But wasn't '68 that close because Goerge Wallace drew significant support, presumably away from Nixon? That without Wallace in there, Humphrey gets his ass handed to him?

Practice makes perfect...

I agree, Kevin. One thing is for sure: this last week was Obama's toughest challenge as a candidate yet and he stumbled. He needs to engage Hillary in the fight and get off of the defensive without tarnishing his positive image. Otherwise, Hillary will use tonight to build real momentum.

In the end, they WILL end up pulling together to disable McCain, and that will be a corner we have to turn to save the country. Anyway, how many people remember primary divisions in even the previous cycle?

The last time there was a bitter convention fight the Democrat lost a close and winnable election, Richard Nixon was elected, and the Vietnam War raged on through Nixon's entire first term of office. And this is supposed to cheer me up?

Robert Earle-Wallace was a Democrat. He took more votes from Humphrey than Nixon, according to any analysis I have seen. Are you from the US, because that is fairly basic?

At the end of the day-- with Hillary' momentum back after eleven losses, she should push on to become the nominee. After all, she won having introduced a lot of negatives into the campaign.

Some of the new voices that have joined the party (or most of them) are, will be turned off. Thanks to her, the GOP is guaranteed a third term in the White House. Enthusiastic voters wanting change now have no choice from either side (both the same --left and right).
My motivation is going, and will ebb fully by November. Guess the ending! MCain struts to White House with ease!!

Dead on, Kevin. I have to say that, as someone who has annoyed many people by being a Clinton apologist over the years, how Hillary (and especially Bill) have conducted themselves throughout this contest has ranged from moronic to shameful. How sad is it that I was actually relieved when the worst that Hillary threw at Obama this time around was the 3am ad? Plus, I do think Obama has to come up with a rebuke of Clinton's foreign policy argument--he might get there but he ain't there yet. If he can't deflect it now it will get much harder by November.

This being said, I'm still not quite sure why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. Mathematically, a Clinton victory is impossible, and everybody but her seems to realize that. It's beginning to seem (at the risk of sounding like Andrew Sullivan) that her campaign has become more about catharsis for Clinton than anything else.

I don't honestly mind the questions being asked. It would be nice if we could move past some of the silliness though. Every question either Clinton or Obama asked was asked in a milder form than would have been the case if asked by McCain.

Well said, Kevin.

What is with all you "Hillary must quit now" 'ers? Did you really think that shit would work?

So basically what you're saying is that if the primary process had not been so contentious, Humphrey would have won?

Is that supposed to be a comfort Kevin?

"By keeping Dems in the spotlight, it might even help them."

I was wondering about this too. Might just suck out all the oxygen, leaving nothing for McCain. All the drama will be on our side. Kind of like when no one watches the NBA Eastern Conference championship, and considers the true contest the western Conference championship. The when the Big Finals Games come, nobody cares.

I always new Nixon would find a way to have one more comeback.

Even from beyond the grave.

Hillary and Barack will announce they will both be happy to be VP to the other. =)

1968 was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Did you really live through it Kevin?

Alex F is spot on: Nixon, VietNam, Kent State, etc. all followed.

I agree that Obama flubbed the campaign over the past few days. But Clinton has fractured the activist/netroots community. Whether that translates to the GE in lost votes/activism remains to be seen.

If Obama's going to effectively attack Clinton, it has to be on foreign policy issues. He needs to counter her "experience" argument by pointing out her poor judgement on a number of issues (Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman for starts.)

In any case Obama needs to put Clinton on the defensive. Hammer away at her for Pete's sake!

What is with all you "Hillary must quit now" 'ers? Did you really think that shit would work?
Posted by: elmo

Never said that. Seems to me that Huckabee didnt just quit either. Takes balls not to quit, like Renzi or that guy Craig

Finish the story, though, Kevin. Humphrey almost won - and would've won if the general election were a week later - by breaking completely with LBJ, taking the Vice Presidential seal off his plane, and essentially calling for an immediate end to Vietnam, particularly an end to the bombing. Then LBJ obliged by actually calling off the bombing and floating a possible peace deal the weekend before the election (Kissinger brokered a deal with Nguyen Van Thieu to keep him away from the peace talks, telling him Nixon would give him a better offer).

In other words, Humphrey went hard left - not something I'd expect either Clinton or Obama to do. And he got an October Surprise, which can't be assumed.

well said, kevin. all this hand-wringing will be long forgotten come fall.

well-reasoned big picture perspective is exactly what i like about this blog.

Takes balls not to quit

Spoken like a true wingnut slacker. Let me guess...you're not a quitter? Like Craig...

Yeh, sure, democrats got their ass kicked in '68, thank God Nixon came along an screwed that up. =)

Spoken like a true wingnut slacker. Let me guess...you're not a quitter? Like Craig...
Posted by: elmo

Make up my mind elmo, quit or not quit? Your oscillating

"Hillary must quit now" 'ers? -elmo

Dayum elmo, you TRY to flame me for saying she has balls and hasnt quit?

WTF?

Your story would have been a lot more comforting if it had ended with "And the Democrat won!" But of course we all know how that long national nightmare turned out.

Your intent is noted, but the effect is the opposite. I shudder to think of a never-ending Middle Eastern War brought on by successive Republican presidents...

Your oscillating

Just doing my job.

I know your joking, elmo, but it has always amazed me that people will work for polticians.

Kinda like selling your soul isnt it?

The worst thing Hillary threw was not the 3 AM ad - though I hate fear-mongering crap because it does land deep in people's psyches - but her two creepy qualifiers on the 60 Minutes question about Obama = Muslim. She knew exactly what she was doing. The only answer is the one Obama gave: "It's not true and it's offensive to Muslims because of what it is meant to suggest." But Hillary passed on that and let the poison hang out there, just in case it might help her.

