
I'm so sorry hillary supporters or obama hater. please come down and support obama because whatever your reasons for not doing so, at the end you will please because obama will becomes a great president for this country. and one thing, the polls are very clear obama will beat maccain in the december.
Posted by: brian | May 7, 2008 5:07 PM
John SIDNEY McCain. As in John Phillip Sidney, a notable English elitist and courtier. Which explains the royalist view of politics that seeps out whether he likes it or not.
Well, its a theory anyway. And it explains why the Straight Talk Express takes so circular a route from there to there.
Posted by: 33rdSt | May 7, 2008 5:05 PM
Obama Manager: 'We Can See the Finish Line'
Yeah, I see it too. There's a huge banner there. It says Congratulations, President McCain!
Posted by: Ex-Democrat | May 7, 2008 4:52 PM
What hypocrits! They were trying to push Hillary out of the race a month ago, now it's okay that she stay in??? Typical sexist nonsense, but no one has the guts to say it. Well, I am one of many MANY Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama in the Fall. But that should be okay. According to Donna Brazille, all Obama needs is the "new" coalition of AA's and eggheads. Working class whites need not apply.
When Obama is the nominee, McCain will be the next President of the United States. And you know what? The Democratic Party deserves to lose. As always, picking the wrong candidate. As always, on the suicide mission.
Sometimes, a society gets the government it deserves.
Posted by: stefanie | May 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Congratulations on getting the McGovern superdelegate pledge. He and Obama have so much in common as presidential candidates.
Posted by: Ed | May 7, 2008 4:39 PM
Don't worry about JakeD BP! He is a Republican cynic. We have a little more work to do to secure Obama the nomination over the next 4 weeks. Then after June 3rd, I suggest most Obama-supporters and Hillary-supporters take a month off to enjoy themselves and reflect on the importance of a Democratic winning in November.
Then we should all unite and come back in July with a venegance for Barack Obama and take the fight to McCain and Republicans!
Posted by: AJ | May 7, 2008 4:32 PM
Jake D,
What's McCain's middle name? Exactly. You are what is wrong with the politics in America.
Posted by: BP | May 7, 2008 4:22 PM
How did this thread go by unnoticed?
Again, I offer my congratulations to the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. There's no chance he will be sworn in as President, though, on January 20, 2009.
Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2008 4:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.

So let's see what Clinton is claiming again -- that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Obama's support among whites is actually increasing compared to Ohio, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. She lied about that.
Obama's support among "hard working Americans", which is code for poorer Americans, has also increased over those in previous contests, save for Mississippi, where the under-$50K vote was overwhelmingly black.
Obama's numbers among college grads is static to increasing. We don't have exit poll breakdowns for education by race, and we can assume North Carolina's huge numbers with "no college" are due to the large African American percentages in the state. But what about Indiana, a state that is whiter (83.9%) than Pennsylvania (82.1%), Ohio (82.9%) and Texas (48.3%)? Despite the demographic disadvantage, Obama actually increased his support among voters with no college degrees.
So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.
Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls.
Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.