Obama wins enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination

Obama claims nomination, but Clinton says she's not going anywhere yet

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 7:13 PM on 03 Jun 2008

Photo: wfiupublicradio

Barack Obama secured enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, passing the threshold of 2,118 needed to become the party's candidate.

"Because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America," Obama said in his victory speech in St. Paul, Minn.

But rival Hillary Clinton says she's not dropping out yet.

"Given how far we've come, and this has been a long campaign, I will be making no decisions tonight," Clinton told fans gathered in New York City. She said she would make a decision in the "best interest" of the party and the nation in the coming days about how to proceed, after consulting with her supporters.

But Obama was ready to claim the nomination, and used his address to express his hope for the future, which included changing the country's direction in environmental policy: "If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

Not to let Obama steal the show entirely, John McCain also gave a speech tonight in New Orleans, in which he painted himself as "the right change" and Obama as "the wrong change." He talked up his energy policy as one of the ways he'd bring about that change: "No problem is greater than America's dependence on foreign oil," said McCain. The next president "must be willing to break with previous administrations ... and put us on a course to energy independence," he said, proceeding to criticize Obama's record on energy.

But Obama also had fighting words for John McCain on energy: "Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can�t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he�d understand that we can�t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators."

Obama continued: "That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future �- an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can�t be outsourced. That�s the change we need."

Find out more about Obama's environmental stances by checking out Grist's interview with the candidate and fact sheet on his platform and record.

For story: Obama wins enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Am I wrong?

"Barack Obama secured enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, passing the threshold of 2,118 needed to become the party's candidate."

"But rival Hillary Clinton says she's not dropping out yet."

Bushism logic?

by zach at 8:59 PM on 03 Jun 2008

Energy policy and jobs

He is making this a fundamental change. Economic stimulus with renewable energy policy.

Hooray!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:08 PM on 03 Jun 2008

"addiction to oil from dictators"

Who are the "dictators"? Are not the United States of America the largest oil-dictatorship in the world?

Are not the citizens of the United States the dictators?

Talk of "energy independence," usually a right-wing, Republican battlecry, is especially scary coming from the mouth of the leader of the Democratic Party, inasmuch as it rallies support for tearing up the American earth, and making the American earth unliveable for American wildlife.

American workers do indeed need to drive on American roads to American jobs. But surely, American thinkers can whisper in the ear of the future American president that drilling for oil in caribou-land is not the way to go; nor is mountain-explosion in search of coal.

And all the very enthusiastic friends of Barack Obama might believe that he is disposed to listen to the whispers of those thinkers.

But we shall see.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:21 AM on 04 Jun 2008

Finally

Relax caniscandida, Obama knows that he needs to win the swing voters who feel that "Energy Independence" is something to vote for. It is true that Obama is keen on nuclear and clean (cough cough) coal but he understands the need to CONSERVE as well as look to more domestic sources of energy. Obama is strongly against drilling in ANWAR and while his environmental policy is lacking in some areas it is better than most politicians. He also understands that in order to do the things that you so passionately believe in (myself as well) that he first needs to be elected. You don't get elected in this country if you are too far from the middle, see Perot, Nader, and Kusinich for examples.

This is not an environmental revolution as we would all like to see, it is an evolution and it takes time. While it may take more time than we would like, it will happen. Be happy for once that there is a viable candidate that we environmentalists can get behind. It is called reality, and we need to live in it.

Kevin Wright

by Wrightsfd at 11:00 AM on 04 Jun 2008

Politicians folllow. We must educate and organize

Obama's showing potential. Didn't pander for a "gas tax holiday." Pointed out its tiny monetary value ($30, average) and that it would mostly profit oil companies and encourage oil addiction.

We'll have to educate and organize, as the civil rights activists did. Obama seemes willing to "lead" if there's a movement ahead and behind him.

Getting Obama elected (and 60 votes for the environment in the Senate) would be the beginning of a movement towards sound energy and environmental policy. The rest is up to us.

by F James Handley at 11:18 AM on 04 Jun 2008

Good Post Canis, Except:

"American workers do indeed need to drive on American roads to American jobs"?

No they don't! They need to organize their lives, and we all need to reorganize society, in order to get rid of private motor vehicles. Cars are a huge environmental and ecological problem, and what fuels them is a minor detail. If global warming is your main issue, remember that ALL fuels emit CO2 when burned, so there will be no magic solution to global warming that allows anywhere near as much driving as now takes place.

What American workers -- actually, all workers -- need to do is to live near their jobs so that they can walk, bike, or at most take public transit to work. The private motor vehicle is a curse on the Earth and our goal should be to eliminate it, not to pander to those who cry about giving up driving.

by Wolverine at 12:00 PM on 04 Jun 2008

Obama & Change

Kevin,

While not as bad as some others (he doesn't seem to be a tree-killing fanatic like some and his opposition to the gas tax holiday was refreshing, though I question his reason(s)), Obama strongly supports the hideously destructive coal and nuclear industries, the U.S. military industrial complex, and U.S. imperialism. There's no way he would have been allowed to get anywhere near this far if he represented any real change.