The question for me is what do I do as a Democrat who doesn't want candidates in my party resorting to poisonous tactics no matter how much they want to win? I ask this after having spent a good portion of the last eight years asking, "What's wrong with these Republican voters? Why do they feed that garbage?"

Politicians are us...we are them, our forefathers set it up that way...

I sold my soul for rock 'n roll.

Given the horrific shape this country's going to be in for the next 4-8 years, and given that neither Clinton nor Obama seems sufficiently willing to go on the offensive against the utter failure, in every respect, of the Cheney/Bush cabal's tenure, I'm not convinced that a McCain win would necessarily be any more catastrophic, long-term, than a Dem win with either Cinton or Obama in charge. The majority of the Dem "leaders" have either sold us out repeatedly, or worse, out-and-out supported the abysmal f@¢&-ups of the Bushists. What makes anyone think that they'll be any better with a corporatist Dem President, and with the media unanimously attacking and undercutting even the slightest moves to the center, let alone the left?
One would have thought that, after 7-plus years of miserable failure, every single tenet of the reichwing program would now be discredited. Maybe the American people need a few more years to really get it. And maybe the Republican-lite Dems need to be all swept out of office so that some real Democrats can take over.
One thing is clear, though. A major impediment to any real change for the better is the corporate-owned mass-media. Until we take back, or create our own, mass media (and no, the internet is nowhere near ready to supplant TeeVee news, both broadcast-network and cable, "news"- and talk-radio, the "news" magazines, and major-market newspapers), our polity will not be ours; it will remain theirs.

Harry said -

"Robert Earle-Wallace was a Democrat. He took more votes from Humphrey than Nixon, according to any analysis I have seen. Are you from the US, because that is fairly basic?"

I grew up in Wisconsin, and was 11 years old in 1968.

Wallace carried Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Given that 1968 was the birth of the Republican 'southern strategy' coupled with the fact that the only southern state Humphrey carried was (Johnson's home state of) Texas, it stands to reason (at least, it does to me) that had Wallace not carried those five southern states, Nixon would have.

(You can see the red-blue map here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968

So if you could point me to some of that 'fairly basic' analysis...

Great, so for this analogy to be valid all we need is for the main challenger to the presumptive Democratic nominee to be assassinated, a racist third party candidate to carry a handful of deep south states, and the Republican opponent to be a charismatically-challenged, paranoid psychopath who smells of brimstone and the Democrats will only lose by a trivial 37 state margin (32 to Nixon, 5 to Wallace - states that would never have gone to Humphrey anyway). Hurray!

Or... we could simply look at the present set of facts and try to deduce logical conclusions from them. If the Democratic race continues to be contested through to the late August convention, that's nearly another six months of Obama and Hillary expending hundreds of millions of dollars beating up on one another that should better be used against McCain. That's very, very, very bad, regardless of whatever political analogies anyone makes.

And for what? The only way Hillary can win is by breaking the rules and seating Florida and Michigan or by somehow getting enough superdelegates to subvert Obama's lead in delegates and the popular votes (yes, even if you count Florida). Either of these actions would rip the party in two. And in any event, whoever emerged would be horribly beaten up while McCain would be free to raise cash, campaign, and define himself with little or no real opposition.

Politicians are us...we are them, our forefathers set it up that way...I sold my soul for rock 'n roll. -elmo

You know what elmo, you are right. Who am I to disrupt the reality base?

Im just a poor bloke who has no wish to be wealthy, or even rule the world, cause I know that global hegemony is to return to the tower of babel. Your right, lets just keep repeating the matrix our intelligence, however lacking, forces us into. Our childrens childrens childrens childrens will love matrix part 100.

smartalek: Thanks so much for digging up that pro-Nader speech from 2000. And as we all know, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the way Bush governed and the way Gore would have governed.

Perhaps I have missed this... but since the economy is a big issue and the war, last I heard, was costing $3 billion/week... that is our biggest problem.

Obama needs to say that this foreign policy debacle is making the dollar crash, oil prices rise, and that he was against the war. He has to make that case.

Hillary was a jerk to vote for the war. From my reading, adn NOT being in Congress, I knew it was about oil and ego from the get go.

She is arrogant and I know a tremendous number of dems, and some repubs, who will vote for Obama and not her.

I hope Obama is seasoned enough to make these points.

Our childrens childrens childrens childrens will love matrix part 100.

Ok, you lost me there. Good work.

Ok, you lost me there. Good work.
Posted by: elmo

Repeating your past elmo.

Repeating your past elmo

Maybe...

Kevin: "In other words, this was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous."

Actually, I'd ask that you consider the ugly fight over the 1976 GOP nomination between President Gerald Ford and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, a series of increasingly bitter primary battles that went all the way to the national convention.

Although Ford eventually prevailed at the convention, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller (a moderate Republican) was forced off the ticket in favor of an up-and-coming conservative firebrand, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole. Further, Reagan subsequently decided to bide his time and sat out the '76 general election race, which Ford eventually lost to former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.

While the Ford-Reagan battles weren't "ruinous" to the GOP in a general sense, the fallout from that conflict influences the general direction of the Republican Party to this day. Following Ford's defeat, GOP moderates were soon easily marginalized by the ultra-conservative acolytes of the so-called "Reagan Revolution," and that party soon made a hard right turn, from which it has yet to pull out.

And as we can see in Gerald Ford's posthumous valedictory, Write It When I'm Gone, he never reconciled with Ronald Reagan, and blamed him for his loss in the '76 general election.

Ironically, Ford and his '76 Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter, would eventually strike up a deep and enduring friendship, which began when each man discovered that they shared something in common: a mutual disdain and loathing of Reagan and the far-right, neo-conservative movement he ushered into power in Washington.

