No one with a triple digit IQ would count on losing this year and then coming back in 2012.

Yeah, but you're talking about the Clinton campaign here, the same folks who thought the "inevitability" trick would work and didn't make any plans for post-Super Tuesday. If anyone's dumb enough to try to sink their party's nominee to try again in 2012, it's those nimrods.

"Holy Cats" - Kevin

Is Inkblot in thick with the pope?

Good work Hillary. The check is in the mail. Let's take this one all the way to Puerto Rico!

Yeah, but you're talking about the Clinton campaign here, who's every move gets analyzed in the worst light possible.

I'm guessing 80 years is a typo and you mean 50 years with Stevenson.

This is hardly Sullivan territory. Clinton's campaign has been putting out all sorts of signals/trial balloons that they intend to take this all the way to the convention regardless of what happens.

Well Kevin, surely you understand that ambition in a woman who actually wins primaries is unacceptable, and that she should just bow out now graciously? Winning again in Pennsylvania would only prove that she's out of control, monstrous even, and that she must be stopped! Ambitious men are just busy proving how much they care about their constituents, whereas ambitious winning women are freaks of nature that the blogosphere must trample. So what if she wins Ohio? It's not like it will be decisive in November anyway, right?

Honestly, some of these blogging boys need to get over their misogyny. Or, at least acknowledge that not everyone sees the world (and Hillary Clinton) the way they do. And, those people sometimes show up to vote!

I think there's a very real risk that Hillary will take this to the convention for a fight not because she's hoping for a 2012 run but because it's now or never, as you yourself note:

Hillary Clinton knows perfectly well that this is her only shot at the presidency. That's why she's fighting so hard.

It's hard to escape the impression that the Clintons will do or say anything to get elected. For example, Bill Clinton was more concerned about rehabilitating his damaged public reputation from the Lewinsky affair than helping Al Gore win the White House. He could have put Gore front and center as the face of the administration to help get the country more comfortable with "Al Gore the president", but instead hogged the spotlight every single chance you could (with transparently self-serving press conferences with foreign diplomats and leaders, so he could appear presidential but avoid taking questions). Similarly, Clinton left office without really having done much to raise the profile of other prominent Democrats to the national stage.

I'd love to believe Hillary Clinton isn't as self-serving as Bill, but the negative turn she's taken in her campaigning does more to reinforce old, negative stereotypes than dispel them.

"Well Kevin, surely you understand that ambition in a woman who actually wins primaries is unacceptable, and that she should just bow out now graciously?"

Hillary Clinton has to beat Barack Obama by 10 to 15 points in every single remaining primary just to catch back up in the delegate count. Given that looks impossible, there are only two ways Hillary can win the nomination. The Michigan and Florida delegates are seated as currently composed or the superdelegates give it to her. Either would cause the greatest internal division the Democratic Party has seen in about 40 years.

I know Hillary supporters love to play the "everybody's picking on the girl" card but if the situation were reversed, the screams for Obama to get out of the race would dwarf the meager suggestions being offered up for Hillary.

Mike

"And, those people sometimes show up to vote!"

But obviously not in large enough numbers...

As for the "mysogyny", there has been nothing more remarkable in this campaign than the bitterness and bile of the Clintonistas, from Bill in his post-SC petulance, to Mark Penn, to hysterical cranks like Taylor Marsh. It's sick. And had Obama pulled some bullshit like "maybe the press needs to get you a pillow" in a debate he would have been crucified by the Hillary gang. Hillary's campaign is dreary, incompetent, increasingly running on GOP talking points and smears, and the sooner we're done with these people, the better off Democrats everywhere will be.

If the two candidates split the remaining delegates, neither would end up with the number needed for nomination. Now, if Obama had a reasonable lead in the delegate race, there's a good chance he would pick off the majority of SD's, but that is by no means a certainty. If the delegate count is close, that could give many of the SD's, who may owe some political back taxes to the Clinton's, all of the ammo they need to vote in Hillary's column.

I think Hillary would continue to fight because fighting is what she and Bill do best. In the words of a friend of hers who was quoted in the New Yorker magazine, Hillary needs enemies. It explains a lot about her and Bill, and it finally dawned on me (who lives in D.C.) that this is why I really don't want her to be president.

Hillary and Bill Clinton only seem to really make progress when they are motivated by fear of losing. They are at their toughest and most effective when backed into a corner. But when not facing the specter of virtual extinction, they become strangely inert, even smug, and incapable of making forward progress. In other words, their sense of "accomplishment" comes from the victory they achieved by not having been annihilated by their enemies. That's what Bill's entire presidency was like -- he was backed into a corner continually and he fought back everytime, but ultimately that was where all of his energy was spent -- in staying afloat. HRC's campaign seems to epitomize this trait as well. And, sadly, I think this would be the story of an HRC presidency as well: You can never take her out of the game entirely, but she is never going to be the one to make forward progress.

Grautigan wrote:

This is hardly Sullivan territory. Clinton's campaign has been putting out all sorts of signals/trial balloons that they intend to take this all the way to the convention regardless of what happens

Hil isn't unhinged- she does understand the value of appearances, though. For the regular person who doens't know she can't come back in 2012, she's trying her best to make it look like she thinks she can win the contest. If she looks like she's convinced she's going to lose, she'll certainly lose support just for that.

Clinton is gone after Tuesday. No matter how large her war chest. She will lose all four primaries on Tuesday, sealing Obama's nomination.

Clinton may win a couple more terms in the senate, then, like Geraldine Ferraro, she'll just fade into semi-obscurity. Too bad. If she hadn't wanted to be president so badly, she could have helped the country. She's certainly intelligent. But she's just too much of a pol, as her performance vis-a-vis the Shrub administration has shown.

I think you're wrong on this one Kevin because they're practically tied - or would be if she gains some on Tuesday and in PA. In 4 years, whichever Democrat is the nominee, if he/she loses to McCain, the other will be well positioned to say I-told-you-so

Matt: Clinton wants to damage Obama at all costs so she can win in 2012.

Kevin: Wrong! Clinton wants to damage Obama at all costs so she can win in 2008.

One of these is supposed to reflect better on Clinton?

