Political Insiders Say Obama Will Win the Democratic Nomination

Political insiders are saying Clinton gave it her best shot, but it wasn't enough to stand down her upstart rival, Barack Obama.

(SALEM, Ore.) - It is predicted that the Clinton Presidential campaign will see a drop in financial support after Tim Russert and Keith Olberman predicted the end of Hillary's run this week.

Russert said, "We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it."

His comment's measurable impact left the Clinton campaign shaken by some accounts, casting Barack Obama as the inevitable winner, "Those closest to her will give her a hardheaded analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared superdelegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that," Russert commented.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been extremely active and for a while, it looked like she was steadily turning around the spell Barack Obama cast on American voters so eager for a change in the White House.

But now the campaign according to most sources, will only spend money and drive the Clintons further into debt, especially when taking into account the impact statements like Russert's have on a nation that is staying glued to the developments in the race for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton's are not calling it yet, that is for sure. Hillary's Campaign Press Secretary Phil Singer told reporters that the political death sentences are coming came from what he described as, "an opinionated group."

"The only pressure that’s being exerted on us is coming from the media covering the campaign," Singer said.

Political insiders however, are saying Hillary Clinton gave it her best shot, but it just wasn't enough to stand down her upstart rival Barack Omaba, and the numbers back the theory up.

In the end, interestingly, much of the final determination will come from Oregon's upcoming primary.

Here is the video clip of Tim Russert making the statement that has been heard around the world, courtesy of MSNBC and YouTube:

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous May 11, 2008 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

Conspiracy Theorists et al: IF you can wrap this crap up into paperback-copy, you might be able to sell it --in the back alley somewheres. That is, if you can also stomach a wildly-sexy cover of some kind concealing its considerable consilience --check that last one out !

YRM May 11, 2008 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

Has it occurred to anyone that the reason the corporate media and Dem Party establishment are all in the tank for Obama is because he's not really who he says he is? His "message of hope" sounds an awful lot like the first Pres. Bush's "thousand points of light", and Bush Jr.'s "compassionate conservative" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider" schtick. And wouldn't you know it, Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes is the brother of Fox News VP David Rhodes. As starry-eyed as people are about the prospect of this African American candidate of "change" going to D.C. and cleaning everything up, the truth is that Obama has no history of doing this ever in his life. Certainly not during his eight years working within the Chicago political machine. As a "civil rights" lawyer, it has been well documented that he represented slumlords Allison Davis and Tony Rezko, and as a senator he continued to help them get about 30 new housing redevelopment projects. In exchange, they helped him get elected. Does that sound like "new politics" to anyone? Then there are Rezko's two close friends, one of them the former Minister of Electricity in Iraq who stole $650 million and is now hiding out in Illinois. (While in jail in Baghdad, his son faxed Obama several appeals for help, according to Newsweek.) Don't you think it possible that this trendy looking, biracial fellow was fielded specifically to knock Hillary Clinton out, and his dealings in the past will come back to haunt him AFTER the nomination, when it's too late to do anything about it? At least Clinton has a verifiable record of doing some good in the world. God forbid she's not the Starbucks equivalent of Gandhi, just a fallible human being like the rest of us.

Skeptical May 11, 2008 6:33 pm (Pacific time)

KRIS do you know if Sen. Clinton (or Obama) in regards to "healthcare" plan on subsidizing this service for illegals? If so, how would she/he fund it? Why would she/he fund it? Would the illegal non-citizens have healthcare parity with U.S. citizens? I realize you will not be able to respond to the above, but I assure you that it will be an election issue? I would also ask all candidates if they think "English" should be the offical language? Can you name any country in the western hemisphere besides us who doesn't have an offical language? How about driver's licences? These will be very pertinent topics this election cycle, and the majority of voters have certainly made it clear where they stand on the above issues. So when you have states that are close, who gets the edge?