I was for Dodd. When he withdrew, I figured I would be equally contented if either Clinton or Obama were the nominee. But now if Clinton is the nominee, I really am going to have to hold my nose to vote for her - and that's entirely HER doing and the doing of her campaign. Not what anyone said or reported about her, but what I've SEEN her and her campaign pulling over the past several months.

I wish I knew what she thought she was doing. This is a change election and it's been a change election for over a year. So long as it stays a change election, we WIN. But Hillary has been trying to alter what the entire election is about. Experience? Fear? If the election is about experience, if the election is about fear, MCCAIN wins!

Perhaps she thinks she can beat Obama with the fear card and then pivot in the fall and be the candidate of change and hope and empowerment? The very concepts she's been MOCKING for weeks now? That's going to work?

I've always liked Hillary Clinton. But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

And geeeeez, I am SO tired of our elections always being about Fear.

Victoria: "The worst thing Hillary threw was not the 3 AM ad - though I hate fear-mongering crap because it does land deep in people's psyches - but her two creepy qualifiers on the 60 Minutes question about Obama = Muslim. She knew exactly what she was doing."

Oh, puh-LEESE. Are you daft?

I suppose you also take Matt Drudge at his word, and hold Sen. Clinton's campaign responsible for that photo of Sen. Obama in traditional Somali garb, as though he bore no responsibility for allowing his picture to be taken while looking like that in the first place.

If you go back and watch that portion of the 60 Minutes interview in its entirety, it's plainly evident that CBS correspondent Steve Kroft wouldn't take "no" from Hillary as an answer, and he obviously badgered her into making an exasperated follow-up denial. In her final statement to Kroft on the subject, she summarily dismissed those rumors as a "smear".

I'd daresay that most intelligent people accepted her denials about the aforementioned photo and rumors with the good spirit in which they were offered. She certainly can't be held responsible for people being deliberately ignorant or stupid, or for those of you who see and hear only what you want to see and hear.

Barack Obama lost in Texas and Ohio because his campaign was thrown off-message the last few days, in large part because of the controversy over his NAFTA remarks and his erroneous denial of a campaign advisor's meeting with the Canadian counsel general in Chicago -- and I'll take him at his word that he didn't know about the meeting (with the obvious implication that he's been heretofore unconcerned with what senior campaign aides are doing in his name).

Further, Obama once again offered a series of prevarications concerning his relationship with former political patron, Tony Rezko, which I've warned people here ad nauseum for well over four months now. Like the previous one about NAFTA, this problem was also entirely self-inflicted.

Politics can be hardball, and you best anticipate from now on that you'll get a very sharp pushback whenever you and your friends freely traffic in smears of Sen. Clinton, like the one I cited above.

So, stop your sniveling and pull yourself together, because your whining and petulance is really of no use to your candidate. And if you think this last week was tough, just wait'll you see what the Republicans have in store for our party's nominee.

Aloha.

But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

Great post, JoyceH. This is very succinct and avoids needless provocation (two things I could be better about myself). Thank you!

I do not think so. I think Hillary proves that she is intelligent. I was a little worried just now. Fortunately she won. Some medias say that only her husband could persuade her to withdraw. But this time Hillary proves herself. I think Hillary's campaign is just like a book's discription -- "An American Journey": http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=84962&ru=279 , it sounds fantastic! And I do want to see a woman as president in my lifetime!

It seems that the supporters of Hillary Clinton's campaign believe that they are doing Barack Obama's supporters a favor by "defining" Obama as an empty suit, Chicago-style politician, whose only experience is one speech plus a lot of work for a corrupt slumlord.

The problem is that, while the Republicans will try this in the fall for sure, upsetting long-time Democrats such as myself doesn't matter to Republicans because I never will support a Republican anyway. So, if the charges are misleading and unfair, it is different experience those charges coming from Democrats rather than Republicans.

I know that the Clinton supporters will point out what's been coming from the Obama supporters. All I know is that the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. Yes, whomever wins will eventually rally the base, but, when fights go all the way to the convention, historically the nominees who emerge fall short of winning.

I don't have a solution as I am not suggesting anybody drop out. The Clinton supporters that I know are quite impassioned. They like to point out how they don't hate me, just the candidate that I personally prefer.

She should absolutely stay in the race. To bow out would disenfranchise the citizens who have not yet had their primaries. No matter what those of you (who have already voted) think, people don't want voters of other states to decide the outcome of this race.

The longer this continues, the more the Democrats will be hogging the media attention, the more people will perceive them to be the Party of excitement and change. The small donors who are now sustaining both campaigns have more to give, so using up resources is not an issue.

I hate what this says: go negative and win.

She just won't ever let go. Ever. Nothing positive will come of all of this. The media gave her a nice wet kiss the last two weeks to keep this thing going.

I disagree completely...

POINT 1
A couple weeks ago polls were showing that a large majority of Democrats (I believe it was 73%) would be enthusiast about either BO of HRC if they were the eventual nominee. That is beginning to change. Exit polls from last night showed 50 something percent of voters would be "dissatisfied" if their candidate didn't win the nomination.

POINT 2
Right now all the talking heads seem to agree that the only way Hillary can actually pull this thing
off is if she both "runs the table" from here on out AND DAMAGES OBAMA'S REPUTATION to point where all super dels have no choice but to migrate to her camp.
If she falls short we have a damaged nominee, if she succeeds using Karl Roveian tactics many Obama supporters like myself will find it even harder to vote for her, let alone be enthusiastic about her candidacy or volunteer for her campaign. We want to beat the moral-compass-less, Karl-Rove-win-at-all-cost Republicans - NOT BECOME THEM.

Really Great interesting Story! http://www.spymac.com/details/?2349694

Hillary won last night. She won big in Ohio. She must be commended.