At this point thank god for the superdelegates - whichever way tomorrow turns out, because the Clintons would take this thing as far as they could if they saw any chance at all. Suffice to say that if the tables were turned, the cries for Obama to abandon the race might well have already been heeded. It's a difference of who these people are. Hillary's campaign is, truly, the cult of personality. Clintonian narcissism has been amply demonstrated over the years. We're supposed to look to them to "feel our pain" - meanwhile the Democratic Party has gone down the tubes with this crowd. Hillary helped elect a GOP congress with her political incompetence in '94 - she's the best bet McCain has today (especially since she's already producing his ads for him.) I went into this thing not having strong negative feelings at the prospect of a Hillary win - at this point the notion of her pulling it out makes me sick. After eight more years of "Clintonism" - and the hit they'll put out on Howard Dean at the DNC - any hope for a revitalized Democratic will be long dead.

Can't it be both? Fighting tooth and nail in 2008 is her best/only chance, AND doing so also increases the (admittedly small) chance that she could be the nominee in 2012?

Misogyny? You jumped all over Kevin because of inferring a gender-based bias here? What in the tone of the post leads you to that?

Isn't this a math issue? Isn't this a real concern for the strength of the Democratic nominee in November? It's not boy vs. girl. It can't be.

Isn't this a math issue?

Unfortunately, it seems like Ohio is going to be decisive, again. A big win in Ohio could lead to a big win in PA. Obama's electability would be seriously put into doubt, rightly or wrongly. I could see a scenario that puts him on the defensive going into the convention. Even if clinches the nomination, he could be a seriously damaged candidate. Expect to see the comparisons to Reagan be replaced with comparisons to Mondale and Dukakis.

If he wins TX, and keeps OH in single digits, I think he wraps it up, whether or not Clinton continues.

The probelm isn't that Hilary plans to stay to the bloody end. Tthe problem is that she plans to continnue to campaignn negatively and dishonestly to thhe bloody end --and that's bad for whoever gets the nomination. If Obama gets thhe nom he will start out against McCain smeared BY HILARY as an empty suit, a white collar criminal, annd innsincere politico, a secret Muslim, a wimp with no experience. If Clinton wins, she will have further crippled herself by driving up her own negatives, which are alreadytoo high to be a more than marginnally electable candidate in the general. The CW on her ouutside of her cultists is thhat shhe will say anything. And that CW comes not as a smear from Obama, but directly from her own campaign tactics.

So it's best that shhe get out. She is poisoning the well for our party, reagardless of who gets the nom.

Why don't we wait and let the people vote?

Regardless of who comes out ahead, both candidates have sufficient delegates to be able to have some influence on how the Democratic Party should proceed in the general election.

Obama is only now starting to be vetted by the press. It may be that things come out that will turn some people off - like the Nafta brouhaha that is just starting to boil.

For example, Bill Clinton was more concerned about rehabilitating his damaged public reputation from the Lewinsky affair than helping Al Gore win the White House. He could have put Gore front and center as the face of the administration to help get the country more comfortable with "Al Gore the president",

This is a rather drastic re-writing of history. It was Gore who ran away from Clinton in the 2000 campaign (to the point of appointing Clinton scold Holy Joe Lieberman to the VP slot), not the other way around.

but instead hogged the spotlight every single chance you could (with transparently self-serving press conferences with foreign diplomats and leaders, so he could appear presidential but avoid taking questions).

How dare the President hog the spotlight during his own presidency!

But how does the supposed fact that Clinton hogged the spotlight during his own presidency prove your thesis that the Clinton's will do or say anything to get elected? Clinton was already elected, twice, by this point. The anecdote has no connection to the claim it is meant to prove.

As much as I am now convinced that Obama will be the stronger general election candidate, this anti-Clinton hysteria has to end. If I am reading Yglesias correctly, he's saying that even if Clinton manages to win both Ohio and Texas, she should give up because she's not going to win enough delegates and will end up damaging the party. If that's the case, then he's insane. If she does manage to turn things around enough to win with the help of the super delegates, how is that bad? We might not like it, but it wouldn't be illegitimate.

Assuming Obama wins Texas, the primary, by a narrow margin tomorrow, there is a distinct possibility it will be because republican voters, Hillary haters, crossed over to vote just to prevent a Clinton win.

wonkie

You have hit it on the head. Hillary can't win unless she goes negative. As any professional will tell you going negative drives up your own negatives as well as your opponent's. Hopefully you drive up your opponents negatives more than you drive up your own. In the process of going negative you drive down turnout.

By going negative Hillary will undoubtly drive up Obama's negatives, but in the process she will drive up her own. When your national ratings have you at 47% negative already you really don't have much in the way of negatives to give up.

At this point Hillary going negative almost looks like sour grapes. It isn't going to help her much at all, but could really set the table for a McCain win in the fall.

Her campaign is filled with professionals. They know the danger of going negative. It seems they don't care.

Politicians are given ample opportunities to inspire and become beloved to their constituents, but they seem to always want more than their constituents offer. Had Hillary conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack while she spoke to the State of the Black Union last week, she would have been celebrated, not only by African Americans, but by a large contingent of Democrats. Doing such a thing at that time would have cemented her reputation as being responsible and centered on what is best for the country. She could have remained senator of NY for as long as she wanted, and always with a seat at the table for public policy making. Instead Hillary is probably going to take the nominating process to the convention if she can, which will do just the opposite to her reputation and legacy.

Kevin, you seem to have a lot of rather venomous Obama fans out there. Doesn't that tell you something?

barkeep, the post said primary loser. stevenson obviously won the democratic nomination in 52 and came back in 56.

Boy, that is a big relief!

I was beginning to question my decision to convert to Inkblotism.

She's fighting so hard because she knows she's our only chance to beat McCain.

I don't know about you folks, but I'm voting for Dean..

Ms. Clinton would willingly damage the party? She'd see that damage as a feature, not a but? Nice piece of mindreading by Matt.

Somerby is right. The vast majority of "liberal" writers are more interested in their career trajectory than actual journalism.

