Wait! There is hope! Maybe it will be a joint Hillary/Obama ticket!

Hear, hear.

Right on, Kevin.

The election results are far more devastating to Obama. For how can he claim to be able to unify the country if he can't even unify the Democratic Party? And how can he continue to deride Clinton as representing "old politics" without simultaneously denigrating the people that have voted for her? His "movement" is obviously losing steam or has reached a ceiling, and his message will increasingly become empty.

His best move right now would be to offer to share the ticket with Clinton, with him on top, since he has more delegates. That would deal the knockout blow!

Agreed.

Actually, no. It's not okay. They're both great candidates, but here's the problem. One can beat McCain, but the other can't. That's the problem: Clinton can't beat McCain.

I get the impression that much of the hysterics are a combination of 24 hour news "This is the most exciting thing ever to happen" and a bunch of people who are following politics for the first time and are surprised by it.

The "one can't beat McCain" argument can be said about both candidates.

Hillary can't beat McCain because Republicans hate her and she has high negatives.

Obama can't beat McCain because he's not getting working class voters, women, and the elderly. He's seen as too liberal on national security, and that wins liberal votes from Vermont and San Francisco, but not enough to win the GE.

Of course Clinton will beat McCain. He is not just a putz... he is a SUPER PUTZ. Ms. Clinton will choke him his domestic social & economic policy/foreign policy ignorance, and flim-flammery on religion/Iran/tax-my-lips issues.

Ms. Clinton may not have Obama's suave, but she's got way more chops.

McCain doesn't even have an ounce of charisma. He won't stand a chance.

Hillary Clinton is not destroying Barack Obama, blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins, the party is still in good shape, Republican members of Congress are quitting in droves, we're raising trainloads of money, and John McCain continues to be a putz. Let's stop the hyperventilating, OK? —Kevin Drum

Not OK, Kevin. If it is true that a lot of "independent" and fair weather Rethugs are supporting Obama right now, they aren't guaranteed to support Clinton. In fact, as unpopular as she has been since her time as First Lady, I find it hard to believe that sincere Dems are supporting her at all. She has been just as worthless pushing the Democratic agenda as has Reid and Pelosi. She voted for the fucking war! How many times does this need to be reiterated? She voted for that fucking Iran amendment that pretty much gives Shrub the same sort of wiggle room he had with Iraq.

I will vote for her if she gets the nomination, but not because I think she's the best we can do. I'll vote for her only because I hate the Rethugs and every shitty, divisive and atavistic thing
they stand for.

Clinton has yet to demonstrate that she sees the light on Iraq and American militarism in the least. This is the defining issue of this election. Anything else you care to name is a distant second.

My friends, McCain is being led to the slaughter. I believe that Mitt is waiting until the next round, realizing that the Republican party needs a buffer from Bush to regain any sense of control.

Look, let the good people of Pennsylvania have their say. But if Clinton wins PA (the likely scenario at this point), then the nomination is going to be deadlocked for a very long time.

Clinton and Obama are already starting to shoot very serious ammo at one another. It will only get worse. McCain is a formidable opponent.

We are not "hyperventilating" because the primary has turned into a disaster. It has not, and it's been quite clean by most standards. But we are rightly warning that the race has a high chance of TURNING into such a disaster over the coming weeks and months. We hope it doesn't unfold this way, but it is at this point the most plausible scenario. Again, it is already starting to happen.

I'd say the size of the freak-out is in direct proportion to the size of the stakes in this November's election, which are huge. We know we can win the Presidency, but there's this niggling fear of blowing it, so any bumps along the way to the nomination and longed-for November victory feel disproportionately large.
Good to see the long view, I suppose, but damn I wish this were over.

Let's see, Hillary vs. McCain

Experience: Hillary's six years of elected office vs. McCain's 35 years. Advantage McCain.