Unfortunately for her, she didn't put a dent in Obama. In a week Hillary's wins will have receded in our memories. All that will remain is that Obama emerged with the same or slightly more pledged delegates.

Obama will have learned a valuable lesson about campaigning.

As to the press, this last week they actively helped Hillary damage Obama, but not enough that he can't come back. I heard the MSNBC crew crowing about their ratings through all of this. The press is loving this campaign. I think they are going to do everything they can to keep it going. It is the best reality show on television.

Well, I certainly feel better after reading your analysis Kevin. Thanks for sharing.

One final thing. Winning this long struggle fair and square will do more to define Obama as the candidate than anything I can think of. He will be able to argue that nothing has been handed to him. That will take power right out of the empty suit argument.

Alright, let's go negative...

WHY WON'T THE CLINTON'S RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS?...

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

.

"tin solders and Nixon coming, we're finally on our own..."

"So your brother's bound and gagged and they tied him to a chair, won't you please come to Chicago just to see"

"1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for? I don't know I don't give a damn, were all going to Vietnam..."

Thanks for the memories of the great music written during that time Kevin. Sorry, but that's the only comfort I take from your post. Guess there will be a few great songs written now too

...too bad corporate radio won't play them

robert earle,

in 1968, wallace voters were southern democrats moving away from the democratic party and toward the republicans. nixon's southern strategy did not fully flower until 1972, when he captured their votes and effectively turned the south into a core republican territory.

the states wallace won by all rights should have gone to humphrey. that humphrey couldn't hold them showed that LBJ was right when he told an aide that civil rights/voting right legislation would cost the democrats the south for a generation.

Seems to me we're registering more democrats than ever before in red states, blue states, and battleground states. We're also winning random stuff down the ballot. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a bunch of state legislatures flip this year and force a few of the more loony conservatives to look for new work.

The most negative thing I saw out of the Hillary camp was the reference to the kitchen sink. The 3AM ad was just a less abstract way of emphasizing experience (Obama wasn't mentioned); I don't think she can get credit for leaks from conservatives in the Canadian government, Matt Drudge's crap, or Fitzgerald's case against Rezko; and interpretations of hesitations in speech, subliminal allusions to the N-word, or the color hues in campaign commercials are out there in tinfoil hat land. As far as a wet kiss from the media goes all I learned last night from MSNBC coverage was that she's Machiavellian and she's hurting America.

I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.

Get the Hunchback of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org

Here's the GOP plan. Attack Obama a weak commander in chief. Hillary will do the same. If he gets the nomination the MSM continues the now established meme. If Hillary defeats him in the convention by whatever means she's blamed for stealing his nomination and the party is deserted by blacks and the new young voters. The November election does not see a huge turnout of new voters and McCain is elected.

Oh my Gawd!!

This primary campaign has turned into the Ballroom Blitz!

Why is everyone fighting ???

Hillary should just run an anti-Hillary ad like Obama does!

That will show she has judgment and poise and understands the need to quit tearing our party apart!!!

And why shouldn't Obama drop out?

He's can't win a debate on foreign policy. Nobody wants a philosopher king in a time of war.

Following your 1968 timeline, can we expect McCain to announce his secret plan to end the war in October?

Matt nailed it near the beginning of this thread, so I'll quote him:

agree, Kevin. One thing is for sure: this last week was Obama's toughest challenge as a candidate yet and he stumbled. He needs to engage Hillary in the fight and get off of the defensive without tarnishing his positive image. Otherwise, Hillary will use tonight to build real momentum.

And I do want to see a woman as president in my lifetime!

Posted by: Grace on March 5, 2008 at 5:43 AM

I do, too. Just not this one.

auto--
No. Republicans won the deep south in 1964. It was the only area of the country Goldwater carried. Once the Democrats got on the civil rights bus (i.e. 1964), they would never win it again. So, obviously, Wallace helped Humphrey.

Clinton apologist

I didn't say the press want her to win, I said they want the race to continue. I heard some of the same crap from MSNBC myself.

This race is still Obama's to win. If he fights back effectively he will emerge stronger than if she throws in the towel.

The burden is on her to start knocking him off by big margins. There just don't seem to be enough states left for her to win 53-47. She simply has to put him down for the count. If she doesn't he wins on points.

Unless she does something between now and Pennsylvania he is going to roar right back. That will further reduce the number of contests remaining.

This is the most interesting contest I have ever watched. It is far more interesting than 1968. That was a blood bath.

The big state strategy is Rovian math. It just doesn't ad up.

Well, the good news is that the Pennsylvania primary is six weeks after the last primary and one week after the IRS filing date.

Plenty of time for all the candidates to finish and release their taxes.

Obama needs to start hitting that hard, and goading the press every day about examining where the Clintons' money is coming from. That's one of the best ways he can go on the attack while actually reinforcing his theme that he represents a change from politics as usual.

The issue for me is that for HRC to win she will have to make the case that a large percent of already cast democratic votes do not actally matter as much as a MI/FL redo, and then she somehow expects to gain the same voters back to fight McCain.

She allowed her campaign to take the low road because her opponent is percieved to be BETTER than her, by HRC/her staff itself! She decided she could no longer compete on the merits. HRC fans need to really keep that in mind.

She is not going to be able to innuendo/race/fear card her way past McCain in the general. John McCain is NOT going to need to take the low road, he has the "America rulez because we cant say we were wrong" vote wrapped up, and you cannot underestimate the need for Americans in general to be told they are right and always have been.
IMHO all McCain has to do is point out how nasty she has been in this race to her potential base and it reconfirms the opinions of some and the suspicions of many more.

I agree. If the narrative is that Obama is "too fragile" to withstand a primary fight with the Clintons then he is toast in November. The "Weak on defense" meme is applied to Dems that can't fight a decent campaign and stand up for their beliefs and fight back against smears. If Obama cannot fight back, he should not be the nominee.

