Well, John W. McCain had a great couple of days in the Golden State. First he went to Santa Barbara, site of a huge 1969 oil spill, to promote his plan to cancel the moratorium on offshore drilling, and he ran into an expert who rebutted his entire premise.
Feeney also took issue with McCain’s controversial proposal to lift the moratorium on offshore oil exploration: “It makes me nervous to think about those who are proposing to drain America’s offshore oil and gas reserves as quickly as possible in the hopes of driving down the price of gasoline, because I think when you look at the good sources of information, were we to open up the California coast or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, it would be 12, 15, maybe 20 years before those resources came online and got to full productions.”
Adding that some research shows that drilling in ANWR would only “reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 70% to 67%,” Feeney added, “I’m not sure most Americans would think that’s really worth the price of admission.”
That Charlie Black comment wasn’t McCain’s only off-message moment yesterday. At a town hall in Fresno, CA, McCain admitted that the offshore drilling proposal he unveiled last week would probably have mostly “psychological” benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy notes. “Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.” Uh oh.
Later, at a fundraiser, an attendee very nicely called him an idiot:
“We’re really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we’re goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore,” the attendee said. “So we ask you to look out there to the south and the southeast and remember the greatest environmental catastrophe that’s hit this state and then balance that with the notion of winning California.”
I also want to make sure that we will take concrete steps towards eliminating our dependence on foreign oil.
And I am confident that uh, the, the conflicts that we are in in both Iraq and Afghanistan have also a bearing on that.
(Incidentally, is there anyone in America who doesn’t know this? We’ve been going to war for oil since oil became profitable. Before that the world used a lot of whale oil, and if we still did America would be at war with Sea World.)
Thanks for coming, Big John! Please stop by again sometime and further ruin your candidacy!
(Some strategy McCain has to win over California… – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)
Sen. John McCain will be appearing tomorrow morning with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an “environmental roundtable” in Santa Barbara. Yes, that would be the same Santa Barbara where a 1969 ecological disaster shocked the nation, leading to the birth of the environmental movement.
That’s right. Sen. McCain is either so tone-deaf or just astonishingly arrogant that he thinks he can come to the scene of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, demand an end to the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, and simultaneously paint himself as a champion of the environment.
Of course, all he’ll really succeed in doing is painting himself into a corner. You see, McCain has to try to defend a position that creates virtually no relief from escalating gas prices (up 273% during the Bush Administration), lines the pockets of oil companies and speculators, and subjects the nation’s coastlines to incredible environmental peril. And, to top things off, he has to explain why he’s suddenly in favor of ending the drilling moratorium despite his long-held position in favor of the drilling moratorium.
Tickets to this feat of derring-do are apparently still available at McCain’s website (one per email address), should you be in the area and wish to bear witness to McCain’s pandering. Please see the end of the post for details of planned protests.
Sen. McCain has given us ample evidence that he’s willing to sacrifice his scruples in his quest for the presidency. Just last month he was calling for a gas tax holiday. Now he’s twisted his principles into a pretzel to support a new gimmick that he hopes will hoodwink the American people. The only problem is that this one won’t work either.
According to an article in today’s SF Chronicle, lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would do nothing to ease the price of gas at the pumps:
The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted last year that if the moratorium were lifted, it would take until 2012 to start leasing the areas and until 2017 before oil began to flow. The agency estimated that U.S. oil production would increase by 7 percent — about 200,000 barrels a day — by 2030, which it said would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
According to the same article, even his GOP sidekick in California is insightful enough to disagree with McCain’s stance on the moratorium:
“California’s coastline is an international treasure,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said last week, explaining why he opposed his ally McCain’s bid to end the drilling ban.
In the meantime, while McCain is trying to peddle smoke and mirrors, Sen. Barack Obama has announced plans which could lead to immediate relief at the gas pumps:
Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.
The Democratic candidate’s campaign singled out the so-called “Enron loophole” for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation. Oil closed near $135 a barrel on Friday – almost double the price a year ago.
“My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores commonsense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future,” Obama said in a campaign statement. […] Obama’s campaign said the candidate would go further by requiring that U.S. energy futures be traded on regulated exchanges.
Obama also would ask the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to consider whether traders should be subject to higher margin requirements. He also would work with other countries to regulate energy markets and press the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to investigate possible market manipulation.
And not a single dolphin, seal or seabird would be harmed in the production of Obama’s gas price relief plan. Unfortunately, John McCain can’t say the same thing. Here’s the historical backdrop for McCain’s appearance in Santa Barbara tomorrow.
In January 1969, a Union Oil Company (now Unocal) drilling platform six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara suffered a blow-out. According to the LA Times, oil spewed out at the rate of 1,000 gallons/hour for over a month, with more than 3 million gallons fouling the environment before the pipe could be capped.
Eight hundred square miles of ocean were impacted, and 35 miles of coastline were coated with oil up to six inches thick. The oil muted the sound of the waves on the beach and the odor of petroleum was inescapable. The ecological impact was catastrophic.
Rescuers counted 3,600 dead ocean feeding seabirds and a large number of poisoned seals and dolphins were removed from the shoreline. The spilled oil killed innumerable fish and intertidal invertebrates, devastated kelp forests and displaced many populations of endangered birds.
The clean-up effort began almost immediately, with significant active participation from the local community. The damage was so intense and extensive that people of all age groups and political persuasions felt compelled to help in every way they could. On the beaches, piles of straw were used to absorb oil that washed on shore, contaminated beach sand was bulldozed into piles and trucked away. Skimmer ships gathered oil from the ocean surface, and volunteers rescued and cleaned tarred seabirds at a series of hastily set-up animal rescue stations, one of which was located at the Santa Barbara zoo.
While the popular backlash against the oil companies involved grew, the public discussion that was to have long term consequences for the nation started in earnest. For example:
President of Union Oil Co. Fred L. Hartley:
“I don’t like to call it a disaster, because there has been no loss of human life. I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds.”
Santa Barbara News Press Editor Thomas Storke:
“Never in my long lifetime have I ever seen such an aroused populace at the grassroots level. This oil pollution has done something I have never seen before in Santa Barbara – it has united citizens of all political persuasions in a truly nonpartisan cause.”
President Richard Nixon:
“It is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people … The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”
Nature writer John McKinney:
“I had been impressed by the way energetic college students, shopkeepers, surfers, parents with their kids, all joined the beach clean-up. I saw a Montecito society matron transporting oily birds in her Mercedes.”
Twenty-seven years later, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a report that summed up the repercussions of the Santa Barbara oil spill:
“The federal government had largely ignored the need to protect commercial, recreational, aesthetic, and ecological values of the area.” With the damage caused by the oil spill the threshold had been crossed, and never again would environmental costs be seen in the same light.
The tangible long term outcomes that were the direct result or a consequence of the oil spill included at least the following:
A broad environmental grassroots movement was founded leading to the first, Earth Day in November of 1969.
Get Oil Out (GOO) collected 100,000 signatures for a petition to ban offshore drilling.
The Environmental Defense Center was founded and the first Environmental Studies program was started at UC Santa Barbara.
The California Coastal Commission was created from a statewide initiative. This commission today has powerful control over human activities that impact California’s coastal areas.
The State Land Commission banned offshore drilling for 16 years, until the Reagan Administration took office.
President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, leading the way to the July 1970 establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) became law.
Since the days of the Santa Barbara oil spill, the ocean and coastal tourism and recreation industries in California have only grown — to the point where they now generate $12 billion a year and employ hundreds of thousands of people. John McCain would put all of that at risk just to advance his political ambitions. He has some nerve, indeed.
Here’s the information on planned activities:
WHERE: The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Road (off of Los Olivos and just north of the Mission).
WHEN: Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 24, 2008.