Commander-in-Chief: McCain was a Navy pilot, and while he spent time as a POW Hillary was a junior attorney working to impeach Nixon. Advantage McCain.

Latinos: McCain co-sponsors immigration reform. Hillary, well, she "understands" their culture. Only because the know-nothing wing of the Republican party has pissed off Latinos, it a wash.

Other than her core support of old, white, Democratic won, I don't see how she beats McCain, especially since she threw black people under the bus.

Clinton has yet to demonstrate that she sees the light on Iraq and American militarism in the least. This is the defining issue of this election. Anything else you care to name is a distant second.
Posted by: Jeff II on March 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

fucking bingo

Most of the freaking out, I presume, is being done by Obama supporters. Learn to take a punch, guys. Politics ain't beanbag.

If Obama wants to be the nominee, he'd better be able to deal with the softball attacks he's seen so far, and he'd better be able to deal with setbacks like last night.

Here's my gripe: if you do the math, the race is over. Is it possible for Clinton to "win" the nomination? Barely. Is it possible for Clinton to "win" the nomination without severely damaging the party? Absolutely not.

Let's stop the hyperventilating, OK?

OMG, you are SO obviously supporting the wrong candidate against the obviously right candidate! You and all the wrong-thinking people like you are trying to send the party and the entire country down the path to doom and destruction! The election is about to turn into a total disaster, the Republicans will romp in November, and it's so going to be your fault!

/tomtomorrow

I sort of feel that a hotly contested primary is good for whoever emerges victorious. They've both shown there's no ceiling as far as money goes. They're both going to receive tons of media exposure over the next 4 months, while McCain is going to have to fight to make any sort of news at all. And they'll both be much better and more practiced at campaigning on a national level. Provided their attacks remain policy oriented, and one of them is able to bow out gracefully at the convention, (two big ifs), I don't see how this isn't a win/win.

I'm dumbfounded at the number of people who seem to be completely freaking out over last night's results, convinced that they spell doom for the Democratic Party

Word. There is nothing wrong with having two popular candidates: unless, as in 1976 for the Republicans or 1980 for the Democrats, they represent an ideological rift within a party. I still don't believe that ideologically Obama and Clinton are much different. Everyone will rally around the winner, especially when that winner is compared to John "Hundred Years' War" McCain.

Republican strategists on MSNBC and CNN said last night that John McCain has an incredible advantage now because he can be running for president while the Democrats commit a public act of mutual cannibalism. Or something like that.

Since the mainstream media is always peeing in its pants at the slightest possibility of being called "liberal," it is passing off the thoughts of the Republican strategists as Grand Truth.

That's the reason so many Democrats are hyperventilating. All they had to do was watch five minutes of TV news this morning to learn that their party's hopes are now officially down the drain. Everything's fine, but nobody hears that.

Kevin, I think you're burying your head in the sand when people say that "No, I actually do not think I'm picking between a Great Choice and an Excellent Choice. I have a strong dislike of one of these candidates." It does nobody any good to ignore it.

Hopefully we'll get to see the footage of Bush endorsing McCain today again and again and again...

Clinton has yet to demonstrate that she sees the light on Iraq ….This is the defining issue of this election. Anything else you care to name is a distant second. Jeff II at 1:45 PM e henry thripshaw at 1:59 PM

Voters began to worry more about their pocketbooks over the last month — even more than about the war in Iraq.
More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News now say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them….

I don't know about hyperventilating. It is the nature of the blogging-commenting beast to kvetch in the wake of a loss. And gloat after a victory.

The thing is, an Obama presidency in my view is a vastly preferable outcome. It's not the soaring rhetoric, really, or the hope, or the dreams. These are "smart political tactics," as Mark Schmidt wrote at the American Prospect, "as well as ideals."

With long enough coattails on downticket races, and therefore larger Dem majorities in Congress, Obama could get some purchase--higher ground--from which to defend his/our Dem agenda.