I voted for Obama in the primary in our state but I don't blame Clinton staying in the race and doing what she has so far to win the race. It's a shame that the party has two really good candidates that have come along at the same time. I wish I could be as sanguine as Kevin about the prospects of how this will turn out. I think it is looking like it will become a real mess and I can't help but think that could very easily tip the scales just enough for McCain to win. I expected a win by either Obama or Clinton by just a percent or two (assuming there isn't some other major event that changes the dynamics) over McCain before this situation arose, but now I'm beginning to doubt that will happen.

So dead on that it bears repeating:

I wish I knew what she thought she was doing. This is a change election and it's been a change election for over a year. So long as it stays a change election, we WIN. But Hillary has been trying to alter what the entire election is about. Experience? Fear? If the election is about experience, if the election is about fear, MCCAIN wins!

Perhaps she thinks she can beat Obama with the fear card and then pivot in the fall and be the candidate of change and hope and empowerment? The very concepts she's been MOCKING for weeks now? That's going to work?

I've always liked Hillary Clinton. But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

And geeeeez, I am SO tired of our elections always being about Fear.

mr. shortstop this morning: "Well, if she pulls it out, the general will come down to Fear and Fear Lite. Again."

A couple weeks ago polls were showing that a large majority of Democrats (I believe it was 73%) would be enthusiast about either BO of HRC if they were the eventual nominee. That is beginning to change. Exit polls from last night showed 50 something percent of voters would be "dissatisfied" if their candidate didn't win the nomination.

I haven't had time to look it up yet, but Paul Begala (yes, I know) last night commented that 25 percent--25 percent!--of Clinton voters and 10 percent of Obama voters say they'll vote for McCain if their fave doesn't get the Democratic nomination. Unfuckingbelievable.

Donald from Hawaii said Barack Obama lost in Texas and Ohio because his campaign was thrown off-message the last few days, in large part because of the controversy over his NAFTA remarks and his erroneous denial of a campaign advisor's meeting with the Canadian counsel general in Chicago --

Donald is right, but there seems to be more to this, sundry factors that I can't quite nail. As an Obama supporter, I'm pretty devastated about last night's results. Even if Obama had squeaked through in Texas, and even though Hillary's margin of victory in Ohio shrunk to 10%, Obama still got trounced in a key battlefield state where he had plenty of time, money, and organization. The only difference between Hillary and Obama on bread and butter issues like NAFTA and health care are mandates, and it's hard to believe mandates accounted for this romp.

Obama's lead in delegates won't resonate from now on, and things are much tougher for him ahead. The superdelegates will be on hold. He has to do very well in Pennsylvania, a state that isn't particularly fertile ground for him. The DNC must redo Michigan and Florida, and Florida will be a challenge (not least because of the Manchurian candidate smear campaign that's been circulating in the Jewish community for months).

I do not want Obama to go negative. Compared to Hillary's embarrassing comportment these past few weeks, Obama has been a gentlemen. He should concentrate on avoiding dumb missteps like the Goolsbee affair and start freshening his rhetoric. Hillary's campaign has been effective at creating the perception that Obama's an empty suit, and Obama needs to concentrate on changing that perception.

I sent money (that I could ill afford) to Obama again this morning, but as soon as he starts whining, dissimulating, and writing McCain's ads like Hillary, the sooner I will divert my contributions to the overdue healthcare bills stacked on my desk.

Though an Obama supporter from the start, I've been an apologist for the Clintons for years and felt pretty neutral toward Hillary when the primary season began. Since then I've developed a profound distaste for her. The difference between Hillary and Obama last night could not have been more stark: Hillary's speech was all about her; Obama's speech was about a vision for the country. I've never voted for a Republican for in my life, and I'm not about to start now, but it won't matter anyway. If Hillary is the nom, John McCain will be president.

Kevin wrote: "... the proposition that a long, drawn-out Democratic primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House ... I'd like to offer a historical counterexample: 1968 ... Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1% ... If long, bitter, primary campaigns really destroy parties, then Humphrey should have lost the 1968 election by about 50 points."

The point is, WHO CARES if McCain wins by one percent or by a landslide? Do you think that Nixon and the Republicans were shedding tears in 1968 that they didn't win by a bigger margin?

For that matter, as we well know from the 2000 and 2004 elections, McCain doesn't need to win at all -- he just needs to get close enough for the Republicans to steal the election. Which McCain and the Republican Party will trumpet as an overwhelming "mandate" for endless war abroad, and endless corporate dictatorship at home.

Devoted Democratic partisans may worry about the long-term effects of this primary campaign on the Party. I am not worried about that.

I am worried about the prospect of John McCain -- who is a corrupt, lying thief, a ruthless corporate imperialist, a totalitarian thug, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the most extreme, neo-fascist wing of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc., just like Cheney and Bush -- becoming the next president.

Both Obama and Clinton (and their supporters) are busily doing the work of the Republican Party and the corporate-owned mass media for them, by waging campaigns of character assassination against each other.

And at this point I think it is increasingly likely that McCain will steal another close election and be installed as president in January 2009.

bakho

I absolutely agree. Obama has to fight back. How is the interesting question.

I think he is going to starting now. I just don't know which path he will take.

If he doesn't she will start pounding him.

Animist you just outlined how Obama can fight back.

The tainted Clinton money is the perfect attack mode because it resonates right in tune with his change theme. Where's that tax return?

If I don't start seeing this within the next few days I'm going to be extremely hacked off at the Obama campaign. If they think they can just go on as before, it means they've been infected with the same kind of smugness that nearly killed the Clinton campaign.