Aw, c'mon. This has really got to stop. When progressive bloggers have been screaming for years about Dems punking out, how can they justify crucifying Hillary because she's proven to be a fighter? Wouldn't you have liked to see a little of her spunk in Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004? She hasn't said or done anything really damaging to Obama, simply tried to point out his weaknesses and her own strengths -- and isn't that what a candidate is supposed to do?

This Clinton Derangement Syndrome has infected the progressive community hugely, and it won't be Clinton who divides the party -- it'll be the Hillary haters. We who support Hillary, on the other hand, have pledged for a long time to support and work for Obama if he's the eventual nominee. It IS possible for a perfectly reasonable progressive to examine his words and record and conclude that he is less likely to advance our agenda than Hillary (Chuck Hagel for SecState, Lugar for SecDef, "unity" with who, for goshsakes? If I believed he truly meant it, it would make me like him even less.

You know Kevin, you should acknowledge she's fighting to the determent of the party. She can't get a delegate lead without splitting the party in a convention fight.

Right now, HRC is the republican's best hope for November.

It clearly shows how the double fire has halted the momentum Obama's been getting, something you've commented on yourself.

Her ego and the pronounced gender gap let her rally the girls all the way through and further divide everyone. Meanwhile, Obama could place her on the ticket or another woman as is more likely and not only easily capture her supporters (who agree w/him on issues and would like to see a woman headed towards the WH) but also figure out how he can define McCain.

Hillary Clinton is on an ego trip. It'll last til June or it'll end tomorrow, it depends on how Texas turns out. But I doubt if it's split she'll leave the field. Which is why I'm pulling for Texas to seal the deal. It'll give the party superdelegates a reason to shut her down.

Enough of these trivialities!

Stefan,

So what are your expectations for The Wire's conclusion this Sunday?

Holy moly

"Kevin, you seem to have a lot of rather venomous Obama fans out there."

Kevin also has a lot of rather venomous Clinton fans out there, not to mention a lot of rather venomous anti-Obama fans out there.

"Doesn't that tell you something?"

Nothing new, at any rate. Why do you regard this as anything but politics as usual?

It's okay that Hillary is a fighter. My observation, at least, is that the only thing that seems to spur her or Bill's fighting instincts is self-preservation. What if Bill had exercised the same acumen and fighting spirit regarding health care that he did for impeachment? When their power is secure they don't seem to want to use it to the advantage of others, no mater what Hillary says about her desires, borne of her religious conviction yadda yadda yadda. Maybe after the health care debacle they just set their sights low. I don't know, but I know that if past is prologue, as it seems it might be, I don't want to relive the past. I don't think I'm being venomous.

wonkie: "Tthe problem is that [Hillary Clinton] plans to continnue to campaignn negatively and dishonestly to thhe bloody end ... The CW on her ouutside of her cultists is thhat shhe will say anything. ... She is poisoning the well for our party ..."

Really? Well, please come back and tell us all about it -- after you've gone through puberty.

Like motherlode said, those of us who support Hillary aren't the ones who have threatened to take our vote and go home if our candidate doesn't win. I've seen this threat from Obamaniacs many times.

Obama is a Democrat, but he's not running as a Democrat in the Democratic primary. That's just wierd. A lot of his votes come from independents, who just might be Republicans crossing over to stop Hillary.

Personally, shoving Hillary down the throats of the Hillary-haters is part of why I support her. Their vision of her is the product of febrile imaginings, and when people actually get to know her, they tend to like her, and what she stands for.

However, Obama has said nothing at all to interest or attract feminists, and plenty to piss them off. Making up to them/us and motivating them to turn out and vote for him will be his problem, should he be nominated.

Clinton has proven to be a fighter only for herself. She has never fought the righht. Not on Iraq, not on Iran, not on the stupid flag burning law or the "defense of marriage," not on the FISA amandment, and mostly recently, not on the establishhment of a new relationship withh CUba. Shhe is afraid of the righht and copes out to them over and over and over. The fighht she is in now is for her, not for us against thei right.

If she wanted to fight the right, why wouuld she feed them slime against the probable Deom nominee?

The reason the Hilbots can more easily vote for Obama than vice versa is thatt Obama hasn't been running a negative smear campaign against Clinton and she has against him.

Plus she's a lousy candidate and he isn't.

I'll vote for her if i have to but I don't respect her.

You may have to go back a ways to find a Democratic precedent, but there's a pretty obvious one on the Republican side: Ronald Reagan supporters in 1976 took their losing fight all the way to the convention, setting up both a Gerald Ford loss in the general and a Reagan come-back four years later.

Not that I see this as a likely scenario for Hillary Clinton--but she may have a different sense of what's likely than you or I do.

"Like motherlode said, those of us who support Hillary aren't the ones who have threatened to take our vote and go home if our candidate doesn't win. I've seen this threat from Obamaniacs many times."

Screw you with the "Obamamaniacs" and I've seen lots of comments from Hillary supporters saying they won't vote for Obama. There is NOTHING on the "mainstream" blogosphere quite as nutty and venomous at Taylor Marsh's site. Reading her hysterical, right-wing attacks on Obama - not to mention the current spate of "McCain ads" being produced by the Hillary camp - has made me come to loath Hillary and her acolytes who claim we're "maniacs" or some "personality cult". The true personality cult for delusional Democrats is the one surrounding the Clintons - who've done no good for the party and have consistently put themselves first. I don't need a "Democrat" to tell me "the era of big government is over", make a show of executing the mentally deficient in order to swing votes, pass "tough on crime" bills that would make a moderate Republican blush and give a green light when crackpot Bushies are planning to invade countries. The sooner we're done with these phonies the better.

"Personally, shoving Hillary down the throats of the Hillary-haters is part of why I support her."

Great plan for beating McCain. (Sounds like a "personality cult" of "maniacs" if you ask me.)

Barbara: "I don't think I'm being venomous."

No, you most certainly are not. Rather, you articulated your reasons for not supporting Mrs. Clinton in a manner that's respectful of those who might disagree with you, and I appreciate that.

The problem seems to rest with those Obama supporters who have apparently decided to channel vicariously their candidate's campaign, and who then overly internalize and personalize any public dissent from that mission. Living for the moment, they don't see the damage they're doing to the prospects for unifying the party once the nomination is determined.