In the event of a Clinton nomination, the burgeoning, inspired, young, independent (and disaffected Republican patriots) voters--some of whom have checked in here this morning, dispiritedly--all but evaporate. You end up with McCain in the White House. Or Clinton there, instead, unable to achieve anything because only her base came out to vote and the Dems lose downticket races. Not sayin' it's right to stay home on Election Day. But it will happen, with Clinton on the ticket.

Some Dem victory, sheesh.

I am not hyperventilating I am pissed. Nothing good can come out of an extended primary battle. If Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row he would have been pressured to leave the race. Since it was Clinton who lost 11 in a row she wasn't pressured to leave. Instead she does the only thing she can do, beat down Obama. She can't overtake Barack's pledged delegate lead so her only hope is to damage Obama so badly that it is clear to the super-delegates that McCain will wipe the floor with him.

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can look at what Hillary did and be OK with it. Her actions do not help the party in November. They only help her.

I don't think that last night's results spell "doom" for the Democrats. On the one hand, it will be harder to blunt Republican attacks. On the other, it is harder for Republicans to make such attacks with the Democrats sucking all the oxygen.

I do think, however, that Kevin is wrong about the Democrats all loving both candidates. Many Democrats, it is true, love both candidates. But there are clearly many Obama supporters (myself included) who can't stand Clinton-- primarily because of her support for the Iraq War but for other reasons as well-- and there are clearly some number of Clinton supporters (like Paul Krugman) who can't stand Obama, because they think he's an empty phony and don't like the "Kumbaya" rhetoric.

Let me put it this way-- absent some fundamental gesture that convinced me that she has actually learned from her awful decision to start the Iraq War and continued support for it, and that she has completely repudiated her militaristic outlook when it comes to future conflicts, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in November. I don't know how many other Obama supporters feel the way I do. And I don't know how many Clinton supporters feel similarly about Obama. But it's way more complicated than "Democrats love their candidates, Republicans hate theirs".

"Let me put it this way-- absent some fundamental gesture that convinced me that she has actually learned from her awful decision to start the Iraq War and continued support for it, and that she has completely repudiated her militaristic outlook when it comes to future conflicts, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in November. I don't know how many other Obama supporters feel the way I do."

At least one. Right here.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to hold my nose and vote for her. I don't want to have President Clinton on my conscience, just because the Republicans' guy is even worse.

Voters began to worry more about their pocketbooks over the last month — even more than about the war in Iraq. Posted by: Mike

Mike, just fuck off back to LGF or whatever rock of a blog you normally hide out at.

Americans on the whole aren't very bright. About 50% of them voted for Shrub twice, remember?

While they may see "pocket book" issues as important, like Iraq, very few Americans are actually directly affected by the the subprime mortgage problem, which pales in comparison to the money wasted and scintilla of good will we still had as nation lost in the Iraq debacle. Subprime problem - $200 billion. Iraq war to date - $3 trillion.

Furthermore, Americans can't connect the dots between our energy problems and the war.

In short, you've got an American public that doesn't know, for the most part, whether to shit or wind its watch on the issues.

It is not the economy stupid. It's the fucking war and the long term damage to our foreign relations and fiscal well-being.

A joint ticket is the only solution. And with clear pre-conditions on power sharing, I can't see why not.

Send Bill to a whoreshouse in Texas though.

I'm going to second the notion that many young people, like myself, can't be relied upon to vote for HRC. I would because I'm a partisan, but even I would have to hold my nose. Many of my friends, however, and albeit this is anecdotal, are dead set against her. Obama's youth movement is unique to him, I think.

Someone should also point out that the length of the contest on the Democratic side is directly attributable to the fact that the delegates are awarded proportionately (for the most part) and not by a "winner-takes-all" system like that used in most of the Republican contests. Thus, the fact that this has gone on for so long and will continue to do so is not a basis for interpreting the Democratic voters or their candidates, but only provides the basis for making a judgment about the system that is being used.