What his election could be is a starting point for some real change. It certainly won't come from him, but his election could open a door to it. Maybe.

by Wolverine at 12:10 PM on 04 Jun 2008

change

First he needs to get elected then all these other prognostications will be relevant. We know he's better than McCan't in many conservation-related policy scorings.

The telling thing to me is the lack of PAC money behind Barack. He is truly with and for the people on this one, his support is grassroots and net-linked, empowered at the average citizen level. Everyone can help make the future and the change that is needed if we work together. That is how his leadership operates. I look forward to great things and great leadership from this man who takes after Lincoln in many ways.

The greening of a campaign is happening now. See what you can do to help. I facilitated the recycling of paper, cans and bottles at the local office during the primaries. Carbon neutralizing steps would be the next obvious thing to tackle.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

by 2wheeler at 12:27 PM on 04 Jun 2008

Big Changes R Coming

When the people are ready, the leader shall appear.

Cheers.

by roncastle at 12:28 PM on 04 Jun 2008

McCain already dishing the dirt

I am so sick of the Republicans mud slinging! McCain couldn't even go through one minute of being the Republican nominee without saying a negative comment about Mr. Obama. I guess they feel that threatened. Mr. Obama's victory speech was just what I wanted to here. The spirit and passion he has shown was why I voted for him. I just hope he doesn't pick Billary as his VP nominee. I would much prefer John Edwards.

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

by mtvyfan at 1:19 PM on 04 Jun 2008

Obama is on Obama's side

Unfortunately, I can't tell what side Obama is on other than Obama's side, he seems willing and with a history of saying whatever he thinks those listening want to hear, and then voting whichever way those with the most power want him to vote, regardless of what he's said ten minutes earlier. Look at Cheney's energy bill. Its a mixed bag when you get a candidate without strong convictions and who is looking to please his perception of the majority of the minute.

by Trakar at 7:39 AM on 05 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

Is everybody who subscribes to this high?

There are people posting ridiculous, totally unrealistic things like people will have to stop driving, the entire society needs to be restructured (which could not happen without a major civil war - which would have incredible environmental impact)..... there is all kinds of passive voice being used, which conveniently allows people to make ridiculous statements without identifying who has to take specifically what steps to achieve these pie in the sky objectives.

Let's get back down to earth.

America is not suddenly going to reduce its energy consumption.... so reasonably cost effective, clean energies need to be developed. By whom? The oil companies and other energy producers, obviously. They are in the energy business. Therefore, that's where the incentives need to be directed. Castigating them as enemies, instead of working hard to get them on board, simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.

The transportation industry is a difficult problem, but the solution isn't "people need to start walking more or riding bikes". It's not going to happen. So making such foolish suggestions that are totally unrealistic are a waste of time. You might as well say "People need to start breathing less to cut CO2 emissions."

As it is, there is a fair chance that peak oil is going to cause a major dislocation of the global economy, killing hundreds of millions of people in the process. The world needs to focus heavily on the development of alternative energy sources while at the same time recognizing and dealing with the CO2 issue.

The reality is that carbon sinks have to be pursued vigorously, because developing countries (or those that aren't even developing) are going to increase, not decrease, their carbon usage. And no amount of talk about the climate is going to deter them. They are dying now. They will worry about effects latter. That's reality - whether anyone here likes it or not.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 12:01 PM on 05 Jun 2008

Hi?

"We're high alright, but not on your false drugs. We are high on a clean windshield and a full tank of powerful gasoline!"

Face it, every other person will be riding a bike or a bus or train, that now drives a gas guzzler. Driving a monster vehicle already gets signifigant negative feedback. You can feel the hatred for oil seething in the public consciousness.

This just in..."Oil rises another 5 bucks, because of the weakening dollar." (MSNBC) A slippery oily spiral exxonmob saudi slope to national bankruptcy and despair, thank you bushco, and thanks most of all to bushco, faithfilled voters.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 12:32 PM on 05 Jun 2008

Hatred for Oil?

Most people live to far from work to commute with a bike and public transportation is out of the question - to time consuming. Furthermore, most people are too fat to ride much. Country is 60% overweight.

Now, rising fuel prices will cause be to down size their vehicles. They will be looking for efficiencies wherever they can find them. No question there. That will be driven by market forces.

But that's not being done because of a "hatred for oil"?? How can you hate an inanimate object?

My point is, while carbon supplies may cause major adjustments and disruptions in the economy and lifestyles - including such disruptions as death - people are not willing going to start giving up their cars or their homes or their foods of choice, etc. etc.

You think Barbie the Bimbo is going to stop shopping because of environmental concerns? She doesn't even know what the environment looks like outside of a shopping mall.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 8:42 PM on 05 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.