At this point, I think the damage to both candidates has already been done, and will inevitably result in a Democratic loss in November. Talk to both Clinton AND Obama supporters, and a growing number not only back their particular candidate but are increasingly hostile towards the opponent. Clinton has successfully cast Obama as inexperienced and deceptive in the minds of many of her backers, and I doubt that they're going to suddenly turn around after the convention and be able to support him. Many will probably just sit home in November. Likewise, Obama and his coalition of liberals and independents view Clinton as being no different than John McCain. If Clinton wins the nomination, many of the Obama backers will have no reason to vote in November.

I'm afraid that it's a no-win situation. Congrats to John McCain, who won his party's nomination and the Presidency all in the same night.

THE MYTH OF REPUBLIKLAN PARTY CREDIBILITY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY EXPLODED WITH THE PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE THAT HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPT 11, 2001. FURTHERMORE THE REPUBLIKLAN PARTY APPEARS THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR WEAKNESS ON ATIONAL DEFENSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. OH AND WE DID HAVE ATTACKS ON OUR COUNTRY SINCE SEPT 11, 2001. THE RIGHT WING ANTHRAX KILLER KILLED PEOPLE AND SENT ANTHRAX TO 2 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.

Get the Hunchabck of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org

I'm a registered Green Party voter in Maryland, and have been looking forward to casting my vote in November for the Green Party's presidential nominee (unless it is Ralph Nader, which at this point seems unlikely since he has announced he is not seeking the Green Party's nomination this year).

Maryland goes Democratic in presidential elections by a large margin, so I have the "luxury" of being able to vote Green without worrying about helping to elect a Republican president.

However, at this point I would not be surprised if the race in Maryland is so close that I will need to vote for the Democratic nominee because every vote will be crucial to preventing Maryland from being carried by McCain.

And if that happens, then McCain will be on his way to winning by a landslide nationally, anyway.

Er, make that: I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life.

Ahh. This is what I have missed around here. I used to enjoy the general discontent in these comments, but that has been sorely missing during Obama's "Adoration of the Magus" tour. I can't tell you how disappointing it was when I recently went back in the archives to Nov. of 2004, and found all the comments had been deleted. The comments here after that election never failed to cheer me up, but, lately, things have been a little too chipper around here for my tastes. This is more like it. BTW, my wife and I, and at least 20 other Republicans we know, all voted for Hillary yesterday here in Ohio. That's purely anecdotal, but I would like to think that thousands of other Republicans did the same. Now, back to the whining.

Wow Kevin, what an inspiring story. So I guess we can all look forward to the satisfaction that comes from barely losing.

Yes this primary season has a long way to go to approach the bitterness of '68. And, thankfully, we have a long way to go.

But what your analysis doesn't even consider is that the press today is nothing like the press then. Then they did their job. Now..well you know now. But the fact is that it's the craven press that will make the difference as they have the last two elections. And so we will be left with Proud St. McCain vs. the Horribly Divided Democrats. And we will lose. By 1%. So yes indeed, let's chill out. Nothing to worry about. Defeat is well in hand.

Hey Billy Bob, we look forward to YOUR whining when we kick your ignorant old fart's ass in November, with either of our far more competent candidates. Oh, that's right, you'll be nowhere to be seen.

Senator Obama has not won one large state.

it's fine to attack people in your own party on the national stage on substance, and even expected that the facts and sentiment will be stretched. is another thing to smear someone who is ahead in the nomination fight. it undermines the party and the hopfe for the future everyone in it is fighting for.

i think there is a risk here. to date, the primaries have drawn record crowds, in large part with people new to the political process drawn by enthusiasm for Obama. And he being drawn onto defense about his religion, his basic competence, his ethics, and his truthfulness on NAFTA all undermine the atmosphere that has made the Democratic primaries to date largely appealing. Where we are headed is the same old fratricidal bullshit that makes most Americans frustrated with Democrats and the poltical process. So, this is no 68, no doubt, but Hillary is stinking up the place in order to get ahead. You can do that against a Republican, and vice versa, but to do that to the guy who is more likely to lead the party in the presidential election than she is, earns her great demerit, in my view.

Those were fascinating results last night, and I think they should give a great deal of concern for those who think Obama is the stonger candidate for the fall election. He beats Clinton in caucuses, and he beats her in states Democrats are not going to win come November. I am beginning to think Clinton actually has the better chance against McCain, even though I view her, too, as a nonideal candidate for the Democrats.

All in all, things are looking positive for John McCain. The two Democrats will continue to claw at each other through at least the next month and a half, and likely right through to the convention.

>" primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House. "

Hilary as the dem candidate is the best way to put John McCain in the White House. I would not be shocked if there is a lot of behind the scenes effort by the republicans to that end.

HC vs McCain will be a contest of FEAR versus FEAR... and the republicans have been masters of the FEAR angle since Reagans 'Bear in The Woods' ad campaign.

Hillary isn't going to quit now, nor should she. The math is irrelevant. You don't slip into the nomination on points, IMO. You win states, and the bigger states do count more. Ohio was a huge win because it's a state that needs to swing the Dems way in order to win the GE.

Personally what I see happening is a backroom deal that says the ticket is almost set: We're looking at the presidential and vp nominees. Whether it'll be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton will depend almost entirely on Pennsylvania. I figure that whoever wins that will get the nomination, as the loser will suspend their campaign at that point.

the argument that these results show that Hillbilly will win in the key states in the general in a way Barrack can't doesn't hold water. Obama is steadily winning more independent and republican defector support than H. Hill's strongest support is core dem. What are they gonna do, vote McCain? No way. Her support is more reliable to go to Obama than the other way, AND Obama draws from crucial votes McCain needs in a way that Hill does not. I think there outcomes show that either Dem is strong in the crucial states this year, just based on turn out, but if you look at who's voting it's clear Obama is stronger than Clinton in the Ohios, Missouris, and Texases. He can bank his support and virtually all of hers, but there are indies and reps that will go to him against McCain that would go to McCain against her. Period.