And may I add, any comparisons to tough primary fights in the past don't make sense. Never have the divisions been so fundamental along gender, and race lines, not to mention age.

We need a Hillary-Obama love-fest. Keep Bill off Michelle though. Or set him up, get the dirty pictures, and a year into the Presidency Hill explodes. Seriously she is one tough bitch, and I have grudging respect for that, Obama could use this.

I mean it will be very hard to vote for Hillary, but with Barack on the ticket, I can probably stomach it.

I need an antidepressant. Too bad none of them seem to work better than a placebo. I can't fucking take another debate or another all nighter watching goddamn pundits spew off.

Quoting from the comments: "I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in November. I don't know how many other Obama supporters feel the way I do....//...At least one. Right here. Sorry, but I'm not willing to hold my nose and vote for her."

And thus we need to fear that the purists will, once again, hand the White House to the Republic party. One would think that eight years of Bush would have been enough to make many people consider that bipartisan democracy of the form we have (like it or not) almost _always_ means voting, in the final election, for a less than perfect candidate. The parties are messy coalitions, and rarely does a single candidate fulfill the dreams of all the fractions.

This is the system we have, and it poses, on election day in November, a simple choice: do you vote for the better candidate, or the worse candidate, or for no-one.

In effect (again, whether we like it or not), a vote for no-one is effectively a vote for the worse candidate.

Those who will not hold their noses to vote for Obama, or for Clinton, will be voting for McCain.

Thanks, guys!

"Those who will not hold their noses to vote for Obama, or for Clinton, will be voting for McCain."

Nope. Those who will not hold their noses will be voting for whoever they write in on the ballot instead of the nominee. In my case, that'd be Obama.

It's called democracy. If I don't like your favored choice, I don't have to vote for her. Your attempt to bully people who dislike Hillary into voting for her anyway relies on a false dichotomy.

Kevin, I am sorry to say this but you are very wrong. Interparty fights do not always end in unity (see Republicans 1964). As this fight continues long after it can really make a difference in the actual outcome it serves only one purpose. It will tear the democratic party apart. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh is popping champagne (and whatever his drug of choice is these days) right now. This fight needs to come to an end soon.
So far, it has not been an ugly mudslinging contest but I will tell you it is going to get that way fast. Obama has no choice he will also go negative on Clinton, she will fire back and so on. All it will accomplish is to drive the democrats apart from each other, just read how the Obama supporters feel about Clinton's attacks so far, just wait until Obama wins a primary by making her look bad.
We are headed into a time where only one thing will happen the supporters of both candidates will throw enough 'kitchen sinks' at each other that the supporters of the eventual nominee will not vote for the other, and the notion of a unity ticket is delusional. The Democratic party needs to wake up before the carnage allows the Repulicans to win another election.

Those who will not hold their noses to vote for Obama, or for Clinton, will be voting for McCain.Thanks, guys! Posted by: PQuincy on March 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM

I absolutely HATE this Democratic Centrism/Leninistic bullshit argument.

No, PQuincy, these people will not be voting for McCain. They will be voting their conscience, which they have moral and legal right to do.

Fuck you all the others who agree with this conceit, it's anti-democratic to condemn people for voting or not voting for whom they want and insisting that they must martch in lockstep with the party's 'choice'.

I'm not so sure young people and black people will actually turn out if Hillary's the candidate, although those that do turn out will surely vote for her rather than McCain.

I think either of the Dems can beat him, however, using the same mantra as the '92 Clinton campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

Also, McCain just does not do will in debates (he tends to flash a creepy smile at inappropriate times and can't seem to talk without reading the teleprompter.)

Also, please let me know when the "USS Forrestal Veterans for Truth" starts up its ads against St. John.

it's anti-democratic to condemn people for voting or not voting for whom they want...

No, it's anti-democratic to actually prevent you for voting/not voting for whom you want. Democracy involves making your choices and recognizing that other people are free to criticize you for them...just as you're free to criticize us.