Well, I'm sure that they'll notice it soon enough if Sen. Obama is our nominee, once they come hat in hand looking for the support of the very same people they so recently smeared as "Hillbots", "Clintonistas", "hysterical, "idiots", "morons", "cultists", etc.

I will support either candidate with all my heart in the fall, but I think the attempt to run Hillary off are misguided.

If she wins Ohio despite Obama's momentum, money, etc... I think Dems need to think about that long and hard. Texas is not up for grabs in the fall, Ohio is crucial to a Dem win in November. Obama needs to show he can carry white, working class Dems or he doesn't need to be the nominee.

A coalition of African-Americans and rich, white folk are not enough to win the general election.

Something occurred to me today as I was freaking out over the fact the nomination might not be settled until sometime in 2011. If Hillary takes both Texas and Ohio, the Democratic party is doomed. This may be a bit of hyperbole, but if this is the outcome, who drops out and when? Both candidates would have strong arguments for why they should be the nominee. Obama will lead in pledged delegates and states won no matter the outcome; but Clinton will have taken nearly all the big states, including some key swing states. Both candidates are incredibly well-funded, with large bases of support willing to do just about anything for them. And both sides surely believe they will make not only the best general election candidate, but the best president as well. If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, I see no end in this fight before Pennsylvania, and only then if Obama trounces Clinton, which isn't likely. So we've got weeks and weeks of an increasingly bitter fight that will leave the eventual nominee badly wounded, while McCain strengthens his position with his own base and the independents who will blanch at the viciousness of the Democratic fight. We are soon approaching a tipping point where a battle for the nomination becomes a civil war.

Fuck.

Why does Matt Yglesias hate Hillary Clinton?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Friends, I hate to mention this, but if Hillary Clinton does not pull out tomorrow, we're faced with a John McCain/Clarence Thomas victory in November.

If she wins both Texas and Ohio, and thereby wins all the big states so far in the primary season, why should she drop out? If there is anything egomaniacal going on it is the notion that she needs to drop out now. I think she has earned the right to have her name put into nomination at the convention as the first serious woman candidate in history. Funny how to many she is on an ego trip because she is fighting hard to win, and Obama can fight hard to win and its not an ego trip. Then again, as I have learned, real people out in the world dont read this stuff on the the blogs and dont care about the nasty back and forth. They like both candidates and can live with either, even if they have an idea as to who will be better against McCain.

Bottom line to me, she has earned the right to have her name be nominated at the convention and as the first woman candidate with a serious chance I hope she doesnt drop out but allows her name to be put into nomination. If she loses in the end thats fine, buts lets allow that small piece of history to be made when her name is put into nomination at the convention. We should not be afraid of the race being decided at the convention, its how it always used to be done.

Aaron Adams on March 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM:

Assuming Obama wins Texas...possibility it will be because republican voters, Hillary haters, crossed over to vote just to prevent a Clinton win.

Ummm...No. Not with windbags like Limbaugh urging (sorry for the link to Fox News) Repubs in Texas and Ohio to vote for Clinton, because they think John Sidney McCain has a better chance to win if he's running against The Clintons.

Having said that, if Hillary wins out tomorrow - even narrowly - she should stay in the race.

Well, please come back and tell us all about it -- after you've gone through puberty.

Whoever wins the nomination, I think democrats should take note the type of candidate that brings young people to the polls. Young people are breaking to democrats 2 to 1 after a generation of being fucked over by republicans.

Maybe Obama's too young, too inexperienced, and too disrespectful to the natural order of ascension in American politics for the majority of democrats in 2008. But he is clearly an attractive candidate for younger voters. I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss him and the people who voted for him.

A lot of people talk about how Obama is "different", and therefore attractive or unattractive, depending on your point of view. But in reality, Clinton is the anomaly. The former first lady running as an incumbent isn't going to happen again in our lifetime. Saying no to Clinton is saying no to the individual candidate. Saying no to Obama will have a far greater impact on the type of candidates we see in the future. And speaking as someone barely out of puberty, I'd rather see more Obama's and less Clintons.

(unidentified): "Screw you with the "Obamamaniacs" and I've seen lots of comments from Hillary supporters saying they won't vote for Obama."

Fair enough. I've seen it from Clinton supporters, too. I find that to be both petulant and short-sighted. Once the primary season is over, I'm sure cooler heads will prevail.

"There is NOTHING on the 'mainstream' blogosphere quite as nutty and venomous at Taylor Marsh's site."

Oh, absolutely. Just look at what that right-wing wackadoodle tool, Ambassador Joe Wilson, posted there yesterday. Why, I haven't read anything that unhinged since he and his wife tried to convince patriotic Americans that she was somehow a CIA undercover operative working on WMD issues, or something like that.

"once they come hat in hand looking for the support of the very same people they so recently smeared as "Hillbots", "Clintonistas", "hysterical, "idiots", "morons", "cultists", etc."

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to see the hardcore of the Hillary camp -as represented by egregious hacks like Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe - driven to the margins of the party. Obama folks assume Hillary voters aren't so stupid that they'll take their marbles and vote for McCain - as Obama voters clearly won't (although Hillary will lose the independents and probably lose the election) - but the less we have to deal with the party hacks who rallied around Clinton, the better. Not to mention crazies on the "feminist" fringe like the NY NOW clique who launched their insane attack on Ted Kennedy.

Clintonism is the past - the rear view mirror. it's Beltway politics-as-usual and GOP-lite (except when primaries demand shallow populist rhetoric .) We started moving the party forward with the energy Dean brought to the grassroots and an Obama victory will seal the deal. Geriatric cases, "microtrendsters" with their souls sunk in the polls and corrupt, corporate Dems from the Clinton camp need not apply. Let's not forget that the Clinton's dredged up Dick Morris when their fortunes were down. If anyone has any doubts as to how low the Clintons will go, there's the evidence. Dick-fucking-Morris...courtesy of the Clintons. Thank you very much, Hill and Bill. Now excuse me while I take a shower at the thought of this clique gaining total control over the Democratic Party.