Kris, PA May 11, 2008 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

They’ve knocked her down. She gets back up. Time and again, Senator Hillary Clinton has been counted out but she is still standing strong. She has won the hearts and minds of over 16 million voters nationwide. What is it they see in this tremendously strong and intellectual woman? For me, at least, I can tell you that having watched Hillary reach out to all of us on the campaign trail over the past 16 months, and speak to all of us in great detail about what she would like to accomplish for all of us, particularly in the debates, I know without a doubt she should be our president. She is concerned about all the right things - how we're going to set our economy right, how we're going to have health insurance that covers everyone, how we're going to guarantee every child a good education, how we're going to restore our country's reputation abroad - and has thoughtful, innovative plans to address all of these very real issues for all Americans. Senator Clinton believes very strongly in what the Democratic Party's principles are and she believes in our commitment to ensuring that we have the strongest possible nominee to lead the Democratic ticket against John McCain and the Republicans in November. Hillary has won tremendous victories in bellwether states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Indiana that are absolutely vital to winning the White House and maintaining the Democratic Congressional majority in the fall. Senator Clinton has won the big battleground states by connecting with voters whose support the Democrats must have to win the general election. Her victories in Pennsylvania and Indiana were all the more impressive after being outspent by as much as two or three to one. That’s why she continues to fight for this election and continues to fight for all of us. Please support Hillary Clinton for President. Senator Clinton is a smart vote for America. Senator Clinton is the right vote for America.

Henry Ruark May 10, 2008 12:46 pm (Pacific time)

Jacob et al: Dialog works, we getting closer to 100%. Yr key-phrase: "...demonstrated history of putting out misinformation" surely doth apply --but never forget ANY "interprettion", even one's own, is subjective, unavoidably made so by life experience That's why it is essential to deal-in-fact, checable by trusted means and sources, with those being persons not only responsible and trained to recognize reality but also accountable -facing penalty if they fail in integrity. SO "apply in spades" and very-carefully is always the reality-demanded final answer, and "know thyself" the other side of that same coin.

Jacob May 10, 2008 7:20 am (Pacific time)

Reviewing as many sources as one can is in my opinion the best way to help one's decision-making process. In the course of my life I have witnessed events to see later that the interpretation of these events can be so skewed as to render them completely untrue. So spin and scam can come from all different perspectives. My advice is to think critically and be a "doubting Thomas" until you feel confident that you have exhausted the informational sources out there. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, chances are it is spin and scam...Also do not rely on just a few national publications/networks, especially if they have a demonstrated history of putting out misinformation. I could provide a list with specific instances, but then individual research is a very valuable skill to develop on your own.

Henry Ruark May 9, 2008 4:21 pm (Pacific time)

Jacob: STILL agree about 85%...but spin and scam, by definition, are intended to be distorted and perverted, propaganda produced for that purpose. Destructive impact comes from their basic malign intent carried out skillfully by some to appear-otherwise. BUT diverse sources, tested by your own means, can supply facts, for the process you keep summarizing, now demanded more than ever before in U.S. We supply links for "see with own eyes" precisely to project to you sources we KNOW are reliable, albeit selection alone remains subjective, with only integrity, accounability and trustworthiness-by-test to confirm them. That's basic dilemma of the democratic format --and source of stultifying error when the "free press" role is diluted, diverted, deserted or otherwise damaged by intent, as has surely happened widely in this campaign. S-N works hard to earn and keep your trust, and we will continue so to do --and we strongly recommend precisely the approach you've laid out here, so neatly, and nicely, too...appreciated by me, after some horrendous other kinds !!

Jacob May 9, 2008 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

One should develop their intellect so one can think for themselves on an independent level, especially when it comes to voting. Otherwise why have a brain and freewill if you allow someone you do not know to tell you (essentially) how to think. I'd rather make my own mistakes than follow someone I really don't know if I should trust. In addition there may be someone I feel that I can trust in political matters that may be just the opposite of who someone else trusts, so develop those critical thinking skills for it's you, the individual, that should be making the final decision. Spin and scam may be more truthful than one may be led to believe?

Henry Ruark May 9, 2008 12:51 pm (Pacific time)

Jacob et al: Again, must agree with your basic supposition; but again it depends on how YOU react, includiing skills to detect spin/distortion/scam from any you consult; AND your own inevitably subjective judgment re "bully" and reaction to it. Best remediation I've found is deep confidence in source and deep cogitation following. Example: I KNOW I can trust Robert Parry, who broke messy Iran/Contra/Reagan-era start of current Iraq debacle; see his "Media Trivializing Campaign":www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/050608. This is one of my 5 re this issue, which you will enjoy, then test/evaluate as tough as you would ever want. Appreciate your civil response and will enjoy more from you, any time...