And thus we need to fear that the purists will, once again, hand the White House to the Republic party. One would think that eight years of Bush would have been enough to make many people consider that bipartisan democracy of the form we have (like it or not) almost _always_ means voting, in the final election, for a less than perfect candidate. The parties are messy coalitions, and rarely does a single candidate fulfill the dreams of all the fractions.

Look, every voter has dealbreakers. Obviously, many Republicans in Lousiana voted Democrat or sat out when David Duke was on the ballot for Governor, and quite justifiably. Now that is an extreme example, of course, but it establishes the principle.

To me, killing thousands of American servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of foreigners is such a dealbreaker. The unpopularity of the Iraq War has presented us with an opportunity to put a line down in the sand when it comes to warmongering, and force the Democratic Party to become the more dovish of the two parties. In contrast, a vote for Hillary Clinton will assure that the next Republican war will again be endorsed by at least half the Democrats in Congress, because they will know that voting to kill people will never cost you a chance for the presidency.

As I said, everyone has their own dealbreakers. Mine is that I think about the 4,000 American families who will never see their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, or fathers again, because Hillary Clinton voted to send them to Iraq and continued to give the Administration cover for years after the war started.

But unless your position is that there are no dealbreakers and that we should vote for the Democratic Party no matter how far to the right it swerves, don't tell me that I don't have the right to have dealbrakers of my own.

I absolutely HATE this Democratic Centrism/Leninistic bullshit argument.

No, PQuincy, these people will not be voting for McCain. They will be voting their conscience, which they have moral and legal right to do.

Whether they have a "moral" right to do so is, as most moral matters, a matter of infinite debate ultimately premised on opinion of morality; they certainly have a legal right to do so, or to vote for McCain. Since, either way, they will, compared to the alternative of voting for the Democratic nominee, be helping McCain get elected over that nominee, that's also what they will be doing in, in practical effect. Denying it won't make it less true.

I think either of the Dems can beat him, however, using the same mantra as the '92 Clinton campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

Thank you. The whole Left Blogosphere collectively pissed their pants over Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and now are pissing themselves over 2008's answer to Bob Dole with an anger management problem. I can't understand it.

McCain is running as More Bush. No idea about the economy, and sorry to say it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. In Iraq for a hundred years, and you can read the poll numbers about that particular idea. He's got a pretty good chance of going postal on nationwide TV, or having the kind of acute health problems that a 72 year old under extreme stress is likely to have. He's old, he's completely out of touch, and he's an asshole. And it shows.

So time and again, we hear from the Obamians that the horrible Sen. Clinton voted for that horrible war in 2002. We hear from Obama himself that he will "reach across the aisle" and end partisanship in Washington. This should be interesting to see, given that the other party is now a coalition of christian fundies, who want to turn America into a christian theocracy, the antitax, corporate-power-at-all-costs libertarian wing, and the neocons, who never met a Near Eastern country they didn't want to invade. How can he "reach across the aisle" without giving at least one of these coalition members their heart's desire? And why would I vote for a Dem candidate willing to do so?

Just goes to show you, neither are a leftist's wet dream.

I fervently hope that soon the C. and O. unity ticket can be thrashed out, 'cause I want our side to win in November. I also hope that those would prefer that McCain win than "that other Dem" get the office grow a mind in time for the election. Our two candidates have nearly identical platforms, both half-assed - so what's with the hatred?

So the stakes are kind of high. So sue us, okay?

I also hope that those would prefer that McCain win than "that other Dem" get the office grow a mind in time for the election.

Jeffrey:

I laid out an intelligent argument in my 5:56 p.m. post. In response, you call me (and others who agree with me) brainless.

Look, if the highest value is partisanship, or one thinks that one should always vote for the Democrats as long as they position themselves to the left of the Republicans, no matter how bad they are, I accept that is a defensible position.