Wilson is as full of shit as Sean Wilentz. Unless you're joking. That screed proves my point. And Marsh herself is totally hysterical and about as ugly and ad hominem as it gets.

You really can't smell crap, can you. A symptom of too many years not being able to tell the difference between defending the Clintons and defending the Democratic Party.

This isn't directed at either candidate's supporters.

I said the other day, and although I hate seeing posters repeat themselves ad nauseam, I'll impose on y'all's patience to say again, that people getting too up in arms about the other side's most impassioned supporters--and ye gods, threatening to hold grudges because their feelings were hurt--need to get off the blogs for a while, get a life, have some conversations with non-political junkies and, even better, experience actual fieldwork for a candidate among average voters (hint: that's not us).

This primary season has gotten somewhat heated at points (although it has not been a bloodbath by any means, when compared to some really icky fights), but almost everyone, and certainly everyone with their priorities and perspectives in the right place, will calm down and coalesce behind the eventual nominee. Unlike a few badly-in-need-of-a-reality-check blog addicts, almost all Democratic voters have said they'll happily support either Obama or Clinton. That's a good thing, you know. Republicans can't claim that happy state of events this time around.

I'm not trying to be the blog proctor here; nothing's more inadvertently funny than someone pompously counseling civility while not holding herself or himself to the same standard. I've surely let a few barbs fly myself, and I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't argue for, and even sometimes lose their tempers over, their favored candidates.

But when it's over--let's let it be over, huh? Some perspective here already.

optical weenie: Why don't we wait and let the people vote?

What are you, some kind of democrat?

shorter shortstop:

Donald, pass that bong around please. We need to mellow out.

I'd like to see Hillary win Ohio or Texas just to watch Chris Matthews bluster.

Both Hillary and Barack are good candidates. I admit I prefer her over him, by less than 3%. Most of us Democrats really aren't willing to defame or kill in order to get our slightly preferred candidate on the ballot.

For those of you who think Hillary should just go and hide under a rock, just wait until MSM gets its nasty litte fangs into Barack.

Teresa on March 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM:

A coalition of African-Americans and rich, white folk are not enough to win the general election.

Really?. You could just as easily take that overly-broad brush you are using and say Clinton's coalition of middle-and-low-income women and members of the DNC establishment isn't enough to win the general election.

Neither statement is true, by-the-way.

Here's a question to anyone: If Clinton or Obama wins the red state of Texas in their primacaucus, does it really matter in the general election? I mean, I've heard so much spin that a Dem winning a primary or caucus in a historically Repub state either counts or doesn't count.

enozinho: "Maybe Obama's too young, too inexperienced, and too disrespectful to the natural order of ascension in American politics for the majority of democrats in 2008. But he is clearly an attractive candidate for younger voters."

So was Ronald Reagan, whom I once supported when I was in high school and college. Would you therefore suggest that I somehow knew something that most experienced Democrats didn't?

Look, I generally like Barack Obama, particularly the energy his campaign has brought to a normally staid if not lethargic party nomination process. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I support his candidacy during that process.

The Illinois senator likes to tout his superior judgment, offering as evidence one speech that he made in Oct. 2002. Well, it's my personal opinion that since entering the United States Senate, he's showed remarkably poor judgment with regards to:

(1) His relationship with Democratic operative Tony Rezko;

(2) His now-rather obvious support of NAFTA (at least, according to the Canadians); and

(3) His painfully obvious neglect of his Senate duties during his quest for the White House, including his far-too-frequent absenteeism and his failure as chair of the Foriegn Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs and NATO to hold a single oversight hearing in that past 14 months about the war in Afghanistan.

I will say here that none of these are dealbreakers regarding my support for Obama should he become our nominee. But until then, I know what I'm getting with Mrs. Clinton, so I'll stick with experience, thank you very much.

shorter shortstop:

Uh, no.

I see Yancey and I are both "Wire" fans. Proof, if any was needed, that no matter what our differences on the issues we can still find ways to reach across the aisle and find common ground....

Although I question the indications, economics and efficacy of antidepressants, antipsychotic medications ought to be taken.

antipsychotic medications ought to be taken.

By whom?

"just wait until MSM gets its nasty litte fangs into Barack"
They've already started and he's capable of dealing with it without asking that reporters be fired or whining on a comedy show.

Look at these campaigns - which has earned its respect by smart, winning strategy and which one makes increasing numbers of people cringe (and has given rise to the internal circular firing squads) ?

"just to watch Chris Matthews bluster"....Several comments like this one have shown that Hillary's campaign was founded on a weird combination of entitlement, hubris and - ultimately - a persecution complex. "Let's show the bastards who hate us" isn't much of a plan for moving the country foward.

Well Andrew Sullivan is right about Hillary so it's hardly an insult to compare Matt to him.

It sounds right to me. I think Hillary may win both Texas and Ohio by a small margin and then spend the next 2 months clawing victory out of Obama's hands and destroying her party in the process.

thersites: "Donald, pass that bong around please. We need to mellow out."

Agreed. Good herb almost always brings out the best in people -- or it renders them relatively harmless, wandering from room to room while repeatedly forgetting why they went there in the first place.

By whom?

Brojo probably meant me, but I haven't even commented on this thread yet! Until now, of course...

I just want to beat McCain.

Well, I mean, not personally mind you.

Well, I mean, not personally mind you.

Some animal instincts should be obeyed.

grape you ask a really good question. Clinton argues that winning big blue states makes her the stronger democratic candidate. Obama argues that winning big in traditionally red states makes him the stronger candidate. On balance I think Obama has the better argument. As has been proven repeatedly over the last couple of decades Democrats will flock to any Democratic candidate and will deliver the big blue states. That isn't enough to win the White House. To win the White House the Democrats have to win more than just the traditional big blue states. They have to pick off a fair hunk of the purple states like Ohio and Missouri as well as an occasional red state or two to win.

My best guess is that either Obama or Clinton will take all the big blue states Clinton has won. Does anyone disagree?

If my guess is right the real question for all of us in this race is to decide who has the better chance of picking off the bulk of the purple states and the occasional red state.

My best guess is that Obama, who seems to better appeal to independents than Hillary and doesn't carry the anti-Hillary bagage, has a better chance in the purple and red states than Hillary.

I might be wrong. We will find out in November.

As I have said before, the Republicans are in deep trouble this campaign. The news media is McCain's only reliable base and the news media has done a lot to discredit itself over the last 8 years.

shortstop: "Uh, no."

Then, perhaps you might be tempted by a bottle of Clos Du Bois Merlot?

"I said the other day, and although I hate seeing posters repeat themselves ad nauseam, I'll impose on y'all's patience to say again, that people getting too up in arms about the other side's most impassioned supporters--and ye gods, threatening to hold grudges because their feelings were hurt--need to get off the blogs for a while, get a life, have some conversations with non-political junkies and, even better, experience actual fieldwork for a candidate among average voters (hint: that's not us)."

Thank you for that. Didn't we used to call this (focussing on the most outrageous stuff you could find) nutpicking?

However, Obama has said nothing at all to interest or attract feminists, and plenty to piss them off.

Oh please. Many feminists defected when they discovered that Hillary's campaign was circulating misinformation about Obama's pro-choice stance. Although I don't refer to myself as a feminist, I consider myself to be one, and I support Obama.

I'm sick to death of the primaries and can't wait for them to end, but if Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, she would have to be a total wuss not to stay in the game, and say what you will about Hillary, she's no wuss.

"His relationship with Democratic operative Tony Rezko" Can you spell G-I-U-S-T-R-A ?

"2) His now-rather obvious support of NAFTA (at least, according to the Canadians)"

As if we needed more proof that Hillary-supporters will say-do anything to rationalize their infatuation with the "Clinton Brand", no matter how pathetic or dishonest.

The last one is too lame even for a put-down - other than to note that Afghanistan isn't in Europe and that NATO includes major non-European members.

Devastating stuff. You must be getting the same faxes as Joe Wilson and Sean Wilentz.

or it renders them relatively harmless, wandering from room to room while repeatedly forgetting why they went there in the first place.

Most haven't partaken in the really good stuff you guys got in Hawaii, Don...

So was Ronald Reagan, whom I once supported when I was in high school and college.

And this is supposed to speak well of your judgment? Well, I was seven when he was re-elected. By 1984 even I knew he was full of shit.

I see Yancey and I are both "Wire" fans.

Please do not give away anything about this season in comments. We don't get HBO and must wait for the DVDs.

Thanking you in advance.

"...a wimp with no experience." Wonkie

I agree he is not a wimp. It is true that Obama has no experience.

Holds no hearings -- Heck per the Washington Monthly Senator Obama has not even been to Europe
See Ask Not! by Ted Widmer
"But there is one noteworthy gap in Obama’s itinerary: except for a brief stopover in London, returning from Russia in 2005, he has apparently never been to Western Europe since launching his political career. What renders this gap especially surprising is that Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Not only has the Senator not visited the region his committee oversees, but as Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has observed, Obama’s committee has not held a single policy-oriented hearing since he’s been chairman." I know he has been busy running for president.

other than to note that Afghanistan isn't in Europe and that NATO includes major non-European members. Posted by:

Mystery poster, your retarded retort to Donald suggests that perhaps you shouldn't be posting here (or perhaps anywhere).

The occupation, er, . . . I mean support force in Afghanistan is under the auspices of NATO.

wandering from room to room while repeatedly forgetting why they went there in the first place

This happens to me regardless of herb.

Shortstop: need to get off the blogs for a while, get a life, have some conversations with non-political junkies

Excellent point. I have had a few such conversations recently and have been struck by how much happier then me they seem to be. The frantic level of opining on blogs can be misleading.

Jeff II - Obviously you're the one with analytical or comprehension problems. Of course I know that Afghanistan's under the auspices of NATO. The most "damaging" insinuation against Obama and his not holding hearings this past year since being given the Europe sub-committee is that, given his concern about Afghanistan, he could have used it to impact NATO's mission. First of all, given the realities of the Bush administration I think that's a fantasy and second, Canada is a key NATO member so it's hard to see how a sub-committe on Europe could be used as a wedge to influence NATO's mission in a country wedged between the middle and far east. Get it ????

Then, perhaps you might be tempted by a bottle of Clos Du Bois Merlot?

You and thersites miss my point. I was pretty clearly not saying "calm down"--and in fact you, like me, are fairly low on the list of people who can reasonably ask everyone else to be respectful without looking like a flaming hypocrite, not that that seems to stop you, alas--but rather, "Get impassioned now, even get mad now, but once the nominee's chosen, people who are idiotically swearing undying grudges and revenge against the other candidate's supporters need to get a grip and some perspective."

Never having participated in making sweeping generalizations about either Clinton or Obama supporters (although of course I have been petty AND childish enough to roundly and quite rudely mock certain deeply unbalanced specimens from both camps), I'm not concerned about any lingering hatred of the opposition--or of needing to get over it weeded, wined or otherwise.

Screw Andrew Sullivan and Matt Yglesias. I've canceled my subscription to the Atlantic. I'm ashamed to be in the same party as these two bigoted and hypocritical latte-sippers.

I have had a few such conversations recently and have been struck by how much happier then me they seem to be. The frantic level of opining on blogs can be misleading.

Happier--maybe. They seem so! They don't get the wild highs and lows we folks with political joneses get. But maybe they find the agony and the ecstasy elsewhere.

I suppose blog readerships contain an inordinate number of people with certain potentially stress-inducing personality traits: We can be obsessive, controlling, quick to anger, microfocused, nitpicking, unable to pick battles...all sorts of gross stuff.

Possibly some psych grad students are studying all this right now and writing unflattering dissertations about us.

This is a rather drastic re-writing of history. It was Gore who ran away from Clinton in the 2000 campaign (to the point of appointing Clinton scold Holy Joe Lieberman to the VP slot), not the other way around.

I was referring to Clinton's last year in office. Gore embraced Clinton, calling him the 'greatest president of our time' or some such. The fact that Gore ended up distancing himself from Clinton only later during the election is besides the point.

Clinton could and should have used the final months of office to put Gore front and center as the face of the executive branch to help the public become more accustomed to the idea of Gore as president. (You may vaguely recall that when the two were fresh into office, they played up the notion of a co-presidency, or at least a strong vice president... that didn't last long and never returned).

You may also recall that Clinton started holding a new hybrid type of PR press conference - public meetings with a diplomat or foreign leader for photographs but no questions, or only a couple of questions (which were split with the poor guest who had to endure all of the embarrassing questions about the affair). It was a transparent effort to get Clinton's face on TV looking presidential but without having to answer any (or many) embarrassing questions.

Had Bill Clinton been less concerned about rehabilitating his own public image and more interested in helping Gore's chances, he could have simply let Gore take the spotlight.

Nor was Clinton ever particularly good about lifting up other prominent Democrats into the national spotlight. Even after 8 years of a Democratic president, the number of nationally recognized Democratic leaders were fewer and farther between when comparison to the Republicans. Clinton's great personality and charisma had a downside - he hogged the spotlight to the detriment of other prominent Democrats.

It's no coincidence that Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee for this election. There simply weren't that many well established, nationally renown alternatives. It's not entirely or even mostly Bill Clinton's fault, be he almost certainly deserves a chunk of the blame.

Was there any comment from the campaigns at all regarding Crist's offer to repeat the Florida primary?

My guess is that both campaigns would be cool to the idea for different reasons. Has Dean responded?

The most "damaging" insinuation against Obama and his not holding hearings this past year since being given the Europe sub-committee is that, given his concern about Afghanistan, he could have used it to impact NATO's mission. Posted by: brucds

We've been trying to get European member of NATO to up their troop commitments to Afghanistan for several months now. That's why the sub-committee meetings are germane. So, you're response to Donald is still retarded.

I would like to hear why Jeff II is so confident that Obama will take Ohio and Rhode Island tomorrow.

Lots of intellectual blood being shed here for no good reason. Take a deep breath and wait for Tue primary results.

I still have a truck load of popcorn to sell. Acquired when we thought the rethugs would fight for a clear winnner all the way to Minneapolis. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, popcorn doesn't taste that good.

Sorry Jeff, but if you think Obama could have impacted NATO troop commitments in Afghanistan via a Senate Sub-committee on Europe, you're the retarded one. Severely.

I would like to hear why Jeff II is so confident that Obama will take Ohio and Rhode Island tomorrow.

Me, too. I don't see it--most definitely in RI.

shortstop: ...thersites miss my point

Well, I was half joking. But I'm serious when I say that I deeply resent being called "obsessive, controlling, quick to anger, microfocused, nitpicking, unable to pick battles"

I am not microfocused! (But I blame Donald for that.)

shortstop: Some animal instincts should be obeyed.

*sigh* If I close my eyes, and if you say that with a slight Southern twang, you sound just like my ex-girlfriend....

It's no coincidence that Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee for this election. There simply weren't that many well established, nationally renown alternatives. It's not entirely or even mostly Bill Clinton's fault, be he almost certainly deserves a chunk of the blame.

Not really. Clinton left office in early 2001, it's now 2008. Other Democrats have had seven years or so to get established, and if they couldn't do it in that time they never could, no matter what Clinton did or didn't do in 2000. Obama, for one example, didn't need a Clinton boost but got it on his own.

Clinton is a fighter, it's just not always clear who she's fighting for...

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4316

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Bitch is the new black, apparently.

This is entering Andrew Sullivan territory

I would like to hear why Jeff II is so confident that Obama will take Ohio and Rhode Island tomorrow. Posted by: Lucy

My handlers at Gamblers Anonymous and the Golden Nugget won't let me talk about the details. Other than that, the polls have been more wrong than not since the beginning of the primary and caucus "season." That, and I really think people are swinging to Obama because, while a lot of Americans still "love" Bill, no one but hardcore Dems has ever much liked Hillary. And even amongst Dems, the more liberal of us don't care for her at all (though I'll certainly vote for her over McCain).

If lily-white Iowans will tilt Obama's way, I think you'll see the same thing happen in Ohio, whose rural residents are a fairly good electoral fit to those of Iowa. Cleveland seems to be leaning heavily for Obama, though the local Cincinnati paper endorsed Clinton. The Clinton administration wasn't much of a "friend of labor," so I'm not sure where all this supposed blue collar support for Hillary Clinton is coming from.

Clinton's organization in Texas is apparently a shambles. Now, if Anne Richardson were still alive, it probably would have been a cake walk for Clinton. Then again, if Molly Ivins were still alive, Clinton probably would have been turned inside out.

Vermont may be the most liberal state in the union and, like Washington, is predicted to go 3-1 for Obama. I simply predict an upset Rhode Island.

By the way, on the subject of Obama and Texas in general - the SEIU ad that keeps running, pushing Obama, is very annoying (they say his name like 10 times in 30 seconds) and it wouldn't surprise me if it backfired. So that's one bright spot for Hillary.

"Honestly, some of these blogging boys need to get over their misogyny."
Posted by: Historiann on March 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM

March 3, 2008, 3:00 PM. The Exact Moment Cazart Got So Fed Up With Being Called "Sexist" For Not Supporting Hillary, That He Actually Became One.

To wit: "Get the hell off the computer and go bake me a pie."

Whether she wins, loses, or by how much...what struck me is not that Yglesias doesn't 'see a real way for Clinton to make up the lead...yada-yada' but how he, accurately in his mind,at least(I hope) psychoanalyzed HRC and her entire staff's level of psychosis, concluded his diagnosis as'probably egomania', further posited that because of their psychosis that they don't want to 'win' because they want HRC to be president now but they are determined to 'pull out a narrow "win" to' damage the party now, thus giving herself/themselves another shot in 2012'. OK, OK...he said 'probably' but his conclusion was still absent any substantiation. Nothing. Nay a quote from a campaign official or associate lackey, surrogate or even a pundit. Not even a past action that establishes or hints at a pattern, i.e. Kevins retort. I can see this appealing to folks who have some feelings about HRC and this could help justify them even more. I don't see this appealing to folks who approach information with questions like 'where is this coming form, how did you come to this conclusion, how do you know this'. Kevin is way to easy in refuting him by simply researching and citing a well established pattern of the Dem. Party as support for his conclusions when all he should have done is subscribe some nefarious intent to M.Y. and then prove it with his left-over PSY 101 class hashings. If Clinton 'wins' in the primary it will because of the same reason Obama or anyone else wins in a primary which is they got more votes. People, people who have never met, talked to nor even seen in-person the candidates running, decide who 'wins' by voting for that person, no matter what their reason(s) are.

If, say, a Democratic party candidate and that candidates spouse each stated publicly and separately, that they are both reticent to help ensure that the Democratic Party win the presidency unless that candidate was chosen to be the nominee...two things..1) I would assume that they actually felt that way and, 2) since neither explained why they would do that knowing that a Repub. Presidency for at least 4 more years is the only other possibility nor can I ask them, I would be left to speculate on the reasons behind their intentions. Among other possibilities, sabotaging their opponent's chance and the Dem. party's chance for the White House 'would set them up for another run in 2012', comes up as a distinct possibility. But like I said, among other possibilities. That would certainly count as something in the way of support for the conclusion M.Y. made. The things is tho', HRC nor WJC said that. The other thing is that would apply to the Obamas not the Clintons. I am assuming that Yglesias's point was not to inform but to incite since there was no 'information' in it. Like a ding from a Pavlovian bell the comment section grew fertile with the appropriate responses and reactions from people feel that way about the Clintons already...'it's obvious that she feels that way because she's such a ________ person and runs such a _______ campaign,' 'Thats just how the Clintons are', 'that's just Clintonism for you', 'I'm tired of Clintonism'. Would someone who gives a damn and who has some influence please show M.Y. and the rest of the gang that their 'coverage' of this election and their pundi-like fact-free, support-free analysis has been and continues to be 'MSM-like' in it's depth and 'analysis', something I was glad to get away from with the rise of the blogosphere but now I expect to see and try to avoid quite frequently nowadays. It's so similar MSM journalmalism but weird in that there isn't some media corporation with a particular bent influencing the editing, publishing, research, non-research, , etc.., it's just their own personal bits influencing their momments of journalmalism. Hey, that's just my Psy 101 and no, I didn't pass that class...the first time. Anyway. Sorry, one more rant-bit....Top six reasons to vote a (D) into the WH

1)Presdential appointments
Judges- Supreme Court, circuit, etc.
The AG and US attorneys office-remember Alberto and the rest or ask ex-Alabama Gov. Siegelman when he gets out of jail.
Secretaries and Department Heads-
Defense-a little Rummy and coke anyone?
HHS, FDA, FBI, Interior, NASA,
Edu-Mitch McConnells wife needs a new job after she finishes intelligently designing this one, Tres.-a recession is coming-does McCain know what that means and how is he sure that the someone he picks also knows?
Homeland Sec.-redyellowambergreen alerts that require warrantless spying on Americans that is not be investigated by the AG or any other law enforcement agency
State-beautiful artful diction for lots of meaningless words
Energy-secret meetings with ExxonShellTexacoBP Transportation, Ambassadors-yes, John Bolton was actually there doing stuff, etc....
3)These heads get to pick their under heads. If there are Repub. Heads,pick Repub. Dep. Sec., Under Dep. Sec.s, etc.
All that determines the effectiveness, transparency, accountability, crookedness, and compentency of the entire government...how well the government works mainly effects those who depend on said effectiveness of the government to make their lives better. This leads to...
4)The government will handle things in a more republican way, tax cuts always, rare accountabiltiy-if ever since all the investigating bodies will be loyally Repub., the poor need to buy some boots, preferably with straps and then pull themselves up by them, Guantanamo will stay open .etc.
5)The religious right will have little-to-no influence on the Pres.and thus my life...and finally, for this rant anyway,
6)A Dem Pres. would help negate Joe 'I was a D now I'm an I' Lieberman's influence in the Senate. I'm done. Don't run with scissors anyone.

Hillary Clinton knows perfectly well that this is her only shot at the presidency.
-------------

Nonsense. She'll be back just like Joe Biden.

She's not out of this one yet, though. At least she could give McCain a fight, Obama can't.

McCain will absolutely stomp Obama.

Kevin is naive in thinking that Hillary will not try to figure out a way to run again if she loses this time. His historical argument also is weak. Any analysis based on a handful of past elections is flawed simply because the sample size is too small. Hillary could easily run an "I told you so" campaign in 2012 after Obmana loses in 2008. Hillary's objective is to be president. Every move she makes from this point forward will be calculated to increase the likelihood of achieving that objective, whether it is how long stays in the race (i.e., a long time) and how she behaves after withdrawal. Remember, a gracious withdrawal at any time will result in her being showered with praise and most folks forgetting everything that happened before.

There will never be any way to prove it, but I think Hillary will be pulling for McCain if Obama secures the nomination, simply because that result increases her chance of being president.

I think Hillary would break the precedent because of name recognition and a host of weak contenders in 2012. The only reason she is taken seriously now is the name recognition. She has been a horrible candidate. But she has a name that people remember.

I hope she drops away from executive branch aspirations. She might become a better senator.

My handlers at Gamblers Anonymous and the Golden Nugget won't let me talk about the details.

Ha!

I would love for Jeff II to be right, but on the eve of the Connecticut primary the race was neck and neck, and this evening it appears Clinton is ahead in Rhode Island. I think tomorrow will be a split: Obama will take Texas & Vermont, and Hillary will take Ohio & Rhode Island.

I think on e way to head off a Hillary assault at the convention is for Obama to choose a prominent feminist with better cred than Hillary as his running mate early. If he goes into the convention with say, Liz Holtzman as his prospective veep, that split hillary's support right down the middle.

Many feminists regard Hillary as a kind of weak feminist, since she has run largely on her husband's coattails, and has made some annoyingly weak statements on abortion.

Liz, on the other hand, is the feminist's feminist, and has tremendous street cred as well. I think she'd do it, too, especially since Hillary just walked in and stole the senate seat Liz had been working for all her life.

I'm focalising a group to get the idea moving here

I posted this idea on alternet the other day and it started quite a stir. If I see enough interest, I'll set up an on-line petition.

Any thoughts?