Jacob May 9, 2008 10:11 am (Pacific time)

I like to think for myself, independent of what others tell me I should evaluate as per their opinion. When that voting time comes, it is me that is pulling the lever. Though I do try to read as many different opinions as possible, and from different perspectives, I prefer to see the candidate in person respond to pertinent questions with appropraie follow-up question to help form my final voting decision. I expect this to be a long, very long, election period, and it is probably the most important time in our country's history that we get the right person in office. So if one cannot stand up to bullying reporters, then is that the person we want in office?

Henry Ruark May 9, 2008 9:13 am (Pacific time)

Jacob et al: Basically agree with your main points;thank you for sharp participation here. But yr key-phrase is: "...just what constitutes a negative question may not be evaluated the same by another ". That's precisely why I use at least three-to-five national reviews, forming my own view partially from theirs sure to be closer and more pertinent than mine, indubitably "more removed". For "negativity" here, there are five sharpies at national level on record; all five PDFs available here on request to Tim with ID, for pur direct contact saving space here. DO appreciate your cogent comments and glad for further dialog-direct ! I'm still ready to learn... Your last re essential importance of "reaction to negativity" is "right on", and for that do feel we must have full-exposure via reality confrontations on essentially fair interview situations --which surely is NOT the case with those-mentioned by my-5, starting with ABC, ending with Russert. (Did NOT include the rotund Limbaugh since class him as far less than journalist on multiple past perverting performances.) We MAY do better here in Oregon with visits from both Hillary and Obamaa --let's see how our local media manages on this demanding assignment. Disclosure: TWO sons working at KVAL-tv so-assigned today !

Jacob May 9, 2008 8:33 am (Pacific time)

Everything to do with these candidates should be a matter of public record. As far as negative questioning, then that will be a reflection on the questioner in the fianl analysis. What you must be aware of is what is one's opinion on just what constitutes a negative question may not be evaluated the same by another. These candidates need to be pinned down as to providing focused responses and the interviewer should be capable to pose good follow-up questions to see if the candidate is just being glib, or that they actually understand the topic of inquiry. Bottom line I believe is if one's candidate is being perceived as being treated unfair, then it's unfair. National politics should be tough, let's just find out what these people are made of. None of these current candidates have any executive experience, just legislative, so how one reactes to negativity is a pretty important character trait we should, as voters, be able to observe.

Henry Ruark May 8, 2008 7:07 pm (Pacific time)

Jacob et al: Dunno if you heard the same one I heard, Russert vs Obama. Thaat was far from softball, and I guarantee Obama did NOT "set up" those 12 hard-neg. questions Russert asked, as reported by authoritative media critics nationally. What's your source for that "softball interview statement, if indeed you meant it to apply to Russert vs Obama ?? Russert's reputation wil recover--he stands stands UNhurt; but injury to Obama is on public record. I question attacking-question since basically unfair, UN-applied to Clinton and McCain similarly on parallel points also on public record; and damaging candidate Obama via misrepresenting reality; and thus harms our democracy. "Old" politics cannot fly in 21st Century due to real demands we now face.

Jacob May 8, 2008 5:47 pm (Pacific time)

It was a very softball type of interview. It was as though Obama was provided the questions prior to the show. What we need are genuine journalists that can not only ask pertinent questions but be quick on the uptake to ask follow-up questions. Thus far these candidates simply have been given a pass and in the real world, fancy rhetoric just will not cut it. Didn't Russert use to work for former New York Governor Cuomo, and is he not a big supporter of Clinton?

Henry Ruark May 8, 2008 11:51 am (Pacific time)

To all: This seems to be reputation restoring effort after his debacle on "Meet The Press" face-to-facer with Obama. Did you hear his 12-question entirely-negative, entirely repetitive opening dialog with Obama, on-air, in "Meet The Press" ? Note: That barrage ended with still further insinuating attack:"a reprise of Obama's supposed lack of patriotism.." Only in the second half did the interview "address some substantive questions"--Robert Parry, famed journalist who broke Iran/Contra story. See Op Ed on damage done by "Portentous Pundits" for full further desperate detail.

Anonymous May 8, 2008 10:39 am (Pacific time)

Great, we are dooooomed!

[Return to Top]

Political Insiders Say Obama Will Win the Democratic Nomination

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News