The problem is arguing that it is the only defensible position. You belittle the war, but 4,000 brave American servicemembers who volunteered to protect us and deserved better died because Hillary Clinton didn't stand up and try to save their lives. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have met the same fate.

To many of us, this is a crucially important, moral issues. We don't want a party that is slightly to the left. We want a party that stands for dovishness and opposes Republican hawkishness. Because we want to change American foreign policy before hundreds of thousands more have to die unjustifiable deaths.

You can't belittle that. You can't say it isn't important. At best, you can either say that the war was justified, in which case you have no business telling people who disagree with you how they should vote, or you can say that the war isn't as important to you as it is to us, in which case you should understand that we vote differently because we have different priorities than you do.

Either way, it is not brainless to oppose a person who voted to send our brave American servicemembers to their deaths.

Dilan Esper -

Here's one for your high moral dudgeon. How many more people die with a President McCain than with a President Clinton ?

And when those people die under a President McCain, all we will hear from you is "nobody could have known..."

I would not use harsh words like brainless. You have a reasoned argument. However, if you vote for a candidate, other then the nominee most likely to end the killing and suffering, that would not be brainless, but immoral. I trust you to do the right thing in November.

Kevin Drum,

... blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins, ...

Don't be so sure of that. I know my campaign dollars are not moving from Obama to Hillary. They are going McCain. I am not alone.

Here's one for your high moral dudgeon. How many more people die with a President McCain than with a President Clinton ?

Nobody can be sure, but I suspect the answer may be zero. I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary Clinton has ever opposed the United States going to war. And she certainly hasn't done anything to give the anti-war movement any reassurances that she has changed her position or has learned that our beliefs were actually wiser than the ones that she has espoused throughout her adult life.

In any event, even if the answer is not zero, I don't think dovish voters are required to vote on a crass utilitarian calculus, if that requires us to vote for people whom we find deeply problematic.

Again, if you have no dealbreakers, and will vote for whichever party is slightly to the left of the others, that's your prerogative. But that doesn't mean it is the only defensible position or that your candidate is entitled to receive the votes of people who are deeply opposed to one of her apparent core beliefs.

A few points:

(1) Many of the people who say they would support John McCain over Hillary (or sit out altogether) are the same people that are (rightly) annoyed that Nader acted as a spoiler in 2000. It would appear that one could at least legitimately argue that Nader is (admittedly indirectly) responsible for the war in Iraq, and its attendant deaths. Is sitting out here going to be any different, considering how hawkish McCain is on Iran?

(2) If you look at the recent Pew poll (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=398), there appears a chart entitled "Democratic defections rise in Obama-McCain matchup." This chart shows that two and half times as many (25% vs 10%) Dems will defect to McCain if OBAMA is the nominee. So it's not as if the only worry is Obama supporters not voting for Clinton, the opposite is actually more worrisome. The reason for these defections is Obama's weak support among lower-income white voters. This is not Hillary's fault, the Republicans have been getting these voters to vote against their economic interests for decades.

(3) Aside from anything else, an extremely compelling argument as to why one should hold one's nose about the "differences" on the war between the two Dems and support either of them is the Supreme Court. The liberal justices, especially, are getting old. Do we REALLY want a super-conservative Supreme Court?!

(4) Comments like this illustrate vividly why Obama has a problem among lower-income individuals: "Americans on the whole aren't very bright ... In short, you've got an American public that doesn't know, for the most part, whether to shit or wind its watch on the issues." Obama's campaign comes across as elitist, in many ways. Such comments serve only to exacerbate his campaign's problems.

Dear Dilan Esper,

You certainly have the right to vote for McCain over Clinton. But I hope to be able to convince you (and others in your position) not to exercise that right.