Barack needs a new opponent. How about somebody named Hillary W. McCain. They are the establishment that brought us to this fearful place. They don't seem to have a clue as to get us out. The fear card plays both ways. Obama needs to offer hope at the end of the tunnel. He is perfectly positioned to run a campaign based on the slogan its time for a change vote against Hillary W. McCain.

Quinn, you are wrong. Obama will win the big blue states easily. If a handful of big blue states counted more than a lot of little red states Al Gore would be wrapping up his second term. We need to pick off some of the purple and red states.

Hillary's old style blue state strategy is a recipe for disaster.

Buford is correct, and there is the rumor that McCain's people are connected to the Canadian PM's people by pollsters, consultants and what not, and that the hit was put out on Obama on NAFTA to stop Obama from putting it away in Ohio and Texas. If that was the plan, they aced it.

Buford talked about a "behind-the-scenes effort" by Republicans to make sure Hillary is the nominee. I have news for you: it's not behind-the-scenes. Rush Limbaugh and others like him are actively encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary. Because they know she's the one they can beat. They might be wrong. But doesn't the fact that everyone from Karl Rove to Rush Limbaugh thinks she's the weak candidate give all you Hillary-don't-Quit types even a moment's pause?

Senator Obama has not won one large state.

I get a little tired of this disingenuous argument and its attempt to pretend that Obama vs. McCain is like Obama vs. Clinton. Do people really believe that Obama would fail to take California and New York? And do they honestly think that either Dem would take Florida or Texas?

The only thing that matters in these instances is head-to-head polls. And those show Obama beating McCain in a number of states and both Clinton and Obama besting McCain in several others. As of last week, IINM, no state polls have shown Clinton beating McCain while Obama loses to him, although a couple have shown Clinton losing to McCain by lesser margins than Obama would.

Now, that may be changing. It's worth keeping an eye on. But this argument from Clinton supporters has been going on for weeks, and it's been specious all that time. We'll see if it remains so after last night.

Ron,

But even if you say that we need pick off purple and red states, Ohio and Texas both fit that bill. If Ohio was just going to fall to whichever Democrat was nominated, we would've had President Gore or President Kerry right now. Texas is a longer shot, but as of right now, Clinton can make the pitch that she can come closer than Obama can.

I think that it still comes down to Pennsylvania. The narrative is that Obama can't win the Democratic strongholds, and that the Democratic Party shouldn't ignore the wishes of its core. I don't personally agree, but that's definitely the narrative going forward, and the math argument just won't have legs, IMO. Penn's a must win for Obama at this point, math or no.

Obama outspent her what 3:1? Obama fans are pissed. This is ridiculous.

"BTW, my wife and I, and at least 20 other Republicans we know, all voted for Hillary yesterday here in Ohio."

I'm sure HRC is counting on more and more support from the "base" of her "surge".

(Surge as defined by me for this post means when you freaking know you cant win but are counting holding your ground as winning/surging despite the massive toll in resources and goodwill to achieve said holding ground).

Her surge seems about as contructive as the one in Iraq. Sure at some point she may have to SAY she cant win, but as long as she is surging she doesnt have to say those words. As long as we dont leave Iraq, we dont have to say we lost!!! Its an American tradition!!!

Is this the biggest surge of Hillary's political career, and if so what does that tell you about how "popular" she is? I dont want a president who will do anything to win something unwinnable/already fubar-ed, do you?

I live in a southern state where everyone around me is a turbo republican who despises Hillary Clinton as someone who is ruthlessly ambitious and would throw her own mother under the bus to get what she wants. I have always defended her, believing she was just the victim of the right wing attack machine's efforts to demonize her, but after watching her attack Obama this past week, a fellow democrat, I am beginning to think my republican friends are right about her and that she is willing now to throw the whole democratic party and the fall election under the bus to get what she wants. It is a very ugly picture. It this goes on, and I'm sure it will, the democrats probably lose in the fall in an election that should have been ours for the taking. Hillary will do to the party just what George Bush did to the country...divide us in two...neither half willing to work with the other. She will lose large chunks of black voters and young voters, as well as independents and Republican leaners. There won't be any party unity. McCain will look like the uniter and Hillary the divider. Even if she wins in the fall by some slim margin, she will have no coattails and will be unable to move an agenda through Congress. There will be NO Republicans moving across the aisle to work with her. I am sick about this. I may end up voting for McCain myself..or just not vote at all. This is so depressing.

Quinn, do you really think Hillary will beat McCain in either Ohio or Texas? The Democratic base is in the bag for either Obama or Clinton. Read shortstops post. She has nailed it as usual.

I still think Obama should start the general today. His opponent should be Hillary W. McCain the establishment that brought us to this fearful place. If you elect Hillary W. McCain you will get more of the same. Turn experience into inaction and Obama romps. His only concern would be peaking too early.

Anyway he should be running against the opponents of change. McCain and Clinton are both perfectly positioned to be labelled defenders of the status quo. Obama needs to retool his message a little bit. He needs to come out hitting the beltway establishment hard. He doesn't need to get into the weeds with Hillary. He needs to tie both McCain and Hillary to the lobbyist establishment and beat Hillary W. McCain into a bloody pulp. America is ready for change. They will vote against anybody you can tie to the establishment.

Perhaps we can have a rerun of the Chicago '68 convention too, when Hillary wins the nomination via superdelegates or other questionable means. We won't be staying in the "free speech zones".

What's the big deal? Hillary stole one of McCain's ads, ran like a Republican, and only improved her standing by a few delegates.

She's still losing. The only way she held on in Texas was because Republicans were voting for her.

Mathematically, the only way she can take the nomination is by relying on the least democratic parts of the process, at which point her support will be limited to the menopause caucus.
.

Every single race from here on out is a must win for hillbilly, and it's not going to happen. PA is a should win for Obama. He really could use a clear win in a state such as PA, but he's got the edge with or without it.

Again, I think Hill's victories are based on tapped out support in purple states, and show her limit. Barrack could take all her votes as well as his, leaving Mac with jack. Hill's not taking all Obama's votes as some of them, like it or not, would fall for Mac's bs "independent" persona and vote for satan over Hill. Sad but true. Hill's victories last night show the limit of her strength. unfortunately, i think it's fair for her to fight on in light of them. but i sure wish she'd stop smearing the guy who is still the front runner as an inexperienced muslim who will give the country over to terrorists and our jobs over to mexico and canada. kinda fires my distaste for her into a simmering loath.

My argument long story short, instead of letting Hillary W. McCain define "experience" as a feature, turn "experience" into a bug.

By the way, the exit poll numbers from last night support me. People think Change is more important than Experience by about 3 to 1.

"Quinn, do you really think Hillary will beat McCain in either Ohio or Texas? The Democratic base is in the bag for either Obama or Clinton. Read shortstops post. She has nailed it as usual."

Texas, probably not. I don't think Obama will win there either.

The question is Ohio. Right now, how can you possibly say that more people will vote for Obama vs. McCain than they will for Hillary? The results last night speak for themselves. That wasn't a small margin in Ohio last night. That was a solid win.

This campaign is turning out voters at record-shattering rates. Both Obama and Hillary regularly get more voters for each of them than for John McCain.

A few of those voters might stay home if their pick loses the nomination, it's true. Maybe some are Republicans trying to tilt the contest in their favor. However, the reason Democrats are holding open primaries is that it's been proven that someone voting in the primary is far more likely to to vote for that party in the general.

So by all means, keep this show going.

McCain in a landslide? No one will vote for Obama? Hillary is the anti-christ? Obama is the anti-christ?

It's all about money.

McCain can't raise it, Hillary spends it foolishly, and Obama is getting more of it than anyone else.

It doesn't matter who gets the Dem nomination--BOTH candidates have been through a bruising fight that has toughened both of them up. McCain has been through a "last man standing" primary where he hasn't really been challenged, unless you count having the media ask you why you're so wonderful and strong is a challenge.

Things couldn't be better than they are right now--an energized, electrified Democratic Party is trying to decide between Excellent and Outstanding and millions of dollars are flooding in to back both of them up. When the cash from small donors dries up, that's when you have to start worrying about who is going to turn out and vote. There is more political skill and talent wrapped up in both Obama and Clinton than Kerry could have ever hoped to have possessed.

What's wrong with casting your vote and waiting? What's wrong with participating in the process and then, ultimately, accepting the outcome? Forget everything else--if you voted or took part in a Caucus, great. If your candidate didn't win, okay fine. If you can't accept the outcome of a Democratic Primary, then maybe the problem is with you and not the process.

The DailyKos is being ripped to shreds right now--people are separating into factions and are flaming the shit out of each other over minor policy differences between two people in the same party who are on the same sheet of music 99% of the time.

I think what it says is, if you're not mature enough to handle what happens when your candidate doesn't win an election, then there's no way you're going to find the process of getting things done acceptable. Hey, maybe democracy isn't your thing.

First of all Quinn, the Ohio Dittoheads will be voting for McCain instead of Hillary. The Ohio democratic base will be voting for either Obama or Clinton.

Pale Rider, great post. You hit it on the head.

The question is Ohio. Right now, how can you possibly say that more people will vote for Obama vs. McCain than they will for Hillary? The results last night speak for themselves. That wasn't a small margin in Ohio last night. That was a solid win.

Yes, she thumped him. But this is what I'm talking about. A Feb. 27 University of Cincinnati poll for Ohio:

Obama 48%, McCain 47%
McCain 51%, Clinton 47%

I want to see a new poll, because I expect these numbers to shift in Clinton's favor after last night.

I have never in my life time known a major democratic candidate to run as harsh a series of attacks against an opponent in their own party as Hillary has. So with all due respect I disagree that the talk about this damaging the party is overblown, this isn't just an extended campaign. This is something new. A contender going for the throat regularly as if this was a general election.

The point not mentioned by Kevin is that the main issue is not merely winning the Presidency but doing so in a way that brings the country together again after decades of bitter partisanship & division. Winning the Presidency does little good if it does not lead to the kind of transformational governance which will motivate the public to climb out of the deep hole of decades living off economic achievements of the 1960s-1980s and of the recent Bush "Empire" which has alienated traditional allies around the world. The divisiveness of the Clinton family is second only to the Bush legacy, so the sooner Hillary leaves the stage, the better.

No Matter how far you can drag Obama down it doesnt get Clinton high enough. Thats the 800 pound gorilla in the room for HRC supporters. How do you make her more appealing? You can't. Tell me how HRC is appealing, or will become appealing to anyone who is not already a supporter of her. Who do you think she is going to convince?

Right now for the HRC camp to feel vidicated somehow about the tactics they are using lately is a HUGE mistake. They are riffing off the rabid BO fans and the media that somehow low-road tactics changed something. They did not. In OH you had a great number of D voters state they voted race, and they voted against BO. This DID NOT happen because of the photo or Rezco. I think the media and the tubes want to see this ever changing D race. It doesnt change that much, and never did leading up to yesterday.

Shortstop -

I've essentially been discounting those kinds of polls mainly because we haven't even reached the GE season yet, and those things change on a dime. Like you said, right now it'll probably show Clinton over Obama and possibly over McCain (or maybe not.)

The question is what does the Democratic Party as a whole need to look at when trying to decide who should be the nominee. I think the primary results count far, far more than a 9 month early poll of possible GE matchups.

Cra