TIME: Be outside the Museum at 8 am. The event starts at 9 am. People with tickets (available under “events” on the McCain website) have been told to arrive at 7:30 to clear security.
PARKING: Will probably be very limited, especially with security precautions in place. Consider parking at Rocky Nook Park or Women’s Club located across Mission, or in nearby neighborhoods, but please be careful when walking and please obey all traffic and other regulations. Do not trespass.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please show up with placards, signs, or other expressions of your opposition to the Bush/McCain proposal and in favor of preserving our beaches, our environment, our ecosystem, our community, and our planet. It is an affront that this event would be held in Santa Barbara, the birthplace of our country’s environmental movement. We must send a clear message that drilling is not the answer to high fuel prices, especially with the catastrophic consequences the City of Santa Barbara and other U.S. communities have experienced.
MEDIA COVERAGE: Will probably be extensive, since a large contingent accompanies Senator McCain as he campaigns. Please direct those seeking interviews to representatives of the environmental groups who will be present, or the Obama campaign, or elected officials present. If you have a story to share based on your own personal experience, please use your best judgment in doing so.
When I first heard the reports of John McCain’s flip-flop on offshore oil exploration and consequent back-up from the President, I knew there was one person to call for comment: Debbie Cook. In addition to being the Mayor of Huntington Beach, Cook sits on the board of directors of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and is an expert on energy issues. She just sent me this statement (on the flip):
Democratic Congressional Candidate Debbie Cook’s statement on proposals to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling:
“There has been a lot of talk in the last couple of days about lifting the ban on drilling for oil along the coast. Dana Rohrabacher, John McCain and today President Bush have joined in a chorus of “drill, drill, drill,” as if that will solve our energy problems.
“Time is not on our side, and continuing to divert our attention away from the real problem is a disservice to our citizens and a failure of leadership.
“World oil production has been flat for three years. America’s oil refineries are configured to refine light sweet crude and are currently operating at 88% capacity and paying a premium for this short supply. There is no point for the Middle East, the only region that may have spare capacity, to increase production of heavy sour crudes until new refineries are built or existing refineries have been modified.
“Three fourths of the world’s oil and gas wells have already been drilled in North America. Our continent is so heavily explored that it looks like swiss cheese. Eighty percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is already open to leasing and drilling. Will opening the remaining 20 percent make any difference when it takes 5-10 years to bring any new oil discoveries to market?
“Perhaps we should just call the President’s bluff, sell off the leases and then get on with the real work ahead of us, leaving fossil fuels before they leave us.
“The world economy depends upon the flow of oil, not the oil that remains in the ground. The fact is, more than 50 nations are now past their peak in oil production: Mexico, Norway, UK, USA, Russia, perhaps even Saudi Arabia to name a few. If you use ExxonMobil’s estimate for the decline rate from these existing wells (-6%), then from now until 2017, we need to find and develop 37 million barrels per day of additional crude production just to stay even with what we consume today. That assumes no growth in demand for oil. That is the equivalent of finding FOUR Saudi Arabias. Does anyone think we have overlooked resources of that size and quality?
“George Bush and Dana Rohrabacher’s failure to understand the fundamental economics and geology of oil and gas production is matched only by their failures as leaders.
“The true solution to our energy problems starts with conservation efforts, and investment in alternative and sustainable energy sources, which will create new American industries and jobs and jumpstart the sluggish economy.”
I want to add to this that oil companies have millions of acres of land with supposed oil deposits and untapped wells already under their control, but they’re not rushing to drill or explore them. Why? Because tracts that show up as “untapped oil reserves” are more profitable if they remain untapped. They inflate the stock price, the result of which goes directly into the execs’ wallets. And the corporations use them as an asset without having to actually see whether or not there is any oil in the deposits.
Bush and McCain say they want more drilling, but the oil companies don’t. They want more untapped reserves so they can pump up their balance sheets.
When you drive along Highway 101 near Santa Barbara, or Highway 1 in Huntington Beach, it’s hard to miss the many oil rigs on the ocean’s horizon. They are relics of a bygone age – not just the 1960s, when they were constructed, but an age in which California believed that cheap oil would always be plentiful and available. We built an entire infrastructure around that and neglected trains, walkable neighborhoods, and lagged behind the rest of the world in developing solar and wind power.
Now the consequences of that misguided belief in the permanence of cheap oil have become clear. Gas prices are nearing $5, causing economic distress and sending Californians flocking to mass transit. For his part Barack Obama is proposing massive new investments in sustainable energy and rail infrastructure.
It’s obvious that Republicans see opportunity in high gas prices to roll back sound environmental policies, such as the offshore ban. But for what gain? Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would take 10 years to deliver oil to American pumps and would only meet about 4-6 months of US domestic demand. California’s offshore oil pools would probably not produce much more than that.
Like McCain’s gas tax holiday, offshore drilling is a gimmick designed to avoid the necessary fixes. Americans need to understand that gas prices will never come back down, and that cheap oil is a thing of the past. It’s not something we have a right to – it’s something we had for a few decades, but now it is over.
Republicans don’t have a solution to high oil prices. Drilling in ANWR and off our coast would not ameliorate prices now, and wouldn’t do so in 10 years – the rate of decline in North Sea and Mexican oil exports will far outweigh the new drills and rising global demand will continue to drive up prices.
Democrats would do well to follow Obama’s lead and firmly reject McCain’s drilling plan. It’s time we accepted the fact that cheap oil is a thing of the past, instead of looking for more sources like a junkie desperately seeking another fix. We need to build a sustainable transportation infrastructure that will provide green jobs and economic development for the 21st century – instead of trying to string out the obsolete 20th century any longer.
In his latest look at California’s 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial primary, Steve Maviglio writes about Dianne Feinstein:
Why she’s not being touted as a possible Veep choice I don’t know; she’d be the perfect fit.
Don’t worry SacGuy, she’s touting herself, but if her husband’s sketchy financial dealings were enough to sink her as the VP nominee in 1984, all the war profiting from a war DiFi supported means this will never happen. Plus there’s the whole problem with all of her support for Bush, specifically on the Judiciary Committee. And with news that the losers in our Party are trying to cave to the President on retroactive immunity, DiFi should be worried about another push to censure the senator. And there is the whole problem with her not just being a liability, but bringing nothing to the ticket. In short, this would be a perfect fit just like the $4 million refund from the CDP to Fabian Nunez was a perfect move (Maviglio cites, “several million dollars in his campaign account” as why the “Speaker Emeritus” may be a contender for governor).
However, the Vice Presidential pick could usher in a new era for the Democratic Party geographically. In fact, look at the states Obama wants to put in play:
Plouffe also has been touting Obama’s appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.
The problem is, the public short lists of potential nominees don’t include anyone from a state western state with mountains other than Patty Murray.
When it comes to a true perfect fit, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer belongs at the top of the list. Hands down. The Schweitzer takeover of Montana in 2004 is known as the “Montana Miracle” and set the stage to take down Conrad Burns in 2006 — giving control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Some potential choices put a state in play, Schweitzer puts the entire Mountain Time Zone (and Alaska) in play. OK, maybe not Utah but he would give McCain a run for his money in Idaho and Wyoming. The same reasons Schweitzer is best choice for the Denver Convention keynote speech are the reasons why he would be a perfect fit. Of course, along with Al Gore he is the only person in the Democratic Party for who VP would be a step down.
Another good fit from the Mountain Time Zone (not right now, but again by election day) is Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. Sure she won as a clean money candidate, has a long and distinguished history, and “gets it” when it comes to winning in the inter-mountain west. But the best thing about choosing her is the message it would send when it comes to the 50 State Strategy. Putting Napolitano on the ticket puts John McCain on notice that we’re going to go after him in his home state. By extension, this puts every Republican on notice that we are going to go after them, also.
Despite the McCain campaign’s rhetoric about contesting the election here in California, he can’t really be interested in our 55 electoral votes if this is what he is bringing:
Republican Sen. John McCain said Monday he supports lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling – a position that sets him at odds with most California officials, including his ally Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who see the ban as the best way to protect the state’s coast.
The announcement was a move to the right for McCain, who has courted environmentalists by opposing drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and backing climate change legislation. But conservatives have been clamoring for more domestic oil and gas drilling, and GOP strategists believe the issue plays well with voters as gas prices hit record highs.
So, this is the straight-talk? This is the man that wants America to think him a “moderate” with “practical solutions.” First, John McCain panders to the voters with his 2008 gas tax holiday, which he really can’t do anything to implement except drop a bill in the Senate and watch it die there. By the way, even Dick Cheney finds that one asinine.
Now this? Drilling for oil off our coasts will bring relatively little oil and do nothing to actually affect the price of oil. This is a demand problem. We need to find new ways to reduce our reliance on oil, not stall the inevitable by 3 or 4 years by scarring our oceans with derricks.
Do you think the GOP National Convention will give away the flip-flops this year now that their candidate has donned them so well?
UPDATE: I’m reminded that back in 2005, the Assembly and Senate approved a resolution supporting a continued moratorium with overwhelming support. Several Republicans supported that resolution too.
If McCain wins California in November, he almost certainly will become the next president of the United States. Barack Obama would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to receive the 270 needed electoral votes without the 55 from California. He could conceivably still win the election if he is able to make up those electoral votes by winning almost all of the swing states, which McCain is highly competitive in.
On the surface, McCain looks like a reasonably good match for California. He is a relatively moderate Republican, he is strong on the environment, he talks about low taxes and ending waste, he retains a somewhat maverick image, and he could be popular with independents. He is, broadly speaking, in the same mold as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who will campaign vigorously for him.
But there is a one big difference between Schwarzenegger and McCain, and it has enormous political implications: Schwarzenegger supports abortion rights and McCain does not. This single issue has the capability of being the deciding factor for whether California goes Republican or not. So McCain has no chance of winning the state, right? Not necessarily, he may have a chance to win over the presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
Barack Obama supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, which is extremely unpopular among a majority of Californians. Schwarzenegger successfully exploited opposition to such drivers licenses in both of his elections, and McCain would have a shot at winning California by exploiting it also. Dan Schnur, who was McCain’s communications director in 2000 and is now a political strategist based in California, says the drivers license issue could trump the abortion issue when it comes to McCain. A majority of Californians do not support legislation for allowing illegal immigrants to receive drivers licenses. “Even some Democrats who are pro-choice would turn to McCain over the issue of drivers licenses,” Schnur said. “There is a pretty straightforward template for winning California: You do what Schwarzenegger did two years ago, which is run to the middle on the environment and most social issues, draw a stark line on taxes and an even starker line on illegal immigration and driver’s licenses.”
Most people do not know the make up of California’s voters; there is a broad middle there and it will go for the right kind of candidate. According to the California Secretary of State’s office, California has a current voter registration that is 43.0 percent Democratic(6.7 million voters), 33.3 percent Republican (5.4 million voters) and 19.4 percent Independent (2.9 million voters). This means that California is a blue state, but with enough Independents to shift the balance to John McCain.
The current Governor of California is Arnold Schwarzenegger, a pro-choice Republican, who deeply and sincerely supports fellow Republican John McCain. In endorsing McCain, Schwarzenegger lauded the Arizona senator’s crusade against wasteful spending, his national security credentials and his environmental and economic stewardship. Schwarzenegger is highly popular among those 2.9 million independent voters who are still deciding on which candidate to vote for. His endorsements and rigorous campaigning for McCain just might make the case to the undecided voters as to why McCain will be the better president for the United States.
The Hispanic vote in the Golden State is also a huge factor, 14% of likely voters are Hispanic or of Hispanic descent. McCain’s popularity with Hispanics may give a boost in the numbers, allowing him to win the state. A majority of Hispanic voters were spilt between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, with Obama getting a small percentage. If John McCain can continue to appeal to these voters they could easily give him the state.
When Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race and endorsed Barack Obama, a majority of Clinton supporters were expected to support Obama. Now some former Clinton supporters are supporting John McCain, who may just tip the scales in favor of John McCain. If he can continue to appeal to Clinton supporters and the 2.9 million independents and not loose his conservative base, then he will be successful in winning the Golden State of California.
I’ve always thought that the repeated assertions by the McCain campaign that California is somehow in play, despite all polling to the contrary, was just bluster, an effort to get Democrats to throw money at a perceived problem, reminiscent of George Bush campaigning in the state in 2000 as a way to unnerve Al Gore. And the Huffington Post has obtained a Power Point presentation from the McCain campaign that suggests this is exactly what they’re going to try. This slide includes the states McCain thinks he can contest in November.
The fine print reads: “McCain’s unique appeal to independent voters creates opportunity in CA.”
Those must be the independent voters that have a 42/48 favorable/unfavorable rating of McCain, compared to 72/19 for Obama in the latest Field Poll. The independents who preferred Obama by 30 points in the last LA Times poll.
This is a common trick by the Republicans, trying to bait Democrats into spending money here. All I can say is, please, please, John McCain, come campaign in the Golden State early and often. I’ll do the advance work for you. And be sure you go up with a week or two of commercials at about $3 million per. I can think of no better way for you to waste your money back up your bold statements about victory in California than to focus all your efforts on this electoral prize.
But LA Mayor Villaraigosa just endorsed Obama, and Wolf just had to ask him about California not maintaining its blue-ness.
I recently spoke with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who acknowledged that the Democrats will have their work cut out for them to make sure California remains solidly blue in November.
But the mayor, a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions, vowed to do whatever he could to help Barack Obama. And he predicted that the Latino voters will represent a major boost for the Democratic candidate. They did support Clinton in overwhelming numbers in the primaries, the mayor said. But that was because they knew and loved her and former President Bill Clinton, and didn’t really know Obama. That, he says, has now changed.
The handwringing will continue, and that could be a good thing. Wolf mentions all the “outreach” the California Republicans are doing with Latinos. Ah yes, outreach like that from Brian Bilbray or Dana Rohrabacher will really convince a whole lot of voters.
I hereby challenge McCain to go all out in California. Yeah, make a statement here. Maybe if you spend $20 million, you’ll cut into that margin a few points. So, go for it.
Assuming AP is right, I’m licking my chops for moving on to McCain.
[UPDATE] by Julia There are a few California superdelegates who have not announced. However, scratch Jerry McNerney off of that list. (Correction by Lucas: McNerney will endorse tonight, hasn’t said who)
[UPDATE] by Lucas Maxine Waters has also switched from Clinton to Obama. She said: “It is now time to close ranks and time for all remaining delegates to put their support behind the presumptive nominee, Senator Obama. Senator Obama has run an effective campaign and has overcome many obstacles to create an energy that has brought many new Democrats into the party.”
[UPDATE] by LucasDCW adds the following for Obama: Christine Pelosi, Rachel Binah (switch from Clinton), Bob Filner, Jerry McNerney.
And here is that the list of those who have not declared yet. Torres by the CDP rules cannot endorse.
Steve Ybarra, Art Torres, Robert Ranking, John Perez, Christine Pelosi, Bob Mulholland, Carole Midgen, Susan Davis, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Michael Honda, Gerald McNerney, and Nancy Pelosi.
And let me just add that this AP story is the AP trying to get headlines. One could speak to any number of supers over the past week and get them to say that they would eventually come out for Obama. Until that magic number hits 0 I wait to say we have a nominee.
UPDATE: (Bob) Indeed. We’ll have a nominee when the last Election Day Registration voter says so in Montana tonight.