Even if one were to accept your premise (which I do not) that Clinton is as militaristic as McCain, it is shortsighted (IMHO) to be a single-issue voter. Think about it this way: is your unhappiness with Bush due *solely* to the Iraq war? Mine certainly isn't. Wouldn't you agree that Clinton would (at least) be better than McCain in many other areas (preserving a woman's right to choose, abolishing illegal surveillance/detention/torture, electing liberal Supreme Court justices, expanding affordable health insurance, enacting "comparable worth" in the workplace, not dropping the ball in Afghanistan, etc.)?

It is as shortsighted (IMHO) for people to equate Clinton with McCain as it was for Ralph Nader to equate Gore with Bush in 2000. We Dems should rally around whoever wins the primary--not because s/he will be the perfect candidate but because we have a responsibility to do our part to prevent further damage to the progressive platform.

Btw, I think that if Obama is elected, you will be disappointed to find that he will be quite pragmatic. For example, I think that he (like Clinton) would withdraw from Iraq in a *responsible* manner.

This chart shows that two and half times as many (25% vs 10%) Dems will defect to McCain if OBAMA is the nominee. Posted by: Dan

Anyone claiming to be a Democrat will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.

Again, the people who might swing are part of the 60-70% of Americans who vote in presidential elections but have no real political philosophy (or, at best, a really confused and/or contradictory one). The poorly informed and perhaps poorly educated middle mass. These people, unfortunately, make up the majority of the American electorate.

The Obama-McCain defection possibility is VERY real. And the reason is something that we on the left liek to pretend isn't as much of an issue as it really is: Race. Look at the results from TX. Obama took the urban areas of Dallas & Houston and the liberal Austin region. Clinton trounced him almost everywhere else, where lower-and middle-class whites (like in East TX) and Latinos (to the south and west) made up the majorities.

The brutal reality is that Latinos won't vote en masse for an African-American (it's simplistic and broderline racist to say, but it is true) because they are prejudiced against them. Same goes for Asian-Americans and lower-class whites. It sucks, it's a shame, but it is also true.

And 2000 and 2004 proved one thing: it does not matter how many votes you get, it only matters where you get them. Which Red state does Obama take back? Ohio? He already got trounced there by Hillary. Florida? Too many Latinos. The Deep South? Good luck with that.

And Dilan: I respect your point-of-view, and I respect your convictions, but to pretend that not voting for the Democratic nominee doesn't give the Republicans the White House is intellectually dishonest. Every vote that isn't for the Dem is one less vote that McCain needs to overtake them. It's a product of the 2-party system. Write in Obama is you want, but if you don't get 50 million of your closest friends to follow suit in strategic states, than it won't affect the bottom line: President John McCain.

(A delayed response...)
Interesting to be called a "Leninist" centrist (?!) and a Hilary supporter (!?) for pointing out that in a two-party system, the entirely legal and moral choice to exercise one's conscience by voting for someone besides the nominee of the party one normally identifies with is, like it or not, real support for the other party's candidate.

I didn't say it was illegal to do this.
I didn't say it was immoral to do this.
I simply said that an Obama supporter who refuses to vote for Clinton, or a Clinton supporter who refuses to vote for Obama, is supporting McCain.

What this has to do with Lenin and totalitarian control of political systems, mystifies me. For myself, I eagerly support revisions to our voting system that will make this situation less true. But EVERY voting system has its imperfections, and every voting system assumes that most people will not get the candidate of their dreams. And of course, any truly democratic (small-d) system will allow those whose conscience drives them to opt out, to vote for protest candidates, etc. I'm not saying you CAN'T do it, I'm just pointing out the consequences.

As for being a Hillary supporter, well, guess again. I'm not. But I view McCain as much more dangerous and much more unpredictable, not to mention the very substantial possibility his vice-president might be called upon, and Democrats (large D) have no control over who that might be. (Hey, do you think McCain will also ask Cheyney to chair a vice-presidential selecting committee?)

In the end, I think we should save our vitriol (if it's appropriate at all), for Republicans and those further right, not for centrists.