OpenLeft, Chris Bowers:

Obama has won North Carolina’s pledged delegates 63-52, according to Green Papers. Their estimates are usually accurate to within one delegate either way, so I trust them. Obama also appears to have won the North Carolina popular vote by 226,500 or so, which is almost identical to Clinton’s margin in Pennsylvania and Indiana combined.

The delegate count in Indiana is murkier, largely because the votes are coming in slower. In the extremes we have Democratic Convention Watch, which currently projects Clinton 35-33 Obama with four undecided, and CBS, which projects Clinton 38-29 Obama with five undecided. While these are not incompatible projections I am strongly prone to lean toward the DIY independent site, since such sites have shown, time and time again, to be way ahead of established news sites in delegate counts. In terms of the popular vote, Clinton is currently ahead by 20,000 and dropping with 92% reporting. I don’t regret declaring her the popular vote winner at all, since I’ll still be proven correct and since only one delegate is decided by the popular vote. I’ve been wrong about individual delegates before, and really that is all that is at stake in the popular vote.

Still, a very, very big night for Obama. The media has been giving him stupid rules to follow (pierce your nipples with flag pins or we will run Rev. Wright 24 / 7!), and he beat those rules tonight. I don’t like those rules, but Obama played them, and won. The narrative will reward him as a result.

Daily Kos:

According to the Globe and Mail this morning, it was Clinton’s campaign that called.

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was “telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.”

Update: The CBC exonerates the Obama campaign:

According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy “may not accurately reflect what they were told”.

Wow

Via: Huffington Post
By Gerald McEntee AFSCME International President

If you’re following the politics of the Iowa Democratic caucus contest, you’re familiar with the dust-up surrounding Barack Obama’s health care plan, AFSCME’s critique of it, his labeling of union’s as “special interests” (as I read in a recent Paul Krugman column), the anti-government rhetoric the Senator has used to defend the absence of a mandate from his health insurance plan and the fact that it does not cover 15 million Americans.

Let’s start with Obama’s health insurance plan: it is the only “universal” health insurance proposal on the presidential trail that does not cover every American. The simple fact is that it leaves 15 million Americans without the medical care they need. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards’ plans do not leave anyone behind. This is the difference that the AFSCME political action committee has pointed out in the direct mail piece that the Obama campaign has been complaining about in the media.

What’s more, as Krugman has pointed out, Obama has used anti-government rhetoric to defend his position on health care and Social Security. In so doing, he makes the right-wing’s argument about public services and unions. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when it is so important to promote a vibrant trade movement.

People can debate the details of the candidate’s plans but the biggest difference that matters is that Barack Obama’s plan does not cover 15 million people. There are clearly different policy ways to achieve the goals of controlling costs and providing quality health care for all. But you can’t cover everyone if your plan does not even intend to do so.

AFSCME has fought for universal health care for decades. Our goal is simple: to protect and improve health care for those who have it, and to provide it for 47 million Americans who don’t. And we are hardly a “special interest” when it comes to this or any issue. As most people know, union members have bargained hard for affordable health insurance that provides high quality care. Our members have fought for these benefits for years and their contracts have helped to set the standard for what every American should have.

When it comes to health care, our union and the labor movement in general are not a “special interest.” We fight for the general interest. Our campaign for health care for all is about our commitment to a better America, and no one in America should go without the medical care they need as so many in our country do now.
Continue